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

[posthuman]

Why do you think Solomon keeps using the phrase "under the sun" throughout Ecclesiastes? It's extremely important to have a coherent understanding of the book. Otherwise, it's easy to quote things out of context (like Job's friend's bad advice).

yes, being "dead" under the sun has a different meaning than being "dead in our sins"
likewise 'knowing nothing' takes on a different meaning when we think of death only in terms of the body, compared with thinking of death in terms of separation from Life.
this is not to say Solomon's writings are devoid or spiritual import, but that we have to be careful to discern them. scripture is never simple, and Ecclesiastes is certainly not the least-complex text in the book!

 

[CS1]

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!!!

where does it say it is not? Not going to play word games LOL we already know for you, "forever and ever" is not forever and ever

 

[posthuman]

So how is this creature , full of DNA, immortal?

DNA is dust.
we are not merely dust, but have in us the Breath of the Spirit of Life.

does the Breath of the Spirit of Life die?
does the Breath of the Spirit of Life cease to exist when it is not in dust?

 

[posthuman]

Who cares? It does not change the meaning. And has nothing to do with dogs licking the sores of Lazarus being a negative to Lazarus and not something God sent to heal his wounds.

My coming back tomorrow will not change this. Just read a few good commentaries and I am sure you will agree that the dogs licking his sores was not meant to heal him. If some preacher preached that and it stuck with you then it is time to toss it out and replace it with the actual meaning. ... moreover even the dogs came and licked his sores... is an "add insult to injury" statement.

screenshot from biblehub --



if you look at the word 'alla' there, translated as 'but' here in this interlinear,
it specifically is a word used to indicate contrast.

i.e. not 'also or adding to'




expository opinion for 2,000 years has been divided about this particular topic, whether the dogs licking Lazarus ((whose name means 'God has helped' - when did God help him? always? how?)) were a help to him or a harm. there are elements of both. so when you say 'read a few good commentaries' ((i read several this morning on this verse)) i think what you mean is that the ones who disagree with your presuppositions, you consider 'not good' and the ones that say what you are already thinking, you consider 'good'
i don't think that is necessarily a good way to measure commentaries.

so the truth is that if you read commentaries, without prejudice, you will discover that Christendom does not 100% agree with you, nor does it agree 100% with my view on this verse. there are strong arguments on either side, and neither of us should be so dismissive.

 

[posthuman]

Question 1 and 2 are very closely related, so I will start by answering your second question first.

Question 2: Is Jesus teaching doctrines of demons?

"He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil." - 1 John 3:8

Wouldn't Jesus' teaching doctrines of demons be self-defeating since, according to the verse above, He made Himself known to destroy the works (and therefore doctrines) of the devil? If Jesus was trying to destroy the works of the devil, why would He give him any edge by helping him promote his own lies? (By inference any doctrine of a demon is a lie.)

Question 1: Is Jesus lying in Luke 16?

Why would Jesus associate Himself with the devil by participating in his works (the sin of lying)?

On the contrary, Jesus made way too great of a sacrifice in coming to this earth to throw it all away by lying about any doctrine.

yes - clearly, God does not teach doctrines of demons, and God does not lie.
these were easy questions.

here are a couple of your interesting questions:

• why would He give him any edge by helping him promote his own lies?
• Why would Jesus associate Himself with the devil by participating in his works (the sin of lying)?

clearly these are easy questions too ((thanks!)) - the answer is that Christ God would not lie, would not promote lies, would not participate in lies.
so if the worldview God is giving us in Luke 16 is a lie, a sin, a fairy tale, a wicked perversion of reality, the work of the devil, evil doctrine, false, untrue, destructive heresy --- why is the Lord Jesus, who is 'The Truth,' presenting the doctrines of demons as though they are the correct worldview?


do you understand my objection here?



this is the argument you gave me:

People tell children fairy tales (such as Little Red Riding Hood) all the time to help them understand a lesson. Does that mean they are trying to convince the children that the story is true? Of course not!

you mean to apply what you said to Jesus Christ. He is God. He is the Truth. some simple algebra here: if A = B then i can put B down everywhere i see A. when you said 'people' you mean 'THE TRUTH' and when you said 'little red riding hood' you mean 'THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL'
this is your argument:

• THE TRUTH tells children fairy tales (such as THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL) all the time to help them understand a lesson. Does that mean THE TRUTH is trying to convince the children that THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL is true? Of course not!
  • in other words:
• Jesus promotes lies all the time in order to teach us lessons. Jesus doesn't intend us to believe everything He says.

do you understand why i altogether reject that argument?
why your argument here is unsupportable?

everything you agreed to in my questions (1) and (2) refutes your answer to (3).

 

[Runningman]

That means, according to your logic, that in the future we will be adjacent to hell and talk to those ones burning.?

If the Rich Man and Lazarus and literal then, yes, those in the "place of comfort" will get front row seats to watch people people burn while listening to them beg for help.

I contend the rich man and Lazarus is not literal for a variety of reasons that I have already covered. I see strong evidence that this is a parable. I don't know any real Christians who could enjoy this place of comfort while watching those who are lost burn and beg for help.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
There's no mention of the rich man wailing and/or gnashing his teeth; which
suggests to me the although he's in a great deal of discomfort; it's all what
might be called threshold, i.e. within the limits of his tolerance for pain and
not quite enough to make him writhe, groan, and/or howl like a wounded
dog.
_

 

[Amanuensis]

screenshot from biblehub --

View attachment 235307

if you look at the word 'alla' there, translated as 'but' here in this interlinear,
it specifically is a word used to indicate contrast.

i.e. not 'also or adding to'




expository opinion for 2,000 years has been divided about this particular topic, whether the dogs licking Lazarus ((whose name means 'God has helped' - when did God help him? always? how?)) were a help to him or a harm. there are elements of both. so when you say 'read a few good commentaries' ((i read several this morning on this verse)) i think what you mean is that the ones who disagree with your presuppositions, you consider 'not good' and the ones that say what you are already thinking, you consider 'good'
i don't think that is necessarily a good way to measure commentaries.

so the truth is that if you read commentaries, without prejudice, you will discover that Christendom does not 100% agree with you, nor does it agree 100% with my view on this verse. there are strong arguments on either side, and neither of us should be so dismissive.

And yet we decide on which are the Best by which do the better job of making a case using the rules of hermeneutics. And I think that the case for the dogs licking his sores as another layer of humiliation suffered by the beggar has always been presented as the best argument from those who dive into the syntax of the language and know what they are talking about. At this time I rely on these textual manuscript and language experts to present their case because I do not yet have that expert knowledge. However, using contextual rules, both immediate and also the entire bible I am confident that it is as I have stated.

So even though there are differences of opinion that have continued through the centuries it does not mean that the truth is not known or cannot be knowns since often those differences of opinion do a poor job of presenting their logic in the discussion whether they have been committed to print or no.

 

[tigerwillow17]

I suspect you are a typical life-long SDA whose bored with the truth and sits on the sideline instead of getting into the battle because you've never known the turmoil of trying to reconcile a God of love with One Who will supposedly burn eternally those who spurn Him. Don't you wish to see people freed from this seemingly inescapable snare of Satan? Did not Jesus refer to those who blind others to the truth with their false beliefs as "of your father the devil"? Perhaps you think Jesus as rude, as well?

There is no need to make assumptions. We do not know each other beyond the CC forum. I am a life-long SDA, but I am definitely not bored and I am not afraid to stand up for what I believe. I love to study the Bible and I get excited about sharing the good news with other people. I passionately ask God to help me be a part of His mission to help people experience salvation for themselves, so they can have freedom from Satan's snares here on this earth and the promise of everlasting life. I do agree with you that the 3AM will go out with a loud voice, however it is not loud with noise that people hear but don't respond to, but loud in life-changing power to bring people to Jesus.

Where we differ is our approach in how we try to reach out to people. I am a gentle soul at heart and so it is not in my nature to stir up conflict. I prefer to get to know people so they are comfortable having open discussions where both of us are free to speak our opinions. During the conversation, I ask God to help my words and thoughts be from Him so that I don't mess up any opportunity to help that person find Jesus by jumping to my own conclusions. Then I actively try to understand the other side by listening and asking thoughtful questions and encourage the other person to do the same. After our conversations, I pray for that person and ask the Holy Spirit to lead them from that point forward according to His will.

I have tried the method of just pushing my belief on someone before listening to them first. It never ends well and just results in both of us getting more stubborn in our own opinions which can get ugly. I try not to argue with people as that just makes them get defensive and put up walls which defeats the whole purpose of reaching out to them. It also continues to affirm in people's minds that Christians can be stubborn, judgmental people who won't listen to anyone but themselves.

As for Jesus, I never once thought of Him as rude because there are many times that EGW describes Jesus speaking with tears in His voice as He rebukes His accusers because of His deep love and concern for them. His words may have been rough, but His tone (which we can't always pick up on by just reading the account) was full of compassion.

 

[Phoneman-777]

when i read your answer it is a no brainer you are on the wrong track.

Isn't God able to bring forth into existence that which does not exist? So, why is it "wrong track" theology to say God can bring forth those that have died from non-existence back into existence in the resurrection?

 

[Amanuensis]

It's not necessary to split these hermeneutical hairs for two reasons:
1. The debate is over whether Jesus spoke literally or symbolically, not whether the symbolism best fits the definition of fable, allegory, or parable.
2. Our focus should be figuring out why Jesus would say these dead men were in possession of their resurrection bodies THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE He and others taught collectively of the time when the dead receive them, as well as other contradictions which arise if we make this story literal.

If square peg theology don't fit, Immortal Soul doctrine, you must quit.

Our focus should be on "WHAT IS THE LESSON?" And it is fairly impossible to miss it.


The main point is that the Bible warns people about a judgment awaiting those who don't love MERCY toward their fellowman whom they have the power to help, and that the only way someone will heed this warning is to have faith and respect in the Word of God and align themselves accordingly in this life, then even if they see someone rise from the dead it won't have a lasting effect in reforming their actions.

Now if we can agree that, that is the main point and not what things are like in the afterlife, which is what I hear you saying, then we can stay FOCUSED on the main lesson.

As we stay FOCUSED on the main lesson and examine the text itself where this MAIN LESSON can be highlighted with a yellow marker, if you will, we clearly see that the WARNING is about a place of torment not all the other things you might try and put in the rich mans' mouth or head. He used words that reveal what he was thinking and what he wanted Lazarus to warn his brothers about. And this warning is what Abraham said Moses and the Prophets already contained.

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?

If you asked a school child in first century Israel. "what is the lesson of this parable" having taught them how to identify the main lesson in a parable, they would be able to highlight this section below in red.

‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— 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.’”

Now if that is the lesson, then it must include the subject of the warning that Abraham is saying can be found in the writings of Moses and the Prophets. that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

It is impossible to say that Abraham was saying that if they read Moses and the Prophets they will be warned about soul sleep. No, if they read Moses and the Prophets they will be warned about THIS PLACE OF TORMENT.

 

[Phoneman-777]

This would be an excellent siggy line

Not sure why. "Is anything too hard for the Lord"?

 

[Phoneman-777]

It is impossible to say that Abraham was saying that if they read Moses and the Prophets they will be warned about soul sleep. No, if they read Moses and the Prophets they will be warned about THIS PLACE OF TORMENT.

I don't know anyone saying that. The warning has nothing to do with what happens when we die, anymore than Jotham's parable has anything to do with which tree will be elevated to "Royal Oak" status.

 

[CS1]

.
There's no mention of the rich man wailing and/or gnashing his teeth; which
suggests to me the although he's in a great deal of discomfort; it's all what
might be called threshold, i.e. within the limits of his tolerance for pain and
not quite enough to make him writhe, groan, and/or howl like a wounded
dog.
_

How can you say that? when the text says the place where he was at was so bad he begged for someone to warn his family? He asked for cold water "For I am IN Torment!" torment is only discomfort? Hell is like back pain?

 

[Amanuensis]

I don't know anyone saying that. The warning has nothing to do with what happens when we die, anymore than Jotham's parable has anything to do with which tree will be elevated to "Royal Oak" status.

"that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment"

It is impossible to mess that up.

 

[Webers.Home]

.

How can you say that?

The worst is yet to come. The place wherein the rich man is currently being
held isn't final. It's a temporary facility where folks are taken into custody to
await their day in court at the event depicted at Rev 20:11-15.
_

 

[Phoneman-777]

How can you say that? when the text says the place where he was at was so bad he begged for someone to warn his family? He asked for cold water "For I am IN Torment!" torment is only discomfort? Hell is like back pain?

The answer to your question can easily be ascertained by this: you and a friend go into a kitchen, place the tip of your finger on a hot burner, and then try having a conversation with him about the prospect of your loved one's destinies.

Now, imagine your entire body on fire.

The answer is the "torment" was not literally fire, but a symbol for something else - and is why Jesus chose "hades" aka "the grave" INSTEAD OF THE FIERY, BURNING, BLAZING, SMOKING HELLFIRE OF "GEHENNA" (a word He knew very well) as the place in which the Rich Man lifted up his eyes.

 

[Phoneman-777]

"that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment"

It is impossible to mess that up.

You'd be right if the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus wasn't a parable.

I mean, do you really think Abraham's literal bosom is several square miles in size? Abraham musta had one heck of a tailor.

Or, do you believe the dead get their resurrection bodies LONG BEFORE the resurrection?

 

[Runningman]

If the Rich Man and Lazarus and literal then, yes, those in the "place of comfort" will get front row seats to watch people people burn while listening to them beg for help.

I contend the rich man and Lazarus is not literal for a variety of reasons that I have already covered. I see strong evidence that this is a parable. I don't know any real Christians who could enjoy this place of comfort while watching those who are lost burn and beg for help.

I also might add to this, if this is literal, then the people in this place of comfort get to watch are possibly their old friends, maybe some family members, some coworkers, the baker down the street, people you thought were saved in church, and many more.

If this is literal then this "place of comfort" is only "comfortable", relatively speaking, to the other possible alternative of being in torment. The place of relative comfort seems to be safer and cooler, but you have noisy neighbors who don't stop begging you for help day and night.

This doesn't necessarily imply you get to be happy in the place of comfort; if the souls of people still have a caring heart they'll spend their time horrified and scared, while listening to the incessant begs for mercy, until their hearts are calloused and desensitized to the torment of others.

By the time people have finished their tour of comfort, they will have PTSD, some will be hardened, some will be hollow shells of their former selves, forever haunted by the torment of that baker down the street who didn't heed the gospel.

 

[Phoneman-777]

There is no need to make assumptions. We do not know each other beyond the CC forum. I am a life-long SDA,

Of course you are. I've run across many of you, and your MO is always the same: let's just love everybody and forget about Present Truth. I spent DECADES trapped in the error of Babylonian doctrine - including the madness of trying to figure out how in the world a God Who loves us so would burn us for all eternity - and could have been spared all the negative fallout from it if more life long SDAs had got off their backside and got the message out instead of climbing on to websites and rebuking others for doing what they should have been doing.

There's many more like me out there. So, please spare me the lectures - Leviticus 19:17 KJV is clear that love for our Christian brothers is shown by trying to reason with them about the danger they're in, so what does it mean when all we do is tell them "Daddy loves you" which sums up the evangelistic efforts of so many of you life long SDAs?