- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,580
- 6,064
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Prior to that post there was no argument, and there still isn't, except on your part. I simply made the statement that I did not believe that Jesus said the words of the story or parable of the rich man and Lazarus, and I gave my reasons for not believing that it was the words of Jesus. Nothing has changed. I still do not believe that the parable or story was spoken by Jesus. Jesus was not ever inconsistent in his teachings. He was very truthful. He said what he meant and meant what he said. Though he did use the every day events and occurrences to present parables as a means for teaching them, it would have been strictly out of character for him to use a Jewish fable or a heathen myth as a means of teaching and leading his people.
Right! You made a statement to me challenging what I posted. That is an argument. Your unsupported opinion what would have been out of character for Jesus has zero weight. Please show me this "Jewish fable or a heathen myth?" Luke 16:19-31 has been accepted by the church as genuine for 2000 years +/- nothing you have said proves any different. My conclusion is that anything which contradicts your assumptions/presuppositions is "Jewish fable or a heathen myth."
That's really flimsy, and I believe you know better. First, since the author of Job in an earlier statement said, in effect, that he had come from the womb naked and that he would return there naked, that is evidence that the "womb" under consideration here was the earth itself as the author most likely believed that we came from the dust of the earth.
"The author most likely believed" this is assumption/presupposition and it does not refute what I posted.
Next, There are very few who die that are not remembered by someone, especially by the woman who bore them if she is alive when they die. So it is not the living that forgets and remembers them no more. It is God who remembers them no more, as the passage goes on to say that because they are forgotten, wickedness is broken as a tree. It takes more than just man's forgetting someone to "break wickedness as a tree [is broken]". It takes God's putting them out of his remembrance to do away with their wickedness that he allows to perish with them in the grave.
Your out-of-context proof text says nothing about "God putting them out of his remembrance"
Job 24:19 Drought and heat consume the snow waters: so doth the grave those which have sinned.
20 The womb shall forget him; the worm shall feed sweetly on him; he shall be no more remembered; and wickedness shall be broken as a tree.
20 The womb shall forget him; the worm shall feed sweetly on him; he shall be no more remembered; and wickedness shall be broken as a tree.
Note your proof text is not about mankind in general, all the pronouns, him 2x, and he, refer to those who have sinned, vs. 19. This is what I mean by read in-context.
Just a few scriptures for you to chew on for a little while -
Job 3:11. "Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly? 12. Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck? 13. For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest, 14. With kings and counsellers of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves; 15. Or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver: 16. Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light. 17. There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest. 18. There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor. 19. The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master."
What is your point? There,[in the grave], the wicked cease from troubling; and there [in the grave] the weary be at rest. There [in the grave] the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor. The small and great are there;[in the grave] and the servant is free from his master. None of that proves anything about Job 24:20.
Isa. 26:13. "O LORD our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. 14. They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish."
Psa. 88:3. "For my soul is full of troubles: and my life draweth nigh unto the grave. 4.I am counted with them that go down into the pit: I am as a man that hath no strength: 5. Free among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, whom thou rememberest no more: and they are cut off from thy
hand."
Again what is your point? People in the grave. This proves nothing about Job 24:20.
That's a strange question since everyone that I know who are still alive have never died.
Read the question again, you missed or ignored part of the question. My point is everybody dies, no exceptions.
I will say this: I do not know what place in the scriptures that it could belong, but I do not believe that it belongs there in that particular place. As to the parable itself being true or false, I believe what it teaches is false, as it has no scriptural support anywhere else in the scriptures.(that is another reason why I do not believe that Jesus said it.) But it is possible that it is a genuine rabbinical parable. I cannot quote the source, but I read somewhere that there is one much like it in the Gemara.
In other words you do not have any credible, verifiable, historical evidence that Luke 16:19-31 is a Jewish fable or a pagan myth.
In your opinion who spoke the words in vss. 10-13? How do you know? Who is speaking in vs.15 and 17:1? Do tell.
As I thought you can't answer the question. Glad to answer this as you as you answer me.
I have noticed something quite peculiar in your posts: It seems that everyone's opinion but yours on any subject are simply "assumptions/presupposition."
Only when whatever someone says is not supported with some kind of evidence, scriptural, lexical, grammatical, and/or historical, such as your comment above, The author most likely believed
Have you not ever heard that history is in the hand of the recorder of such? especially if the recorder was not present when the events they are writing about were taking place.
The way I heard it was The victor writes the history. But that is irrelevant to the ECF.
Clement does a little more than just mention a myth about the Phoenix. It is quite clear that this fellow actually believed the myth, as he refers to it as a sign. I sought to bring that to your attention by bolding "Let us consider that wonderful sign". Guess you must have missed that.
Now, if this man believed that such a thing as this was true, or if he had no more spiritual understanding than that, then I have a problem with giving credence to any other of his commentaries.
No, I did not miss anything. My understanding of what Clement said is just as valid as yours. It may well be that Clement, with nothing to prove otherwise, believed the myth, which proves absolutely nothing about his other views. Im sure that we can find questionable comments in most of the ECF, they were all pagans before they were Christians. If we throw out the views of the ECF then we have to throw out much of our understanding of koiné Greek. For example, Homer Philo, Josephus. Lucian, Hermippus, Ignatius, Aristotle, Pythagorus. Hermes. Suetonius, are all listed in the definition of [size=+1]θεος[/size]/theos in the Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker lexicon of NT Greek. Link to Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker lexicon online.
I'm sure you have historical and verifiable proof and evidence that this is true and are just dying to post it, but first I have to inquire of you as to where the first church of which Pope Linus who began his reign in c.67 was located?
"The earliest witness is Irenaeus, who in about the year 180 wrote: "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate." The Oxford Dictionary of Popes interprets Irenaeus as saying that Linus was the first bishop of Rome. Linus is presented by Jerome as "the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman Church", by Eusebius, as "the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome, after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter"John Chrysostom says "This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter", [...] -Wickipedia -
What is your point? There was a church in Rome and it did have a bishop. There were also churches, in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Babylon, and several other major cities and they all had bishops and none were an authority over the churches in other cities. You can check this for yourself in 1075, Pope Gregory VII pronounced the title of pope the sole and peculiar dignity of the Bishops of Rome. In his Dictatus Papae, he stated that the pope had the right to depose emperors, that the popes authority is the authority of Christ, that the papal office alone was universal in its authority.
Why would I need any historical evidence that directly relates to your quotes? And once again ECF don't impress me much, and I have already given my reason as to why they don't.
And your unsupported opinion, assumptions/presuppositions impress me not at all.
The writings of the ECF is the historical evidence. Do you have anything other than your own opinion for rejecting Luke 16:19-1, and/or ECF?Says who? Oh, let me guess, the ECF. Right?
"It is recorded by Irenaeus, who heard him speak in his youth, and by Tertullian, that he had been a disciple of John the Apostle. Saint Jerome wrote that Polycarp was a disciple of John and that John had ordained him bishop of Smyrna."
"Perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of Polycarp's early manhood was his acquaintance with the apostle John. Twenty years they knew each other, and Polycarp had the privilege of studying at John's feet. It is easy to envy Polycarp. One can imagine listening to Jesus' beloved disciple speak of his years with the Lord and teach what Christ had taught him. All this careful training prepared him for work in the church."
Where is the credible, verifiable evidence that these men knew what they were talking about?
Upvote
0