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

[posthuman]

I am curious. How did the dogs help him?

I don't see any indication that the dogs were sent by God. Seems like dogs did what dogs do. They are gross like that and eat their own poo too.

It seems to me that the dogs are in the story to reveal that this was not a scene at the rich man's gate that could have gone unnoticed and therefore the rich man was guilty of knowingly neglecting the beggar's condition.

Dogs licking his sores adds a level of detail to the story that removes any doubt that the rich man was unaware of what was happening at his gate. Therefore the listener to the parable has such questions answered (did the rich man know?) by the details of this story, i.e. a pack of dogs licking his sores. Not something that wouldn't cause a scene.

licking one's sores isn't harming a person. the opposite.
it's not neglect, and it's not harm. so what is it?
God doesn't add details just to make what He says 'realistic' - reality is defined against God.

dog saliva is antiseptic, and licking a wound keeps it clean, preventing infection.
who made dog saliva? who gave them the inclination to lick sores - not just their own, but those of people?
yes; like you said: they did what the rich man should have done. this is to his shame; even the dogs tended to Lazarus, while he neglected him.
so who do you attribute that too -- where does goodness come from?

 

[posthuman]

IT's a PARABLE and has nothing to do with a place of torment. The "hell" in which the Rich Man lifted up his eyes is symbolic for something else that pertains to that which the Rich Man represents.

does God tell lying parables full of the doctrines of demons?
that's your assertion.


so what are you calling God when you say He teaches with doctrines of demons?
this is all previously covered. it's not a game.
examine yourself.

 

[posthuman]

As an SDA. I completely agree with you that the Rich Man and Lazarus story cannot be talking about a real place because it contradicts a whole bunch of other scriptures.

But also as an SDA, aren't we supposed to demonstrate love toward everyone the same way Jesus does, no matter how much they disagree with us?

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love." - 1 John 4:7,8,18

I understand your frustration with people who insist on overlooking the host of passages which describe God as merciful, gracious, fair, and righteous, and instead turn God into some evil demonic tyrant who would allow people to be tormented in pain forever. If I believed that God is like that, I would be joining the ranks of unbelievers who claim they cannot believe a God exists who would do that to His own creatures. Many people have already left Christianity based on this one misunderstanding of what God really is like.

While I am alive, I prefer to believe in a God who loves me and wants to save me, and then after I die, find out I was wrong, rather than the other way around. It would be so disheartening to live my life in fear of eternal torment, and then find out after I die that all that mental anguish was unnecessary, because a loving, merciful, fair, and gracious God would never torment His creatures in a forever burning fire.

Everyone has the freedom to make up their own minds on which way they view God, so please knock off the rude comments. They do not help anyone to see God's love.

is Jesus lying in Luke 16?
is Jesus teaching doctrines of demons?

whether it is a parable or it is a literal account is immaterial.
is Christ giving a false pagan narrative as though it is true?

mr. telephone is unwilling to face the clear implication of his position. are you?

 

[Amanuensis]

licking one's sores isn't harming a person. the opposite.
dog saliva is antiseptic, and licking a wound keeps it clean, preventing infection.
who made dog saliva? who gave them the inclination to lick sores - not just their own, but those of people?
yes; like you said: they did what the rich man should have done.
so who do you attribute that too -- where does goodness come from?

1) It was not very helpful or effective since the beggar died. No hint of healing from licking dogs is mentioned.

2) I think if you fact check it you will find that though dogs do use this method for their own wounds (howbeit it is not very effective , as it is very easy for dog wounds to get infected and kill them, even minor wounds, and that is why in the wild, and instinctively, they avoid wounds, such as not taking on animals that can cut them in a fight) There are scientific studies that have proven that dogs saliva are harmful to human wounds and it would be asking for infection to have one lick your wounds. No antiseptic for you in that at all. Dogs are not the same biologically as humans even at the cellular level. It is a myth that should have been laid to rest by now in the age of Google but still lives on, passed down from one generation to the next.

3) The Jewish culture and even Ancient Near East mindset about dogs licking wounds was quite different than our dog friendly ideas. I think if you research the view on dogs licking this mans sores in the minds of the people who heard this story they would not have thought "Oh good... nice dogs.. that should help his sores" but something more akin to "Oh gross... he is at the lowest anyone can be, near deaths door and to weak to scatter the dogs away and has to endure such a humiliating thing as gross, unclean (religiously unholy animals) licking him, making him despised before all society."

 

[posthuman]

1) It was not very helpful or effective since the beggar died. No hint of healing from licking dogs is mentioned.

2) I think if you fact check it you will find that though dogs do use this method for their own wounds (howbeit it is not very effective , as it is very easy for dog wounds to get infected and kill them, even minor wounds, and that is why in the wild, and instinctively, they avoid wounds, such as not taking on animals that can cut them in a fight) There are scientific studies that have proven that dogs saliva are harmful to human wounds and it would be asking for infection to have one lick your wounds. No antiseptic for you in that at all. Dogs are not the same biologically as humans even at the cellular level. It is a myth that should have been laid to rest by now in the age of Google but still lives on, passed down from one generation to the next.

3) The Jewish culture and even Ancient Near East mindset about dogs licking wounds was quite different than our dog friendly ideas. I think if you research the view on dogs licking this mans sores in the minds of the people who heard this story they would not have thought "Oh good... nice dogs.. that should help his sores" but something more akin to "Oh gross... he is at the lowest anyone can be, near deaths door and to weak to scatter the dogs away and has to endure such a humiliating thing as gross, unclean (religiously unholy animals) licking him, making him despised before all society."

1. why does God include this detail?
   

 

[TMS]

"The early Hebrews apparently had a concept of the soul but did not separate it from the body, although later Jewish writers developed the idea of the soul further. Biblical references to the soul are related to the concept of breath and establish no distinction between the ethereal soul and the corporeal body. Christian concepts of a body-soul dichotomy originated with the ancient Greeks and were introduced into Christian theology at an early date by St. Gregory of Nyssa (died 394ad) and by St. Augustine (died 430ad). ..."encyclopedia Britannica"

Jesus did not teach pagan teachings. The concept of hell and an immortal soul was around for many years before but was introduced into Christian theology in the 4th and 5th century after Christ when many pagan teachings were introduced into Christianity.

 

[posthuman]

1) It was not very helpful or effective since the beggar died.

• is 'prolonging physical life / temporary animation of dust' the correct scriptural definition of 'helpful' or 'effective' ?

 

[Amanuensis]

1. why does God include this detail?

I believe it is meant to be a picture of the humiliation of the beggar.

In that culture it would be like saying, people spat on him when they walked by.

The dogs were despised by Jews. It is like saying "And to top it all off... Dogs came and licked his sores" and the listeners to this story would have gasped in disgust and in pity for the state of the beggar.

Maybe if he said Pigs came and licked his sores it would register to the modern reader as it did to the hearers of that day. We all still understand how much pigs were despised by Jews and maybe we have even added to that sterotype beyond what een the Jews thought about pigs, having heard it so oft repeated, but we don't hear how they thought about dogs as much today in our dog friendly world.

Some countries still find it horrifying that we allow dogs in our houses or even our beds. So bridging the 2000 year cultural gap I think the detail of the dogs is to say "could it get any worse for the poor guy" and nothing to do with helping him.

Seems like if it was meant to be a detail included to sugget that God sent him help it would have turned out better than it did. If the dogs were sent by God it must have been to hasten his death rather than to help him heal. And I don't think that is the point either.

 

[TMS]

different religions and philosophers have developed a variety of theories as to its nature, its relationship to the body, and its origin and mortality.
Among ancient peoples, both the Egyptians and the Chinese conceived of a dual soul. The Egyptian ka (breath) survived death but remained near the body, while the spiritual ba proceeded to the region of the dead. The Chinese distinguished between a lower, sensitive soul, which disappears with death, and a rational principle, the hun, which survives the grave and is the object of ancestor worship.

Just as there have been different concepts of the relation of the soul to the body, there have been numerous ideas about when the soul comes into existence and when and if it dies. Ancient Greek beliefs were varied and evolved over time. Pythagoras held that the soul was of divine origin and existed before and after death. Plato and Socrates also accepted the immortality of the soul, while Aristotle considered only part of the soul, the noûs, or intellect, to have that quality. Epicurus believed that both body and soul ended at death. The early Christian philosophers adopted the Greek concept of the soul’s immortality and thought of the soul as being created by God and infused into the body at conception.

Notice that the early Christian philosophers didn't adopted Gods concept that the "dead know nothing" Ecc9:5.

 

[posthuman]

Jesus did not teach pagan teachings. The concept of hell and an immortal soul was around for many years before but was introduced into Christian theology in the 4th and 5th century after Christ when many pagan teachings were introduced into Christianity.

a little unclear here -- so did Jesus get Luke 16 from pagans or did He give this teaching because it is true?
because altho we could go to other places in scripture, Luke 16 in particular very clearly presents a view of reality in which the soul persists, has personhood, has faculties and is able to feel sensations & emotions after the body returns to dust.

to be blunt:
is Jesus BS'ing us or is Jesus legit?

 

[Amanuensis]

• is 'prolonging physical life / temporary animation of dust' the correct scriptural definition of 'helpful' or 'effective' ?

There is no suggestion that the licking of the dogs prolonged his life. Instead it declares the fact as an "add insult to injury" declaration...
0And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores.
When it says "moreover, even the dogs.." it suggests it as negative addition to his plight.

 

[posthuman]

I believe it is meant to be a picture of the humiliation of the beggar.

In that culture it would be like saying, people spat on him when they walked by.

The dogs were despised by Jews. It is like saying "And to top it all off... Dogs came and licked his sores" and the listeners to this story would have gasped in disgust and in pity for the state of the beggar.

so, in the eyes of the pharisees, humiliated.

but what did pharisees think of ravens -- carrion birds -- and what did ravens do for Elijah?

does God put this to shame Lazarus or to shame someone else?
or is it shame at all?

 

[posthuman]

There is no suggestion that the licking of the dogs prolonged his life. Instead it declares the fact as an "add insult to injury" declaration...
0And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores.
When it says "moreover, even the dogs.." it suggests it as negative addition to his plight.

i think you didn't understand my question..

is 'prolonging the temporary animation of dust' the correct definition of 'helpful/effective' ?
is this God's definition?

or to phrase it another way: does being saved mean you will never have hardship and that your physical body will never get sick, grow old, or die?
if not then what is He saving us from? if not physical death what kind of death? i.e. what is God's definition of 'dead' ?
((don't forget that things like Ephesians 2:1 exist and are the word of God))

did the dogs attentions comfort Lazarus?
have you ever met a cat?

 

[Amanuensis]

so, in the eyes of the pharisees, humiliated.

but what did pharisees think of ravens -- carrion birds -- and what did ravens do for Elijah?

does God put this to shame Lazarus or to shame someone else?
or is it shame at all?

Just stick to the immediate text for any suggestion of shame or healing and you see shame in the "moreover even the dogs.."
Then find out how dogs were viewed by the common person at that time, and what dogs licking a beggars sores would have meant to them at that time. To do that one must search out any writings that mention it from the first century. And I would go from there to decide what they thought. We have enough in the scriptures themselves to know that they despised dogs from a religious context.

 

[posthuman]

Just stick to the immediate text for any suggestion of shame or healing and you see shame in the "moreover even the dogs.."
Then find out how dogs were viewed by the common person at that time, and what dogs licking a beggars sores would have meant to them at that time. To do that one must search out any writings that mention it from the first century. And I would go from there to decide what they thought. We have enough in the scriptures themselves to know that they despised dogs from a religious context.

is what the pharisees think, the truth?
that's the immediate context.

what does Lazarus think of the dogs tending to him in their small way?
is Lazarus thankful for them or does Lazarus despise them?
do dogs have sin?
who is the God of the other living souls ((nephesh chayyah, dogs e.g.))?

 

[Amanuensis]

i think you didn't understand my question..

is 'prolonging the temporary animation of dust' the correct definition of 'helpful/effective' ?
is this God's definition?

or to phrase it another way: does being saved mean you will never have hardship and that your physical body will never get sick, grow old, or die?

It doesn't matter in this case there is no suggestion or even a hint from the text that the licking of the dogs was supposed to be understood as a positive but rather it is suggested by the text that it is a negative experience for the beggar and therefore we should simply take it as conclusively negative.

0And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores.
(or... On top of all that.... even the dogs came and licked his sores, or "and add insult to injury.. even the dogs came and licked his sores") This is clearly the idea here and not something positive that happened to the man.

 

[Amanuensis]

is what the pharisees think, the truth?
that's the immediate context.

what does Lazarus think of the dogs tending to him in their small way?
is Lazarus thankful for them or does Lazarus despise them?
do dogs have sin?
who is the God of the other living souls ((nephesh chayyah, dogs e.g.))?

We are not privy to his thoughts about the dogs but we can assume that he did not suddenly change his Jewish upbringing to want to be licked by dogs and despised by his country men as unclean as a result. It was not just the pharisess who despised dogs, even Paul and John use the term to label those who tried to teach christians to keep the law as part of their efforts to be justified by Christ. It was a label used because of how dogs were viewed by the Law and the prophets.

 

[posthuman]

"moreover even the dogs.."

amen

and were the pharisees willing to lick the wounds of their own sons?
see Luke 14

 

[posthuman]

It doesn't matter in this case there is no suggestion or even a hint from the text that the licking of the dogs was supposed to be understood as a positive but rather it is suggested by the text that it is a negative experience for the beggar and therefore we should simply take it as conclusively negative.

where is it indicated Lazarus hated the dogs, which are sinless living souls, tending to him in their small way?

 

[posthuman]

We are not privy to his thoughts about the dogs

if that is so, then how can you say so confidently that Lazarus was shamed by these sinless living souls trying to ease his suffering?