- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Nick.
You said, “Your definition of being wrong then is to disagree with you?”
Nope, I never said that. Never even insinuated such a thing. My wife disagrees with me about hundreds of things. I like a red car, she likes a yellow one, I think that popcorn is better than potato chips, she swears that potato chips are better than popcorn.
I never contend that she is wrong, we just disagree.However if someones belief in a core value, like the kind of things that we are discussing here, differs from mine, then of course, if I think that my understanding is correct, it stands to reason that I have to think that their understanding is wrong.
If we are diametrically opposed in belief, it is impossible for both of us to be correct in our minds. Don't tell me that isn't how everyone on this forum thinks. I have been reading all of the arguments. You Nick, don't believe in the trinity concept. Nor do I. Do you think that everyone that does believe in the trinity is wrong about that particular belief. Of course you do. You have said so hundreds of times. So I does that mean that your definition of being wrong is to disagree with you.
The clarification that I was trying to make in an earlier post was that when I said they were wrong, I meant that their beliefs
were different than mine. This intimates that when their beliefs become the same as mine, either through them changing their belief or me changing mine to agree with theirs, then I would not consider them to be wrong. Please keep in mind,that they are only wrong in relationship to my right. They may not be wrong at all. You kind of twisted out of context my post where I though I gave valid reasons for my belief that something was wrong, and not just because someone disagreed with me.You will notice that I said that I will not try to change the mind of any person in regards to their belief, but I am certainly open to good arguments that could change mine. I guess that is why I am hanging around Heaven Net.
You see, I can also conceive that someone could be wrong without demanding that I am right. It is possible to believe that an idea just has to be wrong, yet still be searching for that which is right yourself. I love reading the posts from different points of view. Perhaps I will learn something.
Have a great night!
Tim
[/B][/U]
HI Timothy VI. The bold, and underline are tricky at first.
First, press the “b” button. Then type what you want in bold. Then type the “b” button again. It should be in bold.
Quote Hi david,
Jesus taught us about men after death.
Lk 16
“19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
Nowhere does Jesus say: I'm going to teach you about life after death. This was a parable.Hi david,
Look at the other parables
-trees, birds, leaves, seeds, yeast, vineyards, grapes, coins, soil, stones, fish-
you accept them as real because you have seen and touched them.
But what Jesus alone knows of you are far more skeptical about.Quote (david @ Feb. 10 2007,06:46) HI Timothy VI. The bold, and underline are tricky at first. First, press the “b” button. Then type what you want in bold. Then type the “b” button again. It should be in bold.
Thanks David. At least you could tell that I wanted something to be underlined and bold. You just do ot know what.
Tim
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 10 2007,08:18) Hi david,
Look at the other parables
-trees, birds, leaves, seeds, yeast, vineyards, grapes, coins, soil, stones, fish-
you accept them as real because you have seen and touched them.
But what Jesus alone knows of you are far more skeptical about.
Hi Nick,
In parables we see objects or things that we know and accept accept as real.
If words or things that no one could identify with, had never seen before were used, the people would have not even have understood that a story had been told. It would have been gibberish.In a parable, these things that we have seen before, mean something different.
The “sower” is none less than the Son of man.The “field” is the world.
The “good seed” are the children of the Kingdom of God.
The “tares” are the children of the wicked one (Satan).
The “harvest” is the end of the age.
We know that literally no one can stick a log in their eye or swallow a camel. But we all know what an eye is and what a camel and a log are. We also know what a rich man and a poor man are.
But in a parable things that we know often represent something else.The rich man could possibly be representing the Jews who were the chosen people but lost their riches when they denied Jesus, they threw it away. And the poor man could represent the gentiles who were not the favorite of God but by accepting Jesus as their king and saviour would now be comforted.
That is just one interpretation, not necessarily the correct one. But it makes more sense to me than taking the parable of the rich man and the poor man and trying to see it as literal when none of the other parables are literal.
Tim
I have yet figures out how to edit a post. Consequently, after posting
my spelling errors and double typing of words will remain for all to see.I noticed that my letter “N” is sticking, might have something to do with the coffee that I spilled
on my keyboard, and a number of times I have typed ot instead of not.The double typed words are usually brain lapses when I stop to gather my thoughts mid
sentence.Sorry!
Tim
Quote (david @ Feb. 10 2007,08:07) Hi Nick,
Should we regard all parables as true stories and not parables?
Hi David,
I know that was a rhetorical question to Nick.
But what if we did take the parable of rich man and the poor man literally. What does it literally tell us. If we take this parable literally, As an historical fact. Okay then, what does it “literally” say? Not what we might think it means but what it actually SAYS:1.If one is healthy, happy, prosperous, gives to the poor, is respectful of authority, loves his family, is concerned for the welfare of others and is enormously blessed of God, and has a life of “good” things, he will go to Hades and be tormented in flames of fire without water and without mercy.
2.If one is poor, diseased, homeless, a beggar, shows no thanks for even the little he does receive, has not the faith to be healed, and is not blessed of God, but only has a life of evil things, he will go to Abraham’s bosom where he is consoled and comforted in his distress [Gk: parakaleo].
Quite frankly neither one is a pretty picture. That’s because this is figurative and symbolic language, so of course it doesn’t make sense literally! It’s a parable.Here then is the bottom line of the Christian interpretation of this parable:
Live a life of good things now, blessed of God, and you’ll burn in the flames of Hell forever.
Live a life of evil things now, cursed of God, and you’ll live forever in Heaven.Tim
.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 09 2007,23:28) Hi tim,
Right.
Wait a minute. Who are you and what did you do with Nick?Tim
Hi Tim,
I get a different picture. I accept everything that Jesus said about the nature of Death[Bosom of Abraham] and Hades but neither are permanent structures both being thrown eventually into the lake of fire at the end of Revelation. Neither am I in any position to question the state of the souls of men waiting there but acquiesce to the Teacher who knows these things.
I think it highlights the value of almsgiving. The verses say nothing about the faith or the lawabiding nature of these men-the six brothers. Perhaps they were godless as most men are. God loves the poor and they are taken to fill in the empty spaces at the wedding feast without any other qualification as is Lazarus.
Those in scripture who give to the poor such as Cornelius earn the praise of God. My theory is that is these men had just shared their wealth with the poor they might have also been so blessed despite their godlessness. They would not have gone to heaven as you suggest because it is not the fate of men but their almsgiving as evidence of faith might have been counted to them as righteousness.
But what do others think?Your interpretation is a good and popular interpretation of this parable Nick.
But since in every other parable, the recognizable objects in the parable represent something completely
different than what they are in reality, why do you think that the rich man and Lazarus would really
be a rich man and a poor beggar in this parable?
Why in this one parable only, would Jesus use literal people to portray those actual literal people.In other parables:
The “sheep” and “goats” are not really sheep and goats.
The “sower” is the Son of man.
The “field” is the world.
The “good seed” are the children of the Kingdom of God.
The “tares” are the children of the wicked one (Satan).
The “harvest” is the end of the age. etc. etc.
This seems to be the only parable where Christians do not
want to look any deeper into the spiritual meaning, than what the story
literally says.Tim
Hi Tim,
It is also the only “parable” where the men in it are named. Perhaps it is a true story rather than a parable?Hi Nick,
How could it be a true story when, Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
The mention of an identifiable person is not, however, the test of a parable. Besides other parables do mention identifiable persons, but they are still parables:
Mark 4:15 mentions satan
Matt. 13:37 mentions The Son of Man
Matt: 13:39 mentions the devil
Matt. 15:13 mentions God the FatherWhat is the setting of this Lazarus parable? Actually it is the last of a five-part parable beginning in Chapter 15 of Luke. Here is the reason for these five parables in a row:
“Now ALL the tribute collectors and sinners were coming near Him to be hearing Him. And both the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying that ‘This man receives sinners, and is eating with them!” (Luke 15:2).
Verse 3:
“Now He told them [the tax collectors, sinners, Pharisees, and scribes] THIS PARABLE, saying…”
Jesus then gives them FIVE parables, one after the other. The phrase “THIS parable” certainly is not limited to the next, one, parable only!
If the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is both literal and an historical fact, then it contradicts not only the laws of physics and logic, but also literally hundreds of plain verses of Scripture.Tim
Hi tim,
Fair enough.
Which laws of physics and logic?
How do these laws explain God, the angels, spirits, truth??Good point Nick.
God and angels and spirit can not be explained by the laws of physics. However they can be understood by logic. If we are to believe that the word is truth. Then it is not logical for anything to be contrary to the truth.
When we insist that this is a literal story, we place a huge blotch on the character of God! According to the literal interpretation, this man is spending eternity in Hell fire, but has never had his day in court. He has been sentenced without being judged! This man could not have been judged when Jesus spoke this parable, The truth is that the Judgment was yet to come in the future.
“Verily, I am saying to you, more tolerable will it be for the land of Sodom and the land of Gomorrah in that DAY OF JUDGING than for that city.” (Matt. 10:15)
The day of judging is in the future.
There is a rule of Scripture study that is very sound, and I believe is applicable here. It goes like this: “Literal where and when possible.” Most of this parable cannot be taken literally. Why? Because for one thing, the story itself often contradicts the laws of science and physics. Things like seeing afar even though the eyes are burning in flame. A chasm of water that no one can cross either direction that is separating the rich man in flame from Abraham. Why didn’t the rich man just jump in the water and cool off? If the story defies science or is not logical, then it is probably a parable.Tim
Hi Tim,
Neither is God a liar as parables are truth.
Hades is only a remand centre, not the lake of fire.
God's view of justice is the correct one whether or not we agree with Him.
Do angels see? Do they have eyes?Hades is a place.
Lazarus and the Richman may or may not exist literally.
They may indeed be fictional characters.
However, Jesus wasn't describing a false afterlife experience.
The bible, it can be argued, is ambigious about the state of the dead. This is because several books that include these teachings weren't included.
Hades reconciles these supposedly troublesome contradictions.
The dead will be raised at christ's return and are still waiting for the resurrection.
The dead are conscious.
God is the God of the living and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Paul is in the presence of the Lord. (Martyrs are given special privelages. Thats why martyrs are under the altar in Rev.)
Jesus did see the thief in Paradise, that day. (the good side of hades)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
