Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable

[weathered]

I think the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
We can still take an important warning from it, just not the surface only meaning. Read LilLamb's link. The guy makes an excellent case for some good & deep insights. It isn't an attack on Christianity.

Maybe hes right, i cant say. But why does it matter if its a parable or not? The meaning is still the same whether its true or not, correct? Surely the flood isn't a parable, i know some think that the whole bible is only a parable, that is very confusing to me because God doesn't tell stories and pass them off as fact, he tells the truth but he also teaches parables and uses analogies too, but the bible isn't a parable, its fact that uses some parables to illustrate that truth. You guys may be right about this particular story i don't know, but i do know most of what is in the bible is an actual account of things that happened.

 

[weathered]

Guess that is what we are trying to figger out
What is yer best guess?

I think maybe the rich man is one who rejected Christ or possibly a pharisee like person who was clean on the out but dirty within, not sure though. But Lazarus i don't have a clue who he is.

 

[weathered]

Lazarus has a name which indicates he was a real person doesn't it? Or does the name Lazarus hold some spiritual meaning? Either way the story is a haunting one, love fulfills the law, the rich man didn't know God or he would have loved the beggar named lazarus, if the rich man humbled himself in prayer and called on God and obeyed Gods law by helping the beggar God would have saved the rich man and helped him obey Gods law i assume. Im not educated in Old testament law but i know the prophets repeatedly said that God wanted Israel to help the needy, the widows and orphans and the stranger. As the lord said all the law hangs on love

 

[someguy14]

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

It does mean exactly as Christ describes.

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

Matthew 12:40
"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Jonah 2:2
"And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice."

Gods Word is perfect.

Luke 16:31
"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

 

[Timothew]

It does mean exactly as Christ describes.

Luke 16:31
"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

I think that this is really the point of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Luke is saying that the Jews did not believe even after Jesus Christ rose from the dead. And they didn't, just look at the trouble Luke's friend Paul had.

 

[dollarsbill]

God surely wasn't telling stories to entertain us, it is an important warning.

Why can we believe the account of the flood or even creation of man itself but not this story? How do we know its only a parable? What evidence do we have to prove its only a parable and not an account of something that actually happened?

There is no evidence. Some desire it to be a parable and so present it falsely as a parable to fit their personal beliefs. If God wanted to warn us of the eternal fire then Luke 16 does it well. It is consistent with the eternal fire in the NT. It takes some real stretching to make it a parable. Luke 16 is indeed a literal, HIGHLY detailed account with literal Biblical people.

 

[weathered]

There is no evidence. Some desire it to be a parable and so present it falsely as a parable to fit their personal beliefs. If God wanted to warn us of the eternal fire then Luke 16 does it well. It is consistent with the eternal fire in the NT. It takes some real stretching to make it a parable. Luke 16 is indeed a literal, HIGHLY detailed account with literal Biblical people.

I must agree. If it were a parable Jesus most likely would not have given the beggar a name. It seems unnecessary for the Lord to give a fictional character a name.

 

[ebia]

I must agree. If it were a parable Jesus most likely would not have given the beggar a name. It seems unnecessary for the Lord to give a fictional character a name.

The name has several literary functions. Firstly if makes it clear that the parable is not trying to say "all poor people go to heaven". Secondly Lazarus is a form of Eleazar - God helps - and builds connections both to Abraham and Jesus.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=dollarsbill;There is no evidence.

There is an abundance of evidence. Deal with it. Denying it exists doesn't make it go away.


Some so desire it tnot to be a parable and so falsely deny it is a parable to fit their personal beliefs.

It takes some real stretching to deny its a parable.

"In contrast to the rich man, we now see Lazarus. The first thing to note is that he is depicted as a beggar. This is an apt description of the Gentiles who "laid at the gate" of Judah. Paul describes the predicament of the Gentiles before they accepted the Messiah in his letter to the Ephesians:

EPHESIANS 2:12 Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (RSV)

This Scripture is also a fitting representation of the position of the nations before the Messiah's sacrifice for the world's sins. They were certainly "excluded from the commonwealth of Israel," "strangers to the covenants of promise," and "without hope and without God in the world." The Gentiles were beggars, located outside Judah and longing to be fed spiritual crumbs from the table of the divinely blessed Jews.

Additionally, we are told that dogs came and consoled Lazarus in his misery, licking his sores. The Jews considered the surrounding Gentiles to be unclean "dogs." Even Yeshua himself used this unflattering comparison when he conversed with the Greek Syrophoenician woman while in the region of Tyre (Mark 7:24-30).
Also important to the story is the meaning of the name Lazarus. This Greek name is a form of the Hebrew Eleazer, and it literally means "he whom God helps." The use of this particular name is very significant to the message of the parable, for the Gentiles would indeed become "those whom God helped" through the sacrifice of His son, Yeshua."
Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

It's realy not that long of an article. Read it.

 

[weathered]

The name has several literary functions. Firstly if makes it clear that the parable is not trying to say "all poor people go to heaven". Secondly Lazarus is a form of Eleazar - God helps - and builds connections both to Abraham and Jesus.

Every name in the bible means something. Jesus name means savior, is he a parable? Like a previous poster said, it seems like a stretch.

 

[2KnowHim]

One Parable, Five stories, it begins in 15:3 and is continuous throughout.

The Greek word for parable is parabole and means, something similar, symbolic, a fictitious narrative of common life conveying a moral (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance). The Hebrew word, mashal, is not unlike it, meaning, a sense of superiority in mental action; a maxim, usually of a metaphorical nature; hence a simile, or figure of speech (as an adage, poem, discourse. (Strong's).

With a little research it is also found that the story of Lazarus and the rich man is the fifth part of a five-part parable. It is the concluding point of Jesus' parable concerning the Jews and the Gentiles. Each part of the parable refers to the dispersion of the Jews and the salvation of the Gentiles. Jesus made His point by using five different ways to tell one story.

When we follow Him through to the end, we see each part of the parable is about something either lost or rejected: the lost sheep and the ninety-nine sheep, the lost coin and the rest of the house, the prodigal son and the older son, the debtors and the unjust steward, and of course, the poor beggar and a certain rich man. One is oppressed, lost, and sought after until he is found and saved, while the other is seemingly left to his own destruction. Throughout the parable, each is very much the same as the Gentiles or the nation of Israel. As we notice this parable, let us also keep Luke 19:10 in mind, which discloses what His mission was, and still is for that matter. It simply states that Jesus came "...TO SEEK AND SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST."


Lazarus and the Rich Man: Gentiles and the Jews
http://www.godfire.net/Lazarus_And_The_Rich_Man-Eby.html

 

[weathered]

It doesn't seem to matter if its a parable or not. I don't understand the need to call it a parable. What relevance does it have? Why would it matter one way or the other? Help me understand why it matters.

 

[dollarsbill]

There is an abundance of evidence. Deal with it. Denying it exists doesn't make it go away.


Some so desire it tnot to be a parable and so falsely deny it is a parable to fit their personal beliefs.

It takes some real stretching to deny its a parable.

"In contrast to the rich man, we now see Lazarus. The first thing to note is that he is depicted as a beggar. This is an apt description of the Gentiles who "laid at the gate" of Judah. Paul describes the predicament of the Gentiles before they accepted the Messiah in his letter to the Ephesians:

EPHESIANS 2:12 Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (RSV)

This Scripture is also a fitting representation of the position of the nations before the Messiah's sacrifice for the world's sins. They were certainly "excluded from the commonwealth of Israel," "strangers to the covenants of promise," and "without hope and without God in the world." The Gentiles were beggars, located outside Judah and longing to be fed spiritual crumbs from the table of the divinely blessed Jews.

Additionally, we are told that dogs came and consoled Lazarus in his misery, licking his sores. The Jews considered the surrounding Gentiles to be unclean "dogs." Even Yeshua himself used this unflattering comparison when he conversed with the Greek Syrophoenician woman while in the region of Tyre (Mark 7:24-30).
Also important to the story is the meaning of the name Lazarus. This Greek name is a form of the Hebrew Eleazer, and it literally means "he whom God helps." The use of this particular name is very significant to the message of the parable, for the Gentiles would indeed become "those whom God helped" through the sacrifice of His son, Yeshua."
Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

It's realy not that long of an article. Read it.

I'll take the literal. Moses is literal. Abraham is literal. And so is this account of the eternal fire. It doesn't say nor imply being a parable.

 

[Timothew]

Every name in the bible means something. Jesus name means savior, is he a parable? Like a previous poster said, it seems like a stretch.

The previous poster refered to above has a doctrinal axe to grind, and Luke 16 is one of the few bible passages that support his doctine - but the only way it supports his doctrine is if it is a "true story" and not a true parable. If it turns out that the parable of Lazarus and the rich man really is a parable, he loses half of the "evidence" for his position.

 

[2KnowHim]

Mainly because, When taken literally, at face value, the entirety of its meaning is lost.
It is interesting, of all the parables Jesus spoke, only one is commonly taught as being literal. What a wonder it is, that such a thing could go unnoticed for so long, and this in the ranks of intelligent people who claim they want the truth. That single parable has become a pervading factor in man's theology. It is a ruse that condemns the vast majority to a never ending realm of burning torment.

Which is a Lie.

 

[2KnowHim]

The previous poster you refer to has a doctrinal axe to grind, and Luke 16 is one of the few bible passages that support his doctine - but the only way it supports his doctrine is if it is a "true story" and not a true parable. If it turns out that the parable of Lazarus and the rich man really is a parable, he loses half of the "evidence" for his position.

Exactly !

 

[dollarsbill]

Mainly because, When taken literally, at face value, the entirety of its meaning is lost.
It is interesting, of all the parables Jesus spoke, only one is commonly taught as being literal. What a wonder it is, that such a thing could go unnoticed for so long, and this in the ranks of intelligent people who claim they want the truth. That single parable has become a pervading factor in man's theology. It is a ruse that condemns the vast majority to a never ending realm of burning torment.

Which is a Lie.

Was Moses and Abraham literal? What parable uses literal people? Still waiting for this proof, and waiting ...

 

[weathered]

The previous poster you refer to has a doctrinal axe to grind, and Luke 16 is one of the few bible passages that support his doctine - but the only way it supports his doctrine is if it is a "true story" and not a true parable. If it turns out that the parable of Lazarus and the rich man really is a parable, he loses half of the "evidence" for his position.

I'm starting to think others too have an ax to grind too, but i'm just speculating. I'm not taking sides i'm just voicing my opinion that i don't see enough evidence to suggest its a parable, but maybe i haven't studied this enough to see what you all say about a 5 part parable. It just seems strange that the man has a name and it does seem like speculation to suggest that the name holds some spiritual meaning that is a key to understanding it. But i could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time and wouldn't be the last i'm sure. Are there other parables in scripture that give fictional characters names or is this "parable" unique?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It doesn't seem to matter if its a parable or not. I don't understand the need to call it a parable. What relevance does it have? Why would it matter one way or the other? Help me understand why it matters.

I would think it would matter to the Jews, since this parable is directed toward them, including the Pharisees

Kindgdom Bible Studies Template Page
Abraham's Bosom

*snip*

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!

 

[Timothew]

Was Moses and Abraham literal? What parable uses literal people? Still waiting for this proof, and waiting ...

Where is the rule written that a parable can never use a name? Still waiting for the proof of this rule, and waiting...