The Kingdom of the Heavens is like Leaven Mt13:33

[jo-el]

Sorry, I couldn't help but notice that there are distinct threads being woven together and so I feel it is very important for us to carefully pick those threads out.

In another thread Candace tabled the discussion with regard to Paul’s statement at 1Cor 5:6, the leaven associated with fornication and at Lu 12:1 the leaven associated with the teaching of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy, The discussion may for found here viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2099

Jesus spoke about the Kingdom using illustrations, in one of them he said:
The Kingdom of the heavens is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three large measures of flour until the whole mass was fermented… (Mt 13:33)

• Is this linked to what Paul referred to as leaven, and if so how?

No. what does the Kingdom of Heaven have to do with fornication?

• Does it have anything to do with the hypocrisy of the Pharisees?

No. What could the Kingdom of Heaven have to do with hypocrisy?

• And why does the woman hide the leaven in three measures of flour?

In the context it would seem to be an illustration of Kingdom growth. The kingdom is "hid" - i.e. is small, does not come with striking observation, yet grows into a large tree and ferments the whole lump.

But first let’s examine the first part of the statement … the kingdom of the heavens is like leaven… it this not a strange thing for Jesus to say; and yet his disciples did not question him about it? ........... If you had been there would you have wanted to ask what this meant, but they didn’t, why not?

A good question. There were also several other parables they did not ask about. Perhaps they were more intrigued by the parable about the wheat and the weeds because it was a more involved scenario and mentioned the weeds being gathered into bundles and burned in fire. Their curiosity was justified by the explanation, that angels would be the ones gathering and burning the weeds from within his Kingdom.

Might I have considered myself above ‘them’ – the crowd that had closed their eyes and ears - quite possibly? Was that the reason they didn’t ask???

An interesting theory, but it requires imposing an idea on the account which is not there and sidesteps that the disciples asked about the wheat/weeds parable after Jesus had made his comment about the reason for speaking in parables.

The reluctance to admit inadequacies, failures or wrong conduct is a very deeply entrenched human problem that we do not willingly face, and we steer attention away from it by focussing instead on the error or failure in others.
...............
This kind of hypocrisy is also part and parcel of our own make up. We live in Satan's world; he is the father of the lie, so lying is all-pervasive. Even only speaking half truth's or being polite, saying one thing but thinking another are all a forms of lying and most times we are not even aware of doing it, but we tend instead to change the direction of our thoughts and focus on the fault in the other person. Every time we do this the following applies … with the measure you are measuring out they will measure out to you… Hypocrite! First extract the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to extract the straw from you brother’s eye… (Mt 7: 2-5) In the account of the woman caught in adultery Jesus forced the Pharisees apply this principle to themselves, and he is telling each one of us to do the same.

So the pattern that you are drawing up is based on matching up and combining "Pharisees" and "hypocrisy" with the "measuring out" and then combining those elements into an interpretive principal, then bringing that principal forward. The problem is that I do not believe these elements were meant to be cut out with scissors and spliced together. When Jesus tackles the issue of hypocrisy it is for specific outlined reasons. For example, in the exchanges with the Pharisees, hypocrisy is being defined as outward piousness, but inward evil. Regular fasting, precise tithing, regular worship, instructors of others, performing for public adoration, yet uncompassionate on lowly ones, loosing commandment in favour of tradition, blind guides who do not discern the time and in secret harbouring murderous intent. In the case of the individual disciple, the hypocrisy is a different kind - spend less time judging what others are doing - how can we judge others if we cannot judge ourselves first? To do so is hypocrisy and Jesus informs us that it will invite judgement on us - so the message is "listen hypocrite - stop doing it!"

The measurement principal in Luke 6:38 is about giving generously, not about hypocrisy. I understand how you can apply the phrase and there is some truth in it when we understand that the judgement with which we judge is how we will be judged, but equally the forgiveness with which we forgive is how we will be forgiven, which is also explained in the parable about the wicked servant. So the principal is there with God, but when Jesus speaks of "measuring out" it was in the context of giving to others and receiving a reward - not a punishment to be reaped.

So what bearing does this have on the illustration of the Kingdom being like leaven? Fully understanding this human proclivity Jesus knew that what little insight people at that time had with regard to this would be eclipsed after he left the scene. Paul appears to have understood this, he may even have read what Jesus wrote in the dust of the ground because he links fornication with leaven fermenting the whole lump (1Cor 5:1-7) And it is the same hypocrisy that is the root of the Pharisees obsession with cleaning the outside of the cup Mt 23:25 - presenting a false front to the world - pretending to be something we are not.

Again, the comment you make about what Jesus knew, is imposing a thought that isn't there. The account of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery does not have any relationship to the parable where the Kingdom is likened to leaven. Where Pauls comment and Jesus parable are similar, is not in the subject, but in the application - to growth - i.e. the fault could spread from one member to "the whole batch". I would also suggest that Paul makes his application, not so much to the fornication itself, although that is part of the problem. In fact, even though this passage deals with hypocrisy in the allusion to boasting rather than dealing with these issues, the actual application Paul makes of leaven is to "wickedness and malice". Thus there cannot be a relationship with the Kingdom of Heaven being like leaven.

The woman hides the leaven in three measures of flour – the measures of flour are Judaism, Christianity and Islam – all serving the one God; all stemming from Abraham; all accepting Moses as bringer of God’s Law; all looking forward to the coming of God’s kingdom. But not one of them has been able to grasp the full import of what Jesus taught; all of them in their own way point the finger away from themselves. Riddled with guilt they look for ways of atonement whether it is by obedience to the Law or being forgiven by believing in Jesus as a sin atoning sacrifice, anything rather than deal with the one thing that Jesus said would enable us to see clearly so that our hearts could be healed (Mt13:15). None of the three measures of flour or their many offshoots has understood what is meant by the leaven the woman hid.

An interesting idea once again in looking for an application for the "3" measures of flour. The thing is though, that the primary reason Judaism and Islam at least do not "grasp the full import of what Jesus taught", is that they do not pay the slightest attention to what Jesus taught. In the last days, God has spoken to us by means of his Son and he commands all men EVERYWHERE to repent. Christians have the only faith which looks to Jesus as the perfecter of faith and calls on people to turn back to God and repent. Judaism and Islam do not. I don't believe that can be a "riddled with guilt" statement, a "beam in the eye" - otherwise, how could one affirm anything out loud? Judaism is the remainder of a house which was abandoned to them and Islam did not exist until the 7th century and while claiming Jesus as a prophet, does not believe he is Gods Son and actually teaches that Jesus did not die - which is an anti-Christ teaching. Why is it that you place "believing in Jesus as a sin atoning sacrifice" on the same level as trying to keep the Mosaic law outside the land of Israel and without a priesthood? Matt 13:15 of course mentions the beginning of the real solution to having our heart healed, which is "turning" - or repentance. But who do you need to turn to? Who is going to do the healing? Jesus Christ said HE would do the healing - not us. Isn't that the most basic belief of Christians or am I missing something?

So coming back to the leaven, while there may be some significance to the number of 3 large measures, it is at least understandable as a fairly large volume of flour, perhaps less so as a quantity - in which a seemingly small catalyst is hidden and the smaller absorbs the whole. I have to ask if you are equating the leaven with hypocrisy, when Jesus clearly said that the Kingdom of Heaven - i.e. the Kingdom of God is like leaven?

[coccus ilicis]

Sorry, I couldn't help but notice that there are distinct threads being woven together and so I feel it is very important for us to carefully pick those threads out.

In another thread Candace tabled the discussion with regard to Paul’s statement at 1Cor 5:6, the leaven associated with fornication and at Lu 12:1 the leaven associated with the teaching of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy, The discussion may for found here viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2099

Thank you jo-el for giving my post your attention, you are quite right I am weaving together distinct statements from threads from this forum and thank you for singling those threads out for further discussion.

But in reality I am weaving together the sayings Jesus, Paul and others. Discussions and conversations reflect inner reasoning that calls on prior knowledge and experience - they are not like completely unrelated clips cut out from a newspaper story, referencing what someone else has said or did. Even in such cases the one doing this will link them to the subject under discussion. And please note it is not I that linked Paul's word concerning leaven with fornication at 1Cor 5: 1-6 he did. Why do you think he did that? The fact that he did not explain does not mean there was no explanation. You have your reasoning on it, and I have mine.

And when Jesus addressed the crowd and said ... ”Watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees … what did he have in mind? Remembering what happened with woman caught in the adultery makes sense of what he said next … there is nothing carefully concealed that will not be revealed and secret that will not become known. Wherefore what things you say in darkness will be heard in the light, and what you whisper in private rooms will be preached from the housetops … Lu 12:1, 2, 3. Any one of the Pharisees in this crowd who were familiar with what happened with regard to that woman, would have immediately understood the full import of his words, particularly when he added… ”Moreover I say to you friends, Do not fear those who kill the body and after this are not able to do anything more… If accused woman was in the crowd, she also would have understood.

On another occasion when speaking to the crowds about the hypocrisy of the Scribes and the Pharisees, he said … the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. Therefore all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but do not perform … Mt 23:3. What did Jesus have in mind when he said that? Certainly few in the crowd would have understood what he meant but any literate ones that were familiar with what had happened when they brought him the adulterous woman would have immediately understood why he said that. Jesus was not punching holes in the air but was aiming his blows where they would have maximum impact.

He could easily have exposed the double standard of the Pharisees for all to see, but instead chose to continue to talk to the crowd about the Parisees' general double-standard behaviour patterns with the occasional remark addressed directly at them as a group but at the same time leaving room for those with honest hearts amongst them to acknowledge this truth and turn around. He did this because as he said, he had not come to judge but to save (John 12:47). In this he sets and excellent example for us to this day.

You also say concerning my reasoning,

So the pattern that you are drawing up is based on matching up and combining "Pharisees" and "hypocrisy" with the "measuring out" and then combining those elements into an interpretive principal, then bringing that principal forward. The problem is that I do not believe these elements were meant to be cut out with scissors and spliced together.

What more can I say to that, except that we see and understand scripture from different perspectives.

With regard to your comments regarding the 3 measures of flour, you say,

An interesting idea once again in looking for an application for the "3" measures of flour. The thing is though, that the primary reason Judaism and Islam at least do not "grasp the full import of what Jesus taught", is that they do not pay the slightest attention to what Jesus taught. In the last days, God has spoken to us by means of his Son and he commands all men EVERYWHERE to repent. Christians have the only faith which looks to Jesus as the perfecter of faith and calls on people to turn back to God and repent

When you say, 'The thing is though, that the primary reason Judaism and Islam at least do not "grasp the full import of what Jesus taught", is that they do not pay the slightest attention to what Jesus taught’. Harsh words indeed, but I do wonder though why you react so strongly here.

Please correct me if I am mistaken but are you paraphrasing Heb 1: 2 & Acts 17:30, when you say: In the last days, God has spoken to us by means of his Son and he commands all men EVERYWHERE to repent?

To get it into context, reading from the NWT
…God …at the end of the days has spoke to us by means of his Son (Heb 1:2) … True God has overlooked the times of such ignorance, yet now he is telling mankind everywhere that they should repent … (Act 17:30)

What did Paul mean by that - repent from what! The men of Athens worshipped many Gods, amongst them one that they simply described as the unknown God (Acts 17:23) and using this as the common ground, he referred to this God as being the one who created all things, adding … and he made out of one man every nation of men upon the entire surface of the earth… and he decreed appointed times for them to seek God if they might grope for him and really find him… (Acts 17:26, 27).

So, I ask again, what did Paul mean when he said … they should everywhere repent... (Act 17:30). Repent of what??? Yes, he told them Jesus had been resurrected and some didn’t believe it and began to mock (Act 17:32), which is completely understandable since they only had Paul’s word for it.

• So how does one grope for God and really find him?
  And what role, if any, does listening to Jesus and observing his commandments play in all this?
  In order to find God is it really necessary to listen to Jesus’ teachings and observe them, or is there some other way?

So, yes, I do believe what Jesus taught is linked, closely linked, with one lesson underpinning the next. But just like all learning, i.e. before you can read you must learn the ABCs, so it is with the teaching of Jesus, the difference with his teaching is that it doesn’t require great scholarship and many text books to learn, only a contrite heart and a willingness to apply what he says (Mt 7:3, 4, 5; 13:8, 9,15, 23) Humanity is now at a point where they can start and understand the next lesson. And Jesus, in talking about that day said, …everyone that hears these sayings of mine and does them will be likened to the discreet man that built his house upon the rock-mass and the rain poured down and the floods came and the winds blew and lashed against the house, but it did not cave in, for it was founded on the rock-mass … (Mt 7:22, 24, 25)
.

[jo-el]

When you say, 'The thing is though, that the primary reason Judaism and Islam at least do not "grasp the full import of what Jesus taught", is that they do not pay the slightest attention to what Jesus taught’. Harsh words indeed, but I do wonder though why you react so strongly here.

How are they harsh words? and how could my reaction be classified as "strong"? I had thought it fairly moderate given that you seem to be teaching Judaism and Islam forge a path to God apart from Jesus Christ, which is exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught (i.e. NO ONE comes to the Father but by Him ) and the opposite of what Paul was teaching when he called on those men to "repent". Reading Acts 17 -
God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

^^^^^^^^^^^
The above is the gospel I think?

Does Judaism teach the truth? Does Judaism keep Gods commandments by believing on His Son?
Does Islam teach this? Does Islam believe on His Son? - ( i.e. I am the Way and the Truth and the Life)

If not, then how can they possibly be paying attention to what Jesus said? (1 John 3:23)
What is the will of the Father? - John 6:40

I did attempt to qualify my statements by outlining 1) that Judaism rejects Jesus the Messiah, 2) that Islam rejects Jesus death AND that He was Gods Son, 3) that only Christians do neither of those things

What did I say there which you believe to be incorrect? and do you disagree that you placed "keeping the law of Moses" and "believing in the atonement" on the same shelf - Isa 1:18 - Rev 7:14

[coccus ilicis]

When you say, 'The thing is though, that the primary reason Judaism and Islam at least do not "grasp the full import of what Jesus taught", is that they do not pay the slightest attention to what Jesus taught’. Harsh words indeed, but I do wonder though why you react so strongly here.

How are they harsh words? and how could my reaction be classified as "strong"? I had thought it fairly moderate given that you seem to be teaching Judaism and Islam forge a path to God apart from Jesus Christ, which is exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught (i.e. NO ONE comes to the Father but by Him ) and the opposite of what Paul was teaching when he called on those men to "repent". Reading Acts 17 -
God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

^^^^^^^^^^^
The above is the gospel I think?

Does Judaism teach the truth? Does Judaism keep Gods commandments by believing on His Son?
Does Islam teach this? Does Islam believe on His Son? - ( i.e. I am the Way and the Truth and the Life)

If not, then how can they possibly be paying attention to what Jesus said? (1 John 3:23)
What is the will of the Father? - John 6:40

I did attempt to qualify my statements by outlining 1) that Judaism rejects Jesus the Messiah, 2) that Islam rejects Jesus death AND that He was Gods Son, 3) that only Christians do neither of those things

What did I say there which you believe to be incorrect? and do you disagree that you placed "keeping the law of Moses" and "believing in the atonement" on the same shelf - Isa 1:18 - Rev 7:14

Hello jo-el

When you say the above it gospel, am I right in thinking you mean is the good news as taught by the early Christians, or do you have another definition? This is a genuine question as the meaning varies dependent on religion or belief of the individual.

I do understand where you are coming from, but even Paul's writing needs to be examined in context. Whom was Paul speaking to and what did Paul have in mind when he said this. Looking at it through glasses tinted to the colour of a 19th century interpretation of the 1st century teaching, it might indeed to be just as you say. But putting yourself in Paul's shoes, knowing what he knew, and more importantly what he didn't know or have access to at that time shows up details we miss.

When Jesus tells us to first take the rafter out of our eye he is talking about our nature or the spirit that distorts our vision. When James and John asked Jesus if they should ask fire to come down from heaven to destroy a Samaritan village that had refused them passage, Jesus rebuked them,
... CLV Lk 9:54 Now perceiving it, His disciples, James and John, say, "Lord, art Thou willing? May we be telling fire to descend from heaven and consume them, as Elijah also does?"[ YLT Lk 9:55 ...and having turned, he rebuked them, and said, 'Ye have not known of what spirit ye are ...

You may notice I am quoting from two different translations here that is because the actual rebuke has been edited out of some manuscripts and translations. But like the account of the woman caught in adultery it is important, as it helps us understand what Jesus taught. When he said you don’t know what manner of spirit you are he was referring to a judgmental spirit common to humanity that was also present amongst the early Christians.

Let’s take a close look at what Paul says at 1Cor 5:6 in context. ... you are puffed up and did you not rather mourn... I for one, although absent in body but present in spirit, have certainly judged already... that in the name of the Lord Jesus you are gathered together, also my spirit together with the Lord Jesus, you hand such a man over for the destruction of the flesh... (1Cor 5:2-5). Note that he mentions his spirit, which in this case reacts similarly to how James and John reacted when the Samaritans did not permit Jesus and his disciple’s passage through the village. I am not pointing this out to be critical or judgmental of Paul and the disciples, simply pointing out if that was their problem; it is no different for us. It was too early for Paul and the early Christians to learn this lesson, their job was to make sure that Jesus' sayings were disseminated and to give his word a chance of surviving in Satan’s world. And it is because of their work that we have access to what he taught today. But humanity has now reached a point where it is ready to take the next step, namely to understand the nature of their judgmental vengeful spirit.

Does Judaism teach the truth? Does Judaism keep Gods commandments by believing on His Son?
Does Islam teach this? Does Islam believe on His Son? - ( i.e. I am the Way and the Truth and the Life)

Have you personally asked them – have you discussed it with them? Is it not true that most times we merely listen to what they say and judge them on the basis of our belief, and/or what has been fed to us by our church and the media. In this respect Muslims and Jews are no different from us - going tit for tat, measuring out as it is measured out to them. This inevitable reflex reaction has little to do with truth but is a reflection of an individual’s spirit or nature – it blindsides us. Someone once said souls are not coloured, and that is true, at heart we all have the same strengths and the same weaknesses, and it is those weaknesses that blind us.

If not, then how can they possibly be paying attention to what Jesus said? (1 John 3:23) What is the will of the Father? - John 6:40

John said …it is this commandment, that we have faith in the name of his son Jesus Christ and be loving one another, just he gave us the commandment…Moreover he who observes his commandments remains in union with him, and he in union with such a one, by this we gain the knowledge that he is remaining in union with us, owing to the spirit which he gave us… (1John 3:23,24) Here John is harking back to what Jesus had told them just prior to his arrest... you are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in union with me ... (John 15: 1-6) ...ending with … My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples… remain in my love… If you observe my commandments you will remain in my love, just as I have observed the commandments of the father and remain in his love … (John 15:8-10).

So there is a proviso to their remaining in his love. We can be sure that Jesus does not judge them for erring about something they did not know or understand, but they were still under obligation to observe what he had taught in order to remain in his love

Jesus explained what he said (at John 6:40) …For this is the will of my father that everyone that beholds ( G2334 theoreo ) and is believing in him shall have everlasting life and I will resurrect him at the last day… later at John 14:15-17, 26 when talking about what would happened just prior to his return, he said … I am coming to you… A little while longer and world will not behold me no more but you are beholding me ( behold the same word as at John 6:40 G2334) because I am living and you shall be living (fut. active)/ In that day you will know I am in union with the father and you are in union with me… he that has my commandments and observes them that one is one that loves me… and I will plainly show myself to him ( G1718 emphanizo em-fan-id'-zo from G1717 to exhibit or disclose )… and I shall raise him up in the last day… This disclosing of himself was to happen just prior to his return when he sent the spirit of truth to be forever with those who obeyed his commandments and at that time he would teach them all things and bring back to their minds all the things he had taught.

I did attempt to qualify my statements by outlining 1) that Judaism rejects Jesus the Messiah, 2) that Islam rejects Jesus death AND that He was Gods Son, 3) that only Christians do neither of those things

You did indeed and I appreciate your courage for tackling this subject. You do not need to defend yourself, we are all the same and it takes courage to discuss the rafter in our eye publicly. And since it blinkers us we tend to focus instead on the straw in another’s eye. Why, because this is what we have always done, it is our nature, our means of looking past the rafter in our own eye and ignoring it. And often the very thing we attribute to another is the same error (in different guise perhaps) that is also present in us. us.

What did I say there which you believe to be incorrect? and do you disagree that you placed "keeping the law of Moses" and "believing in the atonement" on the same shelf - Isa 1:18 - Rev 7:14

.

Please bear with me if I do not discuss these verses now as an explanation would derail this thread since they are linked to the identity of the mother of the harlots, and this is not the time or place for this discussion.

No, I do not disagree, It is not a matter of degree however because in order to establish degree we have to look at others with a critical eye and make comparisons and judgements - that's is not our jurisdiction. We can easily see whether something is beneficial or not by its fruit. And the fruit of the three leavened measures of flour is not very palatable. Jesus simply admonished us to look for the rafter in our own eye and deal with this first – and believe me it is an ongoing painful process – but each time we remove another splinter our vision clears a little more.

But someone might ask, how do we discern the rafter if we cannot see it – well every time we react strongly condemning another we can be sure that what they have done or said has touched a nerve, something we want to avoid looking at. At that time if we ask for help to see why we react in such a way, then the spirit of truth helps us see what caused it and we can ask for help to remove it. When that happens - and it may take some time dependant on our nature and the depth of the buried hurt - we begin to see the offence in a different light.

Jesus, in speaking of the time just before his return, when the spirit of truth is active, said … in that day you will ask me no questions at all… (John 16:23). And that is indeed so since at that time we understand that a healing of the heart is taking place, Mt 13:15, we are being refined Dan 12:10 a process that is invisible to others. Will there be an immediate consensus? No, of course not, it is a narrow gate with each one dealing with their own rafter (hang-ups) but in time their paths will converge. This is where we now are in the stream of time. It is easy to speculate and apply scriptures concerning what will happen in the near future. But I am learning not to run ahead, which is but another of my failings. Jesus is the master directing the harvest and I wait on him.

[apollos0fAlexandria]

When Jesus tells us to first take the rafter out of our eye he is talking about our nature or the spirit that distorts our vision.

Hi coccus ilicis

Again it seems to me that you're resting big assertions on a virtual soundbite. The straw/rafter hyperbole is about hypocrisy. Jesus himself explains this in context. To fit the context therefore it would seem that the rafter is intended to be an exaggerated version of the straw, not a different thing entirely.

Sure, if Jesus was purely telling us to be careful about directing others about their "spirit" or attitude in how they perceive and judge others then maybe it would work. But Jesus' illustration is much broader than that. It can apply to anything of which we might accuse our brother. The counsel is similar to the words of Paul in Romans 2:21,22, albeit for a slightly different purpose - "you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal?, You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?"

Ultimately Jesus' illustration is not simply about taking care of our own faults, but doing so with an end in view that we can help our brother too. I think in reframing this to suggest that we are in some way misreading the entire religious landscape of Christendom, Islam and Judaism, it radically extends Jesus' words to something that there's no indication of in the passage.

Let’s take a close look at what Paul says at 1Cor 5:6 in context. ... you are puffed up and did you not rather mourn... I for one, although absent in body but present in spirit, have certainly judged already... that in the name of the Lord Jesus you are gathered together, also my spirit together with the Lord Jesus, you hand such a man over for the destruction of the flesh... (1Cor 5:2-5). Note that he mentions his spirit, which in this case reacts similarly to how James and John reacted when the Samaritans did not permit Jesus and his disciple’s passage through the village. I am not pointing this out to be critical or judgmental of Paul and the disciples, simply pointing out if that was their problem; it is no different for us. It was too early for Paul and the early Christians to learn this lesson, their job was to make sure that Jesus' sayings were disseminated and to give his word a chance of surviving in Satan’s world. And it is because of their work that we have access to what he taught today. But humanity has now reached a point where it is ready to take the next step, namely to understand the nature of their judgmental vengeful spirit.

To reach such a conclusion it appears you have to construct a framework of disconnected scripture (a point we keep coming back to).

There were times when first century Christians got things wrong and these are pointed out to us in the NT. I could compile a list here but it would just be a side point and risk going off-topic. Your framework essentially says that they had other stuff wrong though, even when the writings of Paul propose something as being right. That is not a position I can accept, and comes back to the many exchanges on this site about the nature of the NT and its inspiration. I've said my piece about that enough times I think.

But I'm also wary of "patchwork" theology" since that was what I was taught in large part as a JW. I now see the dangers of that, and the easy way one can fall into eiegesis and cognitive bias once one has constructed a "pet framework of theology".

Does Judaism teach the truth? Does Judaism keep Gods commandments by believing on His Son?
Does Islam teach this? Does Islam believe on His Son? - ( i.e. I am the Way and the Truth and the Life)

Have you personally asked them – have you discussed it with them? Is it not true that most times we merely listen to what they say and judge them on the basis of our belief, and/or what has been fed to us by our church and the media.

Well I can't answer for jo-el, but for myself yes, absolutely I've asked them personally. I've never met a Jew or Muslim who by their own testimony is in some way maligned or misrepresented by joel's summary of what they do and don't believe.

I'm surprised you would suggest otherwise. Where are these mainstream Jews and Muslims who have put faith in Jesus, or even given him the prominence that he merits?

In this respect Muslims and Jews are no different from us - going tit for tat, measuring out as it is measured out to them. This inevitable reflex reaction has little to do with truth but is a reflection of an individual’s spirit or nature – it blindsides us. Someone once said souls are not coloured, and that is true, at heart we all have the same strengths and the same weaknesses, and it is those weaknesses that blind us.

To use the "souls are not colored" reference is to obfuscate the issues. It's the same argument at heart that some use to defend homosexuality. You take a principle that is entirely applicable to one moral issue - in this case racism - and then treat it as some sort of universal truism that can be applied in exactly the same way to an entirely separate matter. I believe that can be dangerous.

If not, then how can they possibly be paying attention to what Jesus said? (1 John 3:23) What is the will of the Father? - John 6:40

John said …it is this commandment, that we have faith in the name of his son Jesus Christ and be loving one another, just he gave us the commandment…Moreover he who observes his commandments remains in union with him, and he in union with such a one, by this we gain the knowledge that he is remaining in union with us, owing to the spirit which he gave us… (1John 3:23,24) Here John is harking back to what Jesus had told them just prior to his arrest... you are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in union with me ... (John 15: 1-6) ...ending with … My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples… remain in my love… If you observe my commandments you will remain in my love, just as I have observed the commandments of the father and remain in his love … (John 15:8-10).

So there is a proviso to their remaining in his love. We can be sure that Jesus does not judge them for erring about something they did not know or understand, but they were still under obligation to observe what he had taught in order to remain in his love

That may be true, but you're working on a premise that Jesus didn't actually give them what they needed to know and/or understand. I would argue against this on the basis of John 16:13:

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

The fulfillment was at Pentecost right at the outset of the forming of Christian congregation. This would seem to be at major odds with your idea that they were left in partial ignorance, and that Christians would remain in that state for a couple of millenniums.

I appreciate from the rest of your post that you probably disagree with the timing on the matter of the Spirit's operation, but I'll wrap it up there for now. Beyond this point in your post there are some valid questions from joel that you've said you want to hold off answering anyway.

Apollos

[coccus ilicis]

When Jesus tells us to first take the rafter out of our eye he is talking about our nature or the spirit that distorts our vision.

Hello apollosOfAlexandria

Thank you for your reply and making me dip into deep waters and re-examine scripture.

Keeping within the parameters (framework) of the thread, which looks at the reason why Jesus said … The kingdom of the heavens is like leaven… (Mt 13:33) and since I asserted that the three measures of flour are, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, I think it only fair that for those or us not all that familiar with the teaching of Islam with regard to Jesus, to provide an overview. I do not know how accurate this is and I am sure, like Christendom, there are many variations on the theme.

For the complete article go to the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam
'Jesus, son of Mary'‎), or Jesus, is understood to be the penultimate prophet and messenger of Allah (God) and al-Masih, the Arabic term for Messiah,[1][2] the "Christ",[3] sent to guide the Children of Israel (banī isrā'īl in Arabic) with a new revelation: al-Injīl (Arabic for "the Gospel").[4] Jesus is believed to be a prophet,[3] who neither married nor had any children, and is reflected as a significant figure … various titles attached such as "Son of Mary",[6] "Spirit of God",[7] and the "Word of God"[7] among other relational terms, directly and indirectly, over 180 times.[8][9]… …

So it seems that like the Jews and Christendom they also see the messiah/Jesus returning to restore all things.

Please excuse me for not dealing with the rest of your reply point by point but something has come to light and it is now time to deal with the nub of the issue, namely the leaven the woman hid in the christian portion of flour.

Readers who have been following this thread are probably aware that I have repeatedly referred to a sacred secret that would only be revealed in the time of the end, just prior to Jesus' return Rev 10:7; John 14:19,26; 16:23; Dan 12:1-4,9,10. All of these verses are about the same secret, there is however another reference to this secret that we need look at.

… and the male of the goats for its part put on great airs to an extreme… the great horn was broken and there proceeded to come up conspicuously four instead of it toward the four winds of the heavens…And out of one of them there came forth another one horn a small horn and it kept getting greater since this insignificant horn grows to be a force to be reckoned with and has such a devastating impact on Gods army. Daniel asks about it and is told concerning the four horns … in the final part of their kingdom, as the transgressors act to a completion there will stand up a king fierce in countenance… Dan 8:23 The four horns that followed Alexander fought it out amongst themselves until there were two. That time period is well attested to, circa 285 BC. Round that time they fought themselves to a standstill and settled the issue by dividing Alexander’s gains into two, the Ptolemaic empire in the south and Seleucid empire north east https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Diadochi

This is the time when the little horn makes its first insignificant appearance. Because it is small there is no mention of it at that time but it grows and becomes much bigger. But when does it grow mighty and make its presence felt world on the world stage … getting greater all the way to the army of the heavens so that it caused some of the army (host) and some of the stars to fall to the earth and went trampling them down. All the way to the Prince of the army it put on great airs, and from him the constant ( feature) was taken away… and an army (feminine in this case) itself was gradually given over together with the constant (feature) because of transgression and it kept throwing truth to the earth, and it acted and had success…

And Daniel listening in on a conversation between two holy ones discussing how long the transgression causing desolation to make both the holy place and the army things to trample on would last, he hears “Until two thousand, three hundred evenings and mornings and the holy place will certainly be brought into its right condition”… Dan 8:14

Note it does not say until two thousand three hundred mornings and evenings, but says evenings and mornings. Hebrews started their new day after sunset, the only constant feature or celebration that took place just after sunset and the morning – or between the two evenings – is very familiar to those of us who were/are associated with JWs, it is of course the Passover; so the 2300 evenings and mornings stands for 2300 Passovers, or years.

So it appears from the time when this little horn made its first appearance, 2300 years would elapse before the holy place would be brought into its right condition. That being the case it begs the question as to what happened at that time that was insignificant when it first appeared but later became a force to be reckoned with and plays a major role in the time of the end.

Well, taking the bull by the horns (metaphorically speaking) lets look as the primary difference between what Jesus taught and what the church focussed on after his death - namely atonement theology. I have already said that all OT scriptures used to support this theology can be interpreted in different ways if not looked at through first century-church tinted glasses. I now amend that and say all bar one, a reading from the Septuagint.

The writer of Hebrews quotes from the Septuagint when he says … Hence when he comes into the world he says: “Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but you prepared a body for me ... (Heb 10:5). He then goes on show that Jesus came to give the ultimate sacrifice his life to atone for mankind's sin. I don't know whether Paul always quoted from the Septuagint, but the quote at Heb 10:5 certainly did come from the LXX Ps 40:6. With regard to this verse the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew in a significant way. It has been asserted that the Septuagint is a more accurate rendering of the original as it is taken from earlier manuscripts than the Hebrew Masoretic text, but the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls has shown that the supposition that the LXX is the more accurate reading can no longer be supported.

Below is are the comparative readings of Ps 40:6

• The above clips are taken from:
  http://biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/40-6.htm
  http://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/psalms/40.htm
  http://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/psalms/40.htm
  http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/10-5.htm

As you can see the reading completely changes the meaning of the Hebrew text of this verse. It appears to have passed without comment at the time, when Hellenism amongst Jews of Alexandria was at its peak. But the question that must be asked is how it was that it came to be changed and why was it was changed? The reader can draw their own conclusions, but for those who wish to dig further and find how, why and who instigated and funded the translation of the Septuagint, more information can be found here http://www.setterfield.org/Septuagint_History.html

You might wonder why a Greek king, who modelled himself on Egyptian Pharaohs, would concern himself about such an issue and what was the mindset of those given the task of translation.

Well we can speculate but Satan is a master conspirator who uses humans to further his plans, some co-operate knowingly looking on him as Lucifer (angel of light) and others unwittingly. With regard to the leaven hidden in the flour of Christendom it was probably mostly unwittingly. And it is also why Jesus said in prayer to his father … My father if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me… if it is not possible for it to pass away except I drink it, let your will take place’ (Mt 26:39,42) He knew that his death would end up being the leaven in the third measure of the woman’s flour. Interestingly it is precisely the atonement doctrine that Islam objects to (see above link) their leaven takes a different form, but both the leaven of Christendom and their's is sour-dough leaven taken from the original batch of Hellenized Judaism.

Is this little horn that grows to become a force to be reckoned with part of the sacred secret? Daniel is told … and the thing seen concerning the evening and the morning, which has been said, it is true. And you, for your part, keep secret the vision because it is yet for many days.”… Dan 8:26. Later he is given additional information concerning this transgression causing desolation (see Dan 9: 27b and Dan 12: 7, 11) which he is also told to make secret until the time of the end when it would be revealed Dan 12:4,9.

We don’t know the day and hour but we have dates circa 285 BCE. Let’s give it a try , allowing for a margin of error -290 + 2300 =2010 or -280 + 2300 = 2020. So the transgression is due to come to its finish somewhere between those two dates or shortly thereafter.

Jesus said Mt 24:15 … “Therefore, when you are perceiving (G1492 aorist) the disgusting thing causing desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, having stood (vb perf, act.) in the holy place,(let the reader use discernment) Mark puts it this way, …whenever you may be perceiving (G1492 aorist) the disgusting thing that causes desolation having stood(vb perf, active) where it ought not (let the reader use discernment) Mark 13:14.

Note that it says when you are perceiving the disgusting thing, so from the time we perceive with eyes of discernment and understand just what disgusting is that has stood (stood all this time) in the holy place where it ought not, those in Judea should begin fleeing to the mountain.

Luke’s account at Lu 21:20 shows how the early church interpreted it in their day; they saw it as Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, which is understandable as in their day the leaven was actively fermenting the flour and making it grow.

So apollosOfAlexandriea and friends, am I just another one like Russell’s Bible Students and so many others that surfaced starting from the 1800 onward, or is this it? Well whatever the case we don’t have long to wait. But it might pay to take off your first century glasses if you are wearing them and reconsider the matter. What I am posting today only came to light (was perceived) yesterday. If it is indeed right then it is a clear sign that the start of the great tribulation is imminent. Jesus said concerning that time … and unless those days are cut short no flesh at all would be saved…Mark 13:20. So, if this is indeed it then we are shortly going to enter the most calamitous time in human history, even worse than the flood of Noah's day because that was brought at Jehovah hand and he knew what he was doing. This time the destruction will be brought by the hand of man, and he hasn’t got a clue. But we have Jesus' word that the tribulation would be cut short, and we can rely on his word.

[Get out of her]

Greetings everyone;


I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself as Sol. I am looking forward to getting to know all of you and joining in with your Bible discussions. Particularly this one at the moment.
(I suspect this topic is even more deep and interesting than we can even imagine, as Jehovah's word always is) A couple of you apparently tried to reached out to me before on the JWstruggle website (responding to one or two of my posts). I apologize that i did not even realize it for quite some time and when I did I was feeling so bad that I didn't even notice one of you had left a link to this website for me to chase you down. (you were apparently both making an exit at the time) This is how I was able to discover this website just now and I greatly appreciate it. Thank you. I'm afraid I need to excuse myself for the moment but I eagerly anticipate an encouraging and up-building spiritual and scriptural interchange with each and every one of you. Talk to you soon.

Regards;

Sol

[Bobcat]

For any interested, I had started a thread on Jesus' parables here. In the first post I have a link to the NICNT-Matthew commentary. If you go to that link and drop down the "Front Cover" button and go to page 526, then scroll down to page 528, you will find the commentary on the parable of the leaven.

The commentary (to me) does a very good job of noticing features of the parable without over-analysing it. But that is my opinion. I wanted to make it available to everyone. The thread is two or three years old (my, how time flies!).

As an aside, on this post I posit the possibility that the parable of the man sowing and sleeping in Mk 4:26-29 might in fact have the same meaning as the parable of the leaven in Matthew 13:33.

Bobcat

[jo-el]

I asserted that the three measures of flour are, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, I think it only fair that for those or us not all that familiar with the teaching of Islam with regard to Jesus, to provide an overview. I do not know how accurate this is and I am sure, like Christendom, there are many variations on the theme.

For a complete article go to the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam
'Jesus, son of Mary'‎), or Jesus, is understood to be the penultimate prophet and messenger of Allah (God) and al-Masih, the Arabic term for Messiah,[1][2] the "Christ",[3] sent to guide the Children of Israel (banī isrā'īl in Arabic) with a new revelation: al-Injīl (Arabic for "the Gospel").[4] Jesus is believed to be a prophet,[3] who neither married nor had any children, and is reflected as a significant figure … various titles attached such as "Son of Mary",[6] "Spirit of God",[7] and the "Word of God"[7] among other relational terms, directly and indirectly, over 180 times.[8][9]… …

So it seems that like the Jews and Christendom they also see the messiah/Jesus returning to restore all things.

In Islam, Jesus is in 2nd place as evident in the word "penultimate" and He is placed as a prophet ONLY.
In Islam ALL prophets are considered equal - yes, but some are "more equal than others".
In Islam Muhammed is called the "Seal of the Prophets" - he is the LAST. This theology attempts to take away that Jesus fulfilled the scriptures -i.e. "in the volume of the book".
In Islam, Muhammed has the greater mission, Jesus is sent ONLY to the Jews, but Muhammed carries the message for all mankind. This means that Jesus is not Gods light to the Gentiles in fulfillment of prophecy - that role is now assumed by Muhammed.
Islam does not call upon the name of Jesus which means YHWH Saves.
Islam does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
Islam does not practise baptism or the Lords supper.
Islam believes that the Quran is the only uncorrupted Revelation from God - the message of Moses and the Christian gospels are considered "tainted"
Islam apologetics teach that Jesus is ONLY Gods servant.
Islam believes that Jesus will return - but not as the Almighty's appointed King, rather to assist the Muslim war against anti-Christ, after which Jesus will live a short time and die.
In Islam Jesus is very literally "just a man".

SO while Islam does indeed acknowledge Jesus as a prophet to a great degree, that is the extent of it and many of their beliefs about Jesus childhood for example are drawn from the likes of Gnostic texts rejected by orthodox Christianity. Therefore, when Islam uses the term Messiah, it is only in the sense of anointed one and not in terms of salvation.

It is true that Islam maintains a distanced respect for Judaism and Christianity in the sense of belief in one true Almighty God and as such believes that on Jesus return all in those faiths will become Muslims.

I would say that is a reasonably fair brief overview of Islam's teachings with regards to Jesus Christ. Islams message about Christ has to be completely contrary to the New Testament and the New Covenant. It is surely further away from the truth than even very heretical Christian sects.

Well, taking the bull by the horns (metaphorically speaking) lets look as the primary difference between what Jesus taught and what the church focussed on after his death - namely atonement theology. I have already said that all OT scriptures used to support this theology can be interpreted in different ways if not looked at through first century-church tinted glasses. I now amend that and say all bar one, a reading from the Septuagint.

Thank you for pointing this one out - I hadn't come across it before (that I remember). However, I found it rather interesting that in quoting the Septuagint passage in Hebrews, which originally has David saying that his EARS would be PIERCED it morphs into a BODY being PREPARED. So in the Law, VOLUNTARILY assuming the position of servant, the EAR would be PIERCED and of course Messiah voluntarily submits to His Fathers will. When translated into Greek, before Christ came, the alternate but incredibly apt rendering occurs. And the author of Hebrews chooses to quote from LXX.

Well we can speculate but Satan is a master conspirator who uses humans to further his plans, some co-operate knowingly looking on him as Lucifer (angel of light) and others unwittingly. With regard to the leaven hidden in the flour of Christendom it was probably mostly unwittingly. .... He knew that his death would end up being the leaven in the third measure of the woman’s flour. Interestingly it is precisely the atonement doctrine that Islam objects to (see above link) their leaven takes a different form, but both the leaven of Christendom and their's is sour-dough leaven taken from the original batch of Hellenized Judaism.

I struggle to see the connection between a single LXX quote in the Hebrew epistle and somehow invalidating "atonement theology" which is rather extensive in the law and the prophets and also rests upon numerous passages in the New Testament.

Did you just claim that Satan hid the "leaven" you are talking about?
Did you just equate the idea of atonement to the leaven?
Are you aware that the apostles taught the atonement?

Am I right then - did you actually just attribute the idea of atonement/propitiation to the work of Satan and accuse the apostles of unwittingly cooperating?

[Marina]

Hi Jo-el

I very much agree with what you have written and thank you for providing such excellent information.

LRW - I don't want to get involved in a dispute. But further to Jo-el's post here is some extra information on Islamic and Jewish beliefs :-

Islamic beliefs - Moslems (not sure which denomination) have told me:-

> Mohammed posed as the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) and in effect said 'the Bible's wrong, I'll correct it with my words and we'll call it the Koran.' (This is similar but different to the Mormons with their new improved Bible, aka Book of Mormon).

>Ishmael not Isaac was one through whom the Messiah would come. (That sets them at odds with Jews and raises questions about who Joseph and Moses were).

>There is no way Allah (which means the God) could have a son. That'd mean he'd been putting himself around.

>When Jesus died Judas was put in his place and died instead. Jesus was taken to heaven and Judas was given his face.

>They also speak about the Djinn. When people babble uncontrollably they've got djinn. (Sounds to me like a cross between genies and demons).

>Eden/Paradise was in heaven.

>Adam was not made of the dust of the ground. I can't remember what they said he was made of.


Jewish beliefs (not sure which denominations) but I have been told:-

>To convert you must deny Jesus Christ.

>The Messiah is an age not a person.

>They do not allow you to say the name Jehovah. It upsets them.