This passage says if Moses and the prophets can't persuade you to believe,even someone coming back from the dead won't do that.This seems to say that the Hebrew Scriptures are enough and there is no need for some special resurrection (as Jesus is supposed to have done).This also seems to suggest that Jesus made clear during his lifetime that he was well within the Jewish tradition and not trying to leave it behind for a new faith.What do you think?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does Luke 16:19-31 Make the Crucifixion Pointless?
- Thread starter redpolk
- Start date
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
It rather suggests that Jesus knew what we know from reading the scriptures--Jewish people and Gentiles have this in common--some individuals will respond to God's Word, others will deny biblical truth.
If a Jewish person feels the Torah is junk, why would they listen to a Jewish Messiah prophesied to come to the world in the Torah?
Thanks.
Relpolk asks : Does Luke 16:19-31 Make the Crucifixion Pointless?
This passage says if Moses and the prophets can't persuade you to believe, even someone coming back from the dead won't do that.This seems to say that the Hebrew Scriptures are enough and there is no need for some special resurrection (as Jesus is supposed to have done).This also seems to suggest that Jesus made clear during his lifetime that he was well within the Jewish tradition and not trying to leave it behind for a new faith.What do you think?
Hi Redpolk :
I believe the Resurrection served purposes beyond persuading individuals to "believe". If this is correct, then belief or no, the resurrection was necessary. However, your discussion of Luke 16 is interesting for multiple reasons. I think the entire chapter has, as it’s core principle, the righteous versus unrighteous use of possessions, money, riches ,(“mammon”), and the ultimate regret of greed and unrighteous and apathetical use of riches we have. For example :
1) Jesus begins with a presumed parable of a devious manager who misuses his bosses’ money to his own advantage.
2) Jesus then says the rich man “commended’ his dishonest manager for acting dishonestly in the hope of having advantage. Further discussion is based on this introduction of unrighteous schrewdness.
3) Verse nine benefits from a critical textual consideration. The base greek reads : 9 Καὶ ἐγὼ ὑμῖν λέγω, ἑαυτοῖς ποιήσατε φίλους ἐκ τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας, ἵνα ὅταν ἐκλίπῃ δέξωνται ὑμᾶς εἰς τὰς αἰωνίους σκηνάς. (Many important codices reverse the order of “…Make [you] yourselves friends…” and the order is “…[you] yourselves make friends…” (In greek this specific word order may not matter. If Luke was speaking Aramaic and translation was made into greek, then the original order may matter...)
The KJV renders the greek : “…Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.” If the original for ποιήσατε is an imperative (a command), then Jesus is commanding them to make friends with the unrighteous rich so as to gain advantage for one’s self in “everlasting habitations”. This does not make sense to have Jesus command disciples to befriend the unrighteous rich for the purpose of having advantage in eternal worlds.
If the original greek was non-imperative then the corrected sentence can make sense. In this case, Jesus is observing that some of the disciples are doing the same as the unrighteous servant and is chiding them for this. That is, "...Your yourselves make friends of the mammon of unrighteousness that, when ye fail, they may receive you into this worlds habitations. (αἰωνίους σκηνάς)
If Jesus is chiding the disciples for their own unrighteous desires for riches and manipulation of those with riches, then the rest of the chapter makes a different sort of sense. The next sentences compare acquisition of worldly riches to eternal riches, the faithfulness of worldly things of lesser import to the eternal things of greater import. For examples :
In verse 13 Jesus seems to be directing them to chose to seek and serve God instead of seeking and serving the acquisition of riches. It is to be loyal to One or the other. They cannot seek both unrighteousness AND righteousness at the same time.
In verse 14, the “lovers of Money” heard him speaking about money. These “lovers of money” who were themselves, pharisees, felt they were righteous despite bing "lovers of Money" and scoffed at his teaching.
In this context verse 15 implies that they justified both loving money (and presumably seeking money) as well as justifying themselves that they were righteous despite seeking money and being lovers of money.
In this context, the next few verses discuss the gospel and those who claim to be religious, yet have divided loyalties between righteousness and unrighteous acquisition and (presumably) unrighteous use of money. This situation he likens to a man who loses loyalty to his wife and loves someone else, becomes divorced and commits adultery (in much the same way Paul uses the simile of divorce in Romans 7)
If this context holds for the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus whom the rich man could have helped but did not remains in the context of righteous and unrighteous use of our riches as it relates to others in need. If this is the context, then the request for testimony to be given to the rich mans brothers may not relate to belief in God, but to belief in religious teachings as to righteous use of riches we have in connection with the poor around us.
It is for these reasons that I do not think this scripture indicates Jesus’ resurrection was not needed, but that the main thrust was to how unrighteous riches and greed and apathy to the plight of others relate to relationships beyond this life.
In any case, and whatever these verses actually meant, I hope your spiritual journey in this life is good Redpolk
Clear
φιακσεω
This passage says if Moses and the prophets can't persuade you to believe, even someone coming back from the dead won't do that.This seems to say that the Hebrew Scriptures are enough and there is no need for some special resurrection (as Jesus is supposed to have done).This also seems to suggest that Jesus made clear during his lifetime that he was well within the Jewish tradition and not trying to leave it behind for a new faith.What do you think?
Hi Redpolk :
I believe the Resurrection served purposes beyond persuading individuals to "believe". If this is correct, then belief or no, the resurrection was necessary. However, your discussion of Luke 16 is interesting for multiple reasons. I think the entire chapter has, as it’s core principle, the righteous versus unrighteous use of possessions, money, riches ,(“mammon”), and the ultimate regret of greed and unrighteous and apathetical use of riches we have. For example :
1) Jesus begins with a presumed parable of a devious manager who misuses his bosses’ money to his own advantage.
2) Jesus then says the rich man “commended’ his dishonest manager for acting dishonestly in the hope of having advantage. Further discussion is based on this introduction of unrighteous schrewdness.
3) Verse nine benefits from a critical textual consideration. The base greek reads : 9 Καὶ ἐγὼ ὑμῖν λέγω, ἑαυτοῖς ποιήσατε φίλους ἐκ τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας, ἵνα ὅταν ἐκλίπῃ δέξωνται ὑμᾶς εἰς τὰς αἰωνίους σκηνάς. (Many important codices reverse the order of “…Make [you] yourselves friends…” and the order is “…[you] yourselves make friends…” (In greek this specific word order may not matter. If Luke was speaking Aramaic and translation was made into greek, then the original order may matter...)
The KJV renders the greek : “…Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.” If the original for ποιήσατε is an imperative (a command), then Jesus is commanding them to make friends with the unrighteous rich so as to gain advantage for one’s self in “everlasting habitations”. This does not make sense to have Jesus command disciples to befriend the unrighteous rich for the purpose of having advantage in eternal worlds.
If the original greek was non-imperative then the corrected sentence can make sense. In this case, Jesus is observing that some of the disciples are doing the same as the unrighteous servant and is chiding them for this. That is, "...Your yourselves make friends of the mammon of unrighteousness that, when ye fail, they may receive you into this worlds habitations. (αἰωνίους σκηνάς)
If Jesus is chiding the disciples for their own unrighteous desires for riches and manipulation of those with riches, then the rest of the chapter makes a different sort of sense. The next sentences compare acquisition of worldly riches to eternal riches, the faithfulness of worldly things of lesser import to the eternal things of greater import. For examples :
In verse 13 Jesus seems to be directing them to chose to seek and serve God instead of seeking and serving the acquisition of riches. It is to be loyal to One or the other. They cannot seek both unrighteousness AND righteousness at the same time.
In verse 14, the “lovers of Money” heard him speaking about money. These “lovers of money” who were themselves, pharisees, felt they were righteous despite bing "lovers of Money" and scoffed at his teaching.
In this context verse 15 implies that they justified both loving money (and presumably seeking money) as well as justifying themselves that they were righteous despite seeking money and being lovers of money.
In this context, the next few verses discuss the gospel and those who claim to be religious, yet have divided loyalties between righteousness and unrighteous acquisition and (presumably) unrighteous use of money. This situation he likens to a man who loses loyalty to his wife and loves someone else, becomes divorced and commits adultery (in much the same way Paul uses the simile of divorce in Romans 7)
If this context holds for the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus whom the rich man could have helped but did not remains in the context of righteous and unrighteous use of our riches as it relates to others in need. If this is the context, then the request for testimony to be given to the rich mans brothers may not relate to belief in God, but to belief in religious teachings as to righteous use of riches we have in connection with the poor around us.
It is for these reasons that I do not think this scripture indicates Jesus’ resurrection was not needed, but that the main thrust was to how unrighteous riches and greed and apathy to the plight of others relate to relationships beyond this life.
In any case, and whatever these verses actually meant, I hope your spiritual journey in this life is good Redpolk
Clear
φιακσεω
Last edited:
First of all, the only resurrection open to people who lived before Jesus lived was a perfectly healthy physical resurrection being restored back to life on Earth - John 3:13
That future earthly physical resurrection includes: King David - Acts of the Apostles 2:34, John the Baptizer - Matthew 11:11, besides the prophet Daniel 12:2; Daniel 12:13
No imperfect person (us) can resurrect oneself or another, so we need someone who can resurrect us. Sinless Jesus can and will - Revelation 1:18
Yes, while under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law Jesus was Not leaving it behind - Luke 4:43; Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:13-14
But Jesus set up a New Constitution for his followers to follow beginning with Pentecost.- Luke 22:28-30. Notice Jesus' NEW commandment at John 13:34-35.
Gospel writer Luke penned for us at Acts of the Apostles 11:26 that Jesus' followers were now called 'Christians' - Acts of the Apostles 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16
So, what Jesus did was to fulfill the temporary Mosaic Law contract - Romans 10:4