What part of 'you know not' do you not understand?

[Richard_oti]

i gotta say, i have never heard @Jay Ross' interpretation.

Nor I. However, as I perceive you to see or be willing to see the other side of the coin, I decided to ask your opinion. I find that I am less willing to consider some other aspects with regard to some things than I used to be.

<snip>

I think the context in which they are presented is telling, too.

Concurred, As well as what followed.

<snip>

iow in both accounts we are first presented with Believers Who Do Not Understand, and the parables are given as a direct reply to the misunderstandings.

And the beginning of the Luke account:

Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

Jesus' return to heaven (a far country) to receive his "kingdom" ... and to one day return.

It is a stretch, if you think about it, to rep the believers as "servants who hate God," 14“But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We don’t want this man to rule overus! ’

Who was Jesus speaking with regard unto in the parable? And, was he not rejected by some of those very same, as they would have wanted no part of him to rule over them?

although that could be taken two ways as well. So imo what we have here is maybe a parable that works one way for one season, and another way for another season, although that may not be satisfying to many.

Thanks for your opinion. It is appreciated, as I said above, I am less open to seeing the other side of coin these days with regard to some things.

Besides, I perceive there is more to you than meets the eye.

 

[Richard_oti]

it is mostly the use of "money" in the parable that makes it suspect, to me. If money = "talents," in the current vernacular, then it goes one way, and if talents = money, it goes another.

Understood. Something weighed out in the balance. So if we consider talents = that which has been bestowed upon you. As in knowledge, understanding, things revealed and such, then it also would be taken a certain way from my perspective. For our sharing of such, generates the "interest" or "increase".

Mat 13:8 and others fell upon the good ground, and yielded fruit, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9 He that hath ears, let him hear.


As it continues:

Mat 25:30 And cast ye out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. 31 But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory:

Compare:

Mat 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, 42 and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

 

[bbyrd009]

Besides, I perceive

ha well ty, i gotta tell ya you are getting to see me on my best foot here, in person i am more likely to engender pity lol

 

[bbyrd009]

I am less open to seeing the other side of coin

ya, it is that money was used in the parable that really swings me the other way; You cannot serve both God and Mammon, and all that. The kingdom and the Church are both contrasted with money so often. But our current def of "talent" occludes the verse, iow replace that with "drachmas" or "shekels" and the other one clarifies a little maybe. I mean unless that is just some amazing coincidence, which i hate ignoring coincidences too lol.

 

[Jay Ross]

Hello

It seems that few have considered the Parables of the Minas and the Talents in the manner that I have described above.

If you look at the definition of the word talent in a reasonable dictionary, it will tell you that originally that the word "talent" was a monetary value used in trade. It was a certain weight of Gold or Silver or Bronze which had associated with it a monetary value. However, because of the miss use by the church of the word "talent," it has now come to mean an ability which a person has to accomplish a task or skill.

In other words the meaning of the word "talent" has changed over time and as such the parable of the talents is now about abilities and not about a monetary transaction which oppresses people.

It was a common practice for a farmer to go to a "duke" i.e. a rich person of influence, to borrow money for seed to plant with a promise to repay the debt after the harvest. However, if the harvest was later than was anticipated, the duke would often call in the debt and claim the harvest for himself, there by doing the farmer out of his profit for planting the field.

That was some of the background of this parable as was explained to me as a child many year ago.

Jesus in telling these two parables was indicating to the people that the messianic kingdom during the Millennium Age will simply not just be plain sailing, but that there will be struggles as well occurring during this time.

Sadly, our tradition of the interpretation of scripture have become our stumbling blocks for this present age.

 

[bbyrd009]

However, because of the miss use by the church of the word "talent," it has now come to mean an ability which a person has to accomplish a task or skill.

ah, kind of like what is happening to "seed" right now? I'll be lol--got any doc for this at all? Rings true though, i was wondering about such a coincidence even being possible.

Later senses from Old French talent (“a talent, also will, inclination, desire”).
A marked natural ability or skill. [from 15thc.]

ha whaddya know, good ol' RCC

 

[Richard_oti]

ha well ty, i gotta tell ya you are getting to see me on my best foot here, in person i am more likely to engender pity lol

LOL, that might make two of us. However, I have noticed it often over a period of time. Too long to merely be a "coincidence". LOL

 

[Richard_oti]

ya, it is that money was used in the parable that really swings me the other way; You cannot serve both God and Mammon, and all that. The kingdom and the Church are both contrasted with money so often. But our current def of "talent" occludes the verse, iow replace that with "drachmas" or "shekels" and the other one clarifies a little maybe. I mean unless that is just some amazing coincidence, which i hate ignoring coincidences too lol.

I hear ya regarding ignoring coincidences. Who was being portrayed as having given the "money", but a Lord and a Nobleman.

 

[bbyrd009]

I hear ya regarding ignoring coincidences. Who was being portrayed as having given the "money", but a Lord and a Nobleman.

right, so not one suspicious element, but perhaps three then, depending upon how those are perceived