Is the parable of Lazarus a parable?

[redleghunter]

Long before the Christian era the scripture read: "a body you have prepared for me." The Masoretes Version is a late entry into the bible.

That did not answer the question.

Is Jesus of Nazareth truly God and truly man?

 

[CherubRam]

That did not answer the question.

Is Jesus of Nazareth truly God and truly man?

That should have answered your question, but if you are asking me if I am a Trinitarian, then the answer is ,no.

Psalm 82:6
I said, "You are (gods / elohiym) you are all sons of the Most High.

John 10:33-34
33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be [a god] God."
34 Yahshua answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are (gods / elohiym'?) 35If he called them ('gods / elohiym,') to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

Yahshua was asked if he was the Messiah, he was not asked if he was God. It has always been understood that the Messiah would be a god from Heaven.

John 10:24. The Jews who were there gathered around him, asking, “How long will you keep us in suspense, if you’re the Messiah, tell us plainly?”

 

[redleghunter]

That should have answered your question, but if you are asking me if I am a Trinitarian, then the answer is ,no.

Well why are you posting on a Trinitarian area of CF.


The Non-denominational Community
A forum for all non-denominational Christians to discuss and fellowship together.


A few things to know about non-denominational Christians:

• A non-denominational Christian church is one that is autonomous and not under a central authority (i.e. governing board, Magesterium, Patriarchs) on matters of doctrine, ordination, policy or discipline. They may, however, be part of an association to share resources.
• We believe that Bible is the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the only authoritative and infallible rule of Christian faith and practice.
• We believe in the Triune nature of God (Trinitarianism) and therefore the topic of non-Trinitarianism may not be discussed in this forum. Please discuss this topic in the Controversial Theology forum.
• We believe the only true basis of Christian fellowship is Christ's (agape) love, which is greater than differences one may possess, and without which we have no right to claim ourselves Christians.
• Salvation is by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose again, providing eternal redemption to those who believe. It is not by our works or works of the law. (Eph 2: 8-9)
• Since salvation is by grace, promotion of the doctrine of salvation by works and Saturday (seventh-day) worship is not allowed. Please discuss these topics in Sabbath and The Law forum.

 

[CherubRam]

Well why are you posting on a Trinitarian area of CF.


The Non-denominational Community
A forum for all non-denominational Christians to discuss and fellowship together.


A few things to know about non-denominational Christians:

• A non-denominational Christian church is one that is autonomous and not under a central authority (i.e. governing board, Magesterium, Patriarchs) on matters of doctrine, ordination, policy or discipline. They may, however, be part of an association to share resources.
• We believe that Bible is the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the only authoritative and infallible rule of Christian faith and practice.
• We believe in the Triune nature of God (Trinitarianism) and therefore the topic of non-Trinitarianism may not be discussed in this forum. Please discuss this topic in the Controversial Theology forum.
• We believe the only true basis of Christian fellowship is Christ's (agape) love, which is greater than differences one may possess, and without which we have no right to claim ourselves Christians.
• Salvation is by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose again, providing eternal redemption to those who believe. It is not by our works or works of the law. (Eph 2: 8-9)
• Since salvation is by grace, promotion of the doctrine of salvation by works and Saturday (seventh-day) worship is not allowed. Please discuss these topics in Sabbath and The Law forum.

I was not aware that CF had changed Non-Denom to a Trin only club.

 

[Major1]

The story of Lazarus coming back to life from the dead at Jesus' command, involves a real person, loved by Jesus. I could not imagine it being a parable.

You are correct. Parables do not include "personal" names.

 

[Major1]

That did not answer the question.

Is Jesus of Nazareth truly God and truly man?

Uhm Uh,,Uh….I know this one. Ask Me !

 

[Rubiks]

You are correct. Parables do not include "personal" names.

Nice circular reasoning.

 

[redleghunter]

Nice circular reasoning.

The interesting observation of the story of Lazarus and the Rich man is that it does not contain the usual parable literary style of Jesus's parables. So scholars are still divided on whether or not this is a parable, a true story or both.

 

[Major1]

The interesting observation of the story of Lazarus and the Rich man is that it does not contain the usual parable literary style of Jesus's parables. So scholars are still divided on whether or not this is a parable, a true story or both.

Since it includes a Proper, actual name, it must be rejected as a parable and accepted as an actual event...…...IMO.

 

[Major1]

Nice circular reasoning.

Actually it is a product of Bible knowledge and exegesis.

None of the Parables of Jesus contain actual names of individuals which is why Luke 16 is NOT A Parable.

 

[Rubiks]

Actually it is a product of Bible knowledge and exegesis.

None of the Parables of Jesus contain actual names of individuals which is why Luke 16 is NOT A Parable.

Non-sequitur/circular reasoning. We're just as warranted as concluding parables can contain personal names based on the rich man and Lazarus story as concluding the story is not a parable because it uses a personal name.

Can you prove why a parable cannot contain a personal name?

 

[redleghunter]

Non-sequitur/circular reasoning. We're just as warranted as concluding parables can contain personal names based on the rich man and Lazarus story as concluding the story is not a parable because it uses a personal name.

Can you prove why a parable cannot contain a personal name?

Perhaps you can provide your exegesis on why it is a parable?

 

[HypnoToad]

It certainly has the literary style of Jesus' parables. The only "argument" against it being a parable is that is uses an actual name (Lazarus).

That's not the ONLY argument.

Another is that all the other parables are EARTHLY examples, and are things that living people can relate to, things known to be true by experience. Yet most of this story takes place in the afterlife with a situation that not any single living person can actually relate to, no one knows it to be true by experience.

It also doesn't use the principle of comparison in a way that is characteristic of other parables.

So far, I've only seen one counter to the argument that it's a historical story. But that argument comes with a glaring problem. The argument is that it can't be historical because it has the damned in the afterlife being able to communicate with the saved - which, according to the argument, can't happen.

The glaring problem with that argument is, if true, then the account can't be a parable, either. A parable, by definition, uses realistic situations. If the above objection is true, then Jesus has gone from using parables to using fables.

I'm not saying it's proven one way or the other, but so far we have the objections to being a parable clearly being true statements:
1. It's true that this is the only one that has actual names.
2. It's true that this is the only one that is not an earthly story.
3. It's true that this is the only one that people can't actually relate to.
4. It's true that it doesn't use the principle of comparison the way the other parables do.

While the only objection (that I've seen so far) to being historical also eliminates it from being a parable.

 

[Major1]

Non-sequitur/circular reasoning. We're just as warranted as concluding parables can contain personal names based on the rich man and Lazarus story as concluding the story is not a parable because it uses a personal name.

Can you prove why a parable cannot contain a personal name?

Luke 16 is not a parable. It is an actual story.

If you will read all of the parables of Jesus you will find that none of them include a proper, actual name.

Jesus would never be able to use the name of someone who did not exist. There are those today would like to discredit the teaching of Jesus here by implying that somehow a parable is not always factual.

Some will deny the reality of Hell as described in Luke 16 by claiming that The Rich man & Lazarus is a "Parabel" thereby making it an ALLAGORY or a made up story. Can you imagine anyone who believes the Scriptures believing that Jesus would ever misrepresent things simply to teach a truth? In none of the Parables is a proper name used except Luke 16. We have THREE proper names used in that passage.
1. Lazarus
2. Abraham
3. Moses.

 

[Major1]

That's not the ONLY argument.

Another is that all the other parables are EARTHLY examples, and are things that living people can relate to, things known to be true by experience. Yet most of this story takes place in the afterlife with a situation that not any single living person can actually relate to, no one knows it to be true by experience.

It also doesn't use the principle of comparison in a way that is characteristic of other parables.

So far, I've only seen one counter to the argument that it's a historical story. But that argument comes with a glaring problem. The argument is that it can't be historical because it has the damned in the afterlife being able to communicate with the saved - which, according to the argument, can't happen.

The glaring problem with that argument is, if true, then the account can't be a parable, either. A parable, by definition, uses realistic situations. If the above objection is true, then Jesus has gone from using parables to using fables.

I'm not saying it's proven one way or the other, but so far we have the objections to being a parable clearly being true statements:
1. It's true that this is the only one that has actual names.
2. It's true that this is the only one that is not an earthly story.
3. It's true that this is the only one that people can't actually relate to.
4. It's true that it doesn't use the principle of comparison the way the other parables do.

While the only objection (that I've seen so far) to being historical also eliminates it from being a parable.

I appreciate your thinking but I can not agree.

1. It would be the only parable in the Bible that describes certain things that are outside of the realm of human experience. All the other parables talk about things that we are familiar with such as birds, seed, fields, pearls, wheat, barns, leaven, fish, etc. (see Matthew 13, etc.). This passage is different because it talks about what happens to two men after death, and this is a realm where none of us have had any personal experience. A parable is an earthly story with a heavenly or spiritual significance but Luke 16 transcends the realm of the earthly.

2. It would be the only parable in the Bible that uses a proper name (Lazarus).

3. It would be the only parable in the Bible that makes mention repeatedly of a historical person--Abraham. Moreover, this historical person actually carries on a dialogue with the rich man! Indeed, mention is also made in this parable of Moses, another historical character. What other parable speaks of real, historical persons?

4. It would be the only parable in the Bible that describes the places where the dead go (Hades, Abraham's bosom, a place of torment).

5. It would be the only parable in the Bible that makes mention of angels. Compare Matthew 13 verses 24-30, 36-43, 47-49 where angels are mentioned in the explanation of the parable but not in the parable itself.

6. If Hades is not really a place of torment then this would be the only parable in the Bible where the Lord Jesus taught error instead of truth. GOD FORBID!
Is Luke 16:19-31 a Parable?

 

[Rubiks]

Perhaps you can provide your exegesis on why it is a parable?

It was commonly believed by the Jews in Jesus' day that having wealth means having God's. For example, when Jesus tells his disciples it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, his disciples respond by asking who then can be saved. The parable is meant to illustrate a reversal of wealth in the age to come.

Why is it not a real story? Because the theology of the story contradicts the Old Testament beliefs on the afterlife and clearly developed during the intertestamental period through Hellenistic influence. The Old Testament describes Sheol/Hades as a gloomy, empty void for both the righteous and unrighteous.

r/AcademicBiblical - Where does Jesus get the idea for “Abraham’s bosom” and a fiery Hades as places in the afterlife?

There's also the problem that understanding it to be an actual story is borderline gnostic. It makes the resurrection of the dead unnecessary.

 

[Rubiks]

I appreciate your thinking but I can not agree.

1. It would be the only parable in the Bible that describes certain things that are outside of the realm of human experience. All the other parables talk about things that we are familiar with such as birds, seed, fields, pearls, wheat, barns, leaven, fish, etc. (see Matthew 13, etc.). This passage is different because it talks about what happens to two men after death, and this is a realm where none of us have had any personal experience. A parable is an earthly story with a heavenly or spiritual significance but Luke 16 transcends the realm of the earthly.

2. It would be the only parable in the Bible that uses a proper name (Lazarus).

3. It would be the only parable in the Bible that makes mention repeatedly of a historical person--Abraham. Moreover, this historical person actually carries on a dialogue with the rich man! Indeed, mention is also made in this parable of Moses, another historical character. What other parable speaks of real, historical persons?

4. It would be the only parable in the Bible that describes the places where the dead go (Hades, Abraham's bosom, a place of torment).

5. It would be the only parable in the Bible that makes mention of angels. Compare Matthew 13 verses 24-30, 36-43, 47-49 where angels are mentioned in the explanation of the parable but not in the parable itself.

6. If Hades is not really a place of torment then this would be the only parable in the Bible where the Lord Jesus taught error instead of truth. GOD FORBID!
Is Luke 16:19-31 a Parable?

I guess the parable of the good Samaritan can't be a parable because no other parables mention Samaritans. </sarcasm>

See what I did there? You still need to demonstrate that containing a personal name means a story isn't a parable.

Finally, a search of "Lazarus" on BibleGateway shows that the name Lazarus is used only Luke and John. Luke uses it in the rich man story only. There no reason to think that they are the same person and no reason to think Luke's mention of "Lazarus" was meant to refer any individual that Jesus' audience would have known.

 

[redleghunter]

It was commonly believed by the Jews in Jesus' day that having wealth means having God's. For example, when Jesus tells his disciples it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, his disciples respond by asking who then can be saved. The parable is meant to illustrate a reversal of wealth in the age to come.

Why is it not a real story? Because the theology of the story contradicts the Old Testament beliefs on the afterlife and clearly developed during the intertestamental period through Hellenistic influence. The Old Testament describes Sheol/Hades as a gloomy, empty void for both the righteous and unrighteous.

r/AcademicBiblical - Where does Jesus get the idea for “Abraham’s bosom” and a fiery Hades as places in the afterlife?

There's also the problem that understanding it to be an actual story is borderline gnostic. It makes the resurrection of the dead unnecessary.

So your position is Jesus was teaching heresy?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Not a parable. Next?

 

[HypnoToad]

I appreciate your thinking but I can not agree.

1. It would be the only parable in the Bible that describes certain things that are outside of the realm of human experience. All the other parables talk about things that we are familiar with such as birds, seed, fields, pearls, wheat, barns, leaven, fish, etc. (see Matthew 13, etc.). This passage is different because it talks about what happens to two men after death, and this is a realm where none of us have had any personal experience. A parable is an earthly story with a heavenly or spiritual significance but Luke 16 transcends the realm of the earthly.

2. It would be the only parable in the Bible that uses a proper name (Lazarus).

3. It would be the only parable in the Bible that makes mention repeatedly of a historical person--Abraham. Moreover, this historical person actually carries on a dialogue with the rich man! Indeed, mention is also made in this parable of Moses, another historical character. What other parable speaks of real, historical persons?

4. It would be the only parable in the Bible that describes the places where the dead go (Hades, Abraham's bosom, a place of torment).

5. It would be the only parable in the Bible that makes mention of angels. Compare Matthew 13 verses 24-30, 36-43, 47-49 where angels are mentioned in the explanation of the parable but not in the parable itself.

6. If Hades is not really a place of torment then this would be the only parable in the Bible where the Lord Jesus taught error instead of truth. GOD FORBID!
Is Luke 16:19-31 a Parable?

I'm not sure why you think you are disagreeing with what I posted.