- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116939
16 Jul 17
Originally posted by sonshipI've just bumped it again in the post about the one I'm replying to LOL.
You probably think I am faking or pretending. But as I go back through the thread it seems that you are referring to a question Rajk999 asked and not you.
Did Moses and the Prophets warn people of eternal torment?
If so please quote the references.
That I addressed.
Now if you mean something you asked which I am not yet clear about, help me out.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Jul 17
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeester
Bump for sonship
Oh dear, are you suggesting that a belief in a literal god, prevents one accepting the parables, stories and symbolism in the bible.
I was suggesting that the excuse of "You're being too literal" can be pushed by just about anyone.
Did you respond to my inquiry as to why this mention of a specific name - Lazarus accompanies the teaching if it was a parable ?
My post fully answers the question, there is not confusion, only from you and your attempts to squeeze literal,interpretations from parables.
Are you suggesting that I "squeeze" literal interpretations from each and every single parable told by Jesus ?
Or is that just the effect that is handy for you to convey ?
Even if the story of Luke 16:19-31 is completely parabolic the point of the lesson seems to be that uncomfortable balancing of moral scales can await a person after death.
Insisting that the details of the story are fictional doesn't make that point of the teaching evaporate to me.
And that beyond death God's judgment could reach you, would be consistent with too much else taught by Christ and the rest of the Bible.
I don't have to adore the story. I just feel compelled to believe its apparent basic lesson.
Now, since you don't think you avoid questions, your next post can tell me why in this "parable" if it is one - is there included a specific person's name - "Lazarus." .
Or you can site another parable of Jesus with a person's name mentioned.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116939
16 Jul 17
Originally posted by sonshipSo you're not going to answer the question after all??Oh dear, are you suggesting that a belief in a literal god, prevents one accepting the parables, stories and symbolism in the bible.
I was suggesting that the excuse of "You're being too literal" can be pushed by just about anyone.
Did you respond to my inquiry as to why this mention of a specific name - [b]Lazarus accompanies the ...[text shortened]... "Lazarus." .
Or you can site another parable of Jesus with a person's name mentioned.[/b]
16 Jul 17
Originally posted by sonshipHow is that relevant?
I have thought about all these things.
Let me ask you. Why do you think the rich man did NOT ask Abraham to set him FREE from his fate? He only requested some relief. Doesn't it seem odd that he didn't instead request total liberation from his fate ?
"Father Abraham, Send Lazarus to get me [b] out of this place."
Oddly, that was not his ...[text shortened]... f that core communication.
After death, he had a sore realization.
He was conscious of it.[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
17 Jul 17
4 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterThere are many parables.
So you're not going to answer the question after all??
They can be dealt with on a case by case basis.
I gave reasons why I don't think Luke 16:19-31 is a parable.
As of yet I don't see a committed rebuttal to that.
Even if Jesus was talking a parable, it does nearly nothing to the central point of the "parable". And that point has to do with consequences experienced after death for sins committed during life.
I have also not seen a reasoned case that the point of the supposed "parable" [if it was one] would be about judgmental consequences experienced during physical life. I am opened to hearing your argument that the basic lesson of Luke 16:19-31 does not have anything to do with punishment after physical death.
If you're off somewhere starting a new religion and looking for your followers, maybe you could spare some time to make your case -
ie. "The lesson of Luke 16:19-31 has nothing to do with anything being repaid a man after he dies."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by divegeesterAfter reading and re-reading this sentence it doesn't make much sense to me.
Bump for sonship.
As it is worded I am not sure what is meant.
But if it means what it seems to say - WHY in the world would believing in God mean different forms of literature could not be recognized in Scriptures - including parables ???
Hebrews 1:1 says God spoke in many portions and in many ways. Everybody should know that there are plenty of parables in the Bible - both Old Testament and New.
If this silly "Oh Dear" question was designed to place some stupid words into my mouth to you think gives your argument more force, it didn't do much.
While you're bumping things for me, answer me why this alleged parable in Luke 16:19-31 alone contains the name of a specific person ? No other parables do that.
Bump your answer to that repeated question up.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116939
17 Jul 17
Originally posted by divegeesterBump for Eladar who said and is arguing that multiple occurrences in scripture are not required for a truth to be truth...
Do you feel the same way about gluttony not being explicitly called out in the NT, or do you just want to keep avoiding what god is telling you and pick and choose how you apply your own standards to understanding scripture?
Originally posted by Eladar
So if you don't mention it, it doesn't exist.
Using your logic anything not mentioned by multiple writers really doesn't exist.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116939
17 Jul 17
Originally posted by sonshipThis is the question you are avoiding.
After reading and re-reading this sentence it doesn't make much sense to me.
As it is worded I am not sure what is meant.
But if it means what it seems to say - WHY in the world would believing in God mean different forms of literature could not be recognized in Scriptures - including parables ???
[b]Hebrews 1:1 says God spoke in many portions and ...[text shortened]... specific person ? No other parables do that.
Bump your answer to that repeated question up.[/b]
"Oh dear, are you suggesting that a belief in a literal god, prevents one accepting the parables, stories and symbolism in the bible."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 Jul 17
4 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterTo which I already replied:
But if it means what it seems to say - WHY in the world would believing in God mean different forms of literature could not be recognized in Scriptures - including parables ???
Belief in God does not prevent one from accepting the parables, stories and symbolism in the Bible.
In the story under consideration you have five brothers who were left alive. Many Bible students know that the number five usually stands for man's responsibility before God.
So I stop and think. "Now was it coincidence that this rich man had five brothers which surely has a symbolic significance ?" Then I realize that is is completely easy for God in His sovereignty to make so that if it was a true account, the rich man happened to have five brothers. He is God.
When I read the Bible I often contemplate what I am NOT told.
Strictly speaking, I am not told that the rich man was in that state forever.
Though I am not explicitly told that in the passage, I assume that is likely the case.
When I read the Bible I consider carefully factors which go against my assumptions.
Strictly speaking the passage says nothing about accepting or rejecting Jesus Christ.
At the present time I believe that what Jesus was telling them was something that may have happened while He was teaching and preaching. Perhaps it occurred just days before. The man may have rejected the preaching of the Jesus as sent by God.
Maybe what we do not know is that he had recently not listened to Jesus preaching.
The implication is that he cared nothing for Moses and the prophets. I speculate that maybe he cared neither for recent preaching he heard from the Son of God.
This is speculation and I would not be overly dogmatic about it.
At any rate I don't think the account is a parable.
But if it was "consequences after DEATH for life lived a certain way" is its inescapable point. And if Jesus was exaggerating with totally fictitious details it doesn't match at all His righteous character.