[John]

I don’t think we do because there is no introduction for it being a parable. In the NIV the word “parable” is mentioned 26x in Luke. It isn’t mentioned here so I don’t consider it a parable.

[Lyn]

Interesting point. all the articles I am reading there seems to be a consensus among the authors that Luke 16 is a parable.(period) Why? 😕

[Algernon]

At its most broad, the Greek word that gets translated as “parable” means “figurative language”.

Seems like most Christians use a much narrower definition (likely learned in Bible School).

Consider the following:

Matthew 13

33He spoke another parable to them: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three sata of flour until it was all leavened.”

34All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak anything to them without a parable. 35This was so that what was spoken through the prophet would be fulfilled.

Also consider John 6: when Jesus uses the metaphors “bread from heaven”, “His blood” and “His flesh” as tokens for “the words He spoke” (while preaching His gospel)”, He was speaking in “parables”.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.

[Lyn]

Can you list some good references to research?

[Algernon]

Can you elaborate on what parts you find unclear and therefore are seeking to research?

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.

[John]

In Matthew Jesus was speaking to a crowd. In Luke he was speaking to his disciples. In John, Jesus was clearly stating that just as God kept the Israelites alive by bread from heaven, he will keep those who believe in him alive through belief in him–the bread from heaven…the bread of life. I don’t see the connecting between John 6 and Luke 16.

We also have the important difference between John and Luke that John’s Gospel is an eyewitness statement and Luke’s is not. Whoever you believe the author of Luke to be, he got his story from someone else.

[Algernon]

Don’t see the connection between John 6 and Luke 16? Have you lost sight of what the OP is asking?

Jesus was clearly stating that…he will keep those who believe in him alive through belief in him? This is a very superficial understanding of what Jesus is saying in John 6. Go deeper. For example, what exactly does “belief in him” entail? Believe what exactly?

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.

[jayceeii]

Indeed, all Christians fail the test of belief, scrupulously defining it hypocritically down the ages. What they have missed is that confessing “Jesus is Lord” means admitting God can take on a human body not only once, but any time He wishes it. Christianity is thus set up to continue persecuting and slaying the visible God, as it demands a spiritual event.

[Algernon]

Confessing “Jesus is Lord” entails abiding in and keeping Jesus’ word. Jesus said this more than a few times in more than a few different ways. Hearing, understanding, believing, following, abiding and keeping His word. It’s a logical progression.

“If you abide in My word, then you are truly my disciples”.

“The one who has My commandments and keeps them, is the one who loves Me”

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord” and do not do what I say”?

[jayceeii]

Ah, you confess things are exactly as I say, that the term “Lord” is not equated to “God.” Therefore Christianity exists in fundamental denial of the basic act it says God could do.

Now, it is also important that if Jesus did not give an adequate word so that people following it could please God, they’d need to respond to another appearance to do so.

For instance if Jesus had also appeared as Buddha, then there is a more difficult list of commandments humans would need to follow, such as undertaking the task of sadhana.

[Algernon]

Ah, you confess things are exactly as I say, that the term “Lord” is not equated to “God.” Therefore Christianity exists in fundamental denial of the basic act it says God could do.

Where, in your mind, exactly did I “confess things are exactly as [you] say”?

My post was meant to oppose the following which you wrote earlier:

What they have missed is that confessing “Jesus is Lord” means admitting God can take on a human body not only once, but any time He wishes it.

[jayceeii]

You are basically arguing, “It cannot be this totally obvious thing any child should see, but must be something arcane that only old men forming a committee would be able to see.” Surely if you admit Jesus was God embodied, you admit God can take on a body. Surely it follows that if He can do so once, He can do so again and may in fact be motivated to do so as often as He can, since it His sole direct interface with the creation.

Then, “Jesus is Lord, Jesus is Lord,” that all Christians proclaim, is empty of, “Jesus is God, the God who can embody and would,” that is something that Hinduism does allow. You make a demand that God can only do this once, because the Bible contains an errant line about the Second Coming being in spirit only, though this is NOT the power Christianity admits God has shown. You deny powers you admit and posit unproved ones.

[Algernon]

You are basically arguing, “It cannot be this totally obvious thing any child should see, but must be something arcane that only old men forming a committee would be able to see.”

Not at all. You have quite the imagination. Just because you believe something, doesn’t make it true.

Surely if you admit Jesus was God embodied, you admit God can take on a body…You make a demand that God can only do this once, because the Bible contains an errant line about the Second Coming being in spirit only, though this is NOT the power Christianity admits God has shown. You deny powers you admit and posit unproved ones.

Where exactly did I “admit Jesus was God embodied”? If you believe that my posts on this thread include such an admission, by all means, provide quotes from my posts that support your assertion.

What’s more, while Jesus preached His gospel, He never claimed to literally be God. Nor did Jesus even claim be the literal “son of God”.

Though this seems to be completely alien to you, there’s much to be said about employing solid evidence and sound reasoning.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.

[jayceeii]

Fascinating. You reveal that among rank and file Christians there is no genuine belief in a Living God, despite the doctrine of the Trinity which is evidently mouthed without meaning. You reveal that Christians are willing to think of Jesus as a man just like them. This strips the religion of its purported salvatory force, where a genuine God is required.

[Algernon]

Once again, you’ve jumped to completely unfounded conclusions. One would think that you would check yourself after having just been called out on it.

Once again: “Though this seems to be completely alien to you, there’s much to be said about employing solid evidence and sound reasoning.”

Consider this:

Christianity has the Pauline gospel as its foundation instead of the gospel preached by Jesus. For all intents and purposes, the Pauline gospel is antithetical to the gospel preached by Jesus. Christianity has been built upon an extremely unsound foundation. Ever wonder why there is so much blatant hypocrisy? Blatant dishonesty – intellectual and otherwise? Ever wonder why it was said: “Your Christians are so unlike your Christ”? By and large, Christians are the modern-day Pharisees; “white-washed tombs”, if not “wolves in sheep’s clothing”.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.

[jayceeii]

This all began with my pointing out the Christian idea of belief in Jesus is inadequate, and you now appear to be arguing my case. Your “calling out” seems to require a mind reader. Christianity is indeed completely alien to me, as a living person. If you are now agreeing with me, though strangely angry about it, you still are unable to present this argument from any justified quarter. There are no religions on Earth I will call justified.

[Algernon]

Arguing your case? Angry? Require a mind reader? Hardly. Just someone with reasonably good reading comprehension skills and reasonably good critical thinking skills that doesn’t jump to conclusions. Your ability to “read between the lines” isn’t nearly as good as you seem to like to think it is.

[jayceeii]

You make no points at all here. None. You merely boast about your reading skills. Believe me, it’s a big deal if the biggest religion on Earth does not point at the Lord.

There would be no option but to read between the lines, in a paragraph without points. I won’t make an attempt. If you are a Christian, you are not justified by Jesus’ standards.

[Algernon]

Once again you’ve failed to comprehend much of anything. Seems like a little humility on your part would really help. For someone who seems to have something of a Buddhist view, you really are quite prideful.

If you are a Christian, you are not justified by Jesus’ standards.

That said, this is an interesting assertion by you. What exactly do you think are “Jesus’ standards”? Make your best case. Be sure to provide supporting scripture.

[jayceeii]

You again have no points, falling down to ad hominem attacks. My main interest at this forum is in establishing that Jesus is “off the hook,” for anything Christians believe is their due. He made vague promises which have been interpreted in the most selfish ways.

I can repeat what I said before but your mind can’t process, the doctrine of the Trinity binds you to a belief that Jesus was God, and if He was not then there is no saving power. If God can embody once He can do so again. In denying this, you are denying the Lord.

In short, Christians fail the most basic test of belief, since they do not believe in a practical sense that Jesus is God, when they proclaim “Jesus is Lord.” Jesus promised something to those who believe in Him, but we learn Christians think of him as a man.

[jayceeii]

I’m looking from a legalistic standpoint, that as God, did Jesus say anything that might incriminate Him as faithless to the people? It turns out no, the standard He gave, while seemingly easy to implement, is actually quite difficult: to think realistically about God.

I said a child could see it, and here’s how. “Young Billy, that’s the guy we think can save us.” Billy replies, “He must be someone special, not an ordinary human being. But if he is God, he must have the power to embody. Why does Christianity insist He can’t do so?”

Christians are found saying, “Lord, Lord,” but without a practical understanding it is God, exactly what Jesus predicted about the faithless who must be cast away from Him. Christianity is then found to be the “wide way,” that looks easy but leads to destruction.

Matthew 7:13-14 NKJV “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.

[John]

The question was about “parables”. I don’t see the connection.

[Algernon]

Not sure where you’re getting lost. You often also seem to get lost when reading scripture, so there is that…

From the OP:

Question about Luke 16. On what ground do we declare the story of the Rich man and lazarus a parable?

From the post in question:

At its most broad, the Greek word that gets translated as “parable” means “figurative language”…

…consider John 6: when Jesus uses the metaphors “bread from heaven”, “His blood” and “His flesh” as tokens for “the words He spoke” (while preaching His gospel)”, He was speaking in “parables”.

Luke 16 is allegory. John 6 is metaphor. Both allegory and metaphor are figurative language.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.

[John]

We are dealing with English translations of Greek translations. The Gospels were not written in Greek. There is NO PROOF of that. John was an eyewitness who documented HIS testimony and he was not Greek. That statement is documented in his Gospel. The Gospel of Matthew was written by Nicodemus and he was not Greek.

Every time Jesus and his disciples mentioned whatever word translates to “parable” it is representative of “examples.” Jesus body and blood are not an example of the bread of life–it IS the bread of life. That is why that reference was not used. Of course you’ll come up with some more BS and name calling.

[Algernon]

What does any of this have to do with what I’ve been posting?

For that matter, what does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?

[EquipAdmin]

Hello Lyn!

I took a class on the parables in Luke last semester, and we covered this passage. I thought this segment from my notes might be helpful:

“Certain rich man” is the key to knowing we are in a parable (cf. Luke 7:41; 10:30-33; 12:16; 13:6; 14:16; 15:11; 16:1; 19:12; 20:9). Now, Jesus is going to put a name to the “certain beggar” on purpose.

Looking briefly at the Greek to double check these references, the language of “a certain” man or “a certain” moneylender, etc. does seem to mark Jesus’ launch into all of these parables. This would be a slightly weird way to talk if one didn’t do it for a specific purpose, just the same way that it would be odd for us to introduce a real life story with that language.

I can check some commentaries as well if you want, but my guess is that this would be one of their primary arguments!

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Equip Admin.

[Lyn]

This is interesting way to conclude this is a parable. Examining Jesus’s patterns of speech as he tells a parable. There are many resources available, just haven’t found one that lists all criteria for a Jesus parable. Yes, it would be helpful to find conservative theologian resources that will back up this theory.

I agree, it would be odd if suddenly Jesus uses the wording for beginning a parable with a real life story. What does this say about the teaching method used by Jesus?

According to Freedman, D.N. (Ed.) (2019) ” Lazarus is “the only named character in Jesus’s parables…Luke’s theological theme that “God helps” the poor. Lazarus is a common Jewish name Elazar, meaning “God helps”.

In the ‘Doctrine of Man’ (Part 6), 2023 October 21, The Rich Man and Lazarus is identified as a parable which suggests an ontological dualism of soul and body Luke 16:19ff … a person doesn’t simply cease to exist when he is dead and buried. (15:04) dualism of soul and body. 🌞