Comments on: EJ Hill – Cataleptic Parables https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/10/17/ej-hill-cataleptic-parables/ Discerning Biblical Answers for Christians in Todays World Wed, 30 Aug 2017 09:56:09 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.1 By: Tom Lessing (Discerning the World) https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/10/17/ej-hill-cataleptic-parables/#comment-275934 Thu, 24 Oct 2013 04:44:51 +0000 http://www.discerningtheworld.com/?p=16500#comment-275934 Martin Horan wrote:

And didn’t Jesus say, “The poor are with you always” when Judas, was saying that the money for the perfumes ought to have beens spent on the poor?

Very intereting point. I didn’t think of it. If Mr EJ Hill continues to interpret the Bible in the way he does, his new translation and interpretation of the Word may be available in bookstores very soon. I can assure you I won’t purchase one because it would be the best guide on how to get to hell since the beginning of time.

]]> By: Martin Horan https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/10/17/ej-hill-cataleptic-parables/#comment-275857 Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:50:19 +0000 http://www.discerningtheworld.com/?p=16500#comment-275857 The rich man the Jewish nation? Interesting because at the time Jesus told the parable, the Jews were under Roman rule. And didn’t Jesus say, “The poor are with you always” when Judas, was saying that the money for the perfumes ought to have beens spent on the poor?
And what poor would he have meant other than the Jewish poor?
Throughout history the Jews were mainly poor. They were driven into ghettos and even forbidden to have trades in “Christian” nations. A small minority were money-lenders because their “Christian” overlords forbade usuary among their own minions. These overlords were members of a that “church” lived of the backs of their own poor and didn’t mind having their own elites living in luxury from the tithes, taxes and indulgences they took from them.
As to Lazarus being a Gentile name: Does EJ Hill apply that to the brother of Mary (Miriam in Hebrew) and Martha (another Hebrew name)?
Also, what does “fallible proofs” mean? Surely once something is proved it is conclusive as proof. Then–please someone correct me if I’m wrong–surely whatever has been proven must be true. Maybe it’s just me, and I’d appreciate it if someone could explain it, but what can fallible or especially infallible proof mean?

]]>