Could Jesus answer all questions being asked?

[insight]

Jesus could only answer questions in the context of what people can understand at that point in time. Therefore, it would be hard to explain the truth if one had no precidient for understanding. If one tired to explain DNA 2000 years ago he would lose his audience and be considered heretical.

 

That's a good answer

[infamous]

Jesus often did not answer questions he was directly asked. He was a guy with remarkable intuition and tended to communicate in a style that was a little orthogonal to the context, but more directly related to the core issues as He saw them.

 

.

Truly Bio; I find it interesting that many times Christ would ask the questions instead of being compelled to answer them. I think this style was an attempt on his part to cause man to think about the true answers instead of just pushing opinions.

[HydrogenBond]

Parables were excellent way to make people think and draw their own conclusions without stepping an anyone's feet. At the same time, those who wished to hear would understand.

[BEAKER]

The very question about whether or not Jesus could answer any question put to Him could only be asked by someone who doesn't know Him and has little desire to. I am reminded of God's response to Job - "...Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?...Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?"

[perfectWeakness129]

Not so - the Bible is an intricate 'puzzle' that has to be put together by the method the Bible itself instructs - called 'the law of confirming/repeating'. Only then can we truly know 'the secret in the book of Revelation'.

 

Actually, according to Jesus, parables were used to speak only to thoes who wanted or were choosen to hear. See Mark 4:11-12. However, the second part of your statement is still pretty much true, though I am not sure puzzle is the right term for it.

[perfectWeakness129]

Oh, man. This is where we can get into trouble. While I think I understand what you mean by each of thoes quotes, it can be dangerous to quote Bible verses in partiality or out of context. I will try not to do the same and I encourage you to read over Mark 4 for clarification.

 

Mark 4:10-12: After everyone (including The Twelve) did not understand the parable of the sower...

 

10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,

" 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,

and ever hearing but never understanding;

otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'

 

We can see this relates to God's words to Isaiah at his comission (Isa 6) when he told him that his words would be confusing to the Israelites and they would not understand becuse their rebellion has hardend their hearts. The same was true in Jesus time, the Lord allowed men whose hearts were hard to remain hard as Mark 4 goes on to talk about in 24-25:

 

24"Consider carefully what you hear," he continued. "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more. 25Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him."

 

Basically, this means that if we are desiring the Word of God and the Spirit agressively, then we will recieve agressively, but if not, then we will recieve with the same apethy.

 

So what is the point of a parable? In first centuries Greece (BC and AD) parables were used by the great philosophers to be an analogy of an idea so that people could understand it. It was an effective way to teach and everyone was pretty much used to the concept of a parable, it was common. Jesus, however, was different. He used parables and many mistook them for the same type of parabe that Aristotle(sp) and Socratese(sp) used. But Jesus' parables were for a greater purpose and thoes who were not thirsty for the Word of God were either confused or understood some superficial meaning of the parable.

[perfectWeakness129]

Confessions of a Bible-Thumper...

 

I have been notified that this forum is not a thread to discuss Bible verses. I hope I am not the only one of us to receive this notice. I understand that quoting the Bible is frowned upon in this forum; it pretty much comes up in every thread. Unfortunately, if you review the previous posts, it has to end up that way since in the process of answering the Question of the topic, "Could Jesus answer all questions being asked?" we led ourselves to defining a Parable, Jesus' most frequently used teaching tool.

 

It is important to understand that defining Jesus' use of parables has no inherent spiritual implications other than that he was a pretty smart guy. With that in mind, it is important to realize that our only evidence of anything surrounding Jesus' life and intentions is contained in the New Testament scriptures (and if you hold faith, most OT scriptures too). For this reason I found it necessary to use the Bible to support my thoughts on what a Jesus-parable was.

 

My point is this: While I understand the basis of 'banning' the Bible in this forum, we need to consider the relevance of verses quoted before we reject them as preaching. I call for a review of the rules of this site regarding the Bible. I don't think we should be so rejecting of ideas and text just because it contains Names and Numbers and Colons( : ), so long as it is relevant to the topic, which I believe I was.

 

In conclusion I do confess I violated the letter of the law by quoting/explaining verses in the Bible, however I was not preaching in any way but supporting my claim of what a parable used by Jesus was.

I would like to quote the rules by stating:

 

"Note that posts made in this forum do not show up in the "Latest topics" bar in the right column, because most topics here tend not to be of a scientific nature."

 

This appears to warrant some acceptance of unscientific debate, which I believe this thread falls under.

 

God Bless

[perfectWeakness129]

In the midst of all the 'apostraphies' I can only infer that we have been dualing eachother from the same side. As I look back I think that HytrogenBond, you and I all agree that the parables Jesus used were to reveal to thoes who seeked (sook?) the Word of God. I guess your first statement of 'Not so...' implied that you disagreed with HydrogenBond's statement regarding this. At any rate, my claim is this:

 

Yes, Jesus could answer any question you ask. The real question is would you want to understand his answer?

[perfectWeakness129]

I wasn't sure what kind of sarcasms or satire the apostrophies were supposed to imply, so I wasn't sure if I was reading you correctly.

Anyway,

When did you ever read of Him being amicable to the scribes and teachers of the law?

Jesus was pretty much amicable to everyone who wished to learn from him (i.e. Nicodemus the pharasie ) regardless of who they were.

[perfectWeakness129]

And what's wrong with apostraphies??? I don't mean to be disagreeable, but...Jesus spoke in parables in order to 'hide' His wisdom from foolish men.

 

I think we're comming close to an agreement here. You hold that Jesus used parables to hide truth from people. I agree, but the reason it was hidden from them starts with their own hearts. Since everyone heard the same thing, and under the assumption that understanding wasn't related to intelligence(or else I'd be in trouble), this leaves the only factor to be the desire to understand. To hunger and thirst for righteousness, if you will, as they shall be filled. (M-a-t-t-5-:-6) shhh;).

 

Agree?

[perfectWeakness129]

Well, that's close enough. I think we've exhaused the topic at hand to a most compete answer: Jesus CAN answer any question, but will we ever hear His answer? It depends...

 

It's been real and thanks for the discourse.

God Bless.

Jordan

[insight]

Well, that's close enough. I think we've exhaused the topic at hand to a most compete answer: Jesus CAN answer any question, but will we ever hear His answer? It depends...

 

 

I can't believe it you can say without any instances. :) Nobody even be able to prove that God existed, has existed or exist forever.

[BEAKER]

I can't believe it you can say without any instances. :) Nobody even be able to prove that God existed, has existed or exist forever.

The universe and all that exists crys out in perfet order and harmony; ..."what kind of idiot could possibly believe this is all an accident?"; and "Design requires a designer." All the while, a mulitude of created beings in denial shake their fists at the invisible unknown, and point at an ever increasing mass of books and megabites of scietific data proving without a shadow of a doubt to their brainwashed minds that "...of course there is no God beause we can't see Him - and all of our efforts to discover Him have ended in failure; therefore we must conclude that He does not exist." Poor pathetic egotistical fools.

[insight]

I was a little surprised too that perfectWeakness129 just seemed to cut off this thread suddenly without any real explanation, after my posting?

 

Maybe he's going for holiday :eek: