Luke 16: 19-24

by vlad 44 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Lady Liberty
    Lady Liberty

    Dear Vlad,

    WELCOME to the forum! We are happy to have you here!

    Sincerely,

    Lady Liberty

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider
    You, and others, continue to miss the point that Jesus didn't pull this story out of thin air, but there was a preexisting tradition from which he drew.

    Mondo1 conveniently ignores that in all other instances where Jesus is confronted with doctrines he does not support (such as when confronted by the Saducees on the issue of the ressurection), he speaks out against it! So, given the fact that Jesus corrects people when he hears of incorrect beliefs strongly suggests that in the least, he would never use an incorrect doctrine to "prove a point", even in a parable.

    And still, Mondo is not adressing the points made, he just "talks around it", looking for loopholes, in true Jehovahs Witness-tradition.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Please see this earlier post of mine which shows how the concept of postmortem fiery torment in this parable fits into the scope of early Jewish and Christian writings. It was practically a leitmotif in the apocalyptic literature as well as references to it elsewhere in admonitions and the like: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/134604/2396862/post.ashx#2396862

    BTW, the Society also errs in assuming that the parable must be allegorical if it is a parable. Only some of the parables are allegorical, others -- particularly the narrative ones -- rather describe an idealized situation that is instructive to the Christian. These are particularly common in the third gospel, cf. the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-32 and the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37. These are closer in literary terms to the Parable of Rich Man and Lazarus, and none of these are allegorical.

  • Sarah Smiles
    Sarah Smiles
    Yes, and if a religious organization really wants to engage in some interpretative gymnastics, they can claim that twelve figurative tribes of a figurative 12,000 men all equal a literal number of 144,000.

    And.... by reading what Upton Sinclair wrote regarding "The Our Race" by the WTBTS the twelve tribes came from Ireland and their were only ten tribes! I would like to find this pamphlet!

    More questions: I can see that the purple represented rich and not pharisees. Since people did not go to heaven until after Jesus. It seems a warning for people that if they waste their money on elobrate clothing instead of helping a poor beggar, they will go to a place where they will be thirsty in hell.

    I am thinking, thirsty and water represent represents God's truth or holy spirit giving to mankind through out time by Moses and the prophets! His brothers probably would not listen to the truth if Abraham sent them a messager. .

    Maybe people are rich because they have the word and if they do not share it with others they will go to hell. This is my personal viewpoint and does not have anything to do with WTBTS views.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Mondo1....It is a rather fine distinction that you are making but I do not see any sign in the text that Jesus or the author of Luke did NOT share the eschatology that you acknowledge was part of the Pharisee (and Essene) belief system, and which is found in other gospel traditions such as those in Matthew and Mark. Comparing Jewish (i.e. Pharisee and Essene) and Christian texts side by side, it is hard to see much difference between them in broad themes except in matters of detail (and this is expected because of the fluid nature of apocalyptic traditions). You are correct that the POINT of the parable is not to teach about the nature of postmortem torment per se but to give a moral lesson, yet that does not mean that Jesus was merely appropriating language of an eschatological belief he did not himself share....the POINT of the parable indeed turns on the reality of what is being described (cf. v. 28-31 on it being taught in Moses and the Prophets and the failure of knowledge of this eventuality convincing people to repent even if someone rises from the dead to tell them), without which the parable would make as much sense as the Parable of the Good Samaritan would if Samaritans were really prestigious highly-placed members of Jewish society.

  • Mondo1
    Mondo1

    Hellrider,

    Please show me where Jesus confronts the idea of the soul's preexistence please.

  • Mondo1
    Mondo1

    Leolaia,

    I would disagree that the outlook is seen within Matthew, Mark or Luke. The point is that the figures in the parable typify individuals to whom Jesus is speaking to, namely, the Pharisees and the sinners to whom he is speaking. Undoubtedly some of the NT language resembles, even closely, some of the language used in extra-Biblical Jewish texts regarding the the outcome for the wicked, but one must inquired of whether or not these texts are merely drawing upon existing language, with the authors fitting them into their own views. I would suggest that such is the case, for much of the language is drawn, for example, from Daniel and Duetero-Isaiah. As an example, Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go out and see the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against Me; for their worm shall not die, nor shall their fire be put out; and they shall be an object of disgust to all flesh.

  • mkr32208
    mkr32208

    Hee Hee Hee, I like this mondo character. He's as slippery as scholar!

    I'll have to check his backstory!

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider

    Mondo1:

    Hellrider,

    Please show me where Jesus confronts the idea of the soul's preexistence please.

    The idea of the souls pre-existence isn`t necessarily present in the NT. The passage you are referring to refers to the old jewish idea/belief that some day, the departed prophets would return. This idea is in itself based on the jewish belief that the "souls" (in some sense) of the departed rightous go to heaven, while the souls of the wicked go to Sheol. If Jesus confirms this womans belief in this old doctrine, there is nothing neither shocking nor surprising about that, as he himself was part of this jewish tradition. But the idea of an ancient prophet (in this case Elijah) coming back to earth in the form of John the baptist, has nothing to do with the souls pre-existence, it is more in the sense of rebirth (a soul that lived before, was swept away to heaven to return at a later date, in a new body - in this case taking on the function of a messenger preparing the way for Jesus). Jesus never confronts this idea, and there is nothing unchristian about accepting that this might happen.

    I personally believe he was taken elsewhere on earth, but it doesn't matter to much, because if he was taken to heaven and lived forever, he was still not resurrected because he simply never died, so my point remains. It is amazing though that you deny Jesus' express words that nobody has ascended to heaven (John 3:13) and Paul's express statement that Jesus was the first raised (Col. 1:18; 1Cor. 15:20).

    Pauls statement must be understood within it`s context. As we allready know that others were raised before him, for example by Jesus, we know that Paul obviously means "raised incorruptible and immortal", right? And so, within this context, to create an over-all acceptable doctrine on this issue, we must assume that the others that were raised before, were raised to some other state. This is obvious. Lazarus was raised, but would eventually grow old and die. In other words, there are different kinds of ressurection, and you have to acknowledge this, or you will have to ignore the other instances of ressurection in the Bible, among them, the ressurections Christ performed. As for John 3: Well, the fact remains that 2 Kings 2 says: and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

    How do you solve this, then? Do you, in true Jehovahs Witness-manner just close your eyes when you are confronted with this verse in 2 Kings (to maintain your allready established doctrine of no-soul), or do you try to harmonize them? I personally choose the latter. I would say...clearly, heaven is a big place. Perhaps what Jesus is referring to in John is...the "inner abode", or something like that... Anyway, you can`t ignore 2 Kings. If you wish to "save" the Bible, and claim that there are no disreprancies (which I would assume you want, as you believe in it), then you have to harmonize the scriptures! Not choose one and ignore the ones that do not "fit"! That is not acceptable!

  • Mondo1
    Mondo1

    hellrider,

    So are you saying then that if the NT doesn't comment on something that it is true or isn't true, because many of the Jews accepted this idea of the soul's preexistence. Your argument is that Jesus argues against false teachings that he is confronted with, but Luke 16 is not dealing with a confrontation. It merely presents Christ using a preexisting tradition to present a moral lesson. Again, such does not indicate that the tradition is reality (nor does the use in itself deny it, though one could well argue that some of the things presented may make it implicit that it is not reality), only that the language suited his lesson.

    On the resurrection, I agree that Christ was the first raised incorruptible and immortal, and that was my point. Being such is what one is in THE resurrection. Christ was the first to be this.

    With regards for 2 Kings, I know from Jesus' statement that he is speaking of heaven as the spirit realm, for this is where he came from. However, "heaven" refers to this, space (the location of the stars) and simply the sky. I would therefore put forth, per Jesus' statement, that Elijah was not taken to the spirit realm, it makes little sense to say he was taken into space, so he must have been taken far up into the sky and from there to another location on the earth.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit