Evidence for God from Science

We were discussing Luke 16 in Sunday school today and last Sunday, and the teacher says that Jesus presents this story as something that actually happened, not a parable. What say you guys?

Swamper wrote:We were discussing Luke 16 in Sunday school today and last Sunday, and the teacher says that Jesus presents this story as something that actually happened, not a parable. What say you guys?

There are 2 parables in Luke 16. Which one? Further on what basis does your teacher make this assertion?

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Swamper wrote:We were discussing Luke 16 in Sunday school today and last Sunday, and the teacher says that Jesus presents this story as something that actually happened, not a parable. What say you guys?

There are 2 parables in Luke 16. Which one? Further on what basis does your teacher make this assertion?

The one about the poor man Lazarus and the rich man. I assume that he says it isn't a parable because it doesn't begin with Jesus saying "The kingdom of heaven is like this" or somesuch. Not exactly sure.

OK. Thanks for clarifying.

There are many instances in the New Testament where Jesus spoke in parables without announcing before each one, like a formula, that this was a parable, a simile, or a metaphore. In fact, Jesus when he spoke to the crowds used parables primarily and then explained them in private to his disciples.

The chapter and verse divisions in Luke are not inspired. They were not in the original.

The section of scripture in chapter 16 ties to chapter 15, which certainly were parables and in fact tie back further into Luke 14:25-26 which sets the stage as Jesus speaking to a crowd that included more than just his disciples, so you can assume that parables were the primary means of his teaching.

Further the Lazarus parable follows criticisms by the Pharisees and is used to refute them.

Read the whole passage from Luke 14:25 through the end of Luke 16 and see how many parable there are there and of them you should find only one that uses a formula or formal introduction as a parable.

Usually, taking a parable and making it into a real story is based on a desire to apply some elements of the parable outside of Christ's intent to support some doctrine that is weak or non-existent elsewhere. This parable is used by many in this way to try and support the idea of annihilation rather than an eternal hell.

I don't know if that was the intent in your class of course, but I'd be curious as to what point was being made.

Hope this helps,

Blessings,

Bart

I'm not sure I believe it, but I have always heard it said that this was not a parable because it used proper names, such as Lazarus and Abraham, and literal places such as hell. To say this is just a story of an illustration of a deeper spiritual message could cast doubt on those things in some people eyes.

FFC wrote:I'm not sure I believe it, but I have always heard it said that this was not a parable because it used proper names, such as Lazarus and Abraham, and literal places such as hell. To say this is just a story of an illustration of a deeper spiritual message could cast doubt on those things in some people eyes.

Matt 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable. (NASB ©1995)

Who was Jesus speaking to in this passage?

Canuckster1127 wrote:

FFC wrote:I'm not sure I believe it, but I have always heard it said that this was not a parable because it used proper names, such as Lazarus and Abraham, and literal places such as hell. To say this is just a story of an illustration of a deeper spiritual message could cast doubt on those things in some people eyes.

Matt 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable. (NASB ©1995)

Who was Jesus speaking to in this passage?

Jesus wasn't speaking in that passage.

I mean in the Luke 16 passage. Sorry I wasn't clear.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I mean in the Luke 16 passage. Sorry I wasn't clear.

Sorry, I thought you were asking that about Matthew 13:34.

In Luke 16 He was talking to His disciples. Luke 16:1 starts with the text, "Jesus told this story to his disciples:" I think Luke 16:19 is a continuation of the discussion He was having with His disciples. Since He wasn't talking to a crowd maybe this wasn't a parable and was a literal story of something that did happen.

At the risk of sounding like a cop out, I'm going to say that it doesn't matter if it was or was not a parable. I would say probably so, but if it turns out it was a real event, well fine, too. The importance is not the historicity of the story, but what it teaches. Second of all, and I think this is the bigger issue as far as criticism goes, Jesus did not accomdate belief systems just to teach a spiritual lesson. In other words, he did NOT appeal not non-existent figures or false ideas to convey a truth. In other words, while the story may not be historical, Jesus' telling of it tells us that it could have been.

Thus, we see things like the great chasm, the torturous existence of the non-believer in Hades, the comfort of the believer in paradise, etc., are all REALITIES. That's why I say the historicity, in this particular case, doesn't matter. The truth of the account isn't based on whether the event actually happened, as it would be in other passages. *shrug*

Good point, Jac.

Jac3510 wrote:At the risk of sounding like a cop out, I'm going to say that it doesn't matter if it was or was not a parable. I would say probably so, but if it turns out it was a real event, well fine, too. The importance is not the historicity of the story, but what it teaches. Second of all, and I think this is the bigger issue as far as criticism goes, Jesus did not accomdate belief systems just to teach a spiritual lesson. In other words, he did NOT appeal not non-existent figures or false ideas to convey a truth. In other words, while the story may not be historical, Jesus' telling of it tells us that it could have been.

Thus, we see things like the great chasm, the torturous existence of the non-believer in Hades, the comfort of the believer in paradise, etc., are all REALITIES. That's why I say the historicity, in this particular case, doesn't matter. The truth of the account isn't based on whether the event actually happened, as it would be in other passages. *shrug*

On one level I can accept that, but I do think it's an important question to answer because the form of the story directly impact the implications of the details.

Parables in general, are pithy stories given to illustrate one main point which Jesus was seeking to make. Parables are not allegories. There is not a one to one match up with all the elements of the parable, to make a direct parallel or issue of each element.

If it's not a parable but rather historical narrative in which Jesus is reporting something real in the sense that from his position as the Son of God he is stating that this occured, or as you note, could have occured, then the details DO become relevent and parallels in this manner are appropriate and as I noted before, the use of the text in question in this manner has led to some problems. (That's backwards reasoning I understand. The text is above that consideration. I simply state it to illustrate the importance of the issue.)

I think if you're going to hold to inspiration and inerrency, which I know you do, then the form used becomes highly important so that the message intended can be received in proper context and with proper determination of the importance of the side issues.

Canuckster1127 wrote:On one level I can accept that, but I do think it's an important question to answer because the form of the story directly impact the implications of the details.

Parables in general, are pithy stories given to illustrate one main point which Jesus was seeking to make. Parables are not allegories. There is not a one to one match up with all the elements of the parable, to make a direct parallel or issue of each element.

If it's not a parable but rather historical narrative in which Jesus is reporting something real in the sense that from his position as the Son of God he is stating that this occured, or as you note, could have occured, then the details DO become relevent and parallels in this manner are appropriate and as I noted before, the use of the text in question in this manner has led to some problems. (That's backwards reasoning I understand. The text is above that consideration. I simply state it to illustrate the importance of the issue.)

I think if you're going to hold to inspiration and inerrency, which I know you do, then the form used becomes highly important so that the message intended can be received in proper context and with proper determination of the importance of the side issues.

I agree with what you are saying, but I think you might have missed the underlying idea in my statement. In all of Jesus' parables, He never used a false idea or myth or legend to get His point across. In other words, He didn't use non-reality to portray reality. Rich men, poor men, angels, vines, grapes, pearls, and treasures all actually exist.

Now, whether or not the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a historical account, its purpose is NOT explicitly to teach about such things as Hades, Abraham's Bosom, or the Great Chasm. The reason Jesus told the story was to emphasize that the Pharisees had everything they needed before them to believe. Nothing else--not even a man back from the dead--would change their mind (hint, hint!).

However, WE can also use to story to learn things about Hades, Abraham's Bosom, and the Great Chasm, not because they are details that have to or don't have to line up with some greater reality, but rather because the fact that those details are mentioned--while they may have no bearing on the POINT of the story--prove that Jesus is acknowledging their actual existence.

That, of course, is the reason people want the story to be historical. If it really happened, then we can know those places and things work in those ways. If it isn't historical, people assume they can write off those things as "just a parable." But that isn't the way Jesus worked. Even if it is a parable, Jesus never appealed to faulty theology to prove His case. Therefore, the historicity, or lack-there-of, of the story, has no bearing on either its interpretation OR on its theological value relatng to the after life.

Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" KJV

Titus 1:2: In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began..."KJV

Was Jesus lying? You decide?

Luke16:19, "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores..." KJV
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" KJV

Titus 1:2: In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began..."KJV

Was Jesus lying? You decide?

Luke16:19, "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores..." KJV
-
-
-

How does that help? If it's a parable, lying doesn't enter into it.