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

Hi...what rude comments?

your asinine, supersonically redonkuolous claim

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.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION GOD EVEN THOUGH HE INVITES US TO REASON TOGETHER WITH HIM???!!!

(I agree, what possible comfort can be derived from watching a wayward son or daughter burn for all eternity, and wondering what we could have done differently to help them be spared of this supposed fate? Surely, their must be those of the Eternal Torment crowd who love their children more than life itself; are they satisfied with the prospect of watching them writhe in the "unspeakable agony of eternal blazing torment" for all eternity? We can't even bare to watch them suffer a tummyache, right?)

Please don't think I am singling you out, because I am not. I know there are many other people on here who post rude comments, but until I find something in common with them and get to know a little bit more about them, I don't find it necessary to get involved. I am still new here and have not yet read a lot of the threads, but as I spend more time here on CC and get to know people, I am sure more conversations like this will come up. Once you stated that you are SDA, your posts suddenly became more meaningful to me because I felt I could relate to you better so my ears perked up and your words stood out to me more than they would have otherwise.

I was specifically referring to your comment in the quote above. I thought the words you chose were unChristlike and needed to be toned back a bit. I get it, these threads can get quite heated and sometimes posts need to be reproved, but these kinds of responses distract from any meaningful discussion on the thread and gives the impression that you don't care enough about other people to respect their choice of opinions even when they go against your grain. The people who are not here just to argue, but to actually seek for answers, will eventually stop trying to listen to your side and may completely miss something really powerful you have to say. I am sure this is not your intention, so I hope you understand where I am coming from.

I don't believe He is going to drag them off at judgment day and burn them in front of us either.

Doesn't the Bible say "with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked"? Sure it does.

Guess, it does. So, what is the difference then?

I mean are there any that could sit back and watch their family and friends being burned to death and be happy about it.

Couldn't that mean we will see them left behind for judgment knowing what is getting ready to take place for them. Like I said, I don't believe in a pre-trib rapture so I'm not talking about that blasphemous movie "left behind" or anything like it. I just don't think we are going to have to see the full wrath of God being fulfilled upon the lost. If that were the case, then surely there would be tears and sorrow involved in that for us.

Really, read the verses I posted.

So, we're supposed to ignore the numerous, obviously symbolic, Biblical and reality defying elements of Luke 16 such as:

1. dead people wearing bodies before the resurrection
2. men completely engulfed in flame able to converse lucidly
3. Abraham's bosom being many square miles in size...

and then impose a completely subjective "hermeneutical rule" that the use of proper names in a passage disqualifies it from being a parable even though the reason Jesus chose to use the name "Lazarus" is made evident not long after when Lazarus "rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31 KJV) and Jesus' prediction that "neither will (the other sons of Abraham, the Jews) be persuaded though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31 KJV) was not only fulfilled, but these stubborn Jews went away to take counsel on how they might destroy both Jesus and Lazarus?

Now, imagine your entire body on fire.

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.

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.

1. yes, your soul can speak, feel, and see
2. yep
3. yep

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?

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"

Also, I've not read in there that Lazarus could actually see or had any knowledge of the rich man. The rich man spoke only with Abraham. There is a spiritual meaning in that, I am sure.

One also might consider it "rude" to openly criticize a person's character, but I've noticed that also about life long SDAs - they think they've a corner on the market for love, compassion, patience, longsuffering, but let someone lift up their head and call sin and false doctrine by it's rightful name and out come the claws, fangs, horns.

What's the punishment? IT'S DEATH! Not "eternal torment", but death. If the wages of sin was eternal torment, the only way Jesus could take away our sin debt would be that HE BE ETERNALLY TORMENTED. Please think about that for a while.

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?