Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable

[RND]

Tell us DA of who you think the 5 brothers represent. Ummmm? Tell us, we'd just love to see your dissertation on this. Enthrall us!

 

[Der Alte]

I already did! You rejected it! You said that was Irrelevant! Every one of the sons of Israel had eleven NOT 5 brothers!

Again, I said "blood" brothers> I qualified my statement quite clearly. Unfortunately, you just like to tell people they are wrong without offering proof of your own.

Still waiting for you to provide scriptural evidence to back up your nonsensical claim about 5 brothers. Where does the term "blood brothers" occur in Luke 16 or the OT?

Look in Genesis 29 & 30. Jacob and Leah had six boys meaning Judah had 5 brothers.

Dig a little!

You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to back it up. The sons of the same father were considered brothers<period> End of story!

Here! As usual you have offered no proof as to who the 5 brothers are other than, "Are not!" Classy kid!

I have said repeatedly that in Luke 16, Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said. And nothing you have said or ever could say will show any different. The 5 brothers in Luke 16 means the rich man was concerned for his family who was still alive.

Sure I have!

Christian Forums - Where Christian Community Meets Faith

Read Genesis 29 & 30 for goodness sake!

You made the claim now back it up. Your assertions are meaningless w/o evidence! If you can't back up your wild, specious claims don't make them. The burden of proof is on you! There is nothing in the OT which makes any distinction between the sons of one mother and the sons of another mother, when they all have the same father.

That's because He explained as He went. Oh, and that reminds me that Jesus never spoke to the Pharisees in anything other than parable.

There is NO, ZERO, NONE record, in the NT, that Jesus ever explained anything in Luke 16:19-48. In Luke 16 Jesus was not addressing the Pharisees, his primary audience was his disciples.

Luk 16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. Jesus said many things to the Pharisees which were not in parables. The verse you are misrepresenting says Jesus did not speak to the multitude without parables.

Luk 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!​

Don't waste my time with an empty argument about 16:14. The Pharisees happened to overhear what Jesus was saying to his disciples. Luke 16:1 and 17:1 show that Jesus was talking to his disciples.

That's a statement, not a reason!

That's what a "reason" is, a statement which states why something is wrong!

No, you've just cried out things like "Irrelevant" without offering any proof yourself.

Neaner, neaner argumentation.

You are the one doing what you accuse me of!

I have offered you example from the Bible that you reject out of hand without having anything yourself to offer as to the contrary of what I write. The argumentation that more resembles that of 8 year-olds and not adults.

You have made vague references to irrelevant scriptures. Just because a verse mentions bread, that is not evidence that it refers to the "crumbs" in Luke 16. All you are doing is repeating SDA doctrine that you have been indoctrinated with. I have offered a complete explanation for Luke 16:19-48. It means exactly what Jesus said unless you can show evidence from Jesus saying something different. Please bore me with some more meaningless arguments from SDA writings.

 

[rdcast]

All parables from Jesus are persistent allegories, reproduced without end. No other truths are more factually based.

 

[Der Alte]

Tell us DA of who you think the 5 brothers represent. Ummmm? Tell us, we'd just love to see your dissertation on this. Enthrall us!

I have said it repeatedly. In Luke 16:19-48 Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said. Everything in the passage is what it is, it doesn't have some secret meaning. The five brothers mean that the rich man was concerned about his family who was still alive. And you CANNOT prove any different from scripture. All you can do is repeat SDA indoctrination and assume e.g. just because a verse mentions bread it has something to do with the crumbs from the table in Luke 16.

 

[rdcast]

e.g. just because a verse mentions bread it has something to do with the crumbs from the table in Luke 16.

I can dig-it, anyone who doesn't confuse e.g. with e.i. gets my vote.

​

 

[Der Alte]

Bingo! "...as did the Greeks..."

Meaningless infantile repetition. Saying "bingo" over and over does NOT prove anything that the ancient Jews copied anything from anyone!

The Bible? They were Israelites, as a nation, long before there were just "Jews".

Irrelevant! That does NOT show any difference between their beliefs and practices which you implied!

You mean God didn't set these people apart?

Another juvenile taunt which deliberately misrepresents what I said and meant and you know it. Want to try reading what I said and making a mature response?

Well, there weren't as many as you might think. It might also be nice if you took your own advise and offered some proof to go along with your "statements."

Pagan temples, furnishings, priests, high priests, priestly robes are mentioned many times in the OT, Have you read it? I'll post some evidence on that as soon as I see some scripture showing that five brothers in Luke 16 has some relation to five brothers in the OT.

See Ezekiel 8 BTW. There is a reason God's people entered the tabernacle with the sun to their backs and not facing it. This is just one example of how God made sure His people Israel were separate from the other nations.

Yes there is! The temple entrance faced east so the only way they could walk in with the sun not on their backs was to back in to the temple.

"Does not!", "Nuh-uh!", Neaner, neaner!", "Does too!", "My dad can beat your dad up!"

Flaming
You will not insult, belittle, mock, use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members, or personally attack other members or groups of members. Do not goad another member or start call-out threads. Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian. Avoid using sarcasm to attempt any of the above. This flaming rule also applies to public religious figures.​

 

[RND]

I have said it repeatedly. In Luke 16:19-48 Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said. Everything in the passage is what it is, it doesn't have some secret meaning. The five brothers mean that the rich man was concerned about his family who was still alive.

Where do you get that notion from? Is there anything in the verse that states that unequivocally?

And you CANNOT prove any different from scripture.

Neither can you! You're speculating! At least I use scripture to back up what I say! Oh my!

All you can do is repeat SDA indoctrination and assume e.g. just because a verse mentions bread it has something to do with the crumbs from the table in Luke 16.

So that story of the Canaanite woman seeking the "crumbs from the master's table" was what? A Co-winky-dink!

Remember DA, if you want to make a point about scripture use scripture to verify your point. Leave the "does not" come backs for the kids!

 

[Der Alte]

Where do you get that notion from? Is there anything in the verse that states that unequivocally?

The rich man said he did want his brothers, at home, to come to the place of torment where he was. That sounds like concern for his family to me. If that is not unequivocal enough for you then perhaps you should show me some verses which unequivocally state your views? See e.g. the reference to the Canaanite woman below. Is there a verse which unequivocally states a relationship between the woman and the reference to crumbs in Luke 16? Or is that an interpretation from SDA-&#1103;-us.com©

Neither can you! You're speculating! At least I use scripture to back up what I say! Oh my!

I certainly have used scripture. I have cited Luke 16:19-48 several times. And since Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said, there is no other scripture to use.

So that story of the Canaanite woman seeking the "crumbs from the master's table" was what? A Co-winky-dink!

Please show the relevance other than the mention of crumbs?

Remember DA, if you want to make a point about scripture use scripture to verify your point. Leave the "does not" come backs for the kids!

Glad to see you took my meaning. But you are still wrong in that I usually back up everything I say with scripture, grammatical, lexical, and/or historical evidence.

 

[Jig]

There are so many symbolic meanings hidden in this parable that it cannot be considered an actual view of the afterlife.

If these meanings are hidden, how do you know they even exist?

 

[RND]

If these meanings are hidden, how do you know they even exist?

Uh, once something is uncovered it is no longer hidden is it? That means if it is hidden it requires work to uncover it. I have put in that work I think.

 

[RND]

Glad to see you took my meaning. But you are still wrong in that I usually back up everything I say with scripture, grammatical, lexical, and/or historical evidence.

Usually? Just not in this case!

 

[martymonster]

I really don't understand how there can be any debate over this.

Jesus only spoke in parables!


Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:


I mean how much clearer could He be about it?

Everything He said was a parable and that mean's the parable of Lazarus and the Richman too.

 

[Zeena]

Hey you guys (and gals), sounds like this conversation is still rockin, but I can only lurk for now, as I just got back from major surgury today.

I'll see if I can play a bit 'o catch up and respond (eventually) as I get some energy back, God willing.

..'Till then, PLAY NICE!

 

[Der Alte]

I really don't understand how there can be any debate over this.

Jesus only spoke in parables!

Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

I mean how much clearer could He be about it?

Everything He said was a parable and that mean's the parable of Lazarus and the Richman too.

Deliberately misrepresenting scripture! Jesus only spoke to the unsaved multitudes in parables. He spoke to his disciples plainly. If everything Jesus ever said was a parable then half the gospels would be the parable and the other half the explanation. Jesus spoke plainly quite a bit more often than he did in parables. Christians are disciples NOT the unsaved multitudes and Jesus' words to us are very plain.

 

[Der Alte]

Usually? Just not in this case!

This is an admission that your accusation was false! So you want to get in somebody's face because they did not cite scripture in one case, while most of your posts are nothing but assumption/presuppositions? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

 

[Der Alte]

If these meanings are hidden, how do you know they even exist?

Uh, once something is uncovered it is no longer hidden is it? That means if it is hidden it requires work to uncover it. I have put in that work I think.

Good! Now please show us where Jesus or any apostle uncovered the hidden meaning of Luke 16:19-48? Funny thing I cannot find one command to look for hidden meaning in scripture! You have put in the work to uncover the hidden meaning? So have hundreds of other Jim Jones', and David Koreshes all claiming that they alone are right and everyone else is wrong. Why should we believe you over anyone else?

I might believe someone who is known as a Bible scholar who has published and been peer reviewed. <staff edit>

 

[Hentenza]

Tell us DA of who you think the 5 brothers represent. Ummmm? Tell us, we'd just love to see your dissertation on this. Enthrall us!

Merely that the richman had 5 brothers. There is no grammatical evidence that they represented anyone else. Of course, one can always make up their own theology apart from the biblical text.

 

[Der Alte]

Tell us DA of who you think the 5 brothers represent. Ummmm? Tell us, we'd just love to see your dissertation on this. Enthrall us!

Merely that the richman had 5 brothers. There is no grammatical evidence that they represented anyone else. Of course, one can always make up their own theology apart from the biblical text.

I have said more than once that I cannot find any significance to anyone having five brothers in the OT. Supposedly the five bro's in Luke 16 refer to Judah, I think, who had five brothers by the same mother. If this was in any way significant or important it is certainly not mentioned anywhere in the OT.

 

[Hentenza]

I have said more than once that I cannot find any significance to anyone having five brothers in the OT. Supposedly the five bro's in Luke 16 refer to Judah, I think, who had five brothers by the same mother. If this was in any way significant or important it is certainly not mentioned anywhere in the OT.

Absolutely. The text is plain.

 

[rdcast]

I have said more than once that I cannot find any significance to anyone having five brothers in the OT. Supposedly the five bro's in Luke 16 refer to Judah, I think, who had five brothers by the same mother. If this was in any way significant or important it is certainly not mentioned anywhere in the OT.

Tho divinely significant, the OT doesn't assume to contain all that is significant.