Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by Silk, Feb 28, 2013.
I've never read the parable of the pope's resignation. where is that?
Well, Benny quit. We chose a new one. Seems like a decent fellow, touch of humility in this one.
Yes, but have you noticed the innuendo and bad mouthing about him has already started
Seems genuine, too. Let's see what he can do.
As a generalization you are probably correct, but there are specifics that will always run contrary to any rules we try to identify. You raise an interesting observation about the use of proper names. We only know of two with the name Lazarus.
The most well known is the guy that spent four days in a tomb. Interestingly he was a rich person.
But getting back to the Luke16 passage; It is strange that Jesus would mention Lazarus by name but not the rich guy. If this poor Lazarus was known to the Jesus' audience, it is indeed reasonable that the rich guy would have been well known too.
This is especially so in view of the observation that the Pharisees were lovers of wealth Luke 16:14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him.
It is a rather long stretch to say that Lazarus was widely known, (enough so as to make it reasonable to name him) and the wealthy guy was not. Don't you think?
Unreal imagery? that is a debatable point IMO. V3 says what follows is a parable...Yes?
Luke 15:3 So he told them this parable:
Luke 15:4 "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it?
Two main things..... 1. Someone having 100 sheep would in all probability employ a shepherd.
2. Nobody in their right mind would leave a herd of sheep out in the open and unguarded for the wolves to snack on while they went off looking for one truant.
That parable Jack, IMO qualifies as a user of unreal imagery.
Back to Lazarus. this is just a private musing on my part, but I wonder if the real Lazarus, might not have been a bit uncaring of the destitute. It is said that Jesus loved him, so maybe the breaking of tradition by naming only one but transposing fortunes...might have been a gentle hint to the real Lazarus...In other words "Hey Lazarus buddy, how would you feel..."....just a thought.
I doubt if naming or not naming anyone means much. The purpose of the parable or even real life incidents is what matters, not their proper names:
The woman with issue of blood of blood for 12 years mentioned in all the Gospels save John? Nameless.
The Syrophenician that whose daughter was delivered from demons, the pagan that Jesus took His longest walk to see and said her faith was "great"? Nameless
and where are all the names for all those healed and delivered...or the case of the child and the young man, raised from the dead?
To hinge an entire "state of the dead" theology merely because ONE parable includes names would mean that NOT naming names decreases their value?
Not to me.
Now that I have just made a new enemy, maybe I can try for #2?
You might like to view the following topic. In it, I argue with myself, and any and all comers
The trouble with your two dispensations idea is that there is only ever two resurrections mentioned....not many.
Either a person is part of the first resurrection or they're in trouble mega big time at the second resurrection. Do you know of any others?
As for what a parable is, sinse it is a translation of the Greek παραβολην, we need to look to the Greek to see what it means...not Websters.
① someth. that serves as a model or example pointing beyond itself for later realization, type, figure παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα a symbol (pointing) to the present age Hb 9:9. ἐν παραβολῇ as a type (of the violent death and of the resurrection of Christ) 11:19. λέγει ὁ προφήτης παραβολὴν κυρίου B 6:10, where the mng. may be the prophet is uttering a parable of the Lord (Goodsp.), or the prophet speaks of the Lord in figurative language (Kleist), or the prophet speaks in figurative language given him by the Lord. W. αἴνιγμα PtK 4 p. 15, 31. The things of the present or future cannot be understood by the ordinary Christian διὰ τὸ ἐν παραβολαῖς κεῖσθαι because they are expressed in figures B 17:2.
② a narrative or saying of varying length, designed to illustrate a truth especially through comparison or simile, comparison, illustration, parable, proverb, maxim.
ⓐ in the synoptics the word refers to a variety of illustrative formulations in the teaching of Jesus (in Mt 17 times, in Mk 13 times, in Lk 18 times; cp. Euclides [400 b.c.] who, acc. to Diog. L. 2, 107, rejected ὁ διὰ παραβολῆς λόγος; Aristot., Rhet. 2, 20, 2ff; Περὶ ὕψους 37; Vi. Aesopi II p. 307, 15 Eb.; Biogr. p. 87 Ὁμήρου παραβολαί; Philo, Conf. Lingu. 99; Jos., Ant. 8, 44. The Gk. OT also used παραβολή for various words and expressions that involve comparison, including riddles [s. Jülicher below: I2 32–40].—En 1:2; 3. Cp. π. κυριακαί Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv I 67, 1]). For prob. OT influence on the use of comparison in narrative s. Ezk 17. λέγειν, εἰπεῖν παραβολήν: Lk 13:6; 16:19 D; 19:11 (begins the longest ‘parable’ in the synoptics: 17 verses). τινί to someone
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) . University of Chicago Press: Chicago
Be careful of some of the text here...it is not scripture, just illustrative example. The primary definitions and the reference to Luke have been emphasized for clarity.
Exactly, Calvin: a parable is just as the above states.
Nobody asked me for my theological perspective I'll give it anyway.
When dealing with Bible interpretation, there are a few disciplines that need to be embraced.
Form: what are we looking at? wisdom literature, prophesy, pastoral epistle, history, poetry, what?
Context: What are the circumstances surrounding the text we are studying?
Meaning: What might the original recipients of the passage have understood or were supposed to understand.
Significance: We are not the original recipients of the passage, so what application does it have for us today?
In addition to the above, everything should be established by the testimony of at least two witnesses. If two witnesses can not be found, and there is no forensic support, then we need to proceed with caution.
So in the case of the Luke 16 passage, there are not two or more witnesses....so we need to proceed with caution because there is little forensic support.
OK, Form is a no 'brainer'.....it is gospel Narrative.
Context: Hmm yes well here is gunna be a bone of contention perhaps...perhaps not.
Ask, where do these passages about Lazarus and the rich man fit within the gospel narrative?
We need to go back to Luke 15:1,2. Jesus was drawing crowds, and raising the ire of the ubiquitous Scribes and Pharisees.
Throughout Ch 15, and up to Ch16 V14, Jesus talks mostly of money matters as far as the Pharisees understand.
Now, in V14, the Pharisees ridicule Jesus, and His response begins with V15, and really continues through to Ch 17:4.
During this dialog Jesus uses several stories to teach spiritual truth. Bur back of every thing He says, is the error of the Pharisaic teachings.
He corrects the teaching on divorce and remarriage, and money matters. The telling of the adventures of Lazarus which falls within this whole episode is just one example of Him contending against His enemies. The idea that people were disbelieving the message of Moses and the prophets was not directed toward the disciples, but toward the Pharisees.
Meaning: I'm outta time you can join the dots. But remember, there are no witnesses to corroborate the story, so you will need to apply some forensic investigation
Good job, Cuz....Couldn't agree more.
Few Brethren will use the term 'Plymouth Brethren', Open or Exclusive. But among those outside, the term can apply to either.
Well, personally I am an ole country boy who was blessed with a little education from wonderful parents and have chosen to serve the Lord in the Baptist faith.
Not because it is special or good but simply because IMHO it comes the closest to Bible interpretations.
I was raised up in the Baptist church, and still have great respect for the truths taught there. There really isn't much difference between Baptists and the Brethren in the main. The most obvious difference would be the fact that our assemblies do not have one man in a position of being the 'pastor', and we celebrate the Lord's supper every Sunday morning. But, like the Baptists, our congregations are autonomous, our worship is simple, and we baptize adults by immersion.
Actually, the Open Brethren might "baptize adults by immersion" but "household baptism" is also practiced by certain Brethren....which includes children.
JACK: Interesting thought. Of course, there's no way to tell for sure.
Hi Darby. No elders?
Yes, we have elders in the assembly who act as shepherds.
Baptist also baptize children, those who have reached the age of accountability....but not infants.
I am under the impression that the Brethern are of the same disposition.
Yes, they are. We only baptize those who can understand the gospel and profess a saving faith in Christ.
Some sects of the denomination teach this, but as I said
My reference :