13:3 Still depressing. He even answered the question succinctly: not typical.
13:9 He seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth: on the one hand, violent death is not to be considered an ordained punishment for sin. On the other, if the people to whom he is talking don't shape up, they will die violently.
13:12 He simply affirms the truth, and it happens. Again, very Ernest Holmes.
13:18-21 In this context, the KOG is a truth, an idea, not an event.
13:28 but in this context, it is a place or condition.
13:30 An important distinction: some who are last will be first (being last in itself is not a virtue).
14:11 Wait a minute. He already said this once, but differently and better. The same, now that I think of it, with v5. Does this mark the point of Luke's dual authorship? Is this where one stops and another begins?
14:15 And here the kingdom is once again a place, not an idea or a person.
14:26 is he trying to winnow the crowd down to a more manageable size?
14:34 this is another one that feels out of place with the preceding dialogue.
15:6,9 The unlikeliness of these reactions in a real context saps the strenth of these parables a little.
15:12 Again, how likely is this to really happen? The father giving up his legacy before he gives up the ghost?
15:28 The way this parable is told, this seems like a perfectly rational reaction. In fact, to react otherwise would be almost superhuman.
16:9 I had forgotten about this parable. What a strange thing to encourage people to do, and a rather oblique application as well.
16:12 And isn't this the exact opposite of the preceding parable?
16:16-18 Wow. This shapter just keeps getting weirder. I'm not even sure what he's saying here.
16:19-31 There was an old Witness in Belize who was a member of what they call "The Anointed", those specially blessed and going to be rulers in heaven. He used to say that the entire Bible was explained in this one parable. I wish I had asked him to explain what he meant. This whole chapter feels out of place, even anachronistic.
17:5-6 This doesn't seem like much of a response. If they had said, "We're hungry", and he replied, "If you had food, you wouldn't be so hungry," the point might be clearer.
17:10 So, it wasn't just the preceding chapter that made Jesus seem angrier, more taciturn. I put the shift at between chapters 10 and 11. Either there was a change in authorship, or a shift in the ministry itself.
17:19 So, the others had the same amount of faith? They too were made well . . .
17:30 What day would that be? The day of the transfiguration? Or the resurrection?
17:37 Even his parables have gotten macabre.
18:1,9 This way of framing a parable doesn't match up with the rest of the book of Luke.
18:15 What possible reason could the disciples have had for objecting?
18:26 This is a silly question.
18:31 This part feels revisionist.
18:39 Again with this. What makes the disciples not want Jesus to perform miracles? Jealousy? Propriety? Fear?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment