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

[Amanuensis]

amen

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

You lost me. I think this is what happens when we don't stick to sound hermeneutics. LOL

 

[posthuman]

to be licked by dogs and despised by his country men as unclean as a result.

my, but that's a puzzling comment!
who said being licked by sinless living souls is shameful?

did God say that? or human tradition?

is Lazarus portrayed as a person who follows those who deny Christ in favor of their traditions and human laws?

 

[posthuman]

You lost me. I think this is what happens when we don't stick to sound hermeneutics. LOL

i lost you only because you don't understand Luke 14.
here's something that will help: in Luke 14:5 the correct translation isn't 'donkey' it's "son"
look it up. i'm not lying.

go read it and pray. go think about the things i have written to you.
come back tomorrow

 

[Amanuensis]

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?

I have made my case. I think we all know it is was an "add insult to injury" detail to describe the pitiful plight of the beggar, and a detail that the jew of the time understood, but you are questioning it because of the 2000 year cultural gap. Keep studying. It will make sense in time as you collect these facts from the 1st century Jewish mindset about dogs.

 

[Amanuensis]

my, but that's a puzzling comment!
who said being licked by sinless living souls is shameful?

did God say that? or human tradition?

is Lazarus portrayed as a person who follows those who deny Christ in favor of their traditions and human laws?

He was a Jew who followed the Law and the faith of Abraham which was if it was by faith allowed him to be justified and thus he is taken to Abrahams bosom which also declares that he was faithful to the law and this would include agreeing with the law about dogs being unclean.

 

[Aerials1978]

So, we're supposed to ignore the numerous, obviously symb
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.

You’re response is not in line with what scripture teaches. The doctrine of Annihilation has never been a core belief held by any major denomination. I know you don’t like the idea of conscious torment, but that doesn’t dismiss it.[/QUOTE] Does "worldwide" qualify a denomination as "major"? The Seventh-day Adventists have held Annihilation as a core doctrine for over 160 years and his the only worldwide Protestant denomination out there.

And Annihilation can most certainly be proven from Scripture. That's why I'm here showing how utterly stupid it is to claim that a man completely engulfed in flame can carry on an intelligent conversation, Abraham's bosom is many square miles in size, the dead receive their resurrection bodies before the resurrection takes place...all the things that the Immortal Soul/Eternal Torment crowd chooses to ignore.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I know about Seventh Day Adventist theology and Ellen G White who claimed to be a prophet. It’s another American revivalist sect with whom I disagree with some things on. This happens to be one of them.

 

[A-Sword-Cometh]

Having dogs lick your blood or your sores is a disgraceful thing, like as when the dogs licked up Jezebel and Ahab's blood. Indeed, this part is to highlight the misery with which Lazarus the Beggar had to live on this terrible earth. It's not so much that it makes him a sinner, but it is showing his state on this earth, that of a miserable life where he has to beg for crumbs and have his sores licked by dogs. Lazarus had all this happen right outside the gate of the Rich Man's estate; the Rich Man could have helped him at any time but did not. Now the Rich Man is licked by flames and begs Lazarus to dip his finger in water to cool his tongue for but a moment. This is reinforced when Abraham tells the Rich Man that he received good things in his life and Lazarus had received bad things, but now Lazarus is comforted, and the Rich Man is tormented.

 

[posthuman]

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.

this kind of clears up my questions in post #310 for me, thanks.

we were apparently typing at the same time

 

[posthuman]

Having dogs lick your blood or your sores is a disgraceful thing, like as when the dogs licked up Jezebel and Ahab's blood.

i don't think a dog licking a living man's sores is the same as a dog drinking the blood of a corpse.

for understanding we might compare 'the great feast of the LORD' in Ezekiel 39:17 -- is the one being put to shame the animals of the earth or mankind? who is being honored in Ezekiel 39:17? and this is likened to dogs & Jezebel, not dogs and Lazarus. the dead vs. the living, as Christ defines alive and dead ((which does not have to do with the dust but with the soul, John 11:25-26))

Lazarus was not being harmed. in the eyes of the pharisees he was being shamed and made unclean - in the eyes of that certain rich man without compassion - but are we to have the eyes of such men when we read these things, or to have the eyes of Christ?
animals also ministered to Him, Mark 1:13

 

[Amanuensis]

i lost you only because you don't understand Luke 14.
here's something that will help: in Luke 14:5 the correct translation isn't 'donkey' it's "son"
look it up. i'm not lying.

go read it and pray. go think about the things i have written to you.
come back tomorrow

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.

 

[A-Sword-Cometh]

i don't think a dog licking a living man's sores is the same as a dog drinking the blood of a corpse.

for understanding we might compare 'the great feast of the LORD' in Ezekiel 39:17 -- is the one being put to shame the animals of the earth or mankind? who is being honored in Ezekiel 39:17? and this is likened to dogs & Jezebel, not dogs and Lazarus. the dead vs. the living, as Christ defines alive and dead ((which does not have to do with the dust but with the soul, John 11:25-26))

Lazarus was not being harmed. in the eyes of the pharisees he was being shamed and made unclean - in the eyes of that certain rich man without compassion - but are we to have the eyes of such men when we read these things, or to have the eyes of Christ?
animals also ministered to Him, Mark 1:13

Well the Great Supper of the Lord obviously puts the last generation of mankind to shame, they get sacrificed on the mountains of Zion and the beasts of the field eat their flesh and the bird of the air drink the blood of their princes. The honor is Christ's, the bearer of the Sword which slaughters all those people, praise our mighty King Jesus!

As for the dogs in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, this is highlighting the miserable state of Lazarus' life on this earth. It's easy to understand how miserable of a life it be to be so hungry you just want some crumbs, to be sick and rather than being comforted no one cares about you and moreover stray dogs lick your sores. This is a miserable life that the beggar named Lazarus lived, and then he died. All the time he is at the gates of the Rich Man and the Rich Man received good things in this life, the Rich Man could have helped Lazarus really simply, not even having to give much, but he didn't. Now the Rich Man begs Lazarus to dip his hand in cool water because of the fiery torment of the place he is in, outside the gates of paradise where there will be much weeping and gnashing of the teeth. In life Lazarus received evil things, but then is comforted. The Rich Man received good things in this life, but then is tormented. The juxtaposition between the two could not be more well put.

 

[Amanuensis]

i don't think a dog licking a living man's sores is the same as a dog drinking the blood of a corpse.

for understanding we might compare 'the great feast of the LORD' in Ezekiel 39:17 -- is the one being put to shame the animals of the earth or mankind? who is being honored in Ezekiel 39:17? and this is likened to dogs & Jezebel, not dogs and Lazarus. the dead vs. the living, as Christ defines alive and dead ((which does not have to do with the dust but with the soul, John 11:25-26))

Lazarus was not being harmed. in the eyes of the pharisees he was being shamed and made unclean - in the eyes of that certain rich man without compassion - but are we to have the eyes of such men when we read these things, or to have the eyes of Christ?
animals also ministered to Him, Mark 1:13

No, it's just dogs doing gross things. They will lick blood when they can. They are dogs. Nothing more is expected of them because they are dogs. They will eat their own poo too. And then lick your sores. Lazarus didn't want that. He is obviously too weak to shew them off. or they are doing it when he is sleeping and half dead. It is not the way he wants to go out. There is no ministering being done. It is a "kick him when he's down" statement. And the hearers of this parable knew it.

If you were there you would have understood it as a negative.

I suggest reading books like New Testament Survey books and 1 century Jewish cultural books. They add a lot of details that allow you to see through the eyes and hear through the ears of the first century Jew so that you get what Jesus said in the context of their culture. Dogs were despised and that is not even up for debate by any scholar of the bible.

Personally I think dogs are gross. lol

 

[Amanuensis]

Well the Great Supper of the Lord obviously puts the last generation of mankind to shame, they get sacrificed on the mountains of Zion and the beasts of the field eat their flesh and the bird of the air drink the blood of their princes. The honor is Christ's, the bearer of the Sword which slaughters all those people, praise our mighty King Jesus!

As for the dogs in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, this is highlighting the miserable state of Lazarus' life on this earth. It's easy to understand how miserable of a life it be to be so hungry you just want some crumbs, to be sick and rather than being comforted no one cares about you and moreover stray dogs lick your sores. This is a miserable life that the beggar named Lazarus lived, and then he died. All the time he is at the gates of the Rich Man and the Rich Man received good things in this life, the Rich Man could have helped Lazarus really simply, not even having to give much, but he didn't. Now the Rich Man begs Lazarus to dip his hand in cool water because of the fiery torment of the place he is in, outside the gates of paradise where there will be much weeping and gnashing of the teeth. In life Lazarus received evil things, but then is comforted. The Rich Man received good things in this life, but then is tormented. The juxtaposition between the two could not be more well put.

Amen, and that clear message from Abraham. There is just retribution for such hard heartedness. It is something that the righteous are glad to hear about. We are glad that there will be a reckoning.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
I read somewhere that when a patient in one of Mother Teresa's hostels
complained of overwhelming pain, she tried to comfort them by saying the
pain was Jesus kissing them; but as whacky as that is, I really don't think
even Teresa would recommend using dog's tongues for first aid, not even for
a scratch or a bruise especially when dogs are rarely, if ever, portrayed in
scripture as beneficial to mankind.
_

 

[A-Sword-Cometh]

Amen, and that clear message from Abraham. There is just retribution for such hard heartedness. It is something that the righteous are glad to hear about. We are glad that there will be a reckoning.

Yes, it is good to acknowledge that God is supremely just, and even his severe judgements are correct.

 

[Amanuensis]

Yes, it is good to acknowledge that God is supremely just, and even his severe judgements are correct.

2 Thess 1:
6since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away fromb the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

 

[A-Sword-Cometh]

2 Thess 1:
6since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away fromb the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

Yes this is a true saying, praise Jesus.

 

[tigerwillow17]

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?

My answer is no to all of these questions.

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.

Question 3: Is Christ giving a false pagan narrative as though it is true?

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! The children are more interested in the interaction of the characters and the story's meaning, not whether the fairy tale has any bearing in reality.

I believe the same principle applies to Jesus' telling the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The point of Jesus telling the story is to teach a lesson through its meaning, rather than to prove/disprove its theological soundness.

 

[Amanuensis]

My answer is no to all of these questions.

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.

Question 3: Is Christ giving a false pagan narrative as though it is true?

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! The children are more interested in the interaction of the characters and the story's meaning, not whether the fairy tale has any bearing in reality.

I believe the same principle applies to Jesus' telling the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The point of Jesus telling the story is to teach a lesson through its meaning, rather than to prove/disprove its theological soundness.

And what LESSON was Jesus teaching with this parable? Please identify the Lesson in the parable. If it is a parable there is an obvious lesson that is easy to circle or underline. Tell us what you think the lesson is?

 

[tigerwillow17]

And what LESSON was Jesus teaching with this parable? Please identify the Lesson in the parable. If it is a parable there is an obvious lesson that is easy to circle or underline. Tell us what you think the lesson is?

In posts #137 and #139, I went into great detail on my view of this story.