Luke 16: 19-24

by vlad 47 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mondo1

  Hellrider,

  You miss the point. Jesus' use of story does not mean he is teaching the doctrine that they had, it means only that he was using the story to illustrate something in his parable. You seem to have this false idea that a parable must be based upon reality, which simply is not true. One cannot ignore that this text is not speaking of departed souls, but only whole people, able to drink, able to feel physical pain, etc. The parable, if you watch the context, is speaking of "the rich" and those "who God helps." Who, in context, are these? According to the context, what changed that would correlate to their deaths? And, if you continue reading, what is ever so tiny that one could relate to only a drop of water? If you can answer these questions, reading Luke 15-17, you'll understand the parable perfectly and you'll see how it has nothing to do with teaching of a reality and is merely language that his audience knew so to make it easy for him to relate the lesson.

  Now you ask a number of questions about if Jesus did the same thing in other places, and of course he didn't have to! We know 1) that this is based upon a preexisting tradition and 2) Jesus borrowed the language of the tradition and adapted it for his own purposes. He doesn't have to have done this more than once for him to have done it here. The fact that you have issue with taking the figures as symbols or representations of things defined in the context only demonstrates that you have not carefully studied the context!
• 

  Hellrider

  Mondo1:

  One cannot ignore that this text is not speaking of departed souls, but only whole people, able to drink, able to feel physical pain, etc. The parable, if you watch the context, is speaking of "the rich" and those "who God helps." Who, in context, are these? According to the context, what changed that would correlate to their deaths? And, if you continue reading, what is ever so tiny that one could relate to only a drop of water? If you can answer these questions, reading Luke 15-17, you'll understand the parable perfectly and you'll see how it has nothing to do with teaching of a reality and is merely language that his audience knew so to make it easy for him to relate the lesson.

  You are confusing the modern christian distinction sould vs. body with the contemporary distinction in judaism at the time. At the time, the distinction Jesus referred to was the pharisaic distinction between "life before death" and "life after death", which is not to be confused with the later christian distinction "dead body" vs. "living soul" (the greek distinction). But that there certainly was a distinction is evident from several books in the OT, which are filled with these references to a "dark" existence (!!!) in Sheol after death. In short, the jews had not yet been able to decide on whether the afterlife took form of a "raised body" (such as in 2 Maccabees) or whether there really was a real separation of soul and body (Book of Wisdom 9.15). The idea of bodily ressurection (and no, I`m not talking about the one after Armageddon) before Jesus` own ressurection is evident also in the legends concerning what happened to certain prophets of the Old Testament:

  "2 Kings 2:1,11
  And it came to pass, when the LORD would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal.
  And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

  This is the context in which Jesus speaks the words recorded in Luke 16. If you read the Gospels carefully, you will see that not on one single occasion does he disagree with the Pharisees on fundamental, doctrinal issues. Nowhere! He is criticising them for their behaviour and hypocricy, yes, but not for their doctrines (unlike the Saducees). This is the religious tradition Jesus was born into, this was judaism at the time he was born. There is absolutely no reason to assume that he was using a doctrine he did not believe in, in that parable.
  You will of course argue that Jesus was the first one raised from the dead, but that`s ok. We can argue over that too.
• 

  greendawn

  That is indeed what they say the parable is figurative, yet in Revelation we hear again of the lake of fire and sulfur where the Devl will be tormented for ever, is that figurative too?
• 

  Mondo1

  Hellrider,

  I see that you were unable to address the questions pertaining to the context of the parable that I presented and you also have not addressed that the rich man and Lazarus were not souls, but that they were in flesh! One does not need to find a distinction between soul and flesh to see the text plainly articulates that they are flesh, not immaterial, outside of the body. The text relates that Lazarus died and was carried away. He was not given another body, he was not outside of his body, he was simply carried away. So too for the rich man, he was simply buried, and from being buried he was "in hades." He was not carried away to hades, he was not given a new body, he was simply there from being buried.

  The only time that Jesus disagrees with the Sadducees was on the resurrection. He never disagreed with them on the matter of the soul and that it does not live on after death. So your point is moot.

  And as for Jesus in the resurrection, sure others were resurrected, but not in THE resurrection, to immortality, which is the NT focus.
• 

  Sarah Smiles

  M1 Does flesh and blood enter the heavens? hmm?

  Is the lake of fire that burns forever and ever in the thousand years?

  What really is the second death?

  I am going to need to read Luke 16:19-24 tonight, I be back on tomorrow night to read what you are writing!

  Right now, I am going to say it is an example and I can not take it literal, but on the other hand why have the parable if I can not take it literal. I do not think flesh will be able to enter the kingdom of God and Jesus was the first to go to heaven.

  Does the bible say there is a purgatory? with brim stones?

  I WILL BE BACK ON TOMORROW NIGHT TO READ MORE DEBATES ON THIS SCRIPTURE!
• 

  Sarah Smiles

  Can you tell me the typicial JW answer to why this scripture does not describe the after life, heaven and hell?

  J.W. will tell you The King James has many error and that is one of them. I remember reading something about hell and it was different in their NWT.

  Now that I have read the King James well I can see why people believe in a tormenting hell.

  Russell borrowed the no tormenting hell as well as soul from a fellow named George Storrs. You should read his books or look him up on the net. Good reading material.
• 

  LtCmd.Lore

  I see that you were unable to address the questions pertaining to the context of the parable that I presented and you also have not addressed that the rich man and Lazarus were not souls, but that they were in flesh!

  
  

  What makes you think they were in the flesh?

  Because it says they have eyes and other body parts? Compare Zechariah 2:8-9.

  Because he would be affected by physical things like water and fire? Compare Genesis 8:21: And Jehovah began to smell a restful odor,. . .

  Because they would be stopped by a chasm? Compare Revelation 20:3

  There is no indication that these dead people are ANY different than the other spirits talked about in the Bible.

  The text relates that Lazarus died and was carried away. He was not given another body, he was not outside of his body, he was simply carried away.

  So? Jesus also went right up into heaven, and the bible doesn't specify that he became a spirit up there.(Acts 1:9) I'm sure you assume that he became a spirit, but of course you don't WANT to believe the Lazarus story so therefore you don't make the same assumption.

  And Elijah was carried into heaven on a windstorm, the Bible doesn't say that he was given another body, he was not outside of his body, he was simply carried away. (2 Kings 2:11-12)

  Lore
• 

  Hellrider

  Don`t expect Mondo1 to answer these questions. He has always refused to take a stand on questions he could not possibly answer, because his religion can`t answer them.

  Ok Mondo1, let me be more specific: What happened to Elijah after he had been swept away to heaven? The Bible doesn`t say, but let us speculate. Did he "live out his years" and then die, up there in heaven? Did God just take him up there so he could grow old and die, up there?
• 

  Mondo1

  Lore,

  You cannot legitimately compare this text to others that have anthropomorphic language. It is exegetically dishonest, as these are humans and so not presenting anthropomorphisms! 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. This does not necessitate that the events actually transpired, only that it was a story that his listeners (the Pharisees) had a general understanding of.

  Your comparison between this and Jesus and Elijah is non sequetur. Those two were alive, in the parable these two are said to have died.
• 

  Mondo1

  Hellrider,

  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).