Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable

[Timothew]

None of the other examples you provide are from the Bible though. I digress to my original stance...it's not a parable because it doesn't even read like one...you might want it to be a parable based on your beliefs surrounding hell and the afterlife, but truth doesn't depend on what you or I believe.



Not in the Bible they don't. I think you just want it to be a parable, am I right?

The fact remains that there is no definition of parable that includes the no-names rule. This parable is included in many lists of the parables of Jesus. Other parables use names. The only time this is claimed to not be a parable is when someone is trying to use this parable to defend their belief in eternal torment. You say "you just want it to be a parable". I could ask you the same thing. You just want this story to be true, am I right? the truth doesn't depend on what you or I believe. The no-names rule is a false one. The definition of parable doesn't require no names to be uttered. Many qualified sources list this passage as a parable.

 

[martymonster]

None of the other examples you provide are from the Bible though. I digress to my original stance...it's not a parable because it doesn't even read like one...you might want it to be a parable based on your beliefs surrounding hell and the afterlife, but truth doesn't depend on what you or I believe.



Not in the Bible they don't. I think you just want it to be a parable, am I right?

Christ only spoke to the multitudes in parables because it was not given to them in parables.
The Pharisee's were present when Christ told the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man, so unless you think that it was given to the pharisee's to know the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens?

It is simply grasping at straws (or grasping at the wind) to try and maintain that the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man is a true life event.

 

[98cwitr]

The fact remains that there is no definition of parable that includes the no-names rule. This parable is included in many lists of the parables of Jesus. Other parables use names. The only time this is claimed to not be a parable is when someone is trying to use this parable to defend their belief in eternal torment. You say "you just want it to be a parable". I could ask you the same thing. You just want this story to be true, am I right? the truth doesn't depend on what you or I believe. The no-names rule is a false one. The definition of parable doesn't require no names to be uttered. Many qualified sources list this passage as a parable.

I think the fact that Christ didn't use names in any other of His 60 parables...all save 1 (as you would view it), and you don't find that odd? I find it illogical to view it as a parable considering that the other 59 never used proper names.

Qualified sources? And what makes them qualified exactly?

How about we stay in the context of the Bible here and not old Irish folk tales?

 

[Timothew]

I think the fact that Christ didn't use names in any other of His 60 parables...all save 1 (as you would view it), and you don't find that odd? I find it illogical to view it as a parable considering that the other 59 never used proper names.

Qualified sources? And what makes them qualified exactly?

How about we stay in the context of the Bible here and not old Irish folk tales?

Okay, it doesn't really matter to me. When you can produce a definition that includes the words "and a parable can never use a proper name" then you will have made your point.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by 98cwitr Who made up that definition? Find me another parable with a proper name and I'll buy it

The definition is from the online dictionary. Find me a definition from an established dictionary that includes the no-name-rule and I'll buy it. Until then, how about the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man as a parable with a proper name?

Here's another parable with a proper name. This parable is not from the bible.
One day Foolish Jack's mother sent him out to work for a farmer, after a long day of work out in the feilds, the farmer paid Jack a penny. Jack put the penny in his handkerchief, but on the way home he lost his handkerchief along with the penny. His mother scolded him and told Jack that he should have put the penny in his pocket. The next day Jack went out to work at the dairy. After his day of work, the dairyman paid him with a jug of fresh milk. He didn't want to lose the milk, like he lost the penny, so remembering his mother's advice about putting the penny in his pocket, he decided to put the jug of milk in his pocket.
Of course in doing so, the milk spilled out of the jug.

When he arrived home his mother scolded him again, and told him he should have carried the jug of milk home on his head.

Must have been some big pockets

...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

A Parable, Both the same man, the one is taken the other left.

The Rich man, = Rich in this World, The flesh, Position.
Lazarus, = Poor in Spirit
The crumbs = The Living Word
The Gate, = The heart

Both dying, The flesh returns to the dust, the spirit returns unto God who gave it.

Can I back it up? No, do I believe it? yes.

Eccles 12:7 backs ya up

NKJV) Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.

 

[2KnowHim]

Hi LittleLamb

Thank you.

It's been a while, hope your well.

Blessings

 

[Timothew]

Must have been some big pockets

...

Well, it's a parable. Not every detail in a parable fits the main point, that Foolish Jack was unwilling to think for himself and blindly followed his mother's instructions to the letter. The parable is actually longer, and Foolish Jack eventually learns to think for himself by the end of the parable. The parable ends with Foolish Jack making a princess laugh, who had vowed only to marry a man who could make her laugh. At the end of the parable his new wife teaches Foolish Jack to think for himself. It's a funny parable that contains a proper name, proving that a parable can have a proper name and still be a parable.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by 98cwitr With this exception, can you find another one that has a proper name? Stingy Jack doesn't appear in the Bible

It is still a parable that contains a name. The only parable in the bible that contains a name is the parable of Lazarus and Dives, and that is the one we are discussing. To discover if parables can use names we must first go to a reputable definition, which I have done. Then we must look at extra-biblical parables to see if we can find some that contain names. Which I have also done. The Parable of Foolish Jack, Jack O'Lantern, and King Midas. I'm sure there are more.

How do the non-Christian Jews of today view it?
After all, Jesus told it to them, correct?

...

 

[98cwitr]

Well, it's a parable. Not every detail in a parable fits the main point, that Foolish Jack was unwilling to think for himself and blindly followed his mother's instructions to the letter. The parable is actually longer, and Foolish Jack eventually learns to think for himself by the end of the parable. The parable ends with Foolish Jack making a princess laugh, who had vowed only to marry a man who could make her laugh. At the end of the parable his new wife teaches Foolish Jack to think for himself. It's a funny parable that contains a proper name, proving that a parable can have a proper name and still be a parable.

Like Stingy Jack, I don't find Foolish Jack in the teaching of Jesus either :/

 

[Timothew]

Like Stingy Jack, I don't find Foolish Jack in the teaching of Jesus either :/

Well, the parable of Stingy Jack isn't in the teachings of Jesus. Someone asked for an example of a parable other than the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus that had a name in it. So I went to folklore looking for a parables that contained names, just to see if the claim were true that a parable can never contain a proper name. I found many examples of parables that contain names. But if you are limiting the search for just the Parables of Jesus Christ, The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus would probably be the only one. Perhaps the Parable of the Mustard Seed as well, if you consider Mustard as a proper name for the kind of Seed Jesus was talking about. But the main point that I think we all need to keep in mind is the the Definition of Parable doesn't include any restrictions on proper names. I think this "rule" was invented by those who have a certain agenda in mind.

 

[98cwitr]

Yet, unfortunately, you have to go outside the scope of Scripture to do it. :/

Mustard is the proper name of a vegetable...not a person.

I just find it odd that of all the parables of Christ (60 total), none contain a person's name...other than this one as you would state.

By such observation, and without bias towards the remaining content of the story, I can deduce that this is in fact...not a parable, but an actual occurrence.

 

[Timothew]

Yet, unfortunately, you have to go outside the scope of Scripture to do it. :/

Mustard is the proper name of a vegetable...not a person.

I just find it odd that of all the parables of Christ (60 total), none contain a person's name...other than this one as you would state.

By such observation, and without bias towards the remaining content of the story, I can deduce that this is in fact...not a parable, but an actual occurrence.

well, if you must, you must.

Here are the facts.
1. The definition of Parable doesn't include a name restriction.
2. Jesus Christ often spoke in Parables.
3. Parables from extra-biblical sources often include proper names.
4. This story is usually included in lists of the parables of Jesus Christ.

My conclusion: There is no reason to believe that the story of Lazarus and Dives is not a parable.

 

[98cwitr]

1. According to who and in what scope?
2. True
3. While true, completely irrelevant
4. based on someone else's opinion, unless Jesus or a disciple comprised the list

My conclusion: There is no reason to believe that the story of Lazarus and Dives is not a parable based on your opinion and personal theological beliefs, as they do not correlate.

 

[Timothew]

1. According to who and in what scope?
2. True
3. While true, completely irrelevant
4. based on someone else's opinion, unless Jesus or a disciple comprised the list

My conclusion: There is no reason to believe that the story of Lazarus and Dives is not a parable based on your opinion and personal theological beliefs, as they do not correlate.

Okay, and there is no reason to believe this is a true story about hell based on your opinion and personal theological beliefs.

 

[98cwitr]

not getting into ANOTHER existence of hell debate.

 

[Timothew]

not getting into ANOTHER existence of hell debate.

Okay.

 

[squint]

In every way the parable of Lazarus is one of 'trading places.'

Lazarus was no longer the subject of desiring to eat the crumbs from the rich mans table. The roles were reversed. The rich man not longer having what he thought he had and Lazarus in the blessings of God, literally in Abraham's bosom, our own father of faith.

In many ways this depicts our own turning from the possession of the evil one shown here by the unbelievers:

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

On the day of the death of Lazarus, the messengers did so carry him to the place of comfort. And also reversed the roles of these parties:

Right here is the messenger of Truth, Paul, of carrying us into death:

Romans 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:

When we eat His Bread, His Words, we are also reminded of this fact:

1 Corinthians 26:
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

This is also a picture of the losing of the place of that one who prior covered our own minds and blinded us, yes us:

Matthew 12:43
When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.

This is a picture of dry and thirsty ground, were we as Zion abide, thirsting after His Life. And also of our enemies, seeking a return to that house from which he was dispelled.

And we ought to be therein wary of our own habitations, because they do bring more to enter then what first left.

These are pictures of the rich man, divided from us. It is assuredly 'not' a parable about Lazarus and some other guy.

The 5 brothers of the rich man are also the 5 husbands of the woman at the well.

Touch, Taste, Smell, See and Hear. The operations of the FLESH man.

s

 

[x141]

In every way the parable of Lazarus is one of 'trading places.'

Lazarus was no longer the subject of desiring to eat the crumbs from the rich mans table. The roles were reversed. The rich man not longer having what he thought he had and Lazarus in the blessings of God, literally in Abraham's bosom, our own father of faith.

In many ways this depicts our own turning from the possession of the evil one shown here by the unbelievers:

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

On the day of the death of Lazarus, the messengers did so carry him to the place of comfort. And also reversed the roles of these parties:

Right here is the messenger of Truth, Paul, of carrying us into death:

Romans 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:

When we eat His Bread, His Words, we are also reminded of this fact:

1 Corinthians 26:
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

This is also a picture of the losing of the place of that one who prior covered our own minds and blinded us, yes us:

Matthew 12:43
When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.

This is a picture of dry and thirsty ground, were we as Zion abide, thirsting after His Life. And also of our enemies, seeking a return to that house from which he was dispelled.

And we ought to be therein wary of our own habitations, because they do bring more to enter then what first left.

These are pictures of the rich man, divided from us. It is assuredly 'not' a parable about Lazarus and some other guy.

The 5 brothers of the rich man are also the 5 husbands of the woman at the well.

Touch, Taste, Smell, See and Hear. The operations of the FLESH man.

s

Which brings it to the back drop of the husband that she had now was not her own ...

Luk 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Not to mention all the ones that proceeded it ...

I go to wake him ...

 

[squint]

Which brings it to the back drop of the husband that she had now was not her own ...

Luk 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Not to mention all the ones that proceeded it ...

I go to wake him ...

Flesh men see only flesh fornications when in fact it is a spiritual matter.

s