Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Partly under the Law? | Col 2:14 | Morant61 | 149421 | ||
Greetings Merv! Where exactly is Luke 16:22 called a 'parable' in Scripture? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Partly under the Law? | Col 2:14 | swerv | 150343 | ||
Tim: This is why it cannot be a parable. 1) Do we really think that Abraham's bosom is the abode of the righteous dead ? Actually, the agels will gather the saints at Christ's coming - not at a person's death. 2)It says heaven and hell were separated by a gulf yet the persons could converse with each other. Luke 16:26 - will this be true of the saved and the lost ?? 3) The rivh man was in hell with a body. He had eyes, a toungue, ... Luke 16:24. How did body get into hellfire instead of into the grave ?? No one teaches that bodies of the wicked go right to hell when they die !!! 4) The request for Lazurus too dip the tip of his finger and come through the flames to cool the rich man's tongue is obvioulsy not literal. The whole story is parabolic !!! Merv |
||||||
3 | Partly under the Law? | Col 2:14 | Morant61 | 150387 | ||
Greetings Merv! I am assuming that your first sentence was a typo! :-) So, the answer to my question is that Scripture never calls it a parable - right? In your opinion it is a parable, but Scripture never calls it a parable. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Partly under the Law? | Col 2:14 | swerv | 150393 | ||
Tim: Yes - Sorry for (many) typos. I must double check my responses before I send them !!! Yes - it does not call it a parable !! I agree !! We both understand that scripture is not for private interpretation. When we say in our opinion scripture means this or that - I agree we must be careful not to make scripture "a private interpretation" which scripture condemns. But in relation to prior discussions. When God told Peter to eat the "creepy things" from the sheet. We know that God did not "really" mean for Peter to violate God's own statues on diet but rather to come to understand that Gentiles are now clean !!! In that account of Peter's vision we never see that Peter did indeed eat it but rather disobeyed God. So the key to understanding is seeing the point God is trying to get to the reader. Thanks for the responses, Thomas |
||||||