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

12 And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off:
13 And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.
14 And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed

According to the op, every time we see the word "certain" ( as we learn from the op it means 'once upon a time'), it automatically begins a parable.

I just discovered a brand new parable. The parable of the 10 lepers

Now
PROVE to me it is NOT a parable.
I say it is.

This is the ridiculousness of this thread.

Very good. You have described the Tree of Life. We are in agreement.

But what interests me is what we disagree about with respect to the Tree in Eden. You say that one fruit will grant you immortality. I say it is contrary to what is written in the bible. So from where did this notion of 1 bite granting one immortality, uncontigent to God, come.

Once again explain the how one fruit will grant you immortality?

when we speak about PARABLES is it not important to know what the word of God says why Jesus spoke in Parables? Are the Parables of the Lord Jesus Christ allegory, and metaphors only? What does the word of God say?

Many dismiss the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich man because it speaks of a place and the description of that pace or places

1. you want to go to 2. other you do not.


Did Jesus say anything about why HE speaks in Parables by which we must formulate our understanding around them?


YES, HE did.


The disciples came to Jesus and asked "why do you speak in parables?" Matthew 13:10
Jesus said :

He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

Jesus went on to say :

“Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
“And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;


Are Parables just stories?

We know that Parables are :

1. Fulfillment of Prophecy about the Lord, Matthew 13:14
2. Jesus told them to keep things from those who were not to know
3. they were of the Holy Spirit and to be discerned by the Spirit.
4. they are mysteries
There is a blessing with those who hear and see and know the meaning of Matthew 13:16


Finally Matthew 13:34-35

34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, 35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:

“I will open My mouth in parables;
I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world


Jesus just said HE will speak things( real) from creation that were not known to us BUT HE makes them known. To Fulfill The Word of God. Parables are not just metaphorical or symbolism. They are Spiritual truth in the word of God spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ to do the following :

1. to fulfill Prophecy
2. to teach those who seek HIM
3. to hide things from those who HE did not want to know
4. reveal secrets that were known by HIM from the foundations of the world.
5. tell mysteries


Knowing all this about Parables we must look at all Jesus said before HE told them and after HE told them in the word of God, and ask the Holy Spirit for discernment of them. Therefore Parables are truth told by the Lord.

Lazarus and the rich man are not just stories but truth with all scripture show us the reality of hell and heaven for those who reject Christ and those who do not. To speak substandardly of a parable of Christ after the word of God tell us they were spoken by Jesus

TO FULFILL PROPHECY is a great error.

Where did i say that?
And,
Doesnt Christ give us eternal life?
By one perfect sacrifice?

1) The wages of sin is death.
Romans 6:23. Where is hell in the formula? What is worse eternal pain or eternal death? Why was this not intimated first and foremost.
2) The OT sheol has no capacity to accommodate a hell. The NT hell is eisegesis.
Ecclesiastes 9. We will leave the NT as I contend you have corrupted the verses with eisegesis.
3) There is no logical requirement for a hell.
1 Timothy 6:16. One Immortal Soul does not need to punish a nothing burger for eternity.
4) The details of hell are like a grab bag of pagan notions. Demonic worms, it is a chasm, it is a lake, etc...
Comparison to pagan myths to the christian hell mind but you have me on demonic worms. I can only find in a MMORPG fantasy site.
5) The spirit with which hell is spoken is nicolaitan and hypocritical.
Revelation 2:15, Prov 6:16 - only reason to raise hell is control of the masses (victory of the people). Does the hellmonger fit with any of the characteristics God hates.
Romans 12:19 - advocacy of torture by christians (patriot act) can only be done so by hellmongers, not from the obedience to Christ. Don't speak with one side of the mouth that it is inhumane while justifying torture with the other side.
6) The notion of hell takes away from the Glory of Jesus. Don't need fire at my backside to walk with Jesus.
Galatians 5:22. Where is hell rendered in the Holy Spirit? Why are you postulating about the darkness in the darkness?
7) The notion of hell insults the Most High.
1 John 1:5. Calling someone a creator of a torture chamber in a public setting is liable to get you smacked in the mouth. Why do you insult the One True Love?

Where is the eisegesis?

.
The 16th chapter of Luke was meant for his disciples' learning.

• Luke 16:1 . . And he said also unto his disciples . . etc. etc.

The Pharisees were eavesdropping.

• Luke 16:14 . . And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these
things: and they derided him.

After Jesus scolded the Pharisees with Luke 16:15, he picked up where he
left off with his disciplines at Luke16:16 and continued with them all the way
down to Luke 17:10.

It's tricky sometimes to tell whether Jesus was speaking to a crowd or to his
disciples but it's very important to sleuth the difference because he taught
his disciples differently than he taught the crowds.

• Matt 13:10-16 . . And the disciples came and said to him: Why do you
speak to them in parables? And he answered and said to them: To you it has
been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them
it has not been granted, etc, etc.

Seeing as how the story of the rich man, Lazarus, and Abraham was meant
for the ears of Jesus' disciples, then I sincerely believe we should not
attempt to categorize it as a parable per Matt 13:34.
_

.
• Luke 16:27-29 . .I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for
I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to
this place of torment. Abraham replied: They have Moses and the Prophets;
let them listen to them.

Somebody needs to assist me with Abraham's instructions by guiding me to
locations in the Old Testament that speak of an afterlife place of conscious
suffering like where the rich man is situated. In other words: a hell where
folks are taken into custody the moment they pass away as opposed to the
future hell depicted at Isa 66:22-24 and Rev 20:11-15.

Thank You.
_

.
• Luke 16:31 . . neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

That's likely still true today. I've lately run across some videos on YouTube of folk
who claim they've been to hell. I doubt very many people take their stories seriously
enough to be scared into straightening up.
_

from OP "New argument for Jesus being God" post #101 and #104
I quote from 101
"...you think God created Adam full of decay & death, such that he had to keep eating from 'the antidote' daily lest he perish.
the scripture does not support this. you need to ask yourself why Adam spent his time making garments of fig leaves instead of eating from the tree of life. because he is stupid? or because he is wise? "
You implied that the single bite from the fruit renders immortality that is not contingent. That is where you said it.

You are confused. Jesus does not give you eternal life, He redeemed your wages of sin. Grace in the Eyes of God gives you Eternal Life.
As a calvinist why do you folks give God All Authority to be a demiurge, but take away God's Power to grant Eternal Life. Both are somewhat insulting to the Most High.

By One Perfect Sacrifice, all persons can be granted eternal life, if they chose. Only through the Christ can this be achieved. He is the Door. Only by God's Grace can eternal life be granted.
The doctrine of grace will lead you to Abaddon not the New Jerusalem.

So back to the question. Was it implied that one bite from the Tree will give immortality? I am assuming that is what you meant.

Wow @Absolutely

Hmm..

John 10:27-28
My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

That's from the OP.

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.

.
The tree of life (Gen 2:9) wasn't created as a source of life. According to Rev
22:1-2 it's an Rx, viz: a medicinal remedy for whatever ails you.

For example: when Adam tasted the forbidden fruit (Gen 2:17) his body lost
its perpetual youth and began to age. The tree's chemistry would've restored
him to perfect health (Gen 3:22). In other words; the tree is not meant to
give people immortality, rather, to cure mortality.

Adam was supposed to die on the very day he tasted the forbidden fruit and
he did; only in a way he didn't expect. Thing is: mortality is a
walking death rather than an instant death; it's slow, but very relentless:
like Arnold Swarzenegger's movie character; The Terminator-- it feels
neither pain nor pity, nor remorse nor fear; it cannot be reasoned with nor
can it be bargained with, and it absolutely will not stop-- ever! --until you
are dead; really dead, like as in deceased.

• Gen 3:22c . . what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the
tree of life and eat, and live forever!

The Hebrew word translated "forever" doesn't always indicate infinity.
Normally it just means perpetual as "in perpetuity" viz: indefinitely; which
Webster's defines as: having no exact limits.

Anyway, the problem is; people tend to take advantage of medications in order
to continue their bad habits. For example; treatments for STDs enable
immoral folk to continue their swinging life style with little fear of permanent
consequences. The same can be said for folk with high cholesterol numbers.
Statins make it possible for them to keep on eating foods that are bad for
them.

Had Adam been allowed free access to the tree of life, he and his wife
would've no doubt routinely included fruit from the forbidden tree in their
diets seeing as how its detrimental effects on their health could've been
easily remedied by the tree of life.
_

I have no problem with it being literal or a parable. After examining the evidences for rich man and Lazarus I think there’s good reason to think of it as either a parable or literal.

I personally think it’s a parable because I think there’s better reason’s for that than against it.

If it’s literal then that’s fine, too, but now it’s a standalone passage, isolated from all cross-references, isolated in Luke 16. What would help the case for this being literal would be more verses. There also seem to be some theological problems in it, too, like rich people going to torment and poor beggars going to paradise. I think it’s safer to say it’s a parable.

I also want to note that the OP believes in annihilation in the afterlife, as do I, so the reasons for viewing it as a parable might be to enhance the annihilation doctrine, but that’s not why I think it’s a parable personally. The Rich Man and Lazarus… errr… story…. Doesn’t mention anything about eternal torment so that isn’t an issue, imo.

God resurrects Jesus
Acts 13:30 But God raised him from the dead:

We too can be resurrected
Acts 13:37But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

premise A) We can be resurrected if we follow Jesus!

So what brings us resurrection?
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

premise B) Only by the Endowment of God can we recieve salvation.

So who is Jesus? I will answer for you. He is a Gift from God, the Firstborn, the Door
Eph 2:5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in our trespasses. It is by grace you have been saved! 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,7in order that in the coming ages He might display the surpassing riches of His grace, demonstrated by His kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God,…

Why did Jesus die on the cross?
Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

premise C) Jesus is the Door to the House of God.

Why must God be removed from the Salvation formula?
Rev 20:11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

premise Alpha) Only God can judge (Jesus later)

Do not insult God!
Rev 21:6He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

premise Omega) Idolators..etc are not in a good position with God

Here is the logic of faith.
a) I have faith in Jesus. (a + A) follow Jesus (a+A+B+C) I will be saved
Hence the formula, I have faith I will be saved as per John 10:27-28. There are caveats. Once saved and going to Las Vegas is not in the books. Only seeing (a) implies (a+A+B+C) , you miss out on B and C.

Here is the logic of pause (or milk)
Alpha + Omega - there are things that should not be taught or it will be judged.

So back to the question. How does a single bite of the fruit of the Tree of Life grant one independent immortality?

ok - now that everyone is out of surgery and recovering... ((yay!))

i can answer your primary question a little more fully.

• i did not mean to imply that 'one bite' of the tree of life = immortality
• here's what i did mean:
  • in the context of that other thread it was being put forth that Adam only had life because he 'maintained' it by eating regularly from the tree of life. by implication, Adam was created in a constant state of 'dying, you shall die' from the beginning, without ever having eaten of the tree of 'dying, you shall die'
  • i am opposed to the idea of God creating a dying-you-shall-surely-die sinless Adam. i believe scripture is completely opposed to this: see for example Romans 5:12, sin entered through Adam and death through sin. if we take the view that Adam was created in a state of constant decay and would die if he stopped eating from the tree in the midst of the garden, then we have death in God's sinless creation before sin enters the world. we contradict scripture. therefore such opinion is discarded
  • it is in this context that i wrote in that other thread the things you quote:
    • Adam had ample time after eating from the tree of death to then go and eat from the tree of life
    • obvious question: why did Adam spend his time making garments of fig leaves, instead of eating from the tree of life?
      • is the tree for life an antidote for death?
      • if so why did Adam not eat of it given motive & opportunity?
        • is Adam stupid? or is Adam wise?
        • did Adam know he should not eat of the tree of life in his present condition?
    • to fully answer the questions listed above, we need to understand something about Genesis 3:22-24, which @Webers.Home helpfully brought up:
      • "..And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” — therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
      • two things to glean here:
        • God considers it 'not good' that Adam in his present state eat from the tree of life
        • God also thinks it good to keep the way to the tree of life: the implication being that at some later time, under some other circumstance, the way must remain, so Adam can eat from it at that time
      • so that same obvious question arises again:
        • do Adam and his wife refrain from eating from the tree of life ((they certainly had opportunity)) because they know it is not good in their present state to do so?
        • or do Adam and his wife refrain from eating of the tree of life in their present state ((knowing for sure they had ample time and opportunity)) because they were too stupid to realize it would have healed them from the death-you-shall-surely-death they had ingested?
      • follow up question:
        • what would have happened if they had eaten from the tree of life after eating from the tree of surely-die?
          

To add to this, it’s a well-known fact Jesus spoke in parables when He was teaching. I don’t think Jesus would reverse that position in the rich man and Lazarus. It didn’t seem like He was really having a conversation with anyone, but was more like a lecture style discourse that spans chapters of Luke 15-17;so Jesus was giving a sermon, He was teaching.

So bearing that in mind, rich man and Lazarus is probably a parable.

Matthew 13:34
All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable.

.

Mark 4:34
and He did not speak to them without a parable;but He was explaining everything privately to His own disciples.