Guest shiloh357 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 It is a parable and a fictitious story and there is no reason to take it as an historical event. If hell/torment/agony in fire are fictionous words in this parable, why is Jesus using them? I didn't say those things are ficticious. I am saying that they are used in a fictitious story. Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan uses real places like the road to Jericho and the Inn along that road to tell a fictitious story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DRS81 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 It is a parable and a fictitious story and there is no reason to take it as an historical event. If hell/torment/agony in fire are fictionous words in this parable, why is Jesus using them? I didn't say those things are ficticious. I am saying that they are used in a fictitious story. Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan uses real places like the road to Jericho and the Inn along that road to tell a fictitious story. Please respond to post 91 also. For example, the road to Jericho parable is not discussing the afterlife. I can see Jesus using real places to describe THIS LIFE, but the OP parable is describing the AFTERLIFE. There's a fine line there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted December 23, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,716 Content Per Day: 8.03 Reputation: 21,774 Days Won: 77 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Online Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted December 23, 2013 but not the Bible itself! That's the point... it is not a consistent practiceof the Scripture parables to use specific name!Doesn't matter. It is consistent with the culture and the time period. It is in embedded with other parables before and after it. It is consistent with the literary structure and purpose of a parable. I am sorry but I simply have a better command of the facts. Better- show me a parable whereJesus identified it being a parable and then show me Him using a specific namein that parable? That will solve this circle we seem to be inNo it wouldn't solve anything. We are not in a circle. You are simply trying to prove what you don't have any facts to prove. Luke 15 and 16 are a string of parables. Jesus NEVER says, "okay, guys this is a parable" before He starts telling the parable. So to demand that Jesus had to have actually proclaimed that He was about to tell a parable is a made up standard. By that logic, none of the parables would be parables.The Bible plus anything is not what I would consider a better command of facts!As far as I am aware of - The Bible itself is the inspired text and writings outside ofit are suspect... only that which coincides with Scripture and is validated by Scripture thusrevealing it to be of truth! Your stance on books outside of Scripture to be interpretivevalue to the Scripture is one foot on The Word and one foot on man's writing is not a moresure stance of fact as you have stated! I think everyone can clearly see this as truth... No it wouldn't solve anything. We are not in a circle. You are simply trying to prove what you don't have any facts to prove. Luke 15 and 16 are a string of parables. Jesus NEVER says, "okay, guys this is a parable" before He starts telling the parable. So to demand that Jesus had to have actuallyproclaimed that He was about to tell a parable is a made up standard. By that logic, none of the parables would be parables.A simple No I can't would have appeared more scholarly approach than the what you have written:Matt 13:10-13Matt 13:34-35Matt 13:53Matt 22:1Matt 24:32Mark 3:23Mark 4:2Mark 4:13Mark 4:33Mark 12:1Mark 12:12Luke 8:10Luke 12:41Luke 15:3-32John 16:25Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest man Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 He didn't say the "words" were fictitious. He said the story was. Huge difference. If words only tell the fictional story, then why did Jesus use words to describe the afterlife if it's not about the afterlife. What is the parable describing if not the afterlife? What is he trying to get across? For example, we're not talking about 'the cat in the hat' here, this is the Bible we're discussing. In the grand scheme of things, what does it matter? I don't think anyone here is planning on going there. As for what He's trying to get across? I highly doubt it's the description of hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted December 23, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,716 Content Per Day: 8.03 Reputation: 21,774 Days Won: 77 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Online Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted December 23, 2013 He didn't say the "words" were fictitious. He said the story was. Huge difference. If words only tell the fictional story, then why did Jesus use words to describe the afterlife if it's not about the afterlife. What is the parable describing if not the afterlife? What is he trying to get across? For example, we're not talking about 'the cat in the hat' here, this is the Bible we're discussing. In the grand scheme of things, what does it matter? I don't think anyone here is planning on going there. As for what He's trying to get across? I highly doubt it's the description of hell. That would be the ultimate point- wouldn't it- Only the dead and Jesus Himself know for surethis account... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DRS81 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 1. In the grand scheme of things, what does it matter? I don't think anyone here is planning on going there. 2. As for what He's trying to get across? I highly doubt it's the description of hell. 1. Way to look out for your fellow nonbelievers, man. Did Jesus not sit with nonbelievers also? 2. Luke 16:24 So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire. for I am tormented in this flame; http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/luke-16-24.html in the destruction of Jerusalem, and calamities at Bither, and other afflictions; together with the wrath of God poured into the conscience, and the bitter remorses of that for speaking against the Messiah; and which are still greater in hell, where the worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 The Bible plus anything is not what I would consider a better command of facts! I am not promoting the Bible plus something else. I am simply pointing out that as a piece of literature, the Bible is consistent with the literary style of a parable where the parable of the rich man and lazarus. As far as I am aware of - The Bible itself is the inspired text and writings outside of it are suspect... only that which coincides with Scripture and is validated by Scripture thus revealing it to be of truth! The convoluted grammar you employ makes your post hard to understand, but I will try to respond. The Bible is inspired, but it also acts like literature. It obeys the rules of literature. God did not circumvent that in the process of inspiration. It is not a case of holding other pieces of literature up as of equal inspiration, but when we look at other ancient parables we can see that Jesus was using a style that was common to the experience of the audience. He was doing what other Rabbis did. Rabbis told parables; it was a common way of teaching lessons. Jesus, in using Abraham and Lazarus was completely consistent with how parables were employed in His day. Honestly, you are trying to make an issue out of a nonissue simply because you want the story to be historical, when it is not. Your stance on books outside of Scripture to be interpretive value to the Scripture is one foot on The Word and one foot on man's writing is not a more sure stance of fact as you have stated! I think everyone can clearly see this as truth... Scholars use outside literature in the process of interpreting Scripture all of the time. The Mernaptah Stele the Tel Dan Stele, the Armana Stone, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the works of Philo, Neander, Josephus, etc. The fact is that I am not even citing rabbinic works of literature. I am referencing historical/cultural context of the text and why the text qualifies as a parable and not as an historical event. A simple No I can't would have appeared more scholarly approach than the what you have written: I was just working from the standard you asked for. You want me to cite where Jesus said He was about to tell a parable, and He simply doesn't. The writer of the text might tell us that Jesus is about deliver a parable, but Jesus doesn't. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is one of a string of Parables spanning two chapters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProphecyKid Posted December 23, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 85 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 30 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/06/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/10/1988 Share Posted December 23, 2013 That's like asking the question why did Jesus in the parable of the sower and the seed use words like sow, seed, field and plant if he was not telling us that we should go out and become farmers. If that's the story being used to portray the message, the appropriate terms obviously have to be used. That doesn't mean the story is to be taken literally. Yeah but there's a fine line when describing parables with lessons/fate in this life vs lessons in the afterlife, using words and such. Sow/seed/field/plant are lessons about our spiritual nature in this life. Hell/torment/agony in fire/died/angels carried him describe lessons/fate in the afterlife. Jesus could of used any kind of words to get his point across. God vs Money debate. I don't understand why he had to resort to words describing the afterlife to get his point across, that you cannot serve both God and money. Jesus could of described the parable in a completely different way that has nothing to do with agony/hell/torment, words describing the afterlife. That's what confuses a lot of people. I think this is the only parable Jesus used that describes the afterlife. But it is a parable none the less and if you take it literally it would not be consistent with what so much of the bible says about the state of the dead. But I do take the afterlife literally and words describing it, just like I take Sow/seed/field/plant literally to describe this life. So what you're saying is I shouldn't take the lessons about Sow/seed/field/plant literally? It is all words describing our spiritual nature, so we HAVE to take it literally. If it's not consistent with what the Bible says about the dead, then why did Jesus use those words. This story is not about the afterlife. Jesus is not describing the afterlife. The story illustrates a point. The reason why the rich man was speaking to Lazarus helps to illustrate the point of the story and not to show that people who die go to hell and can speak to people who die and go to Abraham's Bosom. The reason they both die in the story is to show what their end shall be as opposed to how they are considered on earth. It is all necessary to illustrate the point. Like I said, look at the story in the context of the other parables surrounding it. How does Jesus go from talking about being a good steward and the result of being an unjust steward, to a theological lesson on the state of the dead. And furthermore, there is absolutely no biblical proof that the Jews believed that at death one either goes to hell or Abraham's bosom. So after this, the pharisees and no one else challenged him concerning this because they know he wasn't actually talking about the state of the dead. And we all know how the pharisees were quick to try to corner Jesus on anything he did or said wrong according to their beliefs and their understanding of the law and the prophets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest man Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 1. In the grand scheme of things, what does it matter? I don't think anyone here is planning on going there. 2. As for what He's trying to get across? I highly doubt it's the description of hell. 1. Way to look out for your fellow nonbelievers, man. Is that what we are?...........................nonbelievers? Huh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DRS81 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 The reason they both die in the story is to show what their end shall be as opposed to how they are considered on earth. Exactly, that's precisely what I'm talking about. THEIR END. Their end is death and death is in the afterlife. How can you deny this with a straight face. Is that what we are?...........................nonbelievers? Huh! No man, nonbelievers in general.. In the grand scheme of things, what does it matter? I don't think anyone here is planning on going there. In the grand scheme of things how many of your family members are in hell right now? If it doesn't matter..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts