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

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
ChristianSubMissionary said:
You just did what satan did in the wilderness. What do I mean?

The sentence doesn't begin, "Today ..."

The sentence begins, "Verily I say unto thee To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."

This changes the sentence from saying that "today" the person on the cross would be in paradise, to Jesus promising the person "today" (Today if you hear his voice harden not your heart, but believe his promises) that when Jesus came into His kingdom (context previous verse which prompted the response from Jesus) the person would be resurrected and enter there also.

In other words to begin where you did leaves out important context which alters the meaning, and thus you have done what satan did in the wilderness to Jesus. I am not saying you did such deliberately, nor am I saying that you are satan.
Click to expand...
I said essentially the same thing. I have much patience for our Christian friends because when we believe something for so long, the synapsis "ruts" get very deep and it's hard to keep from slipping into them when trying to forge a new path of thinking about something in a different way.
 
Phoneman-777 said:
That's a fine subjective argument. No where are we told there are "different levels and types of punishment".

There is only ONE punishment for sin, and that's death by Lake of Fire. There is variation, however, but not the kind you're inventing: that variation is "duration of suffering" where some will burn up rather quickly, while others guilty of greater sin will burn longer, and the devil will burn the longest...but all will burn up and pass out of existence in death...the Second Death....eternal death...a death from which there will be no resurrection.
Click to expand...

You reject my argument and then go about saying something just as subjective, imagining different lengths of burning time.

I see holding times while being punished, tormented in flame, before the Lake of Fire based on scriptures like the "uninterpreted parable of the rich man and Lazarus" as you put it and I see places of blessing for the righteous based on the same parable, and the promise to the thief on the cross and even Paul's expectation to be with Christ upon death, and you see different burning times in the Lake based on sins, based on what? From what "parable, or text?" Who is inventing things? At least I have a reason. You are just imagining what you think seems fair and we know how reliable our own reasoning can be right?

I mean if you are going to imagine things like that at least use a verse. Maybe something like this one in Luke 12

45But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows

Maybe in your scenario they are in the Lake of Fire and being beaten with flaming whips, only some get beaten for millions of stripes and some less. (my run away imagination again)
 
Amanuensis said:
You reject my argument and then go about saying something just as subjective, imagining different lengths of burning time.

I see holding times while being punished, tormented in flame, before the Lake of Fire based on scriptures like the "uninterpreted parable of the rich man and Lazarus" as you put it and I see places of blessing for the righteous based on the same parable, and the promise to the thief on the cross and even Paul's expectation to be with Christ upon death, and you see different burning times in the Lake based on sins, based on what? From what "parable, or text?" Who is inventing things? At least I have a reason. You are just imagining what you think seems fair and we know how reliable our own reasoning can be right?

I mean if you are going to imagine things like that at least use a verse. Maybe something like this one in Luke 12

45But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows

Maybe in your scenario they are in the Lake of Fire and being beaten with flaming whips, only some get beaten for millions of stripes and some less. (my run away imagination again)
Click to expand...
Bro, I would STRONGLY suggest you get yourself a KJV.

Every NT version (other than Roman Catholic church "bibles" like the Jesuit Douey, the Vulgate, Good News, etc.) are based on the corrupted "Critical Text" Greek MSS. The KJV is based on the "Textus Receptus" Greek of the Protestant Reformation.
Even the NKJV is based on that garbage Critical Text, and deviates from the Textus Receptus over 1,200 times!!!

"Only those with Roman Catholic sympathies could be pleased with the notion that God preserved in secret His Word for over 15 centuries before handing it over to the RCC for safe keeping."

No, we've had the truth all along, as proven by the Bibles of the Reformation, the crown jewel of which is the KJV.
 
Phoneman-777 said:
How about you quote the verse correctly first?

"Verily I say unto thee today thou shalt be with Me in Paradise".

The word "today" is modifying the verb "say", not "shalt be".

In other words, "I say unto thee today, Friday, while I'm hanging here looking like anything but the Savior of the world.....YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE".
Click to expand...
No one dying on the cross almost about to take his last breath, (he dies right after this) would feel the need to explain what day he was speaking or waste his breath on such unnecessary words.

Your attempt to change the meaning like this is the same as when you try to say the flame is not quenched means it doesn't get put out instead it burns out for lack of fuel. It is the reason why your hermeneutic has been rejected and you wonder why we can't see it the way you do? Because it is outrageously offensive.
 
Phoneman-777 said:
Bro, I would STRONGLY suggest you get yourself a KJV.

Every NT version (other than Roman Catholic church "bibles" like the Jesuit Douey, the Vulgate, Good News, etc.) are based on the corrupted "Critical Text" Greek MSS. The KJV is based on the "Textus Receptus" Greek of the Protestant Reformation.
Even the NKJV is based on that garbage Critical Text, and deviates from the Textus Receptus over 1,200 times!!!

"Only those with Roman Catholic sympathies could be pleased with the notion that God preserved in secret His Word for over 15 centuries before handing it over to the RCC for safe keeping."

No, we've had the truth all along, as proven by the Bibles of the Reformation, the crown jewel of which is the KJV.
Click to expand...

I think you are really out of your lane when you try to make a case for KJV over NIV. However. I will placate you with the KJV. It doesn't change anything that I have previously written.

45But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.
 
Amanuensis said:
Your attempt to change the meaning
Click to expand...
No, I'm attempting to RESTORE the original meaning before the Immortal Soul crowd got hold of it and twisted it.

Didn't Tyndale tell Sir Thomas Moore that his twisting of "God of the living" to support Immortal Soul doctrine was "stealing away Christ's argument wherewith He proved the resurrection"?

Yes, Christ's use of "God of the living" was intended to prove the saints would rise in the resurrection, not to prove they were already in heaven, but Moore "stole" the argument to prove Immortal Soul doctrine "which doctrine was not yet in the world" of Christianity.
 
Amanuensis said:
I think you are really out of your lane when you try to make a case for KJV over NIV. However. I will placate you with the KJV. It doesn't change anything that I have previously written.

45But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.
Click to expand...
There's a REASON the NIV is called "the NON-inspired version".
 
Phoneman-777 said:
Bro, I would STRONGLY suggest you get yourself a KJV.

Every NT version (other than Roman Catholic church "bibles" like the Jesuit Douey, the Vulgate, Good News, etc.) are based on the corrupted "Critical Text" Greek MSS. The KJV is based on the "Textus Receptus" Greek of the Protestant Reformation.
Even the NKJV is based on that garbage Critical Text, and deviates from the Textus Receptus over 1,200 times!!!

"Only those with Roman Catholic sympathies could be pleased with the notion that God preserved in secret His Word for over 15 centuries before handing it over to the RCC for safe keeping."

No, we've had the truth all along, as proven by the Bibles of the Reformation, the crown jewel of which is the KJV.
Click to expand...

Then Use the Greek of the Textus Receptus. Learn it. Be able to read it and write and speak it. Only then could you honestly say that you you are using what you believe to be the uncorrupted text.

To use the KJV you have departed from that source material and are using an English translation. You would still need to be able to examine the Greek Manuscripts (NT) to see if the KJV has faithfully communicated in English the same ideas that the Greek words communicate to a Greek reader.

Until you can do that you have no way of knowing. You are simply hoping it is so or relying on experts that can tell you. And many experts will show you where the KJV can use some improvement in accomplishing that goal (faithfully communicating the Greek meaning in English words) even if the verse in question is coming from your beloved Textus Receptus.

Take for example Candlesticks being the English word KJV chose for the word lychnia in Rev 1:12. The Greek word is intended to communicate a lampstand or oil fed lampstands. Not a wax candlestick. But the KJV scholars used a word that communicated the wax candlesticks of their day. However these were not used in the first century. Oil lamps were. Wax candlesticks became popular in the middle ages. So here is just one example of how the KJV needs a correction to be faithful to the original Textus Receptus.
One MUST concede that this is true or they are not being intellectually honest about their devotion to the Textus Receptus and the KJV at the same time. One must choose the Greek over the English and agree that the word should be lampstands and communicate the oil fed lamps that John actually saw, because we know he did not see wax candlesticks since these were not used at that time and that is not the meaning of the word lychnia.

If the NIV faithfully translates lychnia to lampstands then it has done a better job of faithfully communicating the Greek in the Textus Receptus manuscript of Revelation than the KJV has.

The only way that you can know if a verse has been translated into English while retaining the meaning of the Greek as it would have been understood by a Greek reader is to know Koine Greek.

They say it takes about 3 years to begin to be proficient. You can sign up for online classes here:
https://www.billmounce.com/
 
Phoneman-777 said:
There's a REASON the NIV is called "the NON-inspired version".
Click to expand...
There is a reason it is used by most of the evangelical bible believing scholars and commentary writers. So you seem to be misinformed. Many of the best commentary authors that believe in the inspiration of the scriptures and are conservative evangelicals use their own translations since they are expert in the original languages and also in all the known manuscripts in extant. However many of them that don't provide their own translation, use the NIV for reasons you can learn about in the book "How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth" If you read other authors besides SDA that is.
 
Amanuensis said:
There is a reason it is used by most of the evangelical bible believing scholars and commentary writers. So you seem to be misinformed. Many of the best commentary authors that believe in the inspiration of the scriptures and are conservative evangelicals use their own translations since they are expert in the original languages and also in all the known manuscripts in extant. However many of them that don't provide their own translation, use the NIV for reasons you can learn about in the book "How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth" If you read other authors besides SDA that is.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, the NIV is not a perfect translation. There are instances where it is in dispute. But that is the case for every single English translation. Somewhere there will be a verse where there is a better translation in another English translation according to a group of scholars who discuss it. Each case has to be analyzed regarding the challenges involved. Sometimes it is a matter of not being sure how a word was used at the time. When it is discovered that the word appears in an ancient Greek text recently discovered that will add knowledge to a possible way it was intended by the author. There are cases where a word only appears once in the bible. And there are few ancient text examples to go by.
 
ChristianSubMissionary said:
I wouldn't. Neither God, and that's why God said He was going to bring satan to ashes and not be any more, an utter end, and sin never arise a second time.
Click to expand...
I didn't ask for your preference; I was just answering your question. I want Satan to be brought down ASAP so that the nations will no longer be deceived and follow his rebellion. But regardless, our preferences have no bearing on Scriptural verity or meaning.
 
Amanuensis said:
When it is discovered that the word appears in an ancient Greek text recently discovered that will add knowledge to a possible way it was intended by the author.
Click to expand...
You mean pagan occultic Greek texts that preach homosexuality, beastiality, erotica, etc can help define how God in His word would use a Greek word?

There are several examples in modern English which if used as an example of how an English word in the Bible ought to be defined, God is in trouble for speaking perverse things.

Thank God, He already defined His words in scripture (Isaiah 28:10,13,&c) so we don't have to go outside of the text (even Psalms 119 is an aleph-bet primer).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back