Question

[Mem]

I see there are several thoughts about what that could be but I'm hesitating on reading about each view in detail until I've worked out my own thought crystalizes. Then I can see which one most closely matches mine, and therefore would be more kindred to me. And maybe there's a clue even in that thought, I think.

Researching how new wineskins are made, there may be something of a clue in that they need preparation before they are practicably able to receive new wine. There's also old wineskins' loss of pliability to consider and the description of new patches on old garments as "unshrunk cloth" suggests a stretchy material is fitting for the new and a more rigid for the old is the best match.



Jesus said, "But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast."
and the parable is followed by the account of Jesus' disciples picking grain on the sabbath and Jesus declaring, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." in context of which he recounts David and his companions eating the Bread of the Prescence when they were hungry and in need.

It seems to me that, if there is something deeper, it's that when fasting relative to Christians is practicing His absence rather than communing in His Presence, though that might take a minute to see where I am there.

But again, there's also that process of a lengthy preparation to receive new wine, which probably has some correlation to a new harvest so there's figuring out if that's already happened or is yet to...

I need to stress that my thought is not to discourage fasting, as I had said that is how we draw closer to God (and not that we should think that it'd cause Him to draw closer to us since He is ever Presence Himself) but, to reiterate that lengthy process of preparation, something I do as often as I feel distant from Him, it is a much-needed stretching if only to bring me back to the realization that He Is and Always Will Be Present with me.

 

[Evmur]

Question

This is not a trick question I really want to know the answer.

Do you believe that Jesus was trying to teach us something from the parables or where they just stories. Just a yes or no or a longer answer is OK too

The parables were for outsiders .. He 'splained the truths contained in the parables to the disciples

 

[Cameron143]

Are you saying that the 'new wineskin', is simply a different understanding of the law?

No. It's a new covenant. But it's exemplified here in the understanding of the law.

 

[AndrewMorgan]

Question

This is not a trick question I really want to know the answer.

Do you believe that Jesus was trying to teach us something from the parables or where they just stories. Just a yes or no or a longer answer is OK too

I think all parables (or metaphors) given by anyone are done so for a reason - even if it's a passing thought to momentarily brighten up a moment. In the case of Jesus and others, I think it was a way of demonstrating a truth by abstracting the central elements of a situation into manageable pieces to avoid mental clutter, allowing more clarity for the listeners.
I think it's similar to algebra, which is ultimately just abbreviation.

 

[AndrewMorgan]

Question

This is not a trick question I really want to know the answer.

Do you believe that Jesus was trying to teach us something from the parables or where they just stories. Just a yes or no or a longer answer is OK too

I think all parables (or metaphors) given by anyone are done so for a reason - even if it's a passing thought to momentarily brighten up a moment. In the case of Jesus and others, I think it was a way of demonstrating a truth by abstracting the central elements

Question

This is not a trick question I really want to know the answer.

Do you believe that Jesus was trying to teach us something from the parables or where they just stories. Just a yes or no or a longer answer is OK too

I think parables (or metaphors) given by anyone are for a reason - even if it's a way of brightening up a moment.
In the case of Jesus and others, I think it's a way
of abstracing elements of a situation into manageable pieces to avoid mental clutter, allowing more clarity for the listeners.
I think it's similar to algebra, which is ultimately just abbreviation.

 

[AndrewMorgan]

I think all parables (or metaphors) given by anyone are done so for a reason - even if it's a passing thought to momentarily brighten up a moment. In the case of Jesus and others, I think it was a way of demonstrating a truth by abstracting the central elements



I think parables (or metaphors) given by anyone are for a reason - even if it's a way of brightening up a moment.
In the case of Jesus and others, I think it's a way
of abstracing elements of a situation into manageable pieces to avoid mental clutter, allowing more clarity for the listeners.
I think it's similar to algebra, which is ultimately just abbreviation.[/QUOT


Sorry about the multiple posts. Don't know quite how it happened, but I pressed the "post reply" button more than once when I thought wrongly than my input hadn't been transmitted the first time.

 

[Cameron143]

Are you saying that the 'new wineskin', is simply a different understanding of the law?

As a follow up, within the new covenant one would expect some changes. The new wineskins represents the outpouring of the Spirit that was prophesied by Joel and begun the day of Pentecost. The new skin is indicative of the new humanity of which Christ is the first

 

[AndrewMorgan]

Re. my multiple posts and mis-broadcastings, I think it may be a problem my particular I-pod.

 

[AndrewMorgan]

'Thoughh for what it's worth, I think the parables are pretty self-explanatory.

 

[Eli1]

Re. my multiple posts and mis-broadcastings, I think it may be a problem my particular I-pod.

Andrew, I find you a very interesting individual.
You have an iPod and you go to the library to get on the internet.

 

[XavierJesusLovesIndia]

Question

This is not a trick question I really want to know the answer.

Do you believe that Jesus was trying to teach us something from the parables or where they just stories. Just a yes or no or a longer answer is OK too

Yes, I think each one of His Parables had a deeper meaning. Also, as the Gospel says, because He spoke in Parables, the Truths He taught were not easily and immediately evident to all. Even the Parable of the Sower the Apostles had to ask Him for His authoritative interpretation in order to comprehend. So we have to both study His Word and, if we do not understand any particular passage we read, take it to Him in Prayer, and His Spirit will show us the deeper Truth in His Parables.

God Bless.

 

[Magenta]

If you read before that particular passage you will find that the religious leaders are questioning the things Jesus says and does. They do so because His teachings and actions are in contrast to their understanding of things. He is bringing new understanding and they are trying their hardest to maintain the status quo. In a sense they are trying to put His teachings into their understanding or their witnessing wineskins. But they are well received by the multitudes and thus the old wineskins of the religious leaders are bursting.
The reference to new and old material is much the same.

Amen. In fact Jesus condemned temple worship via the cursing of the fig tree, since it was unfruitful and coming
to an end with His acceptable sacrifice upon the cross for the remission of sin, which was instituting the new covenant.

 

[AndrewMorgan]

I hope, 'though somewhat doubt, that this will be posted to the correct place and the correct individual.
Is it THAT interesting to read that I go to different locations and use different devices at different times?
If you REALLY care about this mystery, I'll elaborate.

 

[Eli1]

I hope, 'though somewhat doubt, that this will be posted to the correct place and the correct individual.
Is it THAT interesting to read that I go to different locations and use different devices at different times?
If you REALLY care about this mystery, I'll elaborate.

YES. Please tell me.
‘I would love to know more about your interesting technological choices.

 

[Rosemaryx]

This parable is about receiving the baptism with the Holy Spirit…the infilling and indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Believer.

it’s the outer and inner appearance of the Holy Spirit.

outer is the patch on the garment and the wine skins is the inner.

I thought it was about not mixing Law with Grace...

 

[AndrewMorgan]

OK. First - I'll say I feel somewhat on the spot here in as much as I feel my life choices and actions may be found less than optimally productive, but here goes.
At home, I tend to use my I-pod for important reasons and frivolous ones.
When I'm in town, among other things, I use the library, partly to use up time, if I'm at a loose end or to interact with sites such as this. I find it more convenient to use a relatively large screen such as that in the library than my smaller i-pod.
More generally, going to the library seems to fit more with my day.

 

[Inquisitor]

Amen. In fact Jesus condemned temple worship via the cursing of the fig tree, since it was unfruitful and coming
to an end with His acceptable sacrifice upon the cross for the remission of sin, which was instituting the new covenant.

Was the fig tree a symbol of Israel (the nation), the old covenant (the law), a Christian, a Jew, or the temple itself?

 

[Runningman]

The Jewish traditional system. There was nothing wrong with the law. Only their understanding of it.
For instance, in the sermon on the mount Jesus isn't creating new laws but merely showing the true understanding of the commandments. You have heard it said but I say...
Consider also the commandment to love others...it's in Leviticus 19:17-18

This passage from the sermon on the mount is Jesus introducing a new command and making void the old command in the Law, not explaining how to understand it better:

The original command in the Law:
Matt. 5:38
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’

Exodus 21:23-25
23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The new command:
Matt. 5:39
39But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

No one would intuitively arrive at the conclusions Jesus did when explaining the Law. In this particular example Jesus is teaching passiveness and not taking revenge, but the Law is teaching revenge.

 

[Cameron143]

This passage from the sermon on the mount is Jesus introducing a new command and making void the old command in the Law, not explaining how to understand it better:

The original command in the Law:
Matt. 5:38
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’

Exodus 21:23-25
23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The new command:
Matt. 5:39
39But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

No one would intuitively arrive at the conclusions Jesus did when explaining the Law. In this particular example Jesus is teaching passiveness and not taking revenge, but the Law is teaching revenge.

Actually Jesus is doing exactly what I said. An eye for an eye was a limiting commandment. But it wasn't a required commandment. Love was always the greater commandment. Read Leviticus 19:17-18. Love was always the goal.

 

[Runningman]

Actually Jesus is doing exactly what I said. An eye for an eye was a limiting commandment. But it wasn't a required commandment. Love was always the greater commandment. Read Leviticus 19:17-18. Love was always the goal.

Interesting read, but I guess it’s better we just agree to disagree on this.