As I read those areas of scripture, where the good guys denying entrance and the bad guys are across the gulf/ outside the door/ etc... the Bible repeatedly portrays there will be many who feel they should be on the good guys side but unfortunately they aren't. I see that as a very repetitive warning to all who read that we should pay attention because it seems that if we don't heed it our end will not be pretty.
Rich Man & Lazarus
- Thread starter KAdamW
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D
JW or SDA, is what I think he is. I doubt he will answer tho.
The rich man went to hell. This is obvious to all but those who think Hell does not exist.
Lazarus the beggar, was carried by the angels to Abraham's bossom, a place of rest.
This ties in with 1Samuel 28
Notice how Samuel came up? That is because he was below.
Why would Jesus descend into the lower regions of earth if nothing was there? Jesus went there to set the captives free, those held in Abraham's bosom.
So a literal interpretation of the story of Lazarus fits in just fine with the rest of the bible.
The rich man went to hell. This is obvious to all but those who think Hell does not exist.
Lazarus the beggar, was carried by the angels to Abraham's bossom, a place of rest.
This ties in with 1Samuel 28
Notice how Samuel came up? That is because he was below.
Why would Jesus descend into the lower regions of earth if nothing was there? Jesus went there to set the captives free, those held in Abraham's bosom.
So a literal interpretation of the story of Lazarus fits in just fine with the rest of the bible.
Well let me say I see being saved as having 3 parts. The conversion or moment of true deep belief is one. The life, a saved person should have a walk with God as he sheds or struggles with earthly temptations. And the of course there is the coming of Christ where we are giving our robes of righteousness, and become truly a new man.
Yes I am worried my end may not be pretty, I find that judging myself is something rather presumptuous as the books said "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?". That tells me that those who judge their own salvation are not always correct. I have faith that His judgement is perfect and I will end up exactly where I should.
I am part of the body of Christ. I do not care for labels. Men always want to label and pre-judge based on their perception of certain religious groups.
Yes I am worried my end may not be pretty, I find that judging myself is something rather presumptuous as the books said "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?". That tells me that those who judge their own salvation are not always correct. I have faith that His judgement is perfect and I will end up exactly where I should.
I am part of the body of Christ. I do not care for labels. Men always want to label and pre-judge based on their perception of certain religious groups.
Gosh you want so badly to label me. Goodness is that why you are here, to labl anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do and act like they are inferior? This is not an Adam discussion forum, it is a Bible discussion. Brother I hope you think about how aggressive you come across. Trying so hard to attack people instead or having a true scripture discussion.
I do agree that the rich man is portrayed as being in hell. But I still maintain that it is a parable speaking about the end times.
And your comment on the passage from Samuel was the words of a witch and you are comparing that with the words of Christ as some proof?
And the passage in Eph. talks about Christ being put into his tomb then being resurrected and ascending to heaven.
I do agree that the rich man is portrayed as being in hell. But I still maintain that it is a parable speaking about the end times.
And your comment on the passage from Samuel was the words of a witch and you are comparing that with the words of Christ as some proof?
And the passage in Eph. talks about Christ being put into his tomb then being resurrected and ascending to heaven.
D
Nothing in the bible states that this story is about the end times. You offer no scripture to support your claim. This is purely your imagination and is not founded on any type of fact. It is solely your opinion.
Again, this is your opinion. The words of this witch are recorded in scripture so we can use them and quote them(2Tim. 3:16). The Story of the medium of Endor is one that can cause some controversy. However, the bible never says it is not Samuel. The prophetic words of Samuel come true. You have no proof it is not Samuel.
Again, you have no proof to support your belief. This seems to be a pattern with you. All you have done is accuse me of being wrong and not showing me a scripture to support your contention.
Again, this is your opinion. The words of this witch are recorded in scripture so we can use them and quote them(2Tim. 3:16). The Story of the medium of Endor is one that can cause some controversy. However, the bible never says it is not Samuel. The prophetic words of Samuel come true. You have no proof it is not Samuel.
Again, you have no proof to support your belief. This seems to be a pattern with you. All you have done is accuse me of being wrong and not showing me a scripture to support your contention.
Why would you say that, I provided scripture to back up my thoughts in the study. I must assume you didn't read it, yet you want to tell me I am wrong.
Below is the excerpt that backs up my logic.
"The great gulf is a source of much discussion, we see that it separates those who are tormented, and those who are comforted. I‘ve shown above that this is imagery is consistent with a portrait of the second coming, (Luke 13:28-30). If this is true than we should be able to find the equivalent of this gulf in other passages which speak of the second coming.
Remember the virgins with no oil in their lamps, (Mat. 25:1-13), the door was shut and they were left outside pleading to get in, the Lord told them he didn’t know them. Sound familiar. Fixed gulf/shut door separating the good from the bad. The bad guys pleading for help, the good guys denying help. Same story told with different images
Also the same image in Mat. 25:31-46. Christ comes with His angels and gathers everyone, then he separates the sheep from the goats. He creates a divide/gulf/door between the good guys and bad guys. Again, tormented bad guys plead for their fate, the good guys deny them. Same images over and over,
In Mat. 8:11-12 very similar imagery again. The bad guys get separated by being placed in the outer darkness and they are tormented. It also says that many will come from the east and west, remember the passages that said the angels will gather the elect from the corners of the earth, same reference. Then it says those that are gathered sit down with Abraham. Lastly, who are the ones separated and tormented? None other than the Children of the kingdom, the Jews/Israelites.
Like I said, once you realize that the imagery is a portrait of the second coming, suddenly the images don’t appear unique. Instead you realize this parable is actually are repetitive images that we’ve been shown a hundred times."
I posted my study on this as a separate discussion which I provide scripture to back me up.
Because you failed to read the study and check the verses and valid comparisons, does not mean I am accusing you of being wrong. I have used the Bible to interpret the Bible.
D
Wow....
Your logic deifies convention. The best way I can describe it is a Frankenstein theology. Knit this scripture together with this one and come up with brand new concepts. (shakes head)
The Gulf was a physical gulf. Not a metaphor. Ye reject that because it differs with the teachings of your cult.
I was an atheist who studied the Bible for 3-12 hrs a day for 5 yrs after my conversion. I Learned from the Bible not any church or cult. I went out of my way to make sure I would not hear what ANYONE said about scripture until I had studied and was convinced by scripture alone.
I am not knitting any thing. It is consistent imagery bad guys on one side pleading and good guys on the other side denying them. I did not write that imagery over and over it is straight from the Bible, in mutiple places using different ways to describe the same event.
I have shown you the scripture and the obvious repetition, and pleaded with you to show me from the Bible where my logic is flawed. Instead you call me names and say I am wrong, based on nothing. If your not here to discuss scripture in a civil manner why post at all?
I am not knitting any thing. It is consistent imagery bad guys on one side pleading and good guys on the other side denying them. I did not write that imagery over and over it is straight from the Bible, in mutiple places using different ways to describe the same event.
I have shown you the scripture and the obvious repetition, and pleaded with you to show me from the Bible where my logic is flawed. Instead you call me names and say I am wrong, based on nothing. If your not here to discuss scripture in a civil manner why post at all?
D
Yes, it is literal and is presented as such. Those who differ do so because they are involved with aberrant theology.
This is not a parable. Parables teach a single kingdom principal or truth. Parables never include proper names. Parables never included lessons on the after life. Parables are never prophetic (as you later claim). Nothing suggests this is a parable but those who disagree with the obvious content of this parable will try to allegorize this into something other than what it ostensibly is.
Some think this is prophetic? Now you are off in the deep of the murky mire of twisted scripture. Like pounding a square peg in a hole, you force this to mean something else other than what it clearly is.
Again, you have not done your homework. Luke 14 is not connected to Luke 16. Luke 15 describes a public scene, quite unlike the scene of Luke 14. Again you point to the rock and then the tree attempt to prove they are related. This is Frankenstienian theology.
This is almost not worth a response. You claim a story of talking trees proves the story of the Lazarus and the rich man can't be real. Again, you point to one thing, then another and claim there is a connection between them. The story of Lazarus and the rich man do not have talking trees or brambles, so why even bring this up? The really sad part of this, is that you do this, through your post. It is nothing more than classic misdirection. It proves nothing.
Here again, you take a phrase and turn it into a rule that does not exist. Have you ever wondered why the rich man is not named in this story? I will help you out with this one. Jesus said in Matt. 7:23 "I never knew you! Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." The rich man is never named because Christ "never knew him" not because he did not exist.
Again you point to something unrelated to make your case. The parables Jesus told are not the same as parables in the old testament. But let's go along with this line of reasoning. The two girls mentioned in Eze. 23 are identified in verse 4 as being Samaria and Jerusalem. The rich man is never identified as anything but the rich man. So your logic once again fails.
So if we reject your version of this story we will be "Thrust out" or "Cut off"? So you are now claiming to be an inspired prophet of God and if we reject your interpretation of this scripture we are rejecting the message of God? So you have arrived at perfection? If we reject your interpretation we are "highminded"?
This is incredibly arrogant of you! You have set yourself above all others. You lack humility, to say the least!
I wont go any further than this for now. Later I may return to this post and show you more of how you are wrong.
This is not a parable. Parables teach a single kingdom principal or truth. Parables never include proper names. Parables never included lessons on the after life. Parables are never prophetic (as you later claim). Nothing suggests this is a parable but those who disagree with the obvious content of this parable will try to allegorize this into something other than what it ostensibly is.
Some think this is prophetic? Now you are off in the deep of the murky mire of twisted scripture. Like pounding a square peg in a hole, you force this to mean something else other than what it clearly is.
Again, you have not done your homework. Luke 14 is not connected to Luke 16. Luke 15 describes a public scene, quite unlike the scene of Luke 14. Again you point to the rock and then the tree attempt to prove they are related. This is Frankenstienian theology.
This is almost not worth a response. You claim a story of talking trees proves the story of the Lazarus and the rich man can't be real. Again, you point to one thing, then another and claim there is a connection between them. The story of Lazarus and the rich man do not have talking trees or brambles, so why even bring this up? The really sad part of this, is that you do this, through your post. It is nothing more than classic misdirection. It proves nothing.
Here again, you take a phrase and turn it into a rule that does not exist. Have you ever wondered why the rich man is not named in this story? I will help you out with this one. Jesus said in Matt. 7:23 "I never knew you! Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." The rich man is never named because Christ "never knew him" not because he did not exist.
Again you point to something unrelated to make your case. The parables Jesus told are not the same as parables in the old testament. But let's go along with this line of reasoning. The two girls mentioned in Eze. 23 are identified in verse 4 as being Samaria and Jerusalem. The rich man is never identified as anything but the rich man. So your logic once again fails.
So if we reject your version of this story we will be "Thrust out" or "Cut off"? So you are now claiming to be an inspired prophet of God and if we reject your interpretation of this scripture we are rejecting the message of God? So you have arrived at perfection? If we reject your interpretation we are "highminded"?
This is incredibly arrogant of you! You have set yourself above all others. You lack humility, to say the least!
I wont go any further than this for now. Later I may return to this post and show you more of how you are wrong.
It is not wise to call something a parable if the bible doesn't say or even suggest that it is. It is the practice of the bible to indicate a parable.
However, if it was a parable, a parable is a truth that is used to explain a parallel circumstance.
So even if it was a made up story, the principle of the story will still hold true
However, if it was a parable, a parable is a truth that is used to explain a parallel circumstance.
So even if it was a made up story, the principle of the story will still hold true
Again insulting and offer no scripture to back your comment.
Here you say parables never use proper names but later on you say the proper names used in the parable that I pointed out is unrelated. It actually is very related. The comment that you made about parables never using proper names. Real simple, are there Biblical parables that use proper names? There is only one right answer. Yes.
You then say parables are never prophetic. Wheat and tares parable, prophetic. Unless you believe the harvest has already happened? The virgins without oil, did that prophecy about endtimes happen too? We missed the wedding eh? The amount of parables that deal with endtimes is so huge I am not sure how you can think they are not prophetic?
Everything suggests this is a parable. Crazy things like scripture all point the the obvious that is exactly what it is. Christ never spoke to the pharisees except in parable. If you want to claim that he revealed these things to them without parable, then it is not I whom you disagree with.
Just being insulting here without scripture to back it.
There are direct comparisons and components that do relate. Besides my main comment was this was when and where this discourse began and continued thru to the rich man and Lazarus subject which we are discussing. If you read it you will see many related images and that this indeed is when the discourse began.
Yet again you insult me, instead of showing thru scripture where I err.
I did no such things. The reason I use that fantastical parable as an example is because some people claim all parables have only literal components. Talking trees is obviously not literal. Thus I made the point I was trying to, and I used scripture to do it.
Again you finish with insults instead of proving your point with scripture.
I did no such thing, I simply noted the repetition of similar things in parable.
You claim that Christ (the creator) literally did not know the name of an actual person in what you say is a literal story? Best of luck with that.
Here we are back to proper names being used in parable, and again you say is is unrelated. How can a parable using proper names, be unrelated to the issue that is about whether proper names are used in parable?
Ah now you seem to sway on the point. There are proper names in parables, but you defend your prior inaccurate denial of such by claiming Old Testament parables are different.
How are they different? I thought Christ is the word.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Heb. 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Acts 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Luke 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
2Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
2Pet 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Your comment about rich man being unnamed while Lazarus and Abraham were named is unfounded. If you take time to read the whole study before responding you will see the rich man represents not a single person as does Lazarus.
Just as the virgins represents a group, like the wheat/tares or the sheep/goats.
That's not even close to what I said, I simply pointed out similar parables that show a pattern with this parable. The passages contain warnings and imagery of where we don't want to end up. I did not write the parables I simply noticed the pattern and mentioned it.
How did I set myself above others? Writing a Bible study does not indicate I am arrogant. I used the word "we" thus including myself. You twist my remarks and the insult me again.
Last edited:
The OP put so much thought and effort to investigate the meaning of this passage, and gave a thorough discussion of its "parableness". Your reply in return is so thoughtless. He reasoned about how he came to his conclusion, but you couldn't be bothered to put in the slightest effort to do more than assert that he was wrong -- you couldn't even hazard a guess why.
There are a multitude of parables not labeled as parable. Even in the book of Luke just a couple of chapters prior. Theologians for the last 2000 yrs from all areas of Christianity have included this in their lists of parables. Go to the library and find see how many published scholars who make it their job to study parables are in agreement.
Parables and symbolic imagery taught in scripture are often times un-true.
The parable with talking trees, or the imagery of comparing Christ to a thief, or that on judgement day he will come and divide sheep from goats.
Parables and symbolic imagery taught in scripture are often times un-true.
The parable with talking trees, or the imagery of comparing Christ to a thief, or that on judgement day he will come and divide sheep from goats.
Last edited:
I would like to think that this is why your study is so reasonable, but I sadly know from experience that average atheists that are just as careless as average theists. But still, it's nice to see the hard work put into this study. As an atheist, I don't believe that the bible is true, but I still didn't spot a single thing in your dissection of the story of the rich man and Lazarus that I disagree with.
D
As I mentioned before, I am less than fond of long posts, that typically look like a wall of text. Lengthy posts do not impress me and I won't respond to more than three posts. This last response was because you asked me to show you what was wrong and I only covered your introduction and the last part where you concluded people who are "highminded will be cut off.
So I will chose a point or two of yours and respond to them.
Point one
You assert:
Yes there may be in the O.T. only. Parables told by Jesus never include proper names. I should have mentioned earlier that I was referring to parables told by Jesus. If you go back and see what I wrote I did imply parables told by Jesus as I mentioned they illustrated one kingdom principle. That automatically excludes all parables told in the Old testament.
The one "parable" you brought up to illustrate the use of names is in the O.T. and the names were defined to be Samara and Jerusalem.
All the parables told by Jesus in the N.T. follow a pattern, of which I will repeat for you again:
1) They never include a proper name of a person.
2) They illustrate a single simple kingdom principle. (not a complicated contrived interpretation)
3) Parables sometimes teach doctrine, but never establish a new doctrine.
4) The interpretation for the meaning of each parable is often explained by Jesus or should be obvious.
5) Parables do not produce prophecy, tho' they may include future events.
Point 2
Let me ask you a question.
If human spirits do not survive death (i.e. annihilation) then why would Jesus tell us a story of two men in the afterlife?
Why would Jesus include false concepts of a soul that survives death if this is false?
D
Yes he did put loads of deatil and verbage into his post. Unfortunatly he is twisting the meaning of this story. He is actually trying to prove the opposite of what the vast majority of Christians conclude from this story.
1) He is trying to call it a parable to minimize it's ramifications.
2) He is reinterpreting it to be all about allegory, symbolism and even prophecy.
3) He ignores the context of this story (i.e. two souls that survive death)
4) He is teaching the same thing christian cults teach and not historic Christianity.
5) He is giving us a private and aberrant interpretation.
6) He has cobbled together bits and pieces from all over scripture to form a post of over 50 paragraphs about one paragraph in the bible in an attempt to justify his private and aberrant conclusions.
I have made attempts to respond to him but I can't respond to each one of his fifty paragraphs. I did reply with some scripture and will continue to do so.
1) He is trying to call it a parable to minimize it's ramifications.
2) He is reinterpreting it to be all about allegory, symbolism and even prophecy.
3) He ignores the context of this story (i.e. two souls that survive death)
4) He is teaching the same thing christian cults teach and not historic Christianity.
5) He is giving us a private and aberrant interpretation.
6) He has cobbled together bits and pieces from all over scripture to form a post of over 50 paragraphs about one paragraph in the bible in an attempt to justify his private and aberrant conclusions.
I have made attempts to respond to him but I can't respond to each one of his fifty paragraphs. I did reply with some scripture and will continue to do so.
Last edited by a moderator: