"The rich man And Lazarus..."

[FreeGrace2]

Probably lol. To me it’s just a discussion though. On all things I’m open to changing my beliefs depending on the proof from the Bible. I don’t see proof the rich man and Lazarus story isn’t a parable.

If it’s an historical event and I’m just not seeing it that honestly would give me pause and shake my faith a bit. Fortunately I don’t have to worry about that.

I’m sticking with parable because that makes most sense to me.

Please explain how the account being historical "would give you pause and shake my faith a bit".

 

[FreeGrace2]

PennEd said:
Jesus gave almost 50 parables.

NONE use a person's name to convey the message Jesus was saying.

That in and of itself, is pretty conclusive proof Lazarus and the rich man is NOT a parable, but an actual account of 2 people.

It’s definitely not proof.

You are just a denier.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The Jews didn't believe the signs and wonders that Jesus was the Messiah. Did the nation of Israel believe Jesus when he raised Lazarus? Or did they crucify him?

Actually, they REFUSED to believe. They SAW the miracles and just dug in further. Just like you with the account of Lazarus.

 

[persistent]

For myself being fairly new to Christianity it comes across as a distraction from the Gospel. i.e. Saving blood of Jesus

No, it's an argument where the truth is defended against false teaching.

No, it's an argument where the truth is defended against false teaching.

 

[Runningman]

One story has nothing to do with the other. I’m asking with respect, why do you feel there must be a different teaching style regarding parables and historical events? Why wouldn’t Jesus’ teaching style be the same regardless? What would be different?

Jesus spoke to His disciples and those He was teach to in different styles.

Matthew 13:10-23
10The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.12Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

 

[Runningman]

First, off, you said people are named in parables. Yet you can produce NONE of them out of 50 parables Jesus spoke.

Your position is they the rich man and Lazarus parable is not a parable at all because names of real people of quoted. Also, parables where the names of real people are not quoted are parables. That means sense the rich man isn’t named then your subjective criteria for defining a parable is false.

Secondly, names, former status in life, wealth, friends, family, and EVEREYTHING else is meaningless for the unsaved dead. This is why the rich man, as opposed to Lazarus, is without identity.

If the names are meaningless for the unsaved, but important for the saved, then why aren’t the names of people who are saved not listed in the parables?

 

[Runningman]

Really? Can you post the scripture to back this up?

Absolutely, the gospels and Acts are filled with examples of many people from the nation of Israel believing in Christ pre and post-resurrection.

 

[Runningman]

Btw, there was just a little over 500 who actually saw the resurrected Jesus before he ascended. That's the discussion. Even if the rich man's family saw a saint resurrected, they still wouldn't believe.

Who wouldn’t the rich man’s family not believe in resurrection and his story about the afterlife if he was dead for a while then came back? The parable says the rich man was buried, presumably by his family. They would believe it.

What Abraham said in this parable isn’t literal because, again, God knows resurrection is a compelling miracle. Hence why it’s part of the gospel.

 

[Mem]

How many people were called Lazarus in the bible? There were eleven different persons in the OT including Eleazar and Eliezar (Hebrew), Lazar (Aramaic), Lazaros (Old Greek), and Lazarus (Latin). Where can this one, Lazarus the beggar, be found other than in this particularly disputed parable?

 

[Runningman]

Why would your faith be shaken?

My faith in the New Testament would be shaken if Abraham contradicted the gospel. Abraham says they won’t be persuaded by someone who raised from the dead and Jesus requires faith in His resurrection.

Also, Abraham said the rich man went to torment for having good things in life and Lazarus went to comfort for having evil things in life. Neither of those are reasons why people are saved and lost.

Maybe you can explain how what Abraham said is literal. I am just not seeing it.

 

[Runningman]

If it’s a parable as you say, then Abraham never said those words, Jesus did, thus you’re saying Jesus is incorrect in His own teaching.

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that it’s a parable and it’s a true parable, but it isn’t true in the sense that people aren’t persuaded by resurrection.

 

[Runningman]

No, it's an argument where the truth is defended against false teaching.

You must argue with yourself all day then.

 

[PennEd]

Your position is they the rich man and Lazarus parable is not a parable at all because names of real people of quoted. Also, parables where the names of real people are not quoted are parables. That means sense the rich man isn’t named then your subjective criteria for defining a parable is false.

This whole point has been addressed. The fact that the rich man is not named, doesn't negate that Lazarus and Abraham are named, and Abraham is quoted.

If the names are meaningless for the unsaved, but important for the saved, then why aren’t the names of people who are saved not listed in the parables?

Because they're PARABLES! Lol

 

[Runningman]

This whole point has been addressed. The fact that the rich man is not named, doesn't negate that Lazarus and Abraham are named, and Abraham is quoted.

Because they're PARABLES! Lol

And your criteria seems to be subjective based on a private interpretation.

For example, was Judas saved? He betrayed Jesus then committed suicide. Why did they call him by name then?

 

[John146]

Who wouldn’t the rich man’s family not believe in resurrection and his story about the afterlife if he was dead for a while then came back? The parable says the rich man was buried, presumably by his family. They would believe it.

What Abraham said in this parable isn’t literal because, again, God knows resurrection is a compelling miracle. Hence why it’s part of the gospel.

So, Jesus is lying in the "parable"? Why would Jesus say this if it's not true?

 

[PennEd]

And your criteria seems to be subjective based on a private interpretation.

Show us the parable where Jesus uses real people, and quotes real people out of the 50 He gave.

OTHERWISE, YOU, are the one who is privately interpreting the passage. WE, are taking Jesus at His Word.

 

[Mem]

How many people were called Lazarus in the bible? There were eleven different persons in the OT including Eleazar and Eliezar (Hebrew), Lazar (Aramaic), Lazaros (Old Greek), and Lazarus (Latin). Where can this one, Lazarus the beggar, be found other than in this particularly disputed parable?

Just in case my question was buried within the banter.
Who was Lazarus, the beggar? Am I assuming correctly that the general opinion is this was Mary and Martha's brother?

 

[PennEd]

Just in case my question was buried within the banter.
Who was Lazarus, the beggar? Am I assuming correctly that the general opinion is this was Mary and Martha's brother?

No.

He was another guy named Lazarus.

 

[Mem]

No.

He was another guy named Lazarus.

Ok. I heard an argument it was Mary's brother with reference to his resurrection but that didn't agree with this state of living as a beggar, and if that were the case then Jesus made up the part of his being a beggar so that's definitely ruled out.
So, the next question is, if this is a parable, then why would Jesus use a familiar name. What would he want to illustrate by it? The name means, "God has helped," and in this case, I believe it shows God's help when there is no other help available.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

lol. Why don't you tell that to Jesus, who DID use that phrase.

Do you think Jesus just made that up on the fly, something that would be totally unfamiliar with the people He was teaching? Really?


Why don't you check with the manuscripts that have been found that date back to the SECOND Century.

Those who are called "theologians and scholars" certainly know HOW to check that rumor out. That they still make their claim only demonstrates that they aren't as scholarly as some think.


Of course not. And that is precisely the point. Jesus was telling a real account of 3 real people who were already dead and in the afterlife in Hades. He was giving us a glimpse of the afterlife before the resurrection.

Since EVERY Jew would have been very familiar with the name of Abraham, describing where Lazarus was would have indicated to the Jews that Lazarus was in Paradise, where Jesus told the one thief he would be when he died. "Today, you will be WITH ME in Paradise".

So even though the phrase isn't in the OT, naming Abraham would show everyone that the poor man was a believer in the Messiah, while the rich man wasn't.

this Parable comes from Luke, not an eye witness.

Notice the other 3 accounts Matthew, Mark Peter's Disciple, and John WHO WERE EYE WITNESSES NEVER WROTE ABOUT THIS.

There's a reason those who were WITNESSES never wrote about this and the one who was not an eye witness did supposedly write about it.

It's a good thing logic exists for those who believe this tale.