Please explain how the account being historical "would give you pause and shake my faith a bit".
"The rich man And Lazarus..."
- Thread starter GRACE_ambassador
- Start date
-
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.
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.
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.
You are just a denier.
Actually, they REFUSED to believe. They SAW the miracles and just dug in further. Just like you with the account of Lazarus.
P
persistent
Guest
For myself being fairly new to Christianity it comes across as a distraction from the Gospel. i.e. Saving blood of Jesus
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.
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.
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?
Absolutely, the gospels and Acts are filled with examples of many people from the nation of Israel believing in Christ pre and post-resurrection.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
So, Jesus is lying in the "parable"? Why would Jesus say this if it's not true?
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.
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.
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.