Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable

[doright]

Amen Sister Amen

When I Have A Question About Scripture, I Ask God.

And I Know Which It Is And Do Not Question It.

 

[dollarsbill]

Please note, As to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, I have always taken it to be literal.

Doesn't say nor imply it's a parable.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Please note, As to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, I have always taken it to be literal. There was no motive behind this faith; it is just the way I’ve read and understood it. To those here who believe it is a parable, I am always ready to be edified as to why it is so important to view it one way or the other, meaning, how would this change or enhance my faith in Jesus Christ, make my walk with Him stronger and how would it strengthen my witness to the gospel.

These are the only truly important points on which any argument for or against would have to be touched upon and to be edifying in any sense of my purpose in this world or to any other true follower of Jesus Christ. If there were any reason beyond these points, then I would have to question said motive and desire an answer to it.

Please explain for all of us why it is important to view this scripture as a parable and how would it change or enhance our walk, lives and witness to Christ?

And if it is a literal or even prophetic view, how would this, also, change or enhance our walk, lives and witness to Christ?

What is the true meaning and what was God trying to tell us?

Because, if I am wrong in my view, I am always willing to listen and learn from those here or elsewhere, as to why it is wrong and how seeing it from a different perspective would help me. Thank you all for your input and love!

p.s. if there is a new thread, could someone please link here in this one? Thanks, again!!!

Thank you for your response.
For me, whether it is a true story or parable, I for one look at it as "Covenatle" between the OC of Moses and the NC of Jesus.
I have a few other threads on this parable, as it seems each verse in it is so rich with OT flavor.

I also use the greek texts, interlinears, lexicons/concordances to get as accurate translation as possible for each verse.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7436472-4/#post54015375
Luke 16:26 and the great "chasm/gulf".

http://www.christianforums.com/t7538871/
Luke 16:24 why is the rich man calling out to Father Abraham?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Amen Sister Amen

When I Have A Question About Scripture, I Ask God.

And I Know Which It Is And Do Not Question It.

Doesn't everyone here?

....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Looking back on the title I gave this thread, I could have just named it "What about the story of the rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16"?

Since this is my largest study of the Bible/NT, I just wanted to garner some interest in it, since it seems it is the only place in the Gospels and Epistles [except Revelation] that shows a person suffering in a burning flame and it seems to be the most least studied and misunderstood parable in the Bible, at least according to some of the commentaries I have seen of it.

Kindgdom Bible Studies Template Page
Abraham's Bosom

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
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.

.

 

[Believe the Impossible]

Doesn't say nor imply it's a parable.

Touche!

 

[dollarsbill]

Touche!

Literal Biblical names: LITERAL account!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Literal Biblical names: LITERAL account!

The resurrection is also mentioned in verse 31 of that story.

Remembering that Lazarus was raised from the dead by Jesus in John 11 just as the 2 witnesses in Revelation 11 are resurrect

http://www.christianforums.com/t7461118-2/#post54553876
Lazarus and 2 witnesses of Reve 11 similarity

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

LUKE 16:30 "And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
31 But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' "

Yeshua uses the last two verses of this parable as an amazing prophecy of his pending resurrection from the dead. The rich man says that although his brothers may not accept the scriptural evidence for the identity of the Messiah, they will accept the evidence of one who is raised from the dead.
But Abraham answers and plainly tells him that anyone who rejects the Bible's teaching about the Messiah will also refuse to acknowledge the evidence of a miraculous resurrection.

This last verse is a sad prophecy about the Jews who, despite God's resurrection of His son from the power of the grave, have failed to recognize Yeshua as the prophesied Messiah.
Yeshua ends this parable abruptly, with no real resolution presented. The picture presented is a bleak one, yet there is hope for the Jews and for all Israel. In Romans 11, Paul laid out that hope in such a manner that scarcely few today have really believed it................

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by dollarsbill No proof of rich man account being a parable. Zero.

This is not true.

Parable:
A story, usually short and simple, that illustrates a lesson.
Some of the most famous parables are those in the New Testament.
parable - definition and examples of parables

1. Jesus told parables.
2. Lazarus and the Rich Man is a story in the New Testament.
3. The story is short and simple.
4. The story illustrates a lesson.
5. "Lazarus and the Rich Man" is included in many if not all of the lists of the parables of Jesus.

According to the definition of parable, "Lazarus and The Rich Man" is a parable.

Thank you for that!

 

[dollarsbill]

Thank you for that!

So tell us, which NT parables uses literal people?

 

[Timothew]

So tell us, which NT parables uses literal people?

The parable of "Lazarus and the Rich Man".

 

[dollarsbill]

The parable of "Lazarus and the Rich Man".

It does not say it's a parable. Being alive in fire is a clear, consistent NT doctrine for the wicked.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by dollarsbill

So tell us, which NT parables uses literal people?
​

The parable of "Lazarus and the Rich Man".

Did you notice this commentator's rendering of the greek concerning "this parable"? This is what got me to really delve more into the greek translation of this parable.

Kindgdom Bible Studies Template Page

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

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]

It does not say it's a parable. Being alive in fire is a clear, consistent NT doctrine for the wicked.

By the definition of parable, it is a parable.

 

[dollarsbill]

If anyone can prove that a NT parable uses literal people please provide evidence. Saying something over and over and over does not make it true. Until then, Luke 16 is a perfectly clear account of the eternal fire mentioned throughout the NT.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by dollarsbill Opinion does not make it a parable. It neither says nor implies it is a parable.

My goodness...can we move on now?

 

[dollarsbill]

My goodness...can we move on now?

That's what this thread is supposed to be about, right?

 

[Timothew]

If anyone can prove that a NT parable uses literal people please provide evidence. Saying something over and over and over does not make it true. Until then, Luke 16 is a perfectly clear account of the eternal fire mentioned throughout the NT.

Claiming this parable is a for real true account of hell over and over doesn't make it true. I gave the evidence. The definition and the fact that all authorities consider this to be a parable prove the case that it is a parable.

This parable also doesn't even mention eternal fire or eternal torment, so to use it as evidence of eternal torture in fire is unbiblical.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus My goodness...can we move on now?

That's what this thread is supposed to be about, right?

Here is what you said on another thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7675584/

Originally Posted by dollarsbill Annihilationists MUST make this a parable to fit their beliefs. It is not.

 

[dollarsbill]

Claiming this parable is a for real true account of hell over and over doesn't make it true. I gave the evidence. The definition and the fact that all authorities consider this to be a parable prove the case that it is a parable.

This parable also doesn't even mention eternal fire or eternal torment, so to use it as evidence of eternal torture in fire is unbiblical.

Then there will surely be NT evidence of another account using literal people. It's very simple. There are none.