Luke 16:19-31

[Deleted Account]

.

[WhiteWings]

More than one radio apologist I've listened to, has made the blatant assertion that Luke 16:19-31, absolutely positively can not be a parable because it uses a proper name. First, I'd like to know how using a proper name in a parable automatically negates it as being a parable. According to what criteria is this to be applied?

Brain you may like this article: http://bible-truths.com/lazarus.html

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Lazarus.html

[pneuma]

More than one radio apologist I've listened to, has made the blatant assertion that Luke 16:19-31, absolutely positively can not be a parable because it uses a proper name. First, I'd like to know how using a proper name in a parable automatically negates it as being a parable. According to what criteria is this to be applied?

Actually more to the point, as I'm reading through the NT very slowly, three verses stood out regarding this matter.

Acts 14:16 "In the generations gone by He (A)permitted all the nations to go their own ways"

Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance" (paganism et al)

Romans 3:25 "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed."

Now am I completely missing the boat here, or is Paul saying that previous to  the crucifixion and resurrection, God didn't punish anyone over sins  committed. That He overlooked them? If so, then how could  Luke 16:19-31 (Rich man and Lazarus) be a factual event that had already taken place? Forget about it using proper names or dissecting it verse by verse; the Rich man symbolizes this, Lazarus symbolizes that.
Doesn't Acts 14:16, 17:30 and Romans 3:25, automatically cancel it out as factual punishment that had already taken place?

Regards,
Brian

Brian it a parrable plain and simple for Jesus did not open His mouth except in parrables.
Case closed

[WhiteWings]

Brian it a parrable plain and simple for Jesus did not open His mouth except in parrables.

.... in public.  :laughing7:

Right?

[Taffy]

More than one radio apologist I've listened to, has made the blatant assertion that Luke 16:19-31, absolutely positively can not be a parable because it uses a proper name. First, I'd like to know how using a proper name in a parable automatically negates it as being a parable. According to what criteria is this to be applied?

Actually more to the point, as I'm reading through the NT very slowly, three verses stood out regarding this matter.

Acts 14:16 "In the generations gone by He (A)permitted all the nations to go their own ways"

Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance" (paganism et al)

Romans 3:25 "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed."

Now am I completely missing the boat here, or is Paul saying that previous to  the crucifixion and resurrection, God didn't punish anyone over sins  committed. That He overlooked them? If so, then how could  Luke 16:19-31 (Rich man and Lazarus) be a factual event that had already taken place? Forget about it using proper names or dissecting it verse by verse; the Rich man symbolizes this, Lazarus symbolizes that.
Doesn't Acts 14:16, 17:30 and Romans 3:25, automatically cancel it out as factual punishment that had already taken place?

Regards,
Brian

Brian it a parrable plain and simple for Jesus did not open His mouth except in parrables.
Case closed

:thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

Hi Scott & Taffy,

Looks like you are going on holiday with those closed cases.
Make sure you don't drop 'm  :laughing7:

[pneuma]

Hi Scott & Taffy,

Looks like you are going on holiday with those closed cases.
Make sure you don't drop 'm  :laughing7:

:laughing7:

[Taffy]

Hi Scott & Taffy,

Looks like you are going on holiday with those closed cases.
Make sure you don't drop 'm  :laughing7:

hi WW..
I love ya Humour matey..more than not ..you always raise a smile in these weary Bones :icon_flower:

[rosered]

 
  I feel the same bro G , lol ,  love the mans wit  :thumbsup:
  I quite fancy it   myself  and He is a birthday boy ,coming up real soon
   44  whacks   on his bum ! ha ha ha  :laugh: :spank:

ps this is all I could find I did look for a Birthday cake ... :icon_flower:

[WhiteWings]

  I feel the same bro G , lol ,  love the mans wit  :thumbsup:
  I quite fancy it   myself  and He is a birthday boy ,coming up real soon
   44  whacks   on his bum ! ha ha ha  :laugh: :spank:

Hi (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:VXs2ona_p1qzPM:http://www.poker-open-chemnitz.de/img/fourroses.gif) stay within the forum guidelines like I always do. Just use a few random  Biblical words to keep the crew happy :laughing7:



So, , instead of 44 whacks, 44 44 stripes
Enjoy yourself because I won't even notice after a few of my fav drinks.
1/2  Red Bull + 1/2 Bacardi Razz

[rosered]

 

  Lol  good one WW ,   I was going to use Blows   :laughing7: stripes is  even better ..
   
a  raspberry Bull drink huh ? well I never heard of such  lol ,
  its tea for me   usually or coffee  black  :laughing7:.. hee hee  :HeartThrob:
A Happy Birthday  to you just the same ,  and many more God willing 

  You are  a delight ...   

[rosered]

 
  and My apologies to Brian ,   you carry on now ,, I did not intend to hijack your thread brother ... :hijacked: 

and  a big :thanks: for not taking offense ..
God bless ...   rose

[WhiteWings]

...But what about my superfluous ammunition? Doesn't Acts 14:16, 17:30 and Romans 3:25, automatically cancel it out as factual punishment that had already taken place? Somebody humor me and pretend they're a call-in radio apologist, and get past those verses

You speak in the past tense.
ET people don't believe in the past tense when it comes to suffering in hell.
So IMHO every verse that puts a time limitation on a hell automaticly debunks the eternal BBQ view.

[pneuma]

Now am I completely missing the boat here, or is Paul saying that previous to  the crucifixion and resurrection, God didn't punish anyone over sins  committed. That He overlooked them? If so, then how could  Luke 16:19-31 (Rich man and Lazarus) be a factual event that had already taken place? Forget about it using proper names or dissecting it verse by verse; the Rich man symbolizes this, Lazarus symbolizes that.
Doesn't Acts 14:16, 17:30 and Romans 3:25, automatically cancel it out as factual punishment that had already taken place?

Brian where do you see Paul saying God did not punish sin until after the crucifixion?

Paul says that sin was in the world, but was not imputed until the LAW, not until the crucifixion.

That said the LAW is that which produces a CROSS in ones life, so I guess we could get from the law to the crucifixion that way.

[DeeDee]

Pneuma makes a good point, it is a rather interesting topic, thought there would be more views and opinions on it tho  :dontknow:

Blessings
Dee

[WhiteWings]

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/neverheard.html

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16)

I know there are many Christians who say that all those who die without faith in Christ will be relegated to spend eternity in Hell - even if they have never heard the gospel. I think scripture suggests otherwise - that we are judged on the basis of what we know and how we act upon it. This is not any sort of ecumenical theology or "all ways lead to God." Those who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and have refused to believe have rejected Him, and, as such, will fall under the condemnation of God, because they have rejected His provision for our disobedience.2 Therefore, atheists are still without excuse8 in rejecting God. Those who perpetrate evil, even without the knowledge of the gospel, will likewise be condemned, since they have violated their God-given conscience. In the same way, those who play the "religion game" of going to church on Sunday, but living apart from a relationship with God, will be condemned

Each and everyone that ever lived will be judged.