Rich Man & Lazarus

[FIRE_of_ELIJAH]

To brother kadam. Im sorry that the Holy Spirit has BANNED you !!! Everyone knows it's fair and just regarding your case. You have gone out of control. you are trying to mislead someone but thanks to the mods and admin in whom lead by the Spirit to end your misleading way of explaining the bible.

Repent and believe what was already written.

 

[danschance]

To KAdamW, I find your post to be very IRONIC, a fatal,futile, IRONY. BUT, let me commend you on coming to the correct conclusion. I quote your great ending. "Most importantly for those reading it today, it is a reminder for the commissioned individual not to be "highminded", or we might just find ourselves, "cut off" and "thrust out" of the kingdom of God as well" I find this to be a very good conclusion, But your conclusion really didn't came out of your work of trying to prove it was a parable and not a real story. You never proved your teaching of soul sleep. It was IRONIC, you proved our side more than your side . Thank you. It was a good example of wrong headed exegesis. Love to all Hoffco.

I find his post to be in error and lacks intellectual honesty. Kadam says the rich man wore purple and then points out a scripture that priests are to wear some purple. So then he concludes the rich man must be a priest. He never considers the fact that rich people and kings also wore purple!

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
“It came to pass”(v.22) indicates the passing of time and that this scene has been taken to a future conclusion as the result of their poor stewardship.

Here he makes a huge mistake. The transitional phrase "And it came to pass" was added by the translators of the KJV. It does not appear in the greek texts at all. Yet he claims it has meaning when he says "it indicates the passage of time"!

Again we see Kadam make the exact same blunder in Luke 16:27.

Luke 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

Here again, we see the rich man(Jews) praying to father Abraham, this of course is forbidden by the second commandment(Exo. 20:33) and condemned by Christ to the Pharisees, (John 8). Remember, it is the Pharisees to whom He is speaking this parable.

Here he takes the word "pray" from the king James and claims it means prayer to Abraham. He never bothers to understand that the word pray in KJV means beg. All modern translations insert the word beg instead of pray.

So Kadam's original post lacks any form of intellectual honesty, scholarship and common sense. His conclusions are in error like his theology. The original post is purely driven by a need to change what this story literally says because it violates his own false theology of soul sleep. He never once addressed my question of "If man's spirit can not survive death, then why would Jesus tell a story about two people who survive death?". Why would God use a concept to be blatantly false unless it is true? All I got from him after that question was stony silence.

 

[LT]

I am not a JW or an SDA, but I still don't see why this must be a literal story.
I don't have any issue with eternal hell, and firmly hold to immediate torment for the wicked upon death(although it is not the same torment as the Lake of Fire).
I believe the setting of this story is realistic, and supported Biblically, but I don't see how the dialogue or specific event needs to be non-fictional.
This story has a lesson, and does not seem to be intended to simply depict a clear picture of the afterlife. It holds synergy with the parables before it, and is classically considered fiction, just as all the parables are fiction.
Why is this an issue? Where in the Bible does it claim this story is prophecy or history. Did Jesus say this was an actual event?
It is a story to make a point, just like the other parables.
Are you guys claiming that the parable of the prodigal son was non-fiction?
Many of you were trying to attack SDA more than you were trying to defend Scripture!

 

[LT]

It is so very destructive when people try to defend Christianity without knowing what they're talking about. It is better to let the Judgement sort the wheat from tares and sheep from goats, than attack others without a solid Biblical basis.

 

[danschance]

ya' think?

the comment by him that killed me the most was in another thread about the Sabbath. he called Sabbath observance a man made law. how do you start to respond to something so incredibly inaccurate?

I never said the Sabbath is a man made law, for the record. You will have to show me that one.

 

[danschance]

It is so very destructive when people try to defend Christianity without knowing what they're talking about. It is better to let the Judgement sort the wheat from tares and sheep from goats, than attack others without a solid Biblical basis.

I guess you did not read my two posts where I take a detailed look at the original post? This Kadam takes a transitional phrase "And it came to pass.." to mean a lot of time had passed. What he does not understand is that phrase was added by the translators and it is not found in the greek or any modern translation. He also does it with the word Pray and writes several paragraphs on about how the rich man is praying. He doesn't realize that in the King James Version "pray" can also mean beg. Modern translations correctly translate it as beg.

Kadam does an incredibly poor job trying to twist a single paragraph in the bible into his 53 paragraph rant, with almost 90 verses into claiming this story is a prophecy. If you want to agree with him that is your own fault. Please don't insult me for defending the scriptures and my faith by calling it a personal attack.

 

[Laodicea]

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable. Look at the way Jesus starts His parables
Luke 10:30
(30) And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
Luke 12:16
(16) And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:
Luke 13:6
(6) He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
Luke 14:16
(16) Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
Luke 15:11
(11) And he said, A certain man had two sons:
Luke 19:12
(12) He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
Luke 20:9
(9) Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.

Notice how the first parable in Luke 16 starts
Luke 16:1
(1) And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

Notice how all these parables start now look at how the parable of the rich man and Lazarus starts.
Luke 16:19
(19) There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

 

[danschance]

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable. Look at the way Jesus starts His parables
Luke 10:30
(30) And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
Luke 12:16
(16) And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:
Luke 13:6
(6) He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
Luke 14:16
(16) Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
Luke 15:11
(11) And he said, A certain man had two sons:
Luke 19:12
(12) He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
Luke 20:9
(9) Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.

Notice how the first parable in Luke 16 starts
Luke 16:1
(1) And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

Notice how all these parables start now look at how the parable of the rich man and Lazarus starts.
Luke 16:19
(19) There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

Once again you missed the point of these scriptures and attempt to substitute your own bizarre exegesis. The reason why the rich man is not named in scripture is because God does not know him.

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matt. 7:23

This is the fate of all who are damned. God doesn't know any of them and won't even name them. This is why the rich man is not named.

 

[danschance]

Laodicea,

Lets play the devils advocate. Let's assume this is a parable. Why would Jesus tell a parable that teaches the concept of a spirit surviving death if this is not true? Why would Jesus include false doctrine if soul sleep is true? Does that make any sense to you ...at all?

The entire story is about two men who die and then the spirit of Lazarus is carried to a place called Abraham's bosom. The wicked rich man is carried/brought to a place of torment. Why would Jesus even mention a place of torment if it is not true?

You all are spliting hairs on this, trying to prove it is a parable when you ignore it teaches doctrine contrary to what your cult teaches. Maybe you should focus on that rather than worry if it is a real story or not.

This story teaches:

1) The spirits of two men surviving death.
2) It teaches of a place of torment that the wicked go to.
3) Teaches that the righteous go to a place of comfort.
4) It teaches Abraham is alive in the place, even though he died many many years ago.

These points all are contrary to the teachings of the SDA cult.

 

[LT]

this should have been your 1st argument. it is very good

 

[danschance]

this should have been your 1st argument. it is very good

I used it long ago and Kadam ignored it.

Why would Jesus include a story/parable into the pages of scripture that include living disembodied spirits if it is false doctrine?

Answer: It is not false doctrine at all!

So who really cares if it is a parable or a story? That argument is just a red herring that detracts from what this story is really teaching. That spirits of humans will survive death.

If they want to call this a parable, fine. Then tell me why Jesus included the living spirits of two men and Abraham after they had died, if this is not so.

 

[Mark51]

The following discussion is in support:

Jesus Christ was speaking to his disciples in the present of the Pharisees and scribes prior to the account at Luke 16:19-31. The Pharisees sneered with contempt at Jesus because they reckoned that they, as the religious rulers, were the only ones entitled to the bosom position of Abraham. In their eyes, the common people did not come into the picture at all. Those rulers said to Jesus in an earlier encounter with him: “We are Abraham’s offspring,” and again: “Our father is Abraham,” and yet again: “We have one Father, God.”-John 8:33, 39, 41.

From this it is evident that the Pharisees considered that Abraham represented God. In this they were right. However, they were wrong in claiming sonship with either Abraham or God. In God’s eyes this relationship is determined, not by fleshly descent, but by one’s disposition and works. As Jesus said to them on that same occasion: “If you are Abraham’s children, do the works of Abraham,” and Jesus also said: “You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began.” (John 8:39, 44) This preaching by Jesus that exposed the hypocrisy, greed and false teaching of the Jewish clergy caused a change to take place in their lives.-Matthew 15:1-9; 23.

Also, Jesus often taught a lesson by telling a story through the means of parables or illustrations. In this illustration, the rich man well pictures the Jewish clergy who were well provided for with spiritual provisions; who considered themselves children of the kingdom, clothed in purple; who were very self-righteous, wearing fine linen; and who were proud of being Abraham’s offspring. (Matthew 23:27, 28; Romans 3:1, 2; Revelation 19:8) The beggar Lazarus, whose name means “God is helper,” well pictures the Jewish common people, who were despised by the clergy, who because of neglect were spiritually sick and were hungering and thirsting for righteousness, and who appreciated their need of the Great Physician, Christ Jesus.-John 7:49; Matthew 5:6; Mark 2:17.

The death of the rich man and of Lazarus pictured a change taking place in the relative positions of these two classes. This should be no surprise to us because the Bible shows that death can be used symbolically, representing people as dying or having died though still alive, meaning thereby that a a great change in one’s life or course of action. Compare Romans 6:2, 11-13; 7:4-6; Colossians 3:3; 1　Timothy 5:6. A death, or change from former conditions, happened when Jesus fed the Lazarus class spiritually, and they thus came into the favor of the greater Abraham, Jehovah God. At the same time, the false religious leaders “died” with respect to having God’s favor. Being cast off, they suffered torments when Christ’s followers after Pentecost forcefully exposed their evil works. (Acts 7:51-57) So this illustration is not literal and does not teach that some dead persons are tormented in a literal fiery hell.

Furthermore, it is not reasonable or Scriptural to believe that a man suffers torment simply because he is rich, wears good clothing and has plenty to eat. It is not Scriptural to believe that one is blessed with heavenly life just because he is a beggar. Jesus said nothing about the rich man’s living a degraded life worthy of “fiery” punishment; the man’s failing was that he did not feed the poor. Further, Jesus said nothing about Lazarus’ doing good things, things that clearly would merit his going to heaven, which is what some churches claim is the meaning of his being taken to Abraham’s bosom. Furthermore, Abraham, like David, was dead and in his grave, so angels literally could not carry Lazarus to his bosom. (Acts 2:29,　34) None of God’s servants had a heavenly reward held out to them before the coming of Christ Jesus; that is why his apostles-even after his resurrection-were looking to an earthly kingdom. (Psalms 45:16; Acts 1:6-8) Besides, Abraham could not have been in heaven in view of Jesus’ words: “No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man”?(John 3:13) And if the rich man were in a literal fire, surely Lazarus could not benefit him with just a drop of water. This request was for the purpose to get the “Lazarus” class away from a favored position. All of these are figures of speech.

 

[john832]

Best explanation of Luke 16 I have ever read...

The Real Meaning of Lazarus and the Rich Man

 

[danschance]

No one answered my question again. I posted this question and it has been ignored every time by those who seek to use the scriptures to support the lie that our spirit dies with the flesh.

1) Why would Jesus tell us a story of two spirits surviving death if this is false theology?
2) It teaches of a place of torment that the wicked go to. Why would Jesus teach this if it is false?
3) Teaches that the righteous go to a place of comfort. Why would Jesus teach about deceased human spirits in this state?
4) It teaches Abraham is alive in the place, even though he died many many years ago. Why would Jesus teach this if it were not true?

It doesn't really matter if you want to call this a story or a parable or a fable. You can claim it is all symbolism but the fact remains that Jesus taught souls surviving after death of the body. Why would He do that if this is false? Was Jesus confused about this?

 

[danschance]

Best explanation of Luke 16 I have ever read...

The Real Meaning of Lazarus and the Rich Man

This is the best explanation of Luke 16 you have ever read?...really? I find it to be nothing more than trying to twist the clear meaning of this story into something that is never intended. Nothing in scripture suggests this is a parable. Nothing in scripture suggests the entire story is pure allegory.

He creates a bunch of paper tigers and straw man arguments. Let me give you an example. He claims Abraham's bosom means his chest. Then mocks how one can even move their arms inside Abraham's chest. The problem with this straw man argument is that it is completely false! This story does not imply Lazarus entered into Abraham's chest!

Then he starts to define the elements and charters in the story. This author claims Lazarus is actually Eleazer (as if this makes things clearer?) Then claims he is a Eleazer of Gen 15:2. Keep in mind this is the author's personal association. Noting in scripture suggests this.

This is how this author handles the entire story. He simply redefines the elements with in the story to mean something else. He will have to face God on how he has trifled with the scriptures. This author is a liar, an egotistical blow hard who finally claims this entire narrative is about stewardship. He never once mentions that it is a story about souls who have survived death.

John, you really think this is a good read? Wow...

 

[jb]

Best explanation of Luke 16 I have ever read...

The Real Meaning of Lazarus and the Rich Man

utter nonsense!

 

[danschance]

The following discussion is in support:

Jesus Christ was speaking to his disciples in the present of the Pharisees and scribes prior to the account at Luke 16:19-31. The Pharisees sneered with contempt at Jesus because they reckoned that they, as the religious rulers, were the only ones entitled to the bosom position of Abraham. In their eyes, the common people did not come into the picture at all. Those rulers said to Jesus in an earlier encounter with him: “We are Abraham’s offspring,” and again: “Our father is Abraham,” and yet again: “We have one Father, God.”-John 8:33, 39, 41.

From this it is evident that the Pharisees considered that Abraham represented God. In this they were right. However, they were wrong in claiming sonship with either Abraham or God. In God’s eyes this relationship is determined, not by fleshly descent, but by one’s disposition and works. As Jesus said to them on that same occasion: “If you are Abraham’s children, do the works of Abraham,” and Jesus also said: “You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began.” (John 8:39, 44) This preaching by Jesus that exposed the hypocrisy, greed and false teaching of the Jewish clergy caused a change to take place in their lives.-Matthew 15:1-9; 23.

Also, Jesus often taught a lesson by telling a story through the means of parables or illustrations. In this illustration, the rich man well pictures the Jewish clergy who were well provided for with spiritual provisions; who considered themselves children of the kingdom, clothed in purple; who were very self-righteous, wearing fine linen; and who were proud of being Abraham’s offspring. (Matthew 23:27, 28; Romans 3:1, 2; Revelation 19:8) The beggar Lazarus, whose name means “God is helper,” well pictures the Jewish common people, who were despised by the clergy, who because of neglect were spiritually sick and were hungering and thirsting for righteousness, and who appreciated their need of the Great Physician, Christ Jesus.-John 7:49; Matthew 5:6; Mark 2:17.

The death of the rich man and of Lazarus pictured a change taking place in the relative positions of these two classes. This should be no surprise to us because the Bible shows that death can be used symbolically, representing people as dying or having died though still alive, meaning thereby that a a great change in one’s life or course of action. Compare Romans 6:2, 11-13; 7:4-6; Colossians 3:3; 1　Timothy 5:6. A death, or change from former conditions, happened when Jesus fed the Lazarus class spiritually, and they thus came into the favor of the greater Abraham, Jehovah God. At the same time, the false religious leaders “died” with respect to having God’s favor. Being cast off, they suffered torments when Christ’s followers after Pentecost forcefully exposed their evil works. (Acts 7:51-57) So this illustration is not literal and does not teach that some dead persons are tormented in a literal fiery hell.

Furthermore, it is not reasonable or Scriptural to believe that a man suffers torment simply because he is rich, wears good clothing and has plenty to eat. It is not Scriptural to believe that one is blessed with heavenly life just because he is a beggar. Jesus said nothing about the rich man’s living a degraded life worthy of “fiery” punishment; the man’s failing was that he did not feed the poor. Further, Jesus said nothing about Lazarus’ doing good things, things that clearly would merit his going to heaven, which is what some churches claim is the meaning of his being taken to Abraham’s bosom. Furthermore, Abraham, like David, was dead and in his grave, so angels literally could not carry Lazarus to his bosom. (Acts 2:29,　34) None of God’s servants had a heavenly reward held out to them before the coming of Christ Jesus; that is why his apostles-even after his resurrection-were looking to an earthly kingdom. (Psalms 45:16; Acts 1:6-8) Besides, Abraham could not have been in heaven in view of Jesus’ words: “No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man”?(John 3:13) And if the rich man were in a literal fire, surely Lazarus could not benefit him with just a drop of water. This request was for the purpose to get the “Lazarus” class away from a favored position. All of these are figures of speech.

In this illustration, the rich man well pictures the Jewish clergy who were well provided for with spiritual provisions; who considered themselves children of the kingdom, clothed in purple; who were very self-righteous, wearing fine linen; and who were proud of being Abraham’s offspring.

Kadamw made this same parallel by claiming the rich man wore purple and Jewish leaders wore purple so therefore the rich man is a symbol of Jewish leaders. What you have not said and is plainly obvious it that all rich persons of that era wore purple as a status symbol. Purple was extremely expensive. To me it is simply a case of extremly bad exeogesis to claim the Rich man in the story is a jewish leader. The story identifies him as being rich not religous! Abraham also said in this story “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony." Luke 16:25. The rich man is identified as being rich, Abraham confirms he is rich and only the wealthy could afford purple so why do you conclude he is a jewish leader when nothing in the text confirms this?

Furthermore, it is not reasonable or Scriptural to believe that a man suffers torment simply because he is rich, wears good clothing and has plenty to eat. It is not Scriptural to believe that one is blessed with heavenly life just because he is a beggar.

Really? It is not scriptural for the wealthy to go to hell?

Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matt. 19:24

Here you are making Jesus a liar, right?

 

[danschance]

Cult logic class.

1) The Parable about Lazarus and the rich man is not a story.
2) Parables are a simple story to teach a moral or spiritual lesson.

Wait... What?

 

[Laodicea]

No one answered my question again. I posted this question and it has been ignored every time by those who seek to use the scriptures to support the lie that our spirit dies with the flesh.

1) Why would Jesus tell us a story of two spirits surviving death if this is false theology?
2) It teaches of a place of torment that the wicked go to. Why would Jesus teach this if it is false?
3) Teaches that the righteous go to a place of comfort. Why would Jesus teach about deceased human spirits in this state?
4) It teaches Abraham is alive in the place, even though he died many many years ago. Why would Jesus teach this if it were not true?

It doesn't really matter if you want to call this a story or a parable or a fable. You can claim it is all symbolism but the fact remains that Jesus taught souls surviving after death of the body. Why would He do that if this is false? Was Jesus confused about this?

It is not that they cannot be answered it is the fact you will not accept the answer anyway

 

[danschance]

It is not that they cannot be answered it is the fact you will not accept the answer anyway

Sounds like a you are declaring a win by not playing the game. Pity, I had hoped you would of answered. KadamW did not answer either. In fact, once I asked him this question he never answered me again. The answer to my questions seems extremely obvious to me. The reason Jesus told a story about human spirits surviving death is because human spirits do in fact survive after death.