Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable

[brinny]

Hmmm.....ok, was Lazarus the one that Jesus raised from the dead, and then he became a follower, testifying to what Jesus did?

 

[98cwitr]

Specific? It seems like you know who this Lazarus fellow was?

Do tell?

Im sorry...I never knew the man...only making an observation.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hmmm.....ok, was Lazarus the one that Jesus raised from the dead, and then he became a follower, testifying to what Jesus did?

Im sorry...I never knew the man...only making an observation.

What matters is, Jesus raised him from the dead after more than 3 days

John 11:39 Jesus is saying "take away ye! the stone".
Martha is saying to Him, the sister of the one having deceased "Lord, already he stinking, for it is fourth-day"
43 And these saying, to a great Voice He cries-out "Lazarus, hither out!"

 

[98cwitr]

Assuming that it's the same Lazarus in the parable

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Ok. I'll bite.

If it's a true story, why was the rich man tormented in hades body and soul? Are the wicked tormented in hades body and soul now while waiting resurrection of the dead?

The only persons in bodies in Sheol are the fallen Watcher angels, who were chained at the flood in a lower level than the wicked sinners and righteous sinners and slain innocents of Adam [like babies who were slain or died before they came to the age of accountability, for they are also covered by the Atonement and belong to Jesus and are resurrected in bodies like His, at the resurrection]. Enoch saw all these hollows in Sheol below for the keeping of the different souls and the angels that fell.

The wicked souls in Sheol are tormented, as Enoch said and Jesus corroborates. Souls have eyes, mouths, hands, ears, and they see, hear, and speak, in Sheol below, but they need a body and wait for the resurrection of the body.
Out of the body, they look like themselves, still.
All over the Word there are records of departed souls seeing, hearing, speaking -and they also feel the torment of flames, or if righteous, they were in comfort with "bright springs of water, as Enoch said. That comfortable "hollow" of Sheol below earth was emptied when Jesus led captivity captive, and led all the saints out of there, to Zion above, when He atoned for Adam's sin and the sins of all born in Adam -who waited in faith, below, until the Atonement was finished.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Hmmm.....ok, was Lazarus the one that Jesus raised from the dead, and then he became a follower, testifying to what Jesus did?

No, not at all. Lazarus who was raised was not a beggar, and lived in the house with his sisters, Martha and Mary, where Jesus would visit them.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Eh
This commentary says it better than I ever could

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.

I am not going to go read someone else's work to refute on this page. I did my refuting, and I did it by just looking at the Scripture.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Specific? It seems like you know who this Lazarus fellow was?

Do tell?

The word "certain" makes both the rich man and Lazarus specific persons. tis 1) a certain, a certain one - Lexicon at blb site:"used of persons and things concerning which the writer [or speaker] either cannot or will not speak more particularly"
Jesus was nice enough to not name the "certain rich man" publicly, but those members of his family knew who the "certain Lazarus" was, who laid at their rich brother's gate, begging [okay, that's my story, that Jesus was so kind as to warn the brothers, to heed Moses and the prophets, Himself, and they knew it -and I like mine best]

 

[Lion King]

The only persons in bodies in Sheol are the fallen Watcher angels, who were chained at the flood in a lower level than the wicked sinners and righteous sinners and slain innocents of Adam [like babies who were slain or died before they came to the age of accountability, for they are also covered by the Atonement and belong to Jesus and are resurrected in bodies like His, at the resurrection]. Enoch saw all these hollows in Sheol below for the keeping of the different souls and the angels that fell.

The wicked souls in Sheol are tormented, as Enoch said and Jesus corroborates. Souls have eyes, mouths, hands, ears, and they see, hear, and speak, in Sheol below, but they need a body and wait for the resurrection of the body.
Out of the body, they look like themselves, still.
All over the Word there are records of departed souls seeing, hearing, speaking -and they also feel the torment of flames, or if righteous, they were in comfort with "bright springs of water, as Enoch said. That comfortable "hollow" of Sheol below earth was emptied when Jesus led captivity captive, and led all the saints out of there, to Zion above, when He atoned for Adam's sin and the sins of all born in Adam -who waited in faith, below, until the Atonement was finished.

Are you sure souls have hands, ears and all those body parts? Fair enough.

Ok second question, if it's a literal story and wicked are already being tormented while the saints go to paradise. What therefore is the purpose of the resurrection of the dead?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Are you sure souls have hands, ears and all those body parts? Fair enough.

All through the Word they do. Samuel appeared to King Saul as himself. Abraham was known as himself, in Sheol. Lazarus was known as himself, in Sheol, as was the certain rich man. Souls in Sheol speak, and are heard, all through the Word -just not topside, as they are held captive in the first death, there.
When Jesus descended to Sheol to announce the Atonement and to lead the righteous captives free, He spoke. They saw.

Paul did not know if he was in the body or out of the body when he was caught up to Paradise, the third heaven, fourteen years before he wrote of it, where he heard things he could not speak of. So Paul knows that to depart is not to know if one is in the body or out of it. The soul is real, and substantial, but not of the physical, yet a reality, and the soul sees, hears, speaks, and is recognized as the person who was in the body, but is now out of the body. Its a good thing the LORD confines them to sheol below!

Ok second question, if it's a literal story and wicked are already being tormented while the saints go to paradise. What therefore is the purpose of the resurrection of the dead?

Torment is general, there, not specific, for the wicked dead. In the Lake of Fire it will be specific, and targeted according to the deeds done in the body.

They must get the bodies back, in which bodies they go to their final places, because a body is the house for the soul. Also, God did not intend for souls to dwell in the compartments in earth, forever.
Only the demons [disembodied nephilim] do not get the stolen Adam flesh bodies back, and they are the dead who do not rise, in the Word of God, because Enoch said they would not rise in their bodies of flesh, got unlawfully -nor were they confined to Sheol but to roam earth until Jesus comes back to set up His kingdom and cast them all into the Lake of Fire, where they will be tormented by the satans, also, and specifically according to their own wickedness [for they also vary, as mankind does].

Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth
And he cried and said...
tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Isa 14:9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet [thee] at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, [even] all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

 

[Lion King]

All through the Word they do. Samuel appeared to King Saul as himself. Abraham was known as himself, in Sheol. Lazarus was known as himself, in Sheol, as was the certain rich man. Souls in Sheol speak, and are heard, all through the Word -just not topside, as they are held captive in the first death, there.
When Jesus descended to Sheol to announce the Atonement and to lead the righteous captives free, He spoke. They saw.

ok.

Torment is general, there, not specific, for the wicked dead. In the Lake of Fire it will be specific, and targeted according to the deeds done in the body.

They must get the bodies back, in which bodies they go to their final places, because a body is the house for the soul. Also, God did not intend for souls to dwell in the compartments in earth, forever.
Only the demons [disembodied nephilim] do not get the stolen Adam flesh bodies back, and they are the dead who do not rise, in the Word of God, because Enoch said they would not rise in their bodies of flesh, got unlawfully -nor were they confined to Sheol but to roam earth until Jesus comes back to set up His kingdom and cast them all into the Lake of Fire, where they will be tormented by the satans, also, and specifically according to their own wickedness [for they also vary, as mankind does].

ok.

Third question, if it's a true story does it mean rich people go to hades to be tormented, while poor people go to paradise? Is being poor a ticket to paradise? The story does not say anything about having faith in Christ.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

ok.



ok.

Third question, if it's a true story does it mean rich people go to hades to be tormented, while poor people go to paradise? Is being poor a ticket to paradise? The story does not say anything about having faith in Christ.

Abraham was rich, while he lived topside, and now he is wealthy indeed, in Paradise, and "made perfect in spirit" =born again in Christ, since the Atonement.
Lazarus was a Jew who kept Moses -by faith, as well as he could. The rich man was a Jew who did not keep Moses, and who was filled with unbelief in God. The Law did not save, but by faith, those who obeyed God knew they would be redeemed by God. Abraham was the father of faith, and men of faith have existed since the beginning of creation.
If you would read Enoch you would see the story laid out plainly from the beginning. Enoch saw even the soul of Abel in Sheol, crying out for the avenging of his blood.
In Revelation, the souls under the altar also do the same, who are slain in the tribulation.

 

[Lion King]

Abraham was rich, while he lived topside, and now he is wealthy indeed, in Paradise, and "made perfect in spirit" =born again in Christ, since the Atonement.
Lazarus was a Jew who kept Moses -by faith, as well as he could. The rich man was a Jew who did not keep Moses, and who was filled with unbelief in God. The Law did not save, but by faith, those who obeyed God knew they would be redeemed by God. Abraham was the father of faith, and men of faith have existed since the beginning of creation.
If you would read Enoch you would see the story laid out plainly from the beginning. Enoch saw even the soul of Abel in Sheol, crying out for the avenging of his blood.
In Revelation, the souls under the altar also do the same, who are slain in the tribulation.

Where did you get the stuff about the faiths of the rich man and Lazarus? I believe it wasn't mentioned.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I am not going to go read someone else's work to refute on this page. I did my refuting, and I did it by just looking at the Scripture.

But of course

http://www.christianforums.com/t7322018-101/
Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

Let me start...
How do we know what books to use as scripture?

 

[Timothew]

True story. No parables have specific persons mentioned.

That seems like circular reasoning to me. The question is "Is the story of Lazarus and the rich man a parable or not?" If it is not a parable, then you might be correct in stating that no parables have specific persons mentioned. If it is a parable, then you would be incorrect in stating that no parables have specific persons mentioned.

So the "No names rule" can't really be applied until after it is determined whether or not this is a parable. I believe it is a parable, because if it is a true account of hell it contradicts so many other passages in the bible. We know that Jesus taught using parables, so it is not difficult to think that this is also a parable.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That seems like circular reasoning to me. The question is "Is the story of Lazarus and the rich man a parable or not?" If it is not a parable, then you might be correct in stating that no parables have specific persons mentioned. If it is a parable, then you would be incorrect in stating that no parables have specific persons mentioned.

So the "No names rule" can't really be applied until after it is determined whether or not this is a parable. I believe it is a parable, because if it is a true account of hell it contradicts so many other passages in the bible. We know that Jesus taught using parables, so it is not difficult to think that this is also a parable.

I tend to agree

Kindgdom Bible Studies Template Page

....................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

 

[Timothew]

The word "certain" makes both the rich man and Lazarus specific persons. tis 1) a certain, a certain one - Lexicon at blb site:"used of persons and things concerning which the writer [or speaker] either cannot or will not speak more particularly"
Jesus was nice enough to not name the "certain rich man" publicly, but those members of his family knew who the "certain Lazarus" was, who laid at their rich brother's gate, begging [okay, that's my story, that Jesus was so kind as to warn the brothers, to heed Moses and the prophets, Himself, and they knew it -and I like mine best]

Is that expecting a lot of work from one little word tis?

The word is used alot in the new testament. Not necessarily only in circumstances where the writer or speaker doesn't want to identify the person.

Greek Concordance: τίς (tis) -- 148 Occurrences

Editted to add:
Here is the phrase in greek:
Ἄνθρωπος δέ τις ἦν πλούσιος

Reasonable translations would be:
Man but who was rich
There was a man who was rich
but a certain man was rich
There was a rich man who (NIV and ESV)
There was a certain rich man, which (KJV)
Now there was a rich man (NASB)

Or, I could go way outside any tradition and capitalize Plousios and make it his name. (The original manuscripts were ALL in caps so I can easily do this!)
Now it becomes: Now there was a man, Plousios, who was dressed in purple...

Now it is definitely NOT a parable because there are 2 names, not just one. (JK)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Is that expecting a lot of work from one little word tis?

The word is used alot in the new testament. Not necessarily only in circumstances where the writer or speaker doesn't want to identify the person.

Greek Concordance: τίς (tis) -- 148 Occurrences

Editted to add:
Here is the phrase in greek:
Ἄνθρωπος δέ τις ἦν πλούσιος

Reasonable translations would be:
Man but who was rich
There was a man who was rich
but a certain man was rich
There was a rich man who (NIV and ESV)
There was a certain rich man, which (KJV)
Now there was a rich man (NASB)

Or, I could go way outside any tradition and capitalize Plousios and make it his name. (The original manuscripts were ALL in caps so I can easily do this!)
Now it becomes: Now there was a man, Plousios, who was dressed in purple...

Now it is definitely NOT a parable because there are 2 names, not just one. (JK)

Gotta love the greek....tho I prefer the transliterated greek myself


Luke 16:19 Yet a certain Man was rich...........

Textus Rec.) Luke 16:19 anqrwpoV de tiV hn plousioV kai enedidusketo porfuran kai busson eufrainomenoV kaq hmeran lamprwV

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt

 

[Timothew]

Gotta love the greek....tho I prefer the transliterated greek myself


Luke 16:19 Yet a certain Man was rich...........

Textus Rec.) Luke 16:19 anqrwpoV de tiV hn plousioV kai enedidusketo porfuran kai busson eufrainomenoV kaq hmeran lamprwV

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt

I'm confused by the tranliterated greek. The terminal sigma is represented by V? Why?

Also tiV doesn't just mean "certain" it can mean "someone" or "who" or "which", it's used in a lot of different ways depending on the context.

 

[brinny]

Assuming that it's the same Lazarus in the parable

Well that's what i find so fascinating....never linked the two together before....