Patron Saint Joseph of Home Sales

[RND]

double post

[RND]

The major theme in Luke 16 is the Pharisees' materialism and their scoffing. Your point about their "adultery" toward the scriptures is creative, but overwrought. Verses 16-18 may be seen as addressing the content of Pharisaic scoffing, which is otherwise unspecified in this chapter.

And I think your view regarding Luke 16:19-31 is rather flaccid considering the absolutely rich and colorful descriptions used in the parable. Each and every one of Jesus' parables contain valuable teaching on doctrine and personal responsibility. This one is no different. Materialism and scoffing? In relation to the other parables this is simply inconsistent. On the other hand, striving to join with other gods and other 'theology' has always been associated with 'whore mongering.'

Lev 20:5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

Deu 31:16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go [to be] among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.

Materialism and scoffing? That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

Jesus may have been utilizing a popular myth as a rhetorical device, for discussion of which please see my forthcoming response to Michelle below. But it is also possible that this is a more or less secondary item that was glommed on to Jesus in the process of oral tradition.

May have been? As sure as I'm sitting at a computer in California Jesus was using the Hellenistic views of the duality of man that the Pharisees adopted from the Greeks against them.

It is more than obvious.

If "son of man" is understood as referencing an immortal being in Acts 7, then barring an ironic use, there is not a universal sense of mortality attached to the phrase. But of course, the phrase is a common circumlocution for "human being" in biblical literature. On one hand, the phrase can connote some humbleness; on another hand, it is a serviceable device within the poetic forms of Hebrew parallelism. But there is no reason to construe it as a marker of mortality in particular. Generally speaking, an immortal human would still be a "son of man" - derivative in their existence.

So? What's the difference between 'son of man' and 'Son of man?' Besides verse 3 of Psalms 146 has little bearing on the context and meaning of verse 4 other than to say do not look to mortal man for everlasting life.

This is where it would be worthwhile to read the comment that I was responding to. darinhouston was not arguing from scripture, but from reasonable sensibility: Even if they were in the next room from me, they couldn't hear my prayers unless I shouted. Even if my prayer could cross the "great divide" and they could hear it, that doesn't explain how they hear everyone's at the same time. Christians cannot argue from reasonable sensibility in such a fashion, when they believe that the miraculous can overcome obstacles set by reasonable sensibility.

I guess it all depends on the belief of that which is intended to hear and act on prayer. Whether I'm prayer to God for someone next door, across the street, across town, across the country, or across the world matters not because I'm not praying to them, I'm praying for them.

Darin was discussing praying to saints, dead saints according to the Bible.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
You might want to check the context of Jesus' comment again. It is not about the patriarchs having been alive at one time.

darinhouston wrote:
You're quite right there -- clearly, I wasn't thinking. However, after now re-reading, I recall that it is still taken out of context by the Roman Catholic. The passage is dealing with the reality of the resurrection, which was rejected by the Sadducees.

I believe the bible is clear that until the dead are resurrected at the last trumpet, they will remain in the grave, corrupt and decayed. Only then will they put on incorruption and immortality.

You are correct that the passage is about resurrection - and it is important to note that the argument against the Sadducees fails if the person is alive in some way without resurrection!

Sometimes I may only be able to sustain an argument to a limited extent . But the exercise is profitable if in the process we come to understand others' perspectives better, and/or if we recognize one or more lines of reasoning or argumentation that should not be used in the future.

[Michelle]

Michelle wrote:
Perhaps Jesus used the full arsenal of rhetorical devices to make his points, and we should be more concerned about getting those points than creating doctrines from the incidental details which were just a means to arrive there?

It is possible that Jesus used a rhetorical device here, though I will mention the possibility that this is a secondary layer from oral tradition, and that Jesus may not be directly responsible for this story. But if Jesus were directly responsible, Luke does not provide the full context of the story's delivery. Did Jesus make other comments to his disciples, near that time or at other times, that would have made it clear to them that this was merely a device? Or did he tell the story in a tone that played up its fanciful nature? Without such context, we may find it challenging to distinguish or demonstrate the difference between trustworthy material and "incidental details which were just a means" and are not to be clung to. (This is where I direct to the mystical dimension of proper interpretation, without which our minds may be stranded or may wander astray.)

Mystical dimension of proper interpretation, eh? I'm going to have to think about that a bit.

Alternately, did Jesus himself buy into the premise of the story? As a Jew in the Second Temple period, it is not inconceivable that he may have held some inaccurate ideas that were a part of his milieu. Did Jesus think the earth revolves around the sun, or vice versa?

And alternately, did Jesus buy into the story because it was basically accurate?

Hmm...I'm sure I'm supposed to have an opinion, or at least be mildly shocked, but I can't come up with either right now. *shrug*

[kaufmannphillips]

RND wrote:
And I think your view regarding Luke 16:19-31 is rather flaccid considering the absolutely rich and colorful descriptions used in the parable. ... Materialism and scoffing? That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

These things are matters of taste. But some people may "scratch the surface" until they have engraved an extraneous meaning into a text.

The themes of materialism and scoffing may be derived from the explicit statement in verse 14. And if the theme of adultery is to be cross-referenced, the most natural point of connection is in verse 13: "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve G-d and wealth [NASB]." A reading of the entire chapter makes it plain that the major point of the Lazarus parable is how to use wealth; compare verse 9.

RND wrote:
May have been? As sure as I'm sitting at a computer in California Jesus was using the Hellenistic views of the duality of man that the Pharisees adopted from the Greeks against them.

It is more than obvious.

"Obvious"ness can depend upon one's assumptions.

RND wrote:
So? What's the difference between 'son of man' and 'Son of man?' Besides verse 3 of Psalms 146 has little bearing on the context and meaning of verse 4 other than to say do not look to mortal man for everlasting life.

I did not draw a contrast between "son of man" and "Son of Man." Was it not your intent to draw such a contrast, by insisting that "son of man" refers to "mortal man"?

RND wrote:
Darin was discussing praying to saints, dead saints according to the Bible.

My comment had to do with his argumentation at that point. It was an appeal to reasonable sensibility, and not to the bible.

[RND]

These things are matters of taste. But some people may "scratch the surface" until they have engraved an extraneous meaning into a text.

Considering the absolute wealth of knowledge and beauty that the scriptures contain I doubt this is even possible.

The themes of materialism and scoffing may be derived from the explicit statement in verse 14. And if the theme of adultery is to be cross-referenced, the most natural point of connection is in verse 13: "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve G-d and wealth [NASB]." A reading of the entire chapter makes it plain that the major point of the Lazarus parable is how to use wealth; compare verse 9.

Correct, how to use wealth. What type? What was the rich man's wealth? Gold? Silver? Or the word of God? He "fared sumptuously" on bread. What makes crumbs? Bread does I think.

"Obvious"ness can depend upon one's assumptions.

Not when the obvious connection is that no where in the Torah or Tanakh is the duality of man discussed, taught or even mentioned. And that's the point that Jesus was bringing home in this parable. The Pharisees were "totally deceived" in accepting teachings that they were never taught in the scriptures.

RND wrote:
So? What's the difference between 'son of man' and 'Son of man?' Besides verse 3 of Psalms 146 has little bearing on the context and meaning of verse 4 other than to say do not look to mortal man for everlasting life.

I did not draw a contrast between "son of man" and "Son of Man." Was it not your intent to draw such a contrast, by insisting that "son of man" refers to "mortal man"?

Does it? It's obvious isn't it?

My comment had to do with his argumentation at that point. It was an appeal to reasonable sensibility, and not to the bible.

"Reasonable sensibility" is what caused the Pharisees to accept the heresy of the Greeks.

[Jill]

.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
These things are matters of taste. But some people may "scratch the surface" until they have engraved an extraneous meaning into a text.

RND wrote:
Considering the absolute wealth of knowledge and beauty that the scriptures contain I doubt this is even possible.

Would we disagree that people can overanalyze a text to the point of commiting eisegesis?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
The themes of materialism and scoffing may be derived from the explicit statement in verse 14. And if the theme of adultery is to be cross-referenced, the most natural point of connection is in verse 13: "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve G-d and wealth [NASB]." A reading of the entire chapter makes it plain that the major point of the Lazarus parable is how to use wealth; compare verse 9.

RND wrote:
Correct, how to use wealth. What type? What was the rich man's wealth? Gold? Silver? Or the word of God? He "fared sumptuously" on bread. What makes crumbs? Bread does I think.

What type of wealth is being discussed earlier in the chapter (see esp. verses 9-13)? Please consider, as a matter of overt context, how the Lazarus parable correlates to the earlier portion of the pericope.

RND wrote:
Not when the obvious connection is that no where in the Torah or Tanakh is the duality of man discussed, taught or even mentioned. And that's the point that Jesus was bringing home in this parable. The Pharisees were "totally deceived" in accepting teachings that they were never taught in the scriptures.

The parable brings home that there will be a consequence for ignoring the Torah when it comes to financial management [consider Leviticus 25:35]. The parable articulates this in the classic form of poetic justice: a selfish man, who pleasures himself sumptuously and leaves an afflicted person, longing for help, outside his dwelling - this man will be left outside of Abraham's dwelling, afflicted and longing for help (Abraham is not only an archetypal figure of covenant, faithfulness, national community, etc., but also a paragon of hospitality in rabbinic literature, for whatever that's worth). The parable lays out this juxtaposition in heavy-handed terms: Abraham states that now Lazarus is being begged of, and the wealthy man is in anguish.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
darinhouston was not arguing from scripture, but from reasonable sensibility: Even if they were in the next room from me, they couldn't hear my prayers unless I shouted. Even if my prayer could cross the "great divide" and they could hear it, that doesn't explain how they hear everyone's at the same time. Christians cannot argue from reasonable sensibility in such a fashion, when they believe that the miraculous can overcome obstacles set by reasonable sensibility.

RND wrote:
Darin was discussing praying to saints, dead saints according to the Bible.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
My comment had to do with his argumentation at that point. It was an appeal to reasonable sensibility, and not to the bible.

RND wrote:
"Reasonable sensibility" is what caused the Pharisees to accept the heresy of the Greeks.

Perhaps you did not look back here for the context? I criticized the appeal to reasonable sensibility.

[RND]

Would we disagree that people can overanalyze a text to the point of commiting eisegesis?

Didn't Kevin Garnett yell, "Anything's possible?"

What type of wealth is being discussed earlier in the chapter (see esp. verses 9-13)? Please consider, as a matter of overt context, how the Lazarus parable correlates to the earlier portion of the pericope.

There is only one type of wealth that was entrusted to the nation of Israel, the word of God. In the sense of Jesus' parables this is the only type of wealth Jesus alludes to.

The parable brings home that there will be a consequence for ignoring the Torah when it comes to financial management [consider Leviticus 25:35]. The parable articulates this in the classic form of poetic justice: a selfish man, who pleasures himself sumptuously and leaves an afflicted person, longing for help, outside his dwelling - this man will be left outside of Abraham's dwelling, afflicted and longing for help (Abraham is not only an archetypal figure of covenant, faithfulness, national community, etc., but also a paragon of hospitality in rabbinic literature, for whatever that's worth). The parable lays out this juxtaposition in heavy-handed terms: Abraham states that now Lazarus is being begged of, and the wealthy man is in anguish.

Wow, who's alluding to things in the parable now? Is this your eisegesis. What was the rich man's sin? Being wealthy? David was wealthy. Joseph. Solomon. Job. Abraham. Daniel. Yet the scriptures are silent on their 501C (3) contributions.

Tell me something kaufmannphillips, who were the rich man's five brothers?

Perhaps you did not look back here for the context? I criticized the appeal to reasonable sensibility.

I did too.

[Michelle]

Tell me something kaufmannphillips, who were the rich man's five brothers?

Shoot. Now you've got me wondering. Who do you say the 5 brothers were, RND?