Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable (2)

[LittleLambofJesus]

I like this thread!

To see the first page and OP, you can click on this link

http://www.christianforums.com/t7306890-100/



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Can anyone provide any commentaries or sources that view this story in Luke as NOT a parable?

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man has been the foundation for many of the erroneous beliefs about "hell" within traditional Christianity..........

Those who insist that this is not a parable but a true, literal story Yeshua told to describe the condition of the lost in hell must overlook several facts to arrive at that conclusion. First, Yeshua the Messiah never accuses the rich man of any sin. He is simply portrayed as a wealthy man who lived the good life.
Furthermore, Lazarus is never proclaimed to be a righteous man. He is just one who had the misfortune to be poor and unable to care for himself. If this story is literal, then the logical implication is that all the rich are destined to burn in hell, while all the homeless and destitute will be saved. Does anyone believe this to be the case?....................

Kindgdom Bible Studies Template Page

The story of the rich man and Lazarus is without doubt one of the most misunderstood of all the stories in the Bible. Is it a parable, or an actual statement of facts concerning life beyond the grave? It is strenuously denied by most evangelists that this story, as told by Christ, could be a parable. They hold that this is not a parable because it starts out in narrative form. It is argued, because it reads, "there was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day," that Christ is speaking here of an actual incident that took place.
But in the parable of the prodigal son, in the fifteenth chapter of Luke, the narrative introduction is found also, for it says, "A certain man had two sons..." Yet it is generally conceded that the story of the prodigal son is a parable and all the fundamentalist preachers love to preach from its beautiful figures, thus applying it as a parable......................



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Shameless bump

Original OP:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7306890-100/#post49298833

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7213672
quote poster: "We call Abraham our "Father in Faith" "

​

Greetings. How do others view that story Jesus told to the Jews in Luke 16 concerning the rich-man and lazarus. A parable or true story? This is one of the largest studies I have of the NT/NC.

I myself humbly view it as a "Covenantle" parable, but would like to here views from other fellow Christians of it. Thanks.......

Matthew 3:9 "And no ye should be thinking to say in yourselves 'a Father we are having, the Abraham'. For I am saying unto ye, that is able the God out of the Stones, these, to raise-up offsprings/children to the Abraham. [Luke 3:8/16:24]

Luke 16:24 And he sounding said: "Father Abraham! be thou merciful to-me! and send Lazarus!, that he should be dipping the tip of the finger of him of water, and should be cooling down the tongue of me,--that I am being pained in the Flame,this."

 

[Rev Randy]

LLOJ bumps his thread.
True story or Parable? How about both?

 

[seeingeyes]

Greetings. How do others view that story Jesus told to the Jews in Luke 16 concerning the rich-man and lazarus. A parable or true story? This is one of the largest studies I have of the NT/NC.

I myself humbly view it as a "Covenantle" parable, but would like to here views from other fellow Christians of it. Thanks.......

My biggest problem with those who teach this as a 'true story' is that they don't actually believe it themselves. I mean, who believes that a sinner in hell could have a chat with Abraham? No one yet. (And I've been asking! lol)

So by and large, it's a 'true story' when it suits me and 'just a parable' when it doesn't.

Though I still agree with squint that every parable is incomprehensible until we point it at ourselves. (Whatever happened to him, anyway? Squint! You are missed!)

 

[Serpentslayer]

That is because you try and interpret it from a naturalistic physical earthly perspective.

In this case you would even question miracles because they cannot be understood nor explained naturally.

 

[frogman2x]

My biggest problem with those who teach this as a 'true story' is that they don't actually believe it themselves. I mean, who believes that a sinner in hell could have a chat with Abraham? No one yet. (And I've been asking! lol)

So by and large, it's a 'true story' when it suits me and 'just a parable' when it doesn't.

Though I still agree with squint that every parable is incomprehensible until we point it at ourselves. (Whatever happened to him, anyway? Squint! You are missed!)

On thing you should consider is that in anything we know is a parable, no one is ever given a proper name. We see such descriptions as "a certain man," "the king," "a sower," etc.

kermit

 

[seeingeyes]

That is because you try and interpret it from a naturalistic physical earthly perspective.

In this case you would even question miracles because they cannot be understood nor explained naturally.

Ok, don't be shy. What's your interpretation?

 

[seeingeyes]

On thing you should consider is that in anything we know is a parable, no one is ever given a proper name. We see such descriptions as "a certain man," "the king," "a sower," etc.

kermit

So then those in hell can talk to Abraham? (No snark, I'm really asking.)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ bumps his thread.
True story or Parable? How about both?

I can hang with that bro



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Greetings. How do others view that story Jesus told to the Jews in Luke 16 concerning the rich-man and lazarus. A parable or true story? This is one of the largest studies I have of the NT/NC.

I myself humbly view it as a "Covenantle" parable, but would like to here views from other fellow Christians of it. Thanks.......

​

My biggest problem with those who teach this as a 'true story' is that they don't actually believe it themselves. I mean, who believes that a sinner in hell could have a chat with Abraham? No one yet. (And I've been asking! lol)

So by and large, it's a 'true story' when it suits me and 'just a parable' when it doesn't.

Though I still agree with squint that every parable is incomprehensible until we point it at ourselves. (Whatever happened to him, anyway? Squint! You are missed!)

Thank you for posting.

I gotta go outta town for awhile so ya'll keep this thread a going!



.

 

[seeingeyes]

Thank you for posting.

I gotta go outta town for awhile so ya'll keep this thread a going!



.

May the Lord go with you.

 

[Rev Randy]

My biggest problem with those who teach this as a 'true story' is that they don't actually believe it themselves. I mean, who believes that a sinner in hell could have a chat with Abraham? No one yet. (And I've been asking! lol)

So by and large, it's a 'true story' when it suits me and 'just a parable' when it doesn't.

Though I still agree with squint that every parable is incomprehensible until we point it at ourselves. (Whatever happened to him, anyway? Squint! You are missed!)

Have you read any Eastern Orthodox theology on hell?

 

[seeingeyes]

Have you read any Eastern Orthodox theology on hell?

Uh oh. Here goes the EO adding to my reading list again.

Hit me, brother.

 

[Rev Randy]

Uh oh. Here goes the EO adding to my reading list again.

Hit me, brother.

I'm saying this because you seem to really think no one could really believe it could be a true account. Now i do not know whether Lazarus was an actual account but I'm saying it's a true teaching.
https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell

 

[seeingeyes]

I'm saying this because you seem to really think no one could really believe it could be a true account. Now i do not know whether Lazarus was an actual account but I'm saying it's a true teaching.
https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell

Oh no... let me clear that up.

I'm not saying that no one could think it's a true account. I'm saying that those who do say it's a true account (on this board) don't actually believe that it is because they don't believe that souls in hell can talk to Abraham.

Now in the case of those who consider both the 'thirst' and the 'talking to Abraham' to be a true account (as opposed to a parable), then yes, that is a consistent view. My argument would not apply.

God bless

 

[frogman2x]

Oh no... let me clear that up.

I'm not saying that no one could think it's a true account. I'm saying that those who do say it's a true account (on this board) don't actually believe that it is because they don't believe that souls in hell can talk to Abraham.

They were not in hell. they were in Sheol, and may theologians believe Shoel was divided into 2 parts. One was Paradise and the otghre ws Torments. Paradise kept the righteous in paradise and it was emptied when Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

kermit

 

[Rev Randy]

Oh no... let me clear that up.

I'm not saying that no one could think it's a true account. I'm saying that those who do say it's a true account (on this board) don't actually believe that it is because they don't believe that souls in hell can talk to Abraham.

Now in the case of those who consider both the 'thirst' and the 'talking to Abraham' to be a true account (as opposed to a parable), then yes, that is a consistent view. My argument would not apply.

God bless

I believe souls in torment could speak to Abraham. Not that it would help them much.

 

[Rev Randy]

Uh oh. Here goes the EO adding to my reading list again.

Those darn Lutherans do that to me all the time. Just finished a book added to my list by a Lutheran.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Rev Randy

I'm saying this because you seem to really think no one could really believe it could be a true account. Now i do not know whether Lazarus was an actual account but I'm saying it's a true teaching.
https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthod...eaven-and-hell
.
​

Oh no... let me clear that up.

I'm not saying that no one could think it's a true account. I'm saying that those who do say it's a true account (on this board) don't actually believe that it is because they don't believe that souls in hell can talk to Abraham.

Now in the case of those who consider both the 'thirst' and the 'talking to Abraham' to be a true account (as opposed to a parable), then yes, that is a consistent view. My argument would not apply.

God bless

If only Christianity would study that parable in more depth from a "Jewish/Hebrew" perspective instead of from a "Gentile" one

Kindgdom Bible Studies Template Page

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is without question one of the least understood of all the teachings of our Lord. What is its aim? It is a similitude of something; for all the parables are similitudes, even though, like the parables of the prodigal son, and the unjust steward, both of which are in direct connection with this one, they are uttered like simple narratives, always beginning with, "A certain man," or "There was a certain man." Of what, then, is this parable the similitude? Whom does the rich man represent? Who is the poor neglected beggar full of sores, lying at the rich man's gate?


Usually, when the story of the rich man and Lazarus is considered, its setting is ignored. At the time the story was told Jesus had just eaten dinner with a Pharisee, at which time He not only healed a man with dropsy, but gave some pointed advice about how to give a dinner party. When He left the house, great throngs followed Him. Many of this great company were publicans and sinners who drew near to hear His teaching, and mingled with them were a great number of the scribes and Pharisees. The scribes and Pharisees complained openly and bitterly against Jesus, condemning Him because He received sinners into His company and ate with them. Against this background of biting criticism Jesus stood and gave the teachings found in chapters fifteen and sixteen of Luke. There are five stories which follow consecutively. It is well known, of course, that chapters and verses were not in the original scriptures. We are at liberty to change them when they do not synchronize with other scripture.

Any arrangement of chapter and verse division that clarifies or harmonizes other scripture, is more authoritative than that division that beclouds other statements of the Bible. At the beginning of Jesus' discourse in chapter fifteen of Luke the statement is made that "He spoke this parable unto them, saying," (Lk. 15:3). The Greek is very definite in making the word for parable clearly a singular noun. It is "the parable this.." This statement is followed by five separate stories, the first of which is the story of the lost sheep, and the last is the story of the rich man and Lazarus. You see, the teaching in chapter sixteen is but the continuation of the discourse in chapter fifteen, without interruption.

Now, which of the five stories He gave them in this sermon was called a parable? The only one of the five which is prefaced by the claim, "And He spoke this parable unto them," was the story about the lost sheep. Was the lost sheep the only one that could be called a parable? And yet, any preacher or believer that I know will answer that the story of the lost coin, as well as the prodigal son, were also parables. Then why was the singular used - "this parable"? It should be clear to any thinking mind that all these stories were ONE PARABLE, like the facets of a diamond, as they turn each scintillates with new brilliance. Each was illustrating a view point of one great truth, and together they compose a whole. And this parabolic discourse of Jesus is continued into chapter sixteen of Luke, including the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

The truth is that all five stories are each a fractional part of the complete parable, and when we read, "He spoke this parable unto them," this embraces the entire collection of symbol-pictures which in their completeness constituted the parable which He spoke. It is a careless assumption and an unfounded assertion to argue that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable!


.