Interpreting the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: It's Really Good News!

[TheLearner]

The Parable lesson was...."if they won't believe the scriptures about THIS PLACE OF TORMENT" then they won't believe if Lazarus came back from the dead and shocked them with a supernatural appearance and "Warned them about the place of Torment" that awaited them. Wasn't that the plain meaning of the PARABLE? How could it mean anything but that in parable form?

And, yet the gospel writers did not identify Luke 16 as being a parable like I showed they did with the real parables.

 

[tourist]

.
Although no one on Abraham's side of the chasm is permitted to cross over
to the other side, they can at least communicate visually and audibly. I hope
that's still the case because I would hate to think that I won't be able to
catch up with my lost loved ones and my BFFs before they're permanently
vanquished to the lake of brimstone depicted at Rev 20:11-15.
_

I will pray for your lost loved ones so that they are not permanently vanquished to the lake of brimstone. It is God's will and desire that none shall perish. I believe the God is certainly capable of accomplishing His will and desire.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Where are all the other parables with names attached to them?

So, we're supposed to ignore the numerous, obviously symbolic, Biblical and reality defying elements of Luke 16 such as:

1. dead people wearing bodies before the resurrection
2. men completely engulfed in flame able to converse lucidly
3. Abraham's bosom being many square miles in size...

and then impose a completely subjective "hermeneutical rule" that the use of proper names in a passage disqualifies it from being a parable even though the reason Jesus chose to use the name "Lazarus" is made evident not long after when Lazarus "rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31 KJV) and Jesus' prediction that "neither will (the other sons of Abraham, the Jews) be persuaded though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31 KJV) was not only fulfilled, but these stubborn Jews went away to take counsel on how they might destroy both Jesus and Lazarus?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Does Hitler have to be alive for us to have contempt for him? No. Neither do the wicked have to be alive for the righteous to have everlasting contempt either. I think every time someone sees the nails in Jesus' hands and feet, they will remember with contempt the wicked who caused His suffering.
Jesus talks about eternal punishment in Matthew 25:46.

What's the punishment? IT'S DEATH! Not "eternal torment", but death. If the wages of sin was eternal torment, the only way Jesus could take away our sin debt would be that HE BE ETERNALLY TORMENTED. Please think about that for a while.[/QUOTE]

You ignored the main point as I expect by a dishonest person. The main point is the dead are alive and aware of their surroundings. Since Isaiah says the worms do not die, then that is in effect what he meant because they reproduce.

Mark 9:48
The worms that eat the people in hell[grave] never die. The fire there is never stopped.

If you want to call Jesus a liar, don't stand next to me at the final judgement.

You are right, "Jesus talks about eternal punishment in Matthew 25:46"[/QUOTE] Please listen to yourself: "The dead are alive".

If there was ever a more twisted strain of logic, it is to say that the dead are alive. God said we will die..the Serpent said, "Not surely"...and just about the entire Christian world believes the Serpent rather than God.

 

[Aerials1978]

So, now "worms" are immortal along with what you claim is the "immortal soul of man"? Isaiah's not talking about perpetually eaten alive people - he's talking about the same thing Jesus did: that the wicked will be consumed by maggots and fire until there's nothing left to eat or burn....unless you believe in the eternal life for worms.
[QUOTE="Aerials1978, post: 4751212, member: 292028:] Daniel speaks of people raised to everlasting life and everlasting contempt in chapter 12.

Does Hitler have to be alive for us to have contempt for him? No. Neither do the wicked have to be alive for the righteous to have everlasting contempt either. I think every time someone sees the nails in Jesus' hands and feet, they will remember with contempt the wicked who caused His suffering.
Jesus talks about eternal punishment in Matthew 25:46.[/QUOTE] What's the punishment? IT'S DEATH! Not "eternal torment", but death. If the wages of sin was eternal torment, the only way Jesus could take away our sin debt would be that HE BE ETERNALLY TORMENTED. Please think about that for a while.[/QUOTE]

You’re response is not in line with what scripture teaches. The doctrine of Annihilation has never been a core belief held by any major denomination. I know you don’t like the idea of conscious torment, but that doesn’t dismiss it.

 

[Amanuensis]

And, yet the gospel writers did not identify Luke 16 as being a parable like I showed they did with the real parables.

I hear you. I find it difficult to assign it to the literary form of a parable also, however even if one does assign it to the literary form of a parable then one is even MORE constrained to follow the RULES of that literary form and identify the lesson. The lesson would be highlighted by any grade school Hebrew student being taught by parables to be that "the bible teaches about a place of torment for the wicked dead but if one does not believe what the bible says about that, they will not believe even if a ghost told them about it." Thus is the importance of believing the Bible above all else. End of lesson now break for recess.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Where are all the other parables with names attached to them?

So, we're supposed to ignore the numerous, obviously symb

Does Hitler have to be alive for us to have contempt for him? No. Neither do the wicked have to be alive for the righteous to have everlasting contempt either. I think every time someone sees the nails in Jesus' hands and feet, they will remember with contempt the wicked who caused His suffering.
Jesus talks about eternal punishment in Matthew 25:46.

What's the punishment? IT'S DEATH! Not "eternal torment", but death. If the wages of sin was eternal torment, the only way Jesus could take away our sin debt would be that HE BE ETERNALLY TORMENTED. Please think about that for a while.[/QUOTE]

You’re response is not in line with what scripture teaches. The doctrine of Annihilation has never been a core belief held by any major denomination. I know you don’t like the idea of conscious torment, but that doesn’t dismiss it.[/QUOTE] Does "worldwide" qualify a denomination as "major"? The Seventh-day Adventists have held Annihilation as a core doctrine for over 160 years and his the only worldwide Protestant denomination out there.

And Annihilation can most certainly be proven from Scripture. That's why I'm here showing how utterly stupid it is to claim that a man completely engulfed in flame can carry on an intelligent conversation, Abraham's bosom is many square miles in size, the dead receive their resurrection bodies before the resurrection takes place...all the things that the Immortal Soul/Eternal Torment crowd chooses to ignore.

 

[Phoneman-777]

There is no evidence either way in what you are saying.
You are offering opinion.

.....and labeling it as fact.

Wow! The same people who rest their entire case upon the idea that Jesus' use of the name "Lazarus" disqualifies the passage as parabolic want to criticize others?

Of course there's no "proof" that the Jesus used "Lazarus" in the parable to plant a seed which would later sprout in the minds of the people that He spoke truth when they saw the Jews turn away in belief and murderous intent....but let's not pretend this claim is a square peg in a round hole...you Immortal 'Soul/Eternal Torment" folks know full well it's beyond plausible.

It's the belief that totally enflamed dead dudes can carry on a conversation that's the square peg in the round hole of Scripture.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Verses?

So...you've never heard the Bible teach we don't get our resurrection bodies until after the resurrection?

You've never read where Solomon says "the dead know not anything" and don't possess memories, thoughts, wisdom, emotions, ability to devise plans, etc.?

You think Abraham was many miles tall instead of an ordinary man?

You think the dead can converse with one another although the Bible says they don't even have the ability to praise God, which would certainly demand their first efforts at speech, right or wrong?

Would you care to analyze any one or other of these Biblical contradictions, or will you ignore them in order to continue believing the eternal fiery torment of the wicked will be a spectator sport for the righteous?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Please disregard post 267. My computer is acting up. Thank you.

 

[Phoneman-777]

In Luke 16 Christ is clearly portraying a place of torment after death. the OP author believes that by calling this a parable, he technically escapes culpability for accusing Christ of teaching doctrines of devils. He seems to think that if it's a parable it's OK to effectively call Christ a liar.

Luke 16 teaches NOTHING about what happens when we die because the happenings in Luke 16 CONTRADICT what Jesus, Job, David, Peter, Paul, and many others said about what happens when we die.

The only way to accept Luke 16 as "literal" is by a profound lack of Biblical understanding, which you're more than demonstrated by your asinine, supersonically redonkuolous claim that the wicked can partake of the "agape of God".

 

[Phoneman-777]

whether parable or literal account, the OP @Phoneman-777 believes every single soul God ever created, God annihilates when the physical body dies. OP believes God recreates facsimiles of the original souls in the resurrection.

that is a direct contradiction of what Christ describes in Luke 16.
that is why OP wants Luke 16 to be a parable - which, according to another faulty argument on his part, would allow Christ to be speaking false fairy-tale parables teaching doctrines of demons ((OP's words, not mine)). because OP believes it's ok for God to be a pagan liar so long as God is only teaching absolute falsehood ((OP's view, not mine)) if it's in a parable format.

IMO the OP is way off the rails.
Christ is either a liar, or He is not.
either the soul doesn't cease to exist upon the death of the body ((Christ's teaching)) or it doesn't ((OP's teaching))

parable or not, the OP's viewpoint is incompatible with Luke 16

Those who insist the Rich Man and Lazarus is a literal story make Jesus a liar, for He Himself said the dead don't rise bodily until He comes in the clouds at their resurrection.

 

[Phoneman-777]

We may discuss my view another time. I'm testing your hermeneutic here to see if it's worth exploring. I'll wait for your answer.

My view is that the dead do not receive bodies until the resurrection, yet the Rich Man, Lazarus, and Abraham all have bodies - which disqualifies the passage as being literal and qualifies it as parabolic.

Also, dead guys don't know anything, speak, remember anything, have emotions, devise plans like having people sent back from the dead to warn their 5 brothers, have anything to do with anything under this sun (which proves "Samuel" was not really Samuel, but a demonic "familiar spirit" impersonating the familiar form of a deceased prophet).

If you refuse to give up this nonsense that the dead are "not surely" dead as the Serpent said to Eve in direct opposition to God, you will fall prey to Satan's spiritualism snare of "spirits of devils working miracles" that will soon come upon the Earth.

 

[Phoneman-777]

He created your soul
did He bring you into the wilderness only to destroy you, your children, and your animals?

is life eternal or does it have an expiration date?

this isn't about 'is anything possible for God'
it's about 'is God good or is God evil'

He can stand on nothing and speak at nothing and from nothing bring forth everything...it is a small thing for God to call back into existence all who cease to exist due to their dependence on the union of the Body and the Breath of Life for their existence, right or wrong?

 

[Phoneman-777]

the Bible doesn't say that. Christ specifically says that's not the case, in Luke 16 and also other places.

your private interpretation of Genesis 2 says that. which means you are misinterpreting Genesis.

your interpretation makes Christ a liar: you explicitly accuse Him of presenting doctrines of demons.

'find yourself in the Bible' -- who else says Jesus represents Beelzebub?

The Bible absolutely says that implicitly because any fool can read Genesis 2:7 KJV and see that the Soul only comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life, and its existence is therefore dependent upon this union.

Your failure to understand that people completely engulfed in flames can't converse with anyone, a single drop of water can't afford one fraction of a degree of relief to one completely engulfed in flame, Abraham's bosom ain't many square miles in size, the dead do not put on their resurrection bodies before the resurrection, etc....in short, your hatred is what leads to your anticipated delight at watching the wicked suffer.

 

[Phoneman-777]

God made hell for the devil and his angels.

Hell is Eternal and places where God is NOT. Think about that Where can God not be? HE is Omni- Present Yet God chooses not to be there, that alone is supernatural. DO you understand the Supernatural? That is beyond human reasoning.

Where does it say hell is eternal?

If you answer "eternal fire" , please explain how Sodom and Gomorrah suffered "eternal fire" but are not in the least on fire today, seeing they are under the Dead Sea.

Also, please explain if "eternal judgment" means God perpetually slamming a gavel saying "order in the court".

Also, please explain if "eternal redemption" means Jesus is going to be crucified over and over for all eternity for our redemption.

"ETERNAL" WITH REGARD TO THE RESULT, NOT THE PROCESS!!!

 

[Phoneman-777]

1. I already commented on something you said, which is about the OP.
2. You are demonstrating a pattern of ignoring things that put you in a corner. For example, our conversation from the
"How We Can Tell If We Possess The Agape of God" forum:
View attachment 235220

I've been waiting for you to respond since October.
Why should I respond to your questions when you won't respond to me?

So I'll repeat my question, which is the beginning of our conversation here:
"If you think the characters in the story of Luke 16 correspond to real people in the near future, then tell me, who is the rich man in contrast to Lazarous?"

Exactly why would I think the characters in a parable would have to correspond to real people in the near future?

I mean, do I think the trees and bramble bushes in Jotham's parable correspond to anything in real life? Of course not.

However, the interpretation the parable of Luke 16 most certainly corresponded to real people who refused to heed the warning of the parable and suffered the punishment thereof.

 

[gb9]

Revelation 20 10-

.....cast into the lake of fire, where the beast and false prophet are......

are. present tense.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

Only to those who are OK with all the eruption of Biblical contradictions that arise by making that passage literal

Chiasmus anyone?

[97]The rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

A(16:19-21) 16:19 dined sumptuously each day.(16:19) (εὐφραινόμενος)
B(16:22) 16:22 When the poor man died, he was carried away (16:22)" (ἀποθανεῖν)
C(16:23) 16:23 saw Abraham far off (16:23) (ὁρᾷ)
D(16:24) 16:24 Send Lazarus to cool my tongue (16:24) (πέμψον)
E(16:25-26) 16:25 now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. (16:25)
D'(16:27-28) 16:27 send him to my father's house, (16:27)" (πέμψῃς)
C'(16:29) 16:29 Let them listen to them (16:29) (ἀκουσάτωσαν)
B'(16:30) 16:30 if someone from the dead goes to them (16:30) (νεκρῶν)
A'(16:31) 16:31 neither will they be persuaded (16:31) (οὐκ ἀκούουσιν)

A: Disobey against God. B: The dead goes. C: Look / Listen. D: Lazarus is sent. E: The rich suffers and Lazarus is comforted.

On another note. Poor guy Lazarus, someone should help him, Eleazar is what they used to name him.

 

[Phoneman-777]

I didn't watch the video, because I came to chat.

For arguments sake, I will concede that this might be a parable. Now what do parables have in common? They use examples from familiar things of the audience to drive home a point, usually the lesson is toward the end of the parable, often sort of a "ah Ha" moment.

Now if we analyze this as a parable it becomes clear that the lesson is that if the brothers don't read the bible (Moses and the prophets) to learn about a place of torment that awaits the wicked then they won't believe in a place of torment that awaits the wicked even if Lazarus rose from the dead and appeared to them and told them about it.

The main lesson being that If they don't believe what the bible says about a place of torment awaiting the wicked after they die then even if one rises from the dead they will not believe that there is a place of torment awaiting them when they die.

Luke 16: 28for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

It is very clear that the rich man wanted Lazarus to warn them about this place of torment. He expected Lazarus to tell them that he was in a place of torment and not to come there. He expected them to repent because Lazarus warned them about this place of torment.

The Parable's lesson is that the BIBLE teaches about a place of torment. Let them read about it in Moses and the Prophets. They warn of a place of torment for the wicked in the afterlife. If they don't believe this by reading Moses and the Prophets they will not believe it if Lazarus warns them about it.


This PARABLE teaches that both Moses and the Prophets (Scripture) warn that the way of life is Above for the righteous to escape the Hell beneath and many such verses were in the bible for them to meditate upon but if they do not have the heart to want to know what the Bible teaches the warning from Lazarus ABOUT THIS PLACE OF TORMENT is not going to change their attitudes.

Repentance of wickedness will come when one surrenders to the holiness of God and the truth of the scriptures and not from ghosts or scary supernatural experiences BUT PAY ATTENTION TO THE PARABLE. The PARABLE teaches that there a place of torment for the wicked mentioned by Moses and the Prophets.

Where do you think that Jesus Audience got the idea from? The idea was familiar to them which is why Jesus could use it as a parable.
Something familiar to them about a place of torment for the wicked Jesus picked up on for this parable. I mean that would HAVE to be your view if you beileve it is a true parable.

Now if Jesus is merely using something that was a popular view among them, a myth if you will, and then using it to teach a parable, his parable still ended up teaching that "if you don't believe what Moses and the Prophets says about the place of torment, neither will you believe if one rose from the dead and told you about it.

It's not that hard to understand in Parable form or otherwise. It is impossible to remove the idea of a place of torment for the wicked dead from the lesson in parable form.

Now if the rich man had said, "Let lazarus return and tell them how wicked they are and how they need to repent etc etc, or if he had told him "send Lazarus to tell them how wonderful it is to sit down at the table with Abraham, so that they will go there too, " then one could argue against the place of torment, but he specifically says "so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ And by thus saying paints a clear picture of his idea that Lazarus coming back from the dead and specifically warning his brothers that their brother was in a place of torment and they would go to unless they repent is the intended message he expected Lazarus to deliver.

And so even in parable, the lesson is that there is a place of torment for the wicked dead and Moses and Prophets warn of it, and that is enough for people to find repentance if they will believe the word of God.

This whole "Parable" objection has never removed the obvious lesson to those who understand how parables work in Hebrew literature. Those that attempt to use it to suggest that there is no place of torment for the wicked dead violate the mechanism of a parable in literature in their attempts and look quite uninformed in the end.

If it's a parable, the "hell" in which the Rich Man finds himself is not here referring to the fiery, burning, blazing Lake of Fire which will consume the wicked...but a different kind of "torment". In fact, this parable has NOTHING to do with what happens when we die - Jesus simply drew on the Hellenistic distortions of their day and used their wrong concept of the afterlife which awaits the wicked in order to teach a truth to the very people to whom this parable of warning was directed.