Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable

[dollarsbill]

Then quit derailing my thread and make your own

I'm quite on topic, thank you.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'm quite on topic, thank you.

Whatever...
I need to remake this a poll thread....bbl

 

[x141]

So explain how he is dead but alive in torment in fire.

You are turning the words that Jesus said were spirit and life into a truth cast down, becoming an adversary to yourself and to those around you. if you lead into captivity you must be taken into captivity as well. Consider Nebuchadnezzar who took judah and Israel captive and became captive himself to the mentality of a beast for seven years. Though this plays out far more than I can put into words as oppose to what I have written, it is never the less true of us as it is with every son of God that has ever been since the beinning, where our captivity first began.

 

[dollarsbill]

You are turning the words that Jesus said were spirit and life into a truth cast down, becoming an adversary to yourself and to those around you. if you lead into captivity you must be taken into captivity as well. Consider Nebuchadnezzar who took judah and Israel captive and became captive himself to the mentality of a beast for seven years. Though this plays out far more than I can put into words as oppose to what I have written, it is never the less true of us as it is with every son of God that has ever been since the beinning, where our captivity first began.

No, I'm just believing what Jesus said. Are you saying we can't believe Jesus?

 

[x141]

No, I'm just believing what Jesus said. Are you saying we can't believe Jesus?

If that is the perception you have of what I said, then that is what it is to you.

 

[Yab Yum]

Thank you for your response.
What does the "gulf" symbolize in that parablel/story?

It's like the guf only with more ketchup.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by dollarsbill No, I'm just believing what Jesus said. Are you saying we can't believe Jesus?

If that is the perception you have of what I said, then that is what it is to you.

I think it is safe to say we do believe in what Jesus says, or my faith is in vain.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by dollarsbill So explain how he is dead but alive in torment in fire.

You are turning the words that Jesus said were spirit and life into a truth cast down, becoming an adversary to yourself and to those around you. if you lead into captivity you must be taken into captivity as well. .

Luke 21 and Reve 13 both mention that. Interesting

Luke 21:24 and they shall fall by the mouth of the sword, and shall be led captive to all the nations,
and Jerusalem shall be trodden down by nations, till the times of nations be fulfilled.

Revelation 13:10 He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword.
Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

According to Josphus's account of the destruction of Jerusalem, Titus gave the Jews chances to surrender and be led captive, but most refused.

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover ; and it is deserving of the very particular attention of the reader, that this was the anniversary of that memorable period in which the Jews crucified their Messiah!........

After this, Josephus, in the name of Titus, earnestly exhorted John and his adherents to surrender ; but the insolent rebel returned nothing but reproaches and imprecations, declaring his firm persuasion that Jerusalem, as it was GOD'S own city, could never be taken : thus literally fulfilling the declaration of Micah, that the Jews, in their extremity, notwithstanding their crimes, would presumptuously "lean upon the LORD, and say, 'Is not the LORD among us ? none evil can come upon us." (Micah iii. 11 )

 

[dollarsbill]

I think it is safe to say we do believe in what Jesus says, or my faith is in vain.

So then you believe the rich man died but was alive in torment in the fire.

 

[Chris81]

Okay now I see where people, who believe the rich man and Lazarus story is a true story rather than a parable, are getting their material. See link:

Is Luke 16:19-31 a Parable?

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!


Check out the rest of this churches website: Middletown Bible church - Know about our Lord Jesus Christ, Salvation, Sin, Truth and More

This church seems to be against reformed theology and very big into dispensationalism.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Lazarus and Dives Part 1

.

Lazarus and Dives Part 2

.

Lazarus and Dives Part 3

.

Sorry, I don't understand these responses


...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I see it as a DeJa Vu' for several reasons.

The story names "Lazarus", there is a specific conversation, and a definite location unlike the other parables the Lord told...

I can see it now... Here we are after the thousand year rest, inside the Camp surrounded by the wicked... Lazarus and Yeshua are standing on the wall looking down on the horde of the wicked gathered around.... Then someone from the crowd of the wicked looks up and sees Lazarus and has the conversation...
It is "DeJa Vu" for all who know the story. It is especially true for those who were there that day when our Lord told the story.

Interesting perspective. Thks


..

 

[Rick Otto]

Okay now I see where people, who believe the rich man and Lazarus story is a true story rather than a parable, are getting their material. See link:

Is Luke 16:19-31 a Parable?

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!


Check out the rest of this churches website: Middletown Bible church - Know about our Lord Jesus Christ, Salvation, Sin, Truth and More

This church seems to be against reformed theology and very big into dispensationalism.

Yeah.
It's a true parable.
The idea that a parable is not a "true story" is a semantic prejudice.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Chris81 Okay now I see where people, who believe the rich man and Lazarus story is a true story rather than a parable, are getting their material. See link:

Is Luke 16:19-31 a Parable?

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.


Check out the rest of this churches website: Middletown Bible church - Know about our Lord Jesus Christ, Salvation, Sin, Truth and More

This church seems to be against reformed theology and very big into dispensationalism.

This commentator is for reformed theology and against "dispyism"

Kindgdom Bible Studies Template Page
Abraham's bosom

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!

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't know enough about Greek & parables, so maybe that's why I'm having trouble believing "this parable" is plural.
I do however believe the internal evidences from each story are convincing enough.

I remembered being taught about eternal punishment as a youth, & looking back thru the confusion of who & what to believe, I remember not believing God would want that to happen, but some of the people selling it to me could.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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? ...

It is a parable. It is not, however, apocalyptic like the Apocalypse so its imagery is not fantastic nor it is like some fairy tale where what happens is magical or absurd. It is like several other parables where the imagery is realistic and familiar to the hearers, that is to say, the concept of hell and judgement in fire and of Abraham's bosom are familiar concepts that both the apostles and others understood quite well.

 

[martymonster]

It is a parable. It is not, however, apocalyptic like the Apocalypse so its imagery is not fantastic nor it is like some fairy tale where what happens is magical or absurd. It is like several other parables where the imagery is realistic and familiar to the hearers, that is to say, the concept of hell and judgement in fire and of Abraham's bosom are familiar concepts that both the apostles and others understood quite well.

So what you're saying is that Jesus was using a parable with familiar imagery so that the those listening could understand the concepts He was referring to?
Is that correct?

That might actually be quite plausible if didn't have verses like this.


Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.


Now please explain to Me how what you said fits with what Jesus actuallysays in the above verse?

Also if Jesus was using imagery that could easily be understood by those hearing His parables how is that even His own disciples didn't understand any of His parables?

d13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

 

[MoreCoffee]

martymonster, who was Jesus speaking to when he told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? The verses you quoted from speak of the crowds. Was Jesus speaking to the crowds in Luke 16:19-31?

He also said to the disciples, "There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his possessions.
(Luke 16:1)

The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. And he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
(Luke 16:14-15)

​

Looks like he spoke to his disciples and that the Pharisees overheard. Not quite the same thing as speaking to the crowds.

Besides which, the parables that were spoken to the crowds do in fact use common imagery that people would understand easily but those who were not open to the gospel message did not learn the lesson of the parables. Do you see the distinction? The imagery is easy, the message is spiritual. Those who are not spiritual in their thinking did not understand.

Take a look at the context too. The passage from Matthew and the Luke 16:19-31 are addressed to different people at different times with different purposes and different results. If you do not pay proper attention to the purpose of the gospel author and apply verses from one passage to another you run the risk of misunderstanding what you are reading.

 

[weariedsoul]

I love all you guys. I may talk too much sometimes, but i mean well.

 

[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? ...

It is a parable. It is not, however, apocalyptic like the Apocalypse so its imagery is not fantastic nor it is like some fairy tale where what happens is magical or absurd.
It is like several other parables where the imagery is realistic and familiar to the hearers, that is to say, the concept of hell and judgement in fire and of Abraham's bosom are familiar concepts that both the apostles and others understood quite well.

I wonder how the Jews of today would view since they are mentioned in it and it was also spoken to them.
[They of course do not read the NT/NC of the Christian Bible ]

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. Some have viewed it not as a parable, but as a true story Yeshua told to give details about the punishment of sinners in hell. Yet a thorough, unbiased examination of this story will show that the generally accepted interpretations of this passage of Scripture are erroneous and misleading. In this article, we will go through the parable verse by verse to determine what the Messiah was truly teaching.

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?

If hell is truly as it is pictured in this story, then the saved will be able to view the lost who are burning there. Could anyone enjoy eternal existence if they were able to see lost friends, family, and acquaintances being incinerated in hell, yet never burning up? Additionally, if hell (as it is traditionally taught) is an abyss of fire and brimstone where sinners are tormented forever, does anyone really believe that one drop of water would relieve the pain and anguish of someone suffering in its flames?