The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus Explained

Wgw · Nov 30, 2015

cgaviria said:
You completely ignored my question. Do you believe in immortal worms?

I believe in everlasting hellfire, although I do not relish the thought of people suffering in it. And you've completely ignored my argument. What scripture do you have to falsify the perspective of those who hold to a traditional interpretation of this pericope?

Wgw · Nov 30, 2015

cgaviria said:
God is able to create a tooth fairy if he pleases, but saying anything is possible with God isn't a correct logic to support your view on this scripture, and besides that, where in scripture do we even read about animals being immortal? It's ludicrous. This scripture isn't saying there will be immortal worms, its saying "there will not be an end to worms" in this place.

Which in turn implies an eternality of the punishment; destruction is not a one off process but an unending condition. Hence the error in your annhilationist perspective, which is remarkably similiar to the view held by the discredited Jehovah's Witnesses. As I pointed out earlier, by your own argument that we should reject the prevailing Christian interpretation owing to its likeness to Catholicism, I would respond that by that logic, we should also reject this perspective owing to its likeness to JW doctrine.

Of course, in fact, neither view represents a legitimate reason for holding or rejecting a doctrine. I do not expect I would even have responded to this thread were it not for that gaping fallacy. You present an interesting and not implausible exegesis, and then you in essence torpedo your own boat, by claiming that this exegesis somehow refutes the more traditional exegesis, and then, suggesting we reject the more traditional exegesis because the RCs believe in it! Not a very compelling case, old chap.

cgaviria · Nov 30, 2015

Der Alter said:
In the book of Isaiah God said the worms did not die. In the NT Jesus said the worms did not die. In neither account does it say "in this place!" If God chooses to keep worms alive forever do you think He can do this? Some people argue that those thrown into the fire would be burned up but I seem to recall two incidents in the OT where fire did not destroy what was thrown into it. Exo 3:2, Dan 3:25

It is a place. Why do you think the verse then says the carcasses of men will be visible in this place? You can only have a carcasses if you DIE. Therefore the fire does consume its subjects.

cgaviria · Nov 30, 2015

Wgw said:
I believe in everlasting hellfire, although I do not relish the thought of people suffering in it. And you've completely ignored my argument. What scripture do you have to falsify the perspective of those who hold to a traditional interpretation of this pericope?

Do you believe in immortal worms? Why are you dodging the question? Is it because you yourself know how ludicrous it sounds? Hmmmmmm

Wgw · Nov 30, 2015

cgaviria said:
Do you believe in immortal worms? Why are you dodging the question? Is it because you yourself know how ludicrous it sounds? Hmmmmmm

I am unable to dignify a strawman intended to, in my opinion, indirectly mock, the words of our Lord, with a response. Strictly speaking you are describing a statement of our Lord as ludicrous, something which I regard as contrary to piety.

cgaviria · Nov 30, 2015

Wgw said:
I am unable to dignify a strawman intended to, in my opinion, indirectly mock, the words of our Lord, with a response. Strictly speaking you are describing a statement of our Lord as ludicrous, something which I regard as contrary to piety.

I am mocking your interpretation, not the scripture. And you still haven't answered me directly.

Der Alte · Nov 30, 2015

cgaviria said:
First and foremost the passage of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable. There have been COUNTLESS false doctrines created from this passage breaking many other scriptures. But before even digging into the interpretation of the parable, we first need to bring to light some clues and evidences indicating that it is indeed a parable,

This passage happens to reside in a set of parables that precede it immediately, coincidence? No. Because it is part of the set of 5 parables that started off in this scripture, * * *

Where is it written that Jesus could not speak about literal things after He was used some parables? There are points which prove the story of Lazarus and the rich man to be literal. Your fanciful interpretation is one of many. Google "Lazarus and the rich man" and you will see many, many interpretations of what the "parable" really means.

• Neither Jesus nor Luke say that the story is a parable and Jesus never explains it to his disciples.
• Jesus never used imaginary things/events to communicate truth. When did the events in the Lazarus story ever actually happen that Jesus could use them as an example of what would happen to the Jews?
• Parabolos/parable means "to lay beside" something that was common knowledge to the audience, e.g. lost sheep/coins, bad tenants, wayward son, weddings, etc. was used to clarify unknown or misunderstood Biblical truths. What known experiences in the Lazarus story is compared to which Biblical truth?
• In all the actual parables the parties are all anonymous, "a certain man", "a certain landowner," etc. In the Lazarus story two people are named one an actual historical person. If Abraham was not in the place named and did not say the words Jesus quoted then Jesus lied.
• If, as you argue below, "The teaching of a 'hell' where you are alive burning endlessly is a pagan teaching'" Why would Jesus use a pagan teaching to communicate a Bible truth?

All of the early church fathers who quoted the Lazarus story considered it to be factual. None of them thought the story was about the fate of the Jews.

Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies Book II [pupil of Polycarp, who was a pupil of John the apostle]
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-59.htm#P7262_1923873

In that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him — [Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead.

Tertullian [A.D. 145-220.] Treatise on the Soul
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-07.htm#P737_306909

In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality. For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.

Tertullian On Idolatry
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-07.htm#P737_306909

Thus, too, Eleazar in Hades, (attaining refreshment in Abraham’s bosom) and the rich man, (on the other hand, set in the torment of fire) compensate, by an answerable retribution, their alternate vicissitudes of evil and good.

Clement Of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor “
There was a certain man,” said the Lord, narrating, “very rich, who was clothed in purple and scarlet, enjoying himself splendidly every day.” This was the hay. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.

Cyprian (A.D. 200-258) Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics
Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.

Lazarus is the Greek name for the Hebrew name "Eliezer", which in itself means "helpless", or "help". Aside from the obvious choice of name and its meaning to further indicate how impoverished the Lazarus of the parable was (the choice in name is not a coincidence), we also see a link with the same usage of the name the account of Genesis with Abraham's servant named Eliezer,

Eliezar means "El"/God has helped. BDB

Taking this parable literally BREAKS countless other scriptures. The teaching of a "hell" where you are alive burning endlessly is a pagan teaching. I challenge you to study the origins of that teaching, stemming from the catholic church and even before that as well. It is pagan, it is false, and corrupts the understanding of the work of God.

The scripture violates nothing! The Jews at the time of Jesus believed in a place of unending fiery punishment. They called it both Gehinnom and sheol. When Jesus taught about "eternal punishment" and "Hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched" it supported then then existing belief in hell.

Der Alte · Nov 30, 2015

cgaviria said:
It is a place. Why do you think the verse then says the carcasses of men will be visible in this place? You can only have a carcasses if you DIE. Therefore the fire does consume its subjects.

Neither Jesus nor the Jews in the Talmud say anything about a place. I am aware that you don't care about the historical evidence you choose to lean on your own understanding. Please show me where Jesus said those "cast into hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched " die? He didn't say it in these verses either.

• "These go away into eternal punishment, Mt 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mk 9:43-48" and
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Mt 13:42, 50
• “better for him [a person who offends a little one] that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Mt 18:6
• “it had been good for him [the one who betrays Jesus] if he had not been born.” Mat 26:24

These teachings reaffirmed and sanctioned the existing Jewish view of eternal hell. In Matt. 18:6, 26:24, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a fate worse than death or nonexistence. A fate worse than death is also mentioned in Heb 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy
under two or three witnesses:
29 Of howmuch sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

AV1611VET · Nov 30, 2015

Der Alter said:
In the book of Isaiah God said the worms did not die. In the NT Jesus said the worms did not die. In neither account does it say "in this place!" If God chooses to keep worms alive forever do you think He can do this? Some people argue that those thrown into the fire would be burned up but I seem to recall two incidents in the OT where fire did not destroy what was thrown into it. Exo 3:2, Dan 3:25

Good post, Der Alter.

Some people think that, since Jesus said ...

Matthew 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

... that people in Hell will burn up like chaff (quickly).

But they overlook this passage ...

Mark 9:49a For every one shall be salted with fire,

Salt, of course, preserves.

Der Alte · Nov 30, 2015

cgaviria said:
God is able to create a tooth fairy if he pleases, but saying anything is possible with God isn't a correct logic to support your view on this scripture, and besides that, where in scripture do we even read about animals being immortal? It's ludicrous. This scripture isn't saying there will be immortal worms, its saying "there will not be an end to worms" in this place.

Illogical answer. I did not say or imply anything about a tooth fairy, or any other sarcastic example you care to concoct. I was talking about something that is recorded in scripture, twice, "the worm shall not die." I know that in my experience worms are not immortal but God said "the worm shall not die," there being no evidence to the contrary, God can create worms that do not die. And once again I point out, the words, "in this place" do not occur in Isaiah 66:24 nor Mark 9:48.

Der Alte · Nov 30, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Good post, Der Alter.

Some people think that, since Jesus said ...

Matthew 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

... that people in Hell will burn up like chaff (quickly).

But they overlook this passage ...

Mark 9:49a For every one shall be salted with fire,

Salt, of course, preserves.

True. But there is another thing about this verse that some folks don't see. The Biblical view is that the righteous go away into eternal life and the wicked go away into eternal punishment, two different groups. But Matt 3:12, understood literally, is not talking about two different groups. Chaff is not a separate plant, it is the unusable part of the wheat that is separated from the wheat and burned.

Grafted In · Nov 30, 2015

The truth is settled in my mind. As a new Christian of barely 2 weeks I had read the Gospels perhaps dozens of times. I had told no one yet I was saved.
Jesus Christ woke me from my sleep and spoke understanding to me that it is not a parable. So, I have 2 witnesses, Jesus and the Holy Spirit within me who confirmed what I was told. Jesus spoke to me in what seemed like a voice, yet it was not audible. It was spoken to my understanding.
I have no need to consider your words.

SarahsKnight · Dec 1, 2015

cgaviria said:
Regardless of which church believes what, the scripture is TRUTH, and each time I declare a belief in something, I back it by a valid scripture. If any church does not abide by scripture, whether catholic, or JW, then they are in error. However, the catholic church is a terrible WICKED institution, the MOTHER OF HARLOTS (OTHER FALSE CHURCHES), the harlot OF BABYLON (THE GREAT FALSE CHURCH), so I will surely LAY BLAME where BLAME IS DUE. And it does pain me to see how deep the deception of that church runs, even in the "Christian" churches, that still uphold many of their doctrines and false teachings.

Cga, look, I agree with you in that eternal torment is not taught by the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, but nevertheless I admonish you to step back and not go accusing Catholics of all being harlots and pagans and so on. Eternal torment in hell is not wrong because Catholics adhere to it. Not everything they say and do and believe is wrong, and it's fallacious reasoning to sum up your argument by saying if it's Catholic, it's pagan, therefore wrong. Try to rely only on solid Scriptural reasoning without slinging judgments around, okay?

Besides, there's a much simpler reason to me in that the parable teaches something other than eternal torment: if you took the story literally to prove eternal torment then it immediately becomes absurd. It would mean then that the believers are able to see unbelievers in their torment in plain view (which I kind of think would ruin my blissful experience of eternal life to see and hear them suffering every second of eternity, but hey, that's just me), that people on both sides will be able to communicate, and then, what's most absurd, that the unbelievers will actually be able to form coherent sentences amidst their painful burning when talking to believers across the way instead of - what I'd naturally assume - screaming their heads off. The Rich Man sounded only severely annoyed at best, with mild pain, as he talked to Abraham. On top of all this, even at literal interpretation, i still see nowhere in the parable that says the Rich Man was there in that flame he said he was tormented in, forever.

Wgw · Dec 1, 2015

Grafted In said:
The truth is settled in my mind. As a new Christian of barely 2 weeks I had read the Gospels perhaps dozens of times. I had told no one yet I was saved.
Jesus Christ woke me from my sleep and spoke understanding to me that it is not a parable. So, I have 2 witnesses, Jesus and the Holy Spirit within me who confirmed what I was told. Jesus spoke to me in what seemed like a voice, yet it was not audible. It was spoken to my understanding.
I have no need to consider your words.

I submit that accepting or rejecting doctrine based on private revelation is a risky business given Galatians 1:8, et cetera.

AV1611VET · Dec 1, 2015

cgaviria said:
This verse isn't saying "there will be immortal worms", its saying "there will not be an end to worms" in this place.

Jesus said:

Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mark 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mark 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Wgw · Dec 1, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Jesus said:

Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mark 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mark 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Indeed he did. And yet curiously some members seem to believe they can mock a literal interpretation of these remarks without effectively mocking our Lord. I consider that they cannot, and that piety obliges members to avoid attempting mockery in such close proximity with the words of the Lord.

One thing where the Orthodox disagree with a strictly literal reading, for various practical reasons, is on the point of "call no man father," however I do not believe I can properly mock a Protestant who takes a literal view of that verse for very obvious reasons. So whereas I can present the practical reasons why we do not take that remark literally, according to my own consciencd I cannot do so in a manner that might be regarded as flippant, insulting, satirical, contemptuous or otherwise demeaning of the literal interpretation held by the member.

Grafted In · Dec 1, 2015

Wgw said:
I submit that accepting or rejecting doctrine based on private revelation is a risky business given Galatians 1:8, et cetera.

The experience gave praise to Jesus.
What I heard in my understanding pointed me toward Jesus and gave me a deeper understanding of Him.
You are not required to believe what I experienced.
But I know who spoke to me.

cgaviria · Dec 1, 2015

Wgw said:
I submit that accepting or rejecting doctrine based on private revelation is a risky business given Galatians 1:8, et cetera.

Alas, finally something we agree on.

cgaviria · Dec 1, 2015

SarahsKnight said:
Cga, look, I agree with you in that eternal torment is not taught by the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, but nevertheless I admonish you to step back and not go accusing Catholics of all being harlots and pagans and so on. Eternal torment in hell is not wrong because Catholics adhere to it. Not everything they say and do and believe is wrong, and it's fallacious reasoning to sum up your argument by saying if it's Catholic, it's pagan, therefore wrong. Try to rely only on solid Scriptural reasoning without slinging judgments around, okay?

Besides, there's a much simpler reason to me in that the parable teaches something other than eternal torment: if you took the story literally to prove eternal torment then it immediately becomes absurd. It would mean then that the believers are able to see unbelievers in their torment in plain view (which I kind of think would ruin my blissful experience of eternal life to see and hear them suffering every second of eternity, but hey, that's just me), that people on both sides will be able to communicate, and then, what's most absurd, that the unbelievers will actually be able to form coherent sentences amidst their painful burning when talking to believers across the way instead of - what I'd naturally assume - screaming their heads off. The Rich Man sounded only severely annoyed at best, with mild pain, as he talked to Abraham. On top of all this, even at literal interpretation, i still see nowhere in the parable that says the Rich Man was there in that flame he said he was tormented in, forever.

why do you defend them? There's nothing good that comes out of that church. They persecuted and killed our brethren for over 1,000 years, and now they are a false church intoxicating the world with the wine of her false doctrine. If there is something I'm discussing that relates to a doctrine they've pushed I'm definitely mentioning it. Eternal fiery torment happens to be a HUGE doctrine they've pushed, so IM DEFINITELY mentioning it. Is it the center of my discussion? No. In fact I only mention them once at the very end after I present my scriptures and spiel.

Grafted In · Dec 1, 2015

cgaviria said:
Alas, finally something we agree on.

I regret sharing with you my encounter with Jesus. I'll have to watch what I share with you in the future.
I happen to believe that God can and does allow believers to see small glimpses of Himself from time to time.

The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus Explained

Pray For Brussels!

Pray For Brussels!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pray For Brussels!

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Newbie

Jesus Christ is this Knight's truth.

Pray For Brussels!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Pray For Brussels!

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads