Near death experiences—Can we learn anything from them?

[Original Happy Camper]

The Lessons

Jesus told this story as a sharp rebuke to the Jewish religious leaders. In the parable, the rich man represents the Jewish nation, and the poor man represents the Gentiles.

The rich man had the knowledge of the King of kings (purple is the colour of royalty), and the means to attaining righteousness (white linen). But as the parable unfolds, Jesus turns the viewpoint of the Jewish leaders on its head by placing the rich man in "hell" and the poor man in "Abraham's bosom."

Jesus was saying that personal status does not guarantee salvation. He was telling the Jews that they could only find salvation in God’s grace, not their own works or lineage. The Jews claimed Abraham as their father (John 8:39), but in the parable "Father Abraham" was unable to help the rich man.

The New Testament states that those who are in Christ are Abraham's seed (Galatians 3:29), and that Christ came to restore the wounded and brokenhearted. Only those who realize their own spiritual poverty and need for Christ can attain His blessings.

Through this story, Jesus was also revealing to the disciples their new task: to break tradition and preach the Gospel with power to the Jews and the Gentiles alike.

As each scene unfolds in the parable, it conveys a spiritual truth contrary to the mindset of the Jewish leaders. The modern trend of taking this parable literally in order to support the doctrine of hell does great injustice to the intent of the story, and causes us to miss the deeper message it holds.

The Parable of Lazarus

 

[Derf]

The Lessons

Jesus told this story as a sharp rebuke to the Jewish religious leaders. In the parable, the rich man represents the Jewish nation, and the poor man represents the Gentiles.

The rich man had the knowledge of the King of kings (purple is the colour of royalty), and the means to attaining righteousness (white linen). But as the parable unfolds, Jesus turns the viewpoint of the Jewish leaders on its head by placing the rich man in "hell" and the poor man in "Abraham's bosom."

Jesus was saying that personal status does not guarantee salvation. He was telling the Jews that they could only find salvation in God’s grace, not their own works or lineage. The Jews claimed Abraham as their father (John 8:39), but in the parable "Father Abraham" was unable to help the rich man.

The New Testament states that those who are in Christ are Abraham's seed (Galatians 3:29), and that Christ came to restore the wounded and brokenhearted. Only those who realize their own spiritual poverty and need for Christ can attain His blessings.

Through this story, Jesus was also revealing to the disciples their new task: to break tradition and preach the Gospel with power to the Jews and the Gentiles alike.

As each scene unfolds in the parable, it conveys a spiritual truth contrary to the mindset of the Jewish leaders. The modern trend of taking this parable literally in order to support the doctrine of hell does great injustice to the intent of the story, and causes us to miss the deeper message it holds.

The Parable of Lazarus

Thanks, Happy! That’s a good description. One further way the parable points to the Jews that I’ve heard is that the man had 5 brothers, and Judah, son of Leah, had 5 full brothers (sons of Leah).
But I think the name of Lazarus makes it 1/2 not a parable, pointing to the eventual raising of the other Lazarus, which the Jewish leaders would not believe, just as Abraham told the rich man.

 

[Der Alte]

Thanks for posting those accounts. The problem I have with them, is that they all seem to use the account of Lazarus and Dives to bolster the position they already held. Read them and you’ll see it. There is no attempt to find another way to understand it. But that’s eisegesis. Here’s an example:
Are there other ways to read it? I’d say yes, even besides the possibility that it is only a parable (I tend to think it’s no more than half parable, personally).
What if Jesus is talking about a state of the dead AFTER judgment? Remember that the final judgment comes after death, and after resurrection. This is something Jesus affirmed. So the penalty, if any deemed necessary from judgment, is executed against a resurrected body, one that once more has fingers and tongue, memory and emotions. Then it makes sense that the rich man is tormented—he has already been judged. The biggest objection I can think of is the timing: the rich man thinks his request to send Lazarus back from the dead would happen in time to save his brothers. The 1/2 parable nature of the story could easily take care of that problem.

Yet another misguided attempt to try to rewrite not only scripture but also the writings of the ECF, who oh by the way were about 2000 years closer to the Biblical events, to make them say what you want them to.
I never heard of a "half parable." Something written is either a parable or it is not. Once again a "parable" has a certain structure something not known/not understood is compared to something that is known/understood. I gave you a clear example.
In 1898 E. W. Bullinger wrote a book, titled "The Figures of Speech Used in the Bible," identifying the 217 known Figures of speech used in the Bible. Parables are only one of those figures of speech.The story of Lazarus and the rich man might be one of the other 216 but it ain't a parable, no matter how much you want it to be..
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/bullinger.html?pn=3&

 

[Derf]

I never heard of a "half parable."

See! Even you might have more to learn!

 

[JSRG]

There are three ways to look at near death experiences.

1. They are true experiences of post-life.
   
2. They are false, and from Satan/demons
3. They are false, and from somewhere else (someone’s imagination)

If #1, we should be able to learn something from them. If #2, we also might be able to learn from them, realizing that they are false. If #3, there’s nothing we can learn from them.

I don't think there's much of anything you can learn from them, in terms of doctrine at least, for a very simple reason: If you look at them, they constantly contradict each other. Not only in their descriptions of the afterlife, but the doctrines they're given (e.g. one claims that a particular activity is sinful, whereas another says it isn't). That means that the majority of them must be false--demonic, delusions, or someone making them up to get attention--and should be ignored. Of course, it is possible some are genuine, but how do you know which ones are genuine and which ones aren't?

Some say can try judging them by whether they are in accord with the Bible, but because there are different interpretations of the Bible, that's no good either (indeed, I have seen different people reach opposite conclusions on whether a specific experience was biblical or not, because they disagree on the Bible). Even if we could judge it by the Bible, all it would mean is that we can confirm the parts that align with the Bible as true--but would be of little use in assessing anything not explicitly taught in the Bible.

There may be apologetic merit in using NDEs to disprove naturalism, but in terms of trying to get doctrine or anything else from them, I do not think they are of much help.

 

[Der Alte]

See! Even you might have more to learn!

I highly doubt it. But you are welcome to try it. When I make a statement I back it up as I did with Bullinger.

 

[Derf]

I highly doubt it. But you are welcome to try it. When I make a statement I back it up as I did with Bullinger.

Because Bullinger is always right?

 

[Derf]

If you look at them, they constantly contradict each other.

There are some things that seem to be consistent, like looking down on themselves from above. Do you think those parts are valuable?

There may be apologetic merit in using NDEs to disprove naturalism,

How do you think they disprove naturalism?

 

[Der Alte]

Because Bullinger is always right?

That is a an extremely weak argument.
Please feel free to find and quote one, two or more would be better, Bible scholar with a PhD or ThD after his/her name and some peer reviewed published works in the field of Theology who can clearly show that Bullinger is wrong.

 

[Derf]

That is a an extremely weak argument.
Please feel free to find and quote one, two or more would be better, Bible scholar with a PhD or ThD after his/her name and some peer reviewed published works in the field of Theology who can clearly show that Bullinger is wrong.

I’m just trying to figure out if you think a quote from Bullinger is more weighty than one from the Bible (Bible doesn’t have any letters after its name).

 

[Der Alte]

I’m just trying to figure out if you think a quote from Bullinger is more weighty than one from the Bible (Bible doesn’t have any letters after its name).

Cop-out. Please show me where anything I posted contradicts the Bible? Bullinger identifies the 200+ figures of speech and explains why a particular figure of speech fits in one category and not another.
The word "parable" is derived from the Greek word "parabolos" which means "place/throw beside." In order for a saying to be a "parable" it must have a comparison something unknown/not understood explained by comparison with something similar which is known/understood. See e.g.

Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:​

All four ECF who quoted/referred the story of Lazarus and the rich man considered it to be factual.

 

[Derf]

Cop-out. Please show me where anything I posted contradicts the Bible? Bullinger identifies the 200+ figures of speech and explains why a particular figure of speech fits in one category and not another.
The word "parable" is derived from the Greek word "parabolos" which means "place/throw beside." In order for a saying to be a "parable" it must have a comparison something unknown/not understood explained by comparison with something similar which is known/understood. See e.g.

Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:​

All four ECF who quoted/referred the story of Lazarus and the rich man considered it to be factual.

And, as I pointed out, all four considered that it strengthened (not formed, but strengthened) their view of the realm of the dead and the belief in the original eternality of the soul. But these concepts were not found in the old testament. They are not found anywhere else in the gospels. They are not found anywhere else in the new testament. So, you must admit that when a single passage, not repeated in any other gospel or any other part of the bible, is used to strengthen a pagan Greek concept, that should cause one to pause before using the Greek-raised ECFs as authoritative in that matter.

All of the identified parables are anonymous; a certain widow, a certain man, a certain landowner etc.

This one starts with "There was a certain rich man". That fits your parable structure, and you can see it in the story in the first part of the same chapter--you can see it exactly in that story, the story of the unjust steward, which has all the other marks of a parable, and starts with the exact same words: "There was a certain rich man".

The story of Lazarus and the rich man mentions three specific actual persons by name

And one it does not--the rich man. That makes it a partial parable, according to your standard. I suggested it's a 1/2 parable, but I'm willing to see it as 1/4th parable.

If Abraham was not in the place Jesus named then Jesus lied.

Where exactly did Jesus say Abraham was? In his (Abraham's) own bosom? No, He said Lazarus was in Abraham's bosom, the rich man was in Hades, and those are the only locations provided. "Abraham's bosom", at least in the story, appears to have more to do with Abraham's presence than a locale, if you read the story.

One more thing. Your definition of "parable" is new to me. I'm willing to consider it as a possible definition, but it isn't one found it many dictionaries or Christian commentaries. Still, there are certainly unknowns presented in the story--the final fate of the Jewish leaders.

One I'm more familiar with is: "a usually short, fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle." The principle that was being illustrated was that the Jewish leaders, though they considered themselves bound for glory, were actually going to be greatly surprised by where they ended up. And if that's the religious or moral truth, then the rest of the story could well be fictitious.

In fact, the one other event in the whole bible that mentions similar people (Lazarus and the Jewish leaders)) and similar topics (death and rising from the dead) did not have the same result--Lazarus indeed rose again from the dead. Thus, I think it's a parable in some aspects, and not a parable in others.

 

[Der Alte]

And, as I pointed out, all four considered that it strengthened (not formed, but strengthened) their view of the realm of the dead and the belief in the original eternality of the soul. But these concepts were not found in the old testament. They are not found anywhere else in the gospels. They are not found anywhere else in the new testament. So, you must admit that when a single passage, not repeated in any other gospel or any other part of the bible, is used to strengthen a pagan Greek concept, that should cause one to pause before using the Greek-raised ECFs as authoritative in that matter.
This one starts with "There was a certain rich man". That fits your parable structure, and you can see it in the story in the first part of the same chapter--you can see it exactly in that story, the story of the unjust steward, which has all the other marks of a parable, and starts with the exact same words: "There was a certain rich man".
And one it does not--the rich man. That makes it a partial parable, according to your standard. I suggested it's a 1/2 parable, but I'm willing to see it as 1/4th parable.
Where exactly did Jesus say Abraham was? In his (Abraham's) own bosom? No, He said Lazarus was in Abraham's bosom, the rich man was in Hades, and those are the only locations provided. "Abraham's bosom", at least in the story, appears to have more to do with Abraham's presence than a locale, if you read the story.
One more thing. Your definition of "parable" is new to me. I'm willing to consider it as a possible definition, but it isn't one found it many dictionaries or Christian commentaries. Still, there are certainly unknowns presented in the story--the final fate of the Jewish leaders.
One I'm more familiar with is: "a usually short, fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle." The principle that was being illustrated was that the Jewish leaders, though they considered themselves bound for glory, were actually going to be greatly surprised by where they ended up. And if that's the religious or moral truth, then the rest of the story could well be fictitious.
In fact, the one other event in the whole bible that mentions similar people (Lazarus and the Jewish leaders)) and similar topics (death and rising from the dead) did not have the same result--Lazarus indeed rose again from the dead. Thus, I think it's a parable in some aspects, and not a parable in others.

You might want to remember I never say anything I have not verified from credible sources. Not just some guy on the 'net.

In the New Testament instances of the word, [parable] it is used of a story with a hidden meaning, without pressing, in every detail, the idea of a comparison.
As the name of a Figure of Speech, it is limited to what we may describe as repeated or continued Simile—an illustration by which one set of circumstances is likened to another, It consists in likeness, not in representation, and therefore is not a continued Metaphor, as some have said; but a repeated Simile.
This likeness is generally only in some special point. One person may be like another in appearance, but not in character, and vice versas: so that when resemblance or 1ikeness is affirmed it is not to be concluded that the likeness may be pressed in all points, or extended to all particulars.
…Parables are used from the resemblance or one thing to another The thing. or history, or story may be true or imaginary: but the event must be possible, or likely to have happened: at any rate those who hear must believe that they are possible events, though it is not necessary that the speaker should believe them.
Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E.W. Bullinger pp. 751-752
Figures of speech used in the Bible, explained and illustrated : Bullinger, E. W. (Ethelbert William), 1837-1913 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive​

Please provide a credible source for a partial parable. Bullinger does not mention such a thing.

 

[JSRG]

There are some things that seem to be consistent, like looking down on themselves from above. Do you think those parts are valuable?

Some describe that, others don't. I'm not really sure what one can get out of the fact a bunch of people see themselves from above, though.

How do you think they disprove naturalism?

They can be used as evidence for existence of consciousness separate from the body. But in terms of trying to evaluate anything regarding doctrine, I feel they're not useful at all.

 

[Derf]

Some describe that, others don't. I'm not really sure what one can get out of the fact a bunch of people see themselves from above, though.


They can be used as evidence for existence of consciousness separate from the body. But in terms of trying to evaluate anything regarding doctrine, I feel they're not useful at all.

Then you would say they ARE telling us something doctrinally: that our conciousness doesn’t require resurrection of the body to operate.

 

[Derf]

You might want to remember I never say anything I have not verified from credible sources. Not just some guy on the 'net.

In the New Testament instances of the word, [parable] it is used of a story with a hidden meaning, without pressing, in every detail, the idea of a comparison.
As the name of a Figure of Speech, it is limited to what we may describe as repeated or continued Simile—an illustration by which one set of circumstances is likened to another, It consists in likeness, not in representation, and therefore is not a continued Metaphor, as some have said; but a repeated Simile.
This likeness is generally only in some special point. One person may be like another in appearance, but not in character, and vice versas: so that when resemblance or 1ikeness is affirmed it is not to be concluded that the likeness may be pressed in all points, or extended to all particulars.
…Parables are used from the resemblance or one thing to another The thing. or history, or story may be true or imaginary: but the event must be possible, or likely to have happened: at any rate those who hear must believe that they are possible events, though it is not necessary that the speaker should believe them.
Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E.W. Bullinger pp. 751-752
Figures of speech used in the Bible, explained and illustrated : Bullinger, E. W. (Ethelbert William), 1837-1913 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive​

Please provide a credible source for a partial parable. Bullinger does not mention such a thing.

Why do I need a more credible source than an assessment of the Bible passage? Why does it suddenly become credible only if Pope Bullinger states it?

 

[Der Alte]

Why do I need a more credible source than an assessment of the Bible passage? Why does it suddenly become credible only if Pope Bullinger states it?

What do you mean by a "Bible assessment?" All counter arguments I have ever seen consist of some "scholar" giving his/her opinion of what a particular story, parable "really means" with, I might point out, virtually no supporting evidence. Along the lines of "You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh"
Were you to actually read Bullinger you might educate yourself. Bullinger supplies substantial research backing up his conclusions. He didn't just sit around and think up names for the various categories of figures of speech, 217 total.
If you can, find credible, verifiable, historical evidence which refutes Bullinger please present it. Unless, until then, the answer my friend is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind.

 

[Derf]

Deleted

 

[Derf]

What do you mean by a "Bible assessment?" All counter arguments I have ever seen consist of some "scholar" giving his/her opinion of what a particular story, parable "really means" with, I might point out, virtually no supporting evidence. Along the lines of "You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh"
Were you to actually read Bullinger you might educate yourself. Bullinger supplies substantial research backing up his conclusions. He didn't just sit around and think up names for the various categories of figures of speech, 217 total.
If you can, find credible, verifiable, historical evidence which refutes Bullinger please present it. Unless, until then, the answer my friend is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind.

Here are some things Bullinger said about the story of The rich man and Lazarus:
There remains a fifth passage, Luke 16:19-31, commonly called "the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus,"or of "Dives and Lazarus."(If we speak of it sometimes as a Parable, it is not because we hold it to be one of Christ's Parables, specially so called, but because it partakes of the nature of parabolic teaching.)
Here Dr B admits, 1. That he sometimes calls it a parable, and 2. That it is like a parable in its nature, that is, it has the structure of a parable. Finally, because of #1 and #2 together, Bullinger is agreeing with me that it is both parabolic and not parabolic in nature—which I would interpret as being 1/2 parable.

I found it a bit odd that you are so vehement against my position, that death is cessation of all function, but you don’t cite Bullinger against that position, but only against my calling the Lazarus story a parable. After reading Dr B’s treatise on death, where he specifically deals with the 1/2 parable in question, I can see why you didn’t cite him: he disagrees with you!

Here. Read it for yourself. The Rich Man and Lazarus - BibleUnderstanding Ministry

 

[Der Alte]

Here are some things Bullinger said about the story of The rich man and Lazarus:
There remains a fifth passage, Luke 16:19-31, commonly called "the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus,"or of "Dives and Lazarus."(If we speak of it sometimes as a Parable, it is not because we hold it to be one of Christ's Parables, specially so called, but because it partakes of the nature of parabolic teaching.)
Here Dr B admits, 1. That he sometimes calls it a parable, and 2. That it is like a parable in its nature, that is, it has the structure of a parable. Finally, because of #1 and #2 together, Bullinger is agreeing with me that it is both parabolic and not parabolic in nature—which I would interpret as being 1/2 parable.

I found it a bit odd that you are so vehement against my position, that death is cessation of all function, but you don’t cite Bullinger against that position, but only against my calling the Lazarus story a parable. After reading Dr B’s treatise on death, where he specifically deals with the 1/2 parable in question, I can see why you didn’t cite him: he disagrees with you!

Here. Read it for yourself. The Rich Man and Lazarus - BibleUnderstanding Ministry

Second hand quote from an anonymous website claiming to quote Bullinger. This website does not identify the publication which they claim to be quoting; title, publication date, page number etc.
OTOH I quoted directly from Bullinger and even provided a link to the source proper.
Unless a saying has something unknown/not understood compared to something known it is not a parable. It may be some other figure of speech but without a comparison it is not a parable. I could do with a little less snide.
Edit to add: I read some in the article. Since a specific writing by Bullinger is not stated I think the manager of the website wrote this himself and attributes it to Bullinger to give it some credibilty.