The Rich Man & Lazarus

[Brother Mike]

If you or anyone else holds any concerns about me viewing this as a parable, please bring them up and let me see if I can't address any of your concerns.

Brother, the only concern I have is this..............

There is a message to this "Event" Jesus talked about, it's meaning could have been a parable because many parables helped understand principles and natural things with spiritual things. So the meaning does not get diminished in anyway if it's a parable or not a Parable.

My concern though.

If the Lord said that Abraham said something (Unlike any other parable, gave a place unlike any other Parable) then Abraham did say that. It does not even match all the other parables.

That is my concern. If some believe that Jesus misquoted someone that really bothers me someone would think that about Jesus.

Like me telling everyone Stovebolts said this and Stovebolts said that but you never said any of those things, it would be wrong. I appears to me that you think it would be OK as long as I just say it's a Parable though. That does not sit well with me.

Jesus could have used something like all the other Parables.............. "And there was a certain man in Hell who said......

Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

This is far different than anything else considered a parable. If Jesus said that Abraham said something then you can bet that Abraham really did say it and was in the Place Jesus said he was.

We have no other examples of Jesus using real names and real places in any other parable.................... That is my problem, and my issue with what you believe about this, it does not match any other parable in it's format. Not even close.



Mike.

Now then, I view this story as a parable, and I see much value in this parable. I would go as far as to say that as for it's meaning, we would agree in probably every area worth anything. But to argue that something is a real event when holding it as a parable does not change it's meaning or intent one bit...

NO Stovebolts, it's all about Hell other wise you would just take Jesus for what He said knowing this was not a parable but a description about an actual event. It's only a parable because I don't want to change my concept of Hell. So Hell is the main focuses otherwise this is not a parable because it's not the same format as any other parable. If it was you could have provided me other parable where Jesus quoted real people and you can't.


Mike.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

As far as the story of Lazarus and the rich man, we must ALSO ask

What the Jews of Jesus' day taught and believed as it relates to death and the concept of Sheol/Hades. Getting a thorough understanding mayinvolve opening the pages of 2 Maccabees as well as looking into some one the Hellenist manuscripts of the day.

 

[stovebolts]

If the Lord said that Abraham said something (Unlike any other parable, gave a place unlike any other Parable) then Abraham did say that. It does not even match all the other parables.

That is my concern. If some believe that Jesus misquoted someone that really bothers me someone would think that about Jesus.

Like me telling everyone Stovebolts said this and Stovebolts said that but you never said any of those things, it would be wrong. I appears to me that you think it would be OK as long as I just say it's a Parable though. That does not sit well with me.

Jesus could have used something like all the other Parables.............. "And there was a certain man in Hell who said......

Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

This is far different than anything else considered a parable. If Jesus said that Abraham said something then you can bet that Abraham really did say it and was in the Place Jesus said he was.

We have no other examples of Jesus using real names and real places in any other parable.................... That is my problem, and my issue with what you believe about this, it does not match any other parable in it's format. Not even close.

If the message doesn't change, then this is a fantastic place for your to afford some grace. You are struggling with an argument that is of no concern to me and holds no value for me. Thus, you cannot force your argument upon me. Again, this is where grace comes in. Do you understand what I'm trying to get across?

NO Stovebolts, it's all about Hell other wise you would just take Jesus for what He said knowing this was not a parable but a description about an actual event. It's only a parable because I don't want to change my concept of Hell. So Hell is the main focuses otherwise this is not a parable because it's not the same format as any other parable. If it was you could have provided me other parable where Jesus quoted real people and you can't.

First off, I owe you no argument and I don't know why you seem to think I need to prove to you that it's not a real story. As I said earlier, if you wish to believe what you believe for whatever reasons you believe them, it is of no concern or worry to me.

I asked you a about a parable that Nathan told David in regard to an ewe lamb. Because it was a parable, does that mean that ewe lamb's aren't real?

Take a deep breath brother, because I'm certainly not saying that hell isn't real, and neither did the original listeners of Jesus. You know that the Sadducee didn't believe in a resurection, thus they didn't believe in anything past this present age and we know what Jesus had to say to them about Abraham. Yes, he quoted scripture. But Jesus wasn't talking to anyone who doubted the existence of either paradise or hell so we can get past that.

Now then, there are those who say this is a parable to dismiss the reality of hell. To them I'd say you've missed the mark on this parable. I would say to them, "This parable was told to people who agreed their was a heaven and a hell, so if you want to discuss the reality of hell then you're using the wrong story in the Bible because the people Jesus was talking to didn't have a problem with the concept of heaven or hell. To use this story as a basis to defend the reality of hell is to use this story in a way that Jesus never intended. With that, when we make issues out of what Jesus said, when they weren't his issues then we will distort the original intent behind the story.

Hell is real, and what we do today matters... and that's the real deal.

 

[Brother Mike]

I asked you a about a parable that Nathan told David in regard to an ewe lamb. Because it was a parable, does that mean that ewe lamb's aren't real?

We are not talking about misrepresenting an object (Lamb) We are talking about misrepresenting a person of great importance. Abraham.

Now then, there are those who say this is a parable to dismiss the reality of hell. To them I'd say you've missed the mark on this parable

Well, it looks like this to be the issue. You don't believe in Trinity so I assume your a JW. You believe in Hell a place of torment and others use this to say it's a parable to remove this real place.

Just because you don't Believe in a Trinity concept does not make you a JW though you might get labeled as such.

So then lets remove the Hell part, and the whole meaning of this Event (Parable)

My big argument is that if the Man (Jesus) said someone said something then they actually said it because I trust the integrity of the man.

That was my concern.

Mike.

 

[stovebolts]

We are not talking about misrepresenting an object (Lamb) We are talking about misrepresenting a person of great importance. Abraham.

Correction: That's what you're talking about. As you said, it's your issue. When it's your issue, you have no right to make it my issue and I'm under no obligation to oblige you. Again, I would remind you that there is something of greater importance, "Jesus intent".

The issue you are presented with is how to treat me and others who disagree with you and frankly, I don't like your style of bullying.

Well, it looks like this to be the issue. You don't believe in Trinity so I assume your a JW. You believe in Hell a place of torment and others use this to say it's a parable to remove this real place.

Jesus because you don't Believe in a Trinity concept does not make you a JW though you might get labeled as such.

So then lets remove the Hell part, and the whole meaning of this Event (Parable)

Now you're just talking crazy talk Mike. Your throwing a bunch of crap against the wall and seeing what sticks. Here's the problem Mike. You are more concerned with the argument than the intent of what Jesus said.

My big argument is that if the Man (Jesus) said someone said something then they actually said it because I trust the integrity of the man.

That was my concern.

Mike.

So because I view this as a parable, it stabs at the integrity of Jesus. Wow Mike, really?

I'll leave you with this. It's your issue, not mine. But I would have you read Galatians 5 and see from which spirit you post from.

Grace and peace Brother.

 

[reba]

Goodness Brother Mike get over yourself. You do not have all the answers. You are not always right, you are showing a forum bully side of your self that is not pleasant to read.

The way you talk to our brothers and sisters in the Lord is getting harder and harder for this mod to tolerate.

Dont bother to give me the story of Jesus calling the Pharisees vipers etc. you are not Jesus.

 

[Sparkey]

Like me telling everyone Stovebolts said this and Stovebolts said that but you never said any of those things, it would be wrong.

Or like me saying that Brother Mike, while looking down upon this conversation from heaven and in eternity with our Father God, said, "Oh! I see!" It's like those two old Chinese men that Sparrow's sister talked about! He resisted her interpretation because it was wrong, but continued to listen even as she spoke and finally understood.

Not everybody who dines at the same table chooses or is served the exact same meal. Some get the sop, others no. All are subject to a quick slap on the hand for reaching and not asking politely. What? Are we barbarians? We are family.

We are not talking about misrepresenting an object (Lamb) We are talking about misrepresenting a person of great importance. Abraham.

If Abraham wants to lift his head and speak against what Jesus said, I would listen, but I would be very surprised. Given that Abraham is with the Lord, and that I am not privy to that particular conversation (yet) I have no firm opinion, other than the fact that every knee shall bow, mine, yours and Abrahams to the King of us little kings or king-wanna-be's like me. I know of none who lift their heads and call Jesus a liar. That particular argument does not (to me) deserve being dignified with a reply because it is simply false on the face of it.

But, and if this thread is re-opened, you are welcome to prove me wrong. Cite the direct quote of the member who declared, with his/her own mouth, the words, "I must stand and declare for all to know that Jesus is a liar."

Take time and search it, give due diligence for the allegation made. Stand and defend and after I hear your defense, I hope to say, "Oh! I thought you were wrongly accusing others. I thought you were wrong, and I did resist, but I've also listened and now I understand better what you meant."

 

[reba]

The log says i closed this thread i did not intend to. It is reopened....


Never had this problem before windows 8

 

[Sparkey]

And here I was, thinking that this thread had been sent to it's room, with no supper and a "Time-Out"

The log says i closed this thread i did not intend to. It is reopened....

But, and if this thread is re-opened...

It was gremlins, I say. Gremlins. :wink

 

[TOG]

My big argument is that if the Man (Jesus) said someone said something then they actually said it because I trust the integrity of the man.

Take a look at something else Jesus claimed people said:

The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn. (Matt. 13:24-30 ESV)
​

Was that a description of a real event, or does it cast doubt on Jesus' integrity. According to you, there is no other choice, since Jesus claims that these people said these things. He's either telling the literal truth or he's lying. For other instances of Jesus claiming people said things, read the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15), the good Samaritan, (Luke 10) or the ungrateful servant (Matt. 18).

The TOG
​

 

[JLB]

My big argument is that if the Man (Jesus) said someone said something then they actually said it because I trust the integrity of the man.

Take a look at something else Jesus claimed people said:

The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn. (Matt. 13:24-30 ESV)
​

Was that a description of a real event, or does it cast doubt on Jesus' integrity. According to you, there is no other choice, since Jesus claims that these people said these things. He's either telling the literal truth or he's lying. For other instances of Jesus claiming people said things, read the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15), the good Samaritan, (Luke 10) or the ungrateful servant (Matt. 18).

The TOG
​

This was a fictitious story that teaches a truth about the Kingdom of God.

3 Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: "Behold, a sower went out to sow. The announcement of a parable.

"Therefore hear the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, Parable explained.


Matthew 13 is a parable.

Luke 16 is not.


JLB
.

 

[Brother Mike]

Take a look at something else Jesus claimed people said:

Yes Tog, that was my point........... If it's a Parable............ then.

Then something may be compared to something.......................

It's as if a man sows a seed in the ground.........

There was a ruler who had 9 goats..............

And the eldest son hath said to the Father........

Was that a description of a real event, or does it cast doubt on Jesus' integrity. According to you, there is no other choice, since Jesus claims that these people said these things.

There is language of it being a parable in each parable. As if, would be like, and so on. No real names are ever used in any of the Parables Jesus told. No real places ever used in the parables He told.

So your right it is just that.

The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man

That was the point myself and JLB were trying to make.

Blessings.

Mike.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Though the story of The Rich Man & Lazarus may not have been given to teach about the afterlife, it can't be overlooked that the belief in a similar afterlife scenario that Jesus used in this story was prevailent in Jesus' day. Jesus used this Hellenistic concept that had become popular in the Judaism of his day to make a point to his audience and nowhere do we have it recorded that Jesus spoke against this concept of a Hadean realm that consisted of a a place of comfort and a place of torment where all of the dead lived awaiting judgment. Does that mean Jesus believed in and endorsed this concept; I don't know.

 

[JLB]

As far as the story of Lazarus and the rich man, we must ALSO ask

What the Jews of Jesus' day taught and believed as it relates to death and the concept of Sheol/Hades. Getting a thorough understanding mayinvolve opening the pages of 2 Maccabees as well as looking into some one the Hellenist manuscripts of the day.

I see, so study what the Jews who rejected Jesus, believe and taught, and go to another book that is not considered "inspired", and there we can "learn" the truth.

Good luck with that, Brother.

I will stick with the very plain and clear words of The Lord Jesus Christ.


JLB

 

[Sparkey]

I see, so study what the Jews who rejected Jesus, believe and taught, and go to another book that is not considered "inspired", and there we can "learn" the truth.

Good luck with that, Brother.

I hope that your intent here was not a paraphrase of another person's position. That would be a clear indication of a misunderstanding of the intent of the Terms of Service here. Here, let me fetch that for one and all even though it is the responsibility of every member to refresh their understanding of such things routinely, I don't mind...

It is a violation to misquote or misrepresent another member.

That was clipped from section 2.4 and as a reminder to one and all. There are other things spoken of outside the field of this forum. Things that are taught by English Comp Instructors across the land. Things like, "Avoid black and white dichotomies" which are also called "binaries". For instance, this one from Purdue University OWL:

Literature reviews are designed to do two things: 1) give your readers an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic or idea and 2) demonstrate how your research fits into the larger field of study...

Giving our readers an overview of what an opponent says is okay as long as the opponent would not come right back and say, "HEY! That is NOT what I said."

 

[Free]

As far as the story of Lazarus and the rich man, we must ALSO ask

What the Jews of Jesus' day taught and believed as it relates to death and the concept of Sheol/Hades. Getting a thorough understanding may involve opening the pages of 2 Maccabees as well as looking into some one the Hellenist manuscripts of the day.

I see, so study what the Jews who rejected Jesus, believe and taught, and go to another book that is not considered "inspired", and there we can "learn" the truth.

Good luck with that, Brother.

I will stick with the very plain and clear words of The Lord Jesus Christ.


JLB

You simply cannot exclude the historical context in favor of what you think Jesus is saying. The words were first spoken to and written for first century Jews and Christians. It is therefore imperative that one look at what Sheol/Hades meant to the first listeners and readers.

 

[JLB]

I see, so study what the Jews who rejected Jesus, believe and taught, and go to another book that is not considered "inspired", and there we can "learn" the truth.

Good luck with that, Brother.

I hope that your intent here was not a paraphrase of another person's position. That would be a clear indication of a misunderstanding of the intent of the Terms of Service here. Here, let me fetch that for one and all even though it is the responsibility of every member to refresh their understanding of such things routinely, I don't mind...

It is a violation to misquote or misrepresent another member.

That was clipped from section 2.4 and as a reminder to one and all. There are other things spoken of outside the field of this forum. Things that are taught by English Comp Instructors across the land. Things like, "Avoid black and white dichotomies" which are also called "binaries". For instance, this one from Purdue University OWL:

Literature reviews are designed to do two things: 1) give your readers an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic or idea and 2) demonstrate how your research fits into the larger field of study...

Giving our readers an overview of what an opponent says is okay as long as the opponent would not come right back and say, "HEY! That is NOT what I said."

Ok.

Do you believe that we will discover the truth of what Jesus taught in Luke 16, by going to the book of Maccabees, or by studying What the Jews of Jesus' day taught and believed as it relates to death and the concept of Sheol/Hades.

Please help me to understand what you perceive that he meant.


JLB

 

[Butch5]

Though the story of The Rich Man & Lazarus may not have been given to teach about the afterlife, it can't be overlooked that the belief in a similar afterlife scenario that Jesus used in this story was prevailent in Jesus' day. Jesus used this Hellenistic concept that had become popular in the Judaism of his day to make a point to his audience and nowhere do we have it recorded that Jesus spoke against this concept of a Hadean realm that consisted of a a place of comfort and a place of torment where all of the dead lived awaiting judgment. Does that mean Jesus believed in and endorsed this concept; I don't know.

Hi ToT,

Here's one thing we need to consider. The idea that the dead were conscious and living in after world isn't taught in the OT Scriptures. I don't believe Jesus would have believed such a thing.

 

[Butch5]

0

Here's something to ponder. Jesus said the rich man was in Hades and the rich man is suffering the torment of the flame. However, Hades is not the place of torment, Gehnna, the Lake of Fire, is where the flames are. Jesus speaks of torment in Gehenna where the fire is not quenched and the their worm does not die.

If Jesus is stating something about life after death one has to why He would have the rich man in Hades rather than Gehenna.

That is a very good question, If Jesus said Hades has fire though, there is fire.

tartaroō used once was to mean the lower regions of Hades and Gehenna.

Jesus brought new spiritual principles that had yet been heard so matching the existing language to convey the true meaning was not always easy. Christ just meant smeared upon or anointed but takes on a whole different meaning with Jesus. Best word they had though. The Jews Had Messiah which meant anointed king of God

Mike.

If Jesus brought new spiritual principles is something I won't address here, however, I will say that whatever we think He meant I don't believe He's going to contradict previous revelation

 

[reba]

Luk 12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

What kind of fire is Jesus referring to here

Maybe this kind of fire
Act_7:30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.

Heb_12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.