Cherry Pickers Anonymous

[cv5]

The apostles struggled with most of the parables. I do not think that anyone these days, would have too much difficulty understanding the parables.

On the contrary I believe the disciples had a far better grasp of the parables than we do today. Certainly not completely or perfectly. Nevertheless Jesus parables were framed in a context pertaining to Israel 2000 years ago much of which they readily understood.

IMO.......in this day and age, nothing is more debatable or abstruse than some of Jesus parables. The same goes for some things that Paul said. For example: the specific identity of the trumpet of First Corinthians 15 (which was undoubtedly an OT trumpet, the nature of which was readily understood in Paul's day).......is a matter of endless debate in this day and age.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The apostles struggled with most of the parables.

Where do you see this in Scripture? As a matter of fact they did not even refer to the parables.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Now, unless I'm living on a completely different planet than the rest of you, I have to believe that at least one of you has heard this portion of scripture interpreted/used in this manner, and some of you may have interpreted it or used it in exactly this manner yourselves.

And there is nothing really wrong with this interpretation. In fact it makes better sense than any other.

 

[kaylagrl]

I love grapes, but had to stop eating them. They are very high in sugar and bad for my diabetes.......sigh.......I miss them

Aww my father has diabetes, I will have to let him know about that. As much as I like them the prices are getting too high for my liking.

 

[GaryA]

In a biblical context, I have always understood cherry picking to be the inclusion of verses of scripture that support a particular belief - and, the exclusion of verses that do not - for the purpose of study, discussion, teaching, preaching, etc. Thus, a person chooses only certain specific verses related to a topic instead of giving all pertinent verses due consideration as having significance to the topic.

 

[Inquisitor]

I'm pretty sure Paul would disagree with that.... just sayin....

Yeah that's why Paul spent the first 10 chapters of Romans, explaining how we are saved. Please read chapter 10.

Paul was not talking about vegetables in chapter ten.

Mwhaaaaaaaaaa.

 

[GaryA]

In a biblical context, I have always understood cherry picking to be the inclusion of verses of scripture that support a particular belief - and, the exclusion of verses that do not - for the purpose of study, discussion, teaching, preaching, etc. Thus, a person chooses only certain specific verses related to a topic instead of giving all pertinent verses due consideration as having significance to the topic.

By 'particular belief', I meant something someone wants to believe a certain way such that they only pay attention to verses that seem to support what they want to believe - while ignoring verses that they don't want to have to deal with honestly.

While there may be multiple forms, this seems to be the usual case.

 

[Inquisitor]

On the contrary I believe the disciples had a far better grasp of the parables than we do today. Certainly not completely or perfectly. Nevertheless Jesus parables were framed in a context pertaining to Israel 2000 years ago much of which they readily understood.

IMO.......in this day and age, nothing is more debatable or abstruse than some of Jesus parables. The same goes for some things that Paul said. For example: the specific identity of the trumpet of First Corinthians 15 (which was undoubtedly an OT trumpet, the nature of which was readily understood in Paul's day).......is a matter of endless debate in this day and age.

I would disagree.

The apostles usually asked Jesus to explain the parable to them.

As for eschatology, that is way beyond our scope. I think there are about ten different eschatology viewpoints. I do not have a viewpoint in eschatology, the odds of being correct are probably less than a 10% chance.

 

[Inquisitor]

Where do you see this in Scripture? As a matter of fact they did not even refer to the parables.

I see it here.

Mark 4:34
And He did not speak to them without a parable; but He was explaining everything privately to His own disciples.

The disciples struggled with nearly everything Jesus said. Including the true identity of Jesus, they had no idea.

 

[Inquisitor]

Aww my father has diabetes, I will have to let him know about that. As much as I like them the prices are getting too high for my liking.

Talking of high prices for berries.

When I was a child, my friend and I would gather blackberries that fell from a blackberry tree. There must have been hundreds of them on the ground. One tree and an inexhaustible supply of Blackberries. So how can a retailer sell blackberries at 5 to 8 dollars, in a plastic tray?

There is something very wrong with the price of Blackberries.

 

[Inquisitor]

By 'particular belief', I meant something someone wants to believe a certain way such that they only pay attention to verses that seem to support what they want to believe - while ignoring verses that they don't want to have to deal with honestly.

While there may be multiple forms, this seems to be the usual case.

A very interesting comment you made. This is something that I have pondered many times over the years. How does someone read the scripture and only seem to recognize the verses, that correlate to the interpretation that they were taught?

For example, here is a verse that Paul quotes from the Old Testament.

Romans 10:13
For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Virtually everyone will say that Paul was dead wrong, that is impossible.

 

[Beckie]

A very interesting comment you made. This is something that I have pondered many times over the years. How does someone read the scripture and only seem to recognize the verses, that correlate to the interpretation that they were taught?

For example, here is a verse that Paul quotes from the Old Testament.

Romans 10:13
For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Virtually everyone will say that Paul was dead wrong, that is impossible.

To my understanding this is kinda where context comes in to play. Verse 12 sheds light on verse 13. Also remembering the Scriptures were not written in chapter and verse. Context can help cull ( Keeping in the cherry picking theme) some of the bad cherries .
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

 

[GaryA]

A very interesting comment you made. This is something that I have pondered many times over the years. How does someone read the scripture and only seem to recognize the verses, that correlate to the interpretation that they were taught?

The subconscious mind - left to itself - tends to reinforce non-conflict thinking. When a challenge to a firmly-held belief (such as, something that has been drilled into you all your life) presents itself, cognitive dissonance tends to take hold - which provokes the mind to return to and hold fast to the "comfortable" (non-conflict) belief/thinking.

 

[hornetguy]

Yeah that's why Paul spent the first 10 chapters of Romans, explaining how we are saved. Please read chapter 10.

Paul was not talking about vegetables in chapter ten.

Mwhaaaaaaaaaa.

Yeah, I've read it...
Perhaps you should read chapter 8 of 1 Corinthians...
If a person wonders if it's ok to eat meat, then that person should not eat meat. And we should not force them to do so, out of some kind of misguided attempt to "make them see the light" .

We have freedom in Christ, but not everyone sees things the same way.... and each person should follow their conscience....
Your ridiculing them only shows how spiritually immature you are....

 

[cv5]

I would disagree.

The apostles usually asked Jesus to explain the parable to them.

As for eschatology, that is way beyond our scope. I think there are about ten different eschatology viewpoints. I do not have a viewpoint in eschatology, the odds of being correct are probably less than a 10% chance.

Totally disagree disagree regarding eschatology. A lot of people have it nailed down......Including myself.

 

[cv5]

I do not have a viewpoint in eschatology, the odds of being correct are probably less than a 10% chance.

On the contrary in many cases the odds are precisely 100%.

173,880 days from 445BC (Neh 2 & Dan 9) to the triumphal entry. Bull's-eye eschatology.

Ezekiel 24:1-2 "9th year, 10th month, 10th day of the month" start date. Haggai 2:18 end date. Precisely 70 years captivity......specified to the very day by God Himself. Bull's-eye eschatology.

2520 (360 day) years from 606BC to May 14th 1948......the captivity of the nation has ended. Bull's-eye eschatology.
2520 years from 586BC to June 7th 1967.......the desolation's of Jerusalem have ended. Bull's-eye eschatology.

The last two are somewhat controversial the first two are not. You know the people with fuzzy hair and beards carrying the sign that says "the end is near"? You might want to pay attention to them.

 

[GaryA]

For example, here is a verse that Paul quotes from the Old Testament.

Romans 10:13
For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Virtually everyone will say that Paul was dead wrong, that is impossible.

To obtain a proper interpretation, context and the 'grammar of the language' must be considered.

Intrinsic to what it means to "call on the name of the Lord" is a sense of sincerity and proper perspective with regard to the Lord.

It is not talking about a case where someone is trying to tempt the Lord, for example.

However, it does include a contrite plea to the Lord for mercy.

The first thief on the cross "called on the name of the Lord" to save all of them from physical suffering and death on the cross - in a selfish frame of mind and heart - and, in disbelief.

The second thief on the cross "called on the name of the Lord" to save his soul - in a repentant state of mind and heart - and, believing.

God knows the heart.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I see it here. Mark 4:34
And He did not speak to them without a parable; but He was explaining everything privately to His own disciples. The disciples struggled with nearly everything Jesus said. Including the true identity of Jesus, they had no idea.

Since the Bible does not say anything about the disciples "struggling" with the parables, that is simply your assumption. What if Christ wanted to ensure that both the disciples and all who read the parables in the future understood what He was teaching? And as long as the Holy Spirit was not within the apostles, they would not understand many spiritual things. That is true even today, since spiritual things are discerned by the spirit.

 

[Inquisitor]

To my understanding this is kinda where context comes in to play. Verse 12 sheds light on verse 13. Also remembering the Scriptures were not written in chapter and verse. Context can help cull ( Keeping in the cherry picking theme) some of the bad cherries .
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

That is my point. The context seems to support the verse.

Romans 10:13
For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

 

[Inquisitor]

Since the Bible does not say anything about the disciples "struggling" with the parables, that is simply your assumption. What if Christ wanted to ensure that both the disciples and all who read the parables in the future understood what He was teaching? And as long as the Holy Spirit was not within the apostles, they would not understand many spiritual things. That is true even today, since spiritual things are discerned by the spirit.

Sorry, that is not an assumption. Jesus had to explain 'explain everything' to the apostles. Your saying that the apostles understood everything. But the text disagrees with you.

They did not receive the Holy Spirt until Jesus sent the Holy Spirit upon them at Pentecost. Well, that is what the text tells us.

Believe me, the apostles struggled and so do we, at almost every step of the way!