It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Evil Servant Parable of Jesus, Who did He Have In Mind?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Doesn't he refer to each of His followers as servants and friends? Perhaps we should look to see if the fig tree is blooming in our own lives. It would be more helpful if you applied what God is saying to you, condemnations and blessings, before applying it to others.
You seem to be anticipating a bit here. Thanks for your, throw it back at you, before I throw anything out.
One thing I was thinking while reading Denzil's post was where in Revelation, the one talking to John about the wedding supper and those being invited, calls himself a fellow servant, which is part of the story in question, there being ones described as such.
edit on 3-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 

As far as the judgement/punishment mentioned, I won't say it's necessarily methaphorical although this is a parable - I can easily envision weeping and gnashing of teeth for those not allowed access to the messiah's kingdom, as well as the same for those dying the second death.
From the part of your post before the part I am quoting here, I take you as voting for, judgement.
You seem to be leaving it open a bit for the possibility that there may be more to the story than just a metaphor.
That is where I wanted to go, which is, what if this is not just pure metaphor, then what?



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Woodhouse
 

He's talking about the people who come to church and call themselves his children-but don't really believe.
Alright, looks like another vote for judgement but to be more specific, people on an individual level.
That's not exactly how I see it but thanks for contributing and that gives me a bit of an idea of how people understand this. Like I said earlier, I probably had a similar opinion of it, if I even had an opinion of this part in particular. I generally have an aversion to thinking about people being punished so I probably just shelved it for possible future consideration.
edit on 3-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 
Hi jm -


From the part of your post before the part I am quoting here, I take you as voting for, judgement.
You seem to be leaving it open a bit for the possibility that there may be more to the story than just a metaphor.
That is where I wanted to go, which is, what if this is not just pure metaphor, then what?

As far as the account itself, it seems to be parable/metaphor as far as the story itself (somewhat, anyway - just in the light that it's cast, as akin to the parable of the thief in the night), but I can agree with the judgement/punishment aspect as being more or less literal as it's clearly in agreement with the judgement and punishment specified otherwise in the new testament.

So, to answer your original question, I'd say a bit of both, although in terms of allegory:

should we take this as a nice object lesson on personal behavior, or is Jesus explaining what apocalyptic event was about to happen?



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 
So then no specificity to it at all? Just, everyone. I guess you could interpret it as we don't own our self and we are just tenants who are supposed to be caretakers of the real estate we dwell in. Is that what you think it means? So nothing to do with any real persons in positions of responsibility on earth?



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Praetorius
 
So then no specificity to it at all? Just, everyone. I guess you could interpret it as we don't own our self and we are just tenants who are supposed to be caretakers of the real estate we dwell in. Is that what you think it means? So nothing to do with any real persons in positions of responsibility on earth?

That's the way I've always looked at it, yes - referring to all followers of Christ ("bondservants"/slaves of Christ), and somewhat correlating to his other parable like that of the Talents (return on investment) and the Thief in the night as I mentioned.

What are your thoughts on this? Seems like you're leaning another way with it. Let's hear what you've got to say (I've got my guess, but will wait for your input).

Thanks and be well.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 
What got me going is how this particular translation says, "cut in two". I never saw that before.
I just checked and found two other translations who give that reading, the BBE, and the DBY, both written to be in the simplest language, for use by maybe people who have English as a second language, or someone not well educated.
The Greek word is almost exactly the English word that comes from it, dichotomy, which means to cut or otherwise make something into two halves, or, a pair.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Praetorius
 
What got me going is how this particular translation says, "cut in two". I never saw that before.
I just checked and found two other translations who give that reading, the BBE, and the DBY, both written to be in the simplest language, for use by maybe people who have English as a second language, or someone not well educated.
The Greek word is almost exactly the English word that comes from it, dichotomy, which means to cut or otherwise make something into two halves, or, a pair.

I'd have to do some more digging on it later to see if can find any further significance in it, but Strong's does provide a second interpretation ("2) cut up by scourging, scourge severely "), and Young's Literal Translation - usually good for a basic and direct reading - translates it as "51 and will cut him off, and his portion with the hypocrites will appoint; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth."

The 'cut him off' seems to make a good bit of sense in light of everything else, but it may just be metaphorical and referring to the severe scourging interpretation, which would fit with a disobedient slave theme.

Let me know what you can work up or otherwise think on it.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 

but Strong's does provide a second interpretation ("2) cut up by scourging, scourge severely ")
I would employ both meanings, one figurative, as in explaining the principle, while the other is the practical working out of that principle.
There is no real thinking to do on it other than what I just did, which is to quote a couple references.
I wanted to see if anyone could think of how this supposed parable could have already seen its fulfillment.
I think it has. People pick and choose what is literal and what is metaphorical and can come up with very different results. People are forced into a single acceptable outcome, based on orthodoxy and people's natural desire to fit in.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Jesus had me in mind and I am Satan, risen and reborn in the flesh of a regular Christian woman aka your fellow servant. The servant described above is about this same fellow servant or parable about the Marriage Supper as well as seen in Rev. 19:10, 21:9 or even 22:16-17 Where Jesus has sent this servant to testify unto you.

Yes I am Satan, the Daughter of GOD, Sister Spirit and Espoused Wife of Jesus Christ, because this was part of GOD's Master Plan everysince S/He said to Herself and two kids Jesus and Satan in the beginning; Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness and let them have dominion......male and female made he them". On August 18, 2011 the US Supreme Court docketed my case # 11-5381 and decided on Friday, I have to pay the $300.00 before Oct. 24th. So to make a long story short, I just thought yall should know that Satan has been working for GOD all along, and absolutely (Ab Soul Loot Ly) loves her God given Government Job

Remember that before the Death of Jesus Christ upon the cross; I held all the Power but after his death I was Defeated. GOD is a GOD of the Living, but considering that I am in the flesh of a woman and my fate I decided to accept that free gift of salvation offered all. See Heb. 10:7-10 If you dont believe this story is true , I will leave my mark as the Beast foretold to come by citing Isa. 66:6-9 or Rev. 17:6-9 as the beast that was and was not and yet is typing this message.

You might not think what I said above is possible; but I remind that; If Jesus Christ could send Satan into Judas, a man; than I'm sure he could send Satan into the body of a woman

Peace out

reply to post by jmdewey60
 



edit on 06/27/2011 by 1MrsJesusChrist because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 1MrsJesusChrist
 
So, your interpretation is that Satan is defeated, and Jesus gets whatever power Satan had earlier.
That sounds pretty apocalyptic to me, and in the past tense, which is interesting. Looks like so far as those parts go, we agree.


edit on 3-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

I wanted to see if anyone could think of how this supposed parable could have already seen its fulfillment.
I think it has. People pick and choose what is literal and what is metaphorical and can come up with very different results. People are forced into a single acceptable outcome, based on orthodoxy and people's natural desire to fit in.

Would you be able to clarify and explain your views further on this so we can understand, as well as share your thoughts on how you're seeing this as having already been fulfilled? To mean, it seems to refer to the treatment and punishment/rewards we'll have earned at the second coming, so I'd like to know what you're thinking and how you got there.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
As you should. Also consider that when kings or nations were defeated the men usually made the people slaves and saved the women as concubine. But Not Jesus because the stake went through Satan's Heart, and Jesus Cast Her into a Bed telling Her to Play Dead for about 1000 years. So then in the End Time; if you were GOD who would you use as the Angel of Death, Sent back to Collect His Rent? Really Satan loves Her god given government job as well as Her Husband



Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by 1MrsJesusChrist
 
So, your interpretation is that Satan is defeated, and Jesus gets whatever power Satan had earlier.
That sounds pretty apocalyptic to me, and in the past tense, which is interesting. Looks like so far as those parts go, we agree.


edit on 3-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 1MrsJesusChrist
 
I would say, None, and that there is no angel of death and the end time is right now and has been.
The 1000 years is a convention that people would use to mean a long time but one that has a finite length, so if Satan has been locked up for almost two thousand years, that would be close enough.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 

I was making a connection with Genesis 15
So Abram took all these for him and then cut them in two and placed each half opposite the other,



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Praetorius
 

I was making a connection with Genesis 15
So Abram took all these for him and then cut them in two and placed each half opposite the other,

Hmm. The covenant ceremony definitely involved cutting (although the verse in Matthew makes me think along the torso, and not the bilateral splitting I always pictured with this) the animals in half, but I'm having a hard time seeing the connection beyond that.

Trying to draw correlations between the descendents of Abram breaking the covenant and the verses in Matthew, but this seems to be god making the covenant with Abram directly to bestow the land and descendents, with no obligation on his or his descendent's parts for covenant fulfillment...if we were talking about the mosaic agreement, that would be much easier.

Sorry to keep hassling you about this, would you be able to further explain the link you're seeing between the two? You've got me curious on this one.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 

Sorry to keep hassling you about this, would you be able to further explain the link you're seeing between the two? You've got me curious on this one.
That's ok, and I don't feel hassled.
I wanted to give a little time to see if anyone wanted to give an explanation for the verse, before I launched into my take on it and why I would start a thread about it. Looks like most people are like me and never gave it much, or any thought, and that it had to do with the end of the world.
After reading this the other day, this verse, I changed my mind about apocalypse and decided it already happened. Thanks for taking an interest and I hope I can rely on you to correct me if I am wrong.
The world did not end. That seems evident and the point needs not be argued much, since it looks on the surface that things are a lot like they were back a long time ago. Jesus, seems to have said everything was going to happen in the lifetime of the people he was talking to. This is something Atheists point to in order to give proof to Jesus being a fraud. The alternative to believing Jesus was lying is to say that there is some future, far off event that he really meant. Nice side step but is it true?
All this stuff in Mathew 24 you could apply to the fate of Jerusalem from their rejecting Jesus, so there is one way of explaining it, including the verse in question. I am seeing an alternative interpretation for this verse, in light of my understanding of what the New Testament is, which is the new covenant.
Hebrews says that establishing the New Covenant is doing away with the Old Covenant, so how does this happen. Genesis 15 gives an example of a god making a blood covenant. So what is necessary to make a covenant, and what is necessary in order to break a covenant already made? The thing pointed to in the Genesis 15 story is this idea of the animal carcasses split in two and the blood the covenantors walk through, is that this is what happens to the person if they break the covenant. The Book of Hebrews emphasizes more the new, and mentions the old passing away as just the affect of there being a new. So what I am proposing is that here in this verse in Mathew, is Jesus explaining the process, where someone is apparently killed because no matter how a person is divided into two equal haves, no one is going to survive it. The next thing to consider is where one goes after death. Do they go to feel bad for a long time, or do they come back from the dead?
This segment of the chapter starts out by mentioning a hypothetical good servant, then seems to launch into what you would think is the same person but is now, all of a sudden evil. So why this abrupt switch, and are the two persons interchangeable, and if so, then how?
In my current mode of thinking, which I got into when I started closely looking at what the covenants might be, I think that in order to end or break the former covenant which the new one is to replace, then a god has to be split, in other words, die. So here is this compact story of a servant, at one time, both good and evil, who gets cut in half and goes to Hades. My theory is there is an unnamed god going about presenting himself as god of this world, and making covenants. Regardless of whether or not he is actually the God who created the universe, he is still a god and his covenant somehow has the power of law, according to some rules of the universe we know nothing about. So, Jesus being the highest ranking god, next to God, Himself, has the ability to override any covenant this god made, but at the cost of his own life, which is not insignificant, considering what I just said about him.
So, here is Jesus being the good servant and caring for the people, just like the prophecies he read in the synagogue at Nazareth. But at the same time he is opposed by a satan, who seems to have god-like powers, and even claims to own the world and can offer it to Jesus if he submits to his authority. Obviously this god was not being a good servant and instead of feeding the people in his care, was busy killing them.
Somehow according to the secret (to us) cosmic laws, Jesus is able to take on the identity of this god of the world and die, thus breaking the satanic hold over the entire earth.
edit on 3-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Jesus uses the symbol of a "servant" in many other parables.
Such as the one with the servants and the talents, the servants and the tenants, the servants working in the fields etc.

My interpretation is that Jesus uses the "servant" theme to symbolize us people and our subordination to God (who I think is the master)
I believe that the good servants are the faithful who do what God wants them to do . The bad servants are those who do as they please, and not as they were told to do.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


if anyone wanted to try to give an answer, is: in view of the placement of what may or may not be a parable, should we take this as a nice object lesson on personal behavior, or is Jesus explaining what apocalyptic event was about to happen?

I vote for apocalyptic event and warning. While reading the story, I was reminded of the relationship of the Stewards of Gondor with the old line of kings from the Lord of the Rings. Denethor could be called a not quite right Steward, sent his own son out on a hopeless suicide mission, etc.

Isaiah 22


15 Thus says the Lord, Yahweh of Armies, “Go, get yourself to this treasurer, even to Shebna, who is over the house, and say, 16 ‘What are you doing here? Who has you here, that you have dug out a tomb here?’ Cutting himself out a tomb on high, chiseling a habitation for himself in the rock!” 17 Behold, Yahweh will overcome you and hurl you away violently. Yes, he will grasp you firmly. 18 He will surely wind you around and around, and throw you like a ball into a large country. There you will die, and there the chariots of your glory will be, you shame of your lord’s house. 19 I will thrust you from your office. You will be pulled down from your station.
20 It will happen in that day that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and strengthen him with your belt. I will commit your government into his hand; and he will be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 I will lay the key of the house of David on his shoulder. He will open, and no one will shut. He will shut, and no one will open. 23 I will fasten him like a nail in a sure place. He will be for a throne of glory to his father’s house. 24 They will hang on him all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, every small vessel, from the cups even to all the pitchers. 25 “In that day,” says Yahweh of Armies, “the nail that was fastened in a sure place will give way. It will be cut down, and fall. The burden that was on it will be cut off, for Yahweh has spoken it.”

This is an OT example of one steward being rejected for another. Notice how even the new steward is unable to keep from also being broken and crashing to the ground.

I think Jesus was especially warning his brother James, to whom the burden was passed. James was tossed down just a very few years before the destruction of Jerusalem.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 
This is the one where the servant is not just a regular servant but one in particular who was supposed to feed and care for the other servants, on top of running the maintenance of the estate itself. It is right at the end of this big explanation of these age changing events. I think this is a bit of an allegory showing what the nature of this change is, which is the judgement of the world, as in the representation of the god of this world and how things are run.
We do have a personal obligation to, all of us, as individuals, accept the spirit of Christ, to overthrow evil by being good, even if being good kills us (taking up our cross).

edit on 4-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join