Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, probably, since no one knows for sure. There are arguments both ways, and the ones saying it is not a parable are far more convincing that the ones saying it is a parable. The argument saying "it is a parable because Jesus talked in parables" is horribly weak.
If you undersood it, you wouldn't offer me someone else's understanding of it. You are letting other people to tell you what to believe. The story is not a mystery, and it is indeed about the afterlife. I have read the UR interpreptions about it, and they are EXACTLY what I described in my earlier post. They let their imaginations run WILD and come up with a story which is not even remotely connected to Jesus's teaching. They bury the whole story under a mountain of interpreptions which they pulled form the seat of their pants.
Hi Finn!
If the Lazarus parable is indeed an account of the afterlife, then there are some conclusions we can draw from it which Christendom at large still doesn't seem to understand:
1) it's not faith that sends you to hell, but hoarding your goods;
2) those who go to heaven are admitted not because of faith, but because they were poor and suffering;
3) those who receive evil in this life receive good in the next life;
4) those who receive good in this life receive evil in the next;
5) those in hell can talk with those in heaven;
6) the "torment" of hell is on the tongue of the individual.
Very interesting how things will finally play out!... Just think of the current, ever-popular "properity doctrine!"....
Hi Finn!
If the Lazarus parable is indeed an account of the afterlife, then there are some conclusions we can draw from it which Christendom at large still doesn't seem to understand:
1) it's not faith that sends you to hell, but hoarding your goods;
2) those who go to heaven are admitted not because of faith, but because they were poor and suffering;
3) those who receive evil in this life receive good in the next life;
4) those who receive good in this life receive evil in the next;
5) those in hell can talk with those in heaven;
6) the "torment" of hell is on the tongue of the individual.
Very interesting how things will finally play out!... Just think of the current, ever-popular "properity doctrine!"....
Blessings,
brian
Amen!! Now there's a different take on it Finn! You make some very good points Brian.
Hi Finn!
If the Lazarus parable is indeed an account of the afterlife, then there are some conclusions we can draw from it which Christendom at large still doesn't seem to understand:
1) it's not faith that sends you to hell, but hoarding your goods;
2) those who go to heaven are admitted not because of faith, but because they were poor and suffering;
3) those who receive evil in this life receive good in the next life;
4) those who receive good in this life receive evil in the next;
5) those in hell can talk with those in heaven;
6) the "torment" of hell is on the tongue of the individual.
Very interesting how things will finally play out!... Just think of the current, ever-popular "properity doctrine!"....
Blessings,
brian
It is not about heaven and hell, but Hades. The Bible is full of references about who has everlasting life, and who do not. Those who believe, have everlasting life, but before Jesus was crucified, everyone who died (even the believeres) went to Hades, which had a good side for the righteous and a bad side for the unrighteous. Abraham was on the good side. Lazarus didn't end up on the good side with Abraham because he was poor, but because he was a believer. Lazarus was a leper, and lepers lived on the street and begged. The rich man was a sinner, and his sins are evidenced in the story. It is not the tongue that is tormented, the rich man simply says he is tormented in fire. Could they see each other? This is not the only place whese such comment is made:
Luke 13:28 There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.
The point of the story is simply to reveal that the righteous and the unrighteous have different destinations.
It is not about heaven and hell, but Hades. The Bible is full of references about who has everlasting life, and who do not. Those who believe, have everlasting life, but before Jesus was crucified, everyone who died (even the believeres) went to Hades, which had a good side for the righteous and a bad side for the unrighteous. Abraham was on the good side. Lazarus didn't end up on the good side with Abraham because he was poor, but because he was a believer. Lazarus was a leper, and lepers lived on the street and begged. The rich man was a sinner, and his sins are evidenced in the story. It is not the tongue that is tormented, the rich man simply says he is tormented in fire. Could they see each other? This is not the only place whese such comment is made:
Luke 13:28 There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.
The point of the story is simply to reveal that the righteous and the unrighteous have different destinations.
Wait a sec..
There is no distinction made here between hades and hell. There is talk of a "flame" that "torments" so I can only deduce that it is equivalent to the "hellfire" and "torment" discussed in other places. You are adding to the parable, imo.
Lazarus did not end up "on the good side" because he was a believer. You are adding words to the story..
The fact that he was a beggar, however, may help us a bit, in that he was "excluded" from others, and looked down upon, and despised. "He who is despised will find heaven."
The rich man also talks about "cooling his tongue with water." So this tells me that it is the tongue, not other body parts, which are in torment.
Again, we must not add to scripture what is not there... even if Christendom insists that we do!
Wait a sec..
There is no distinction made here between hades and hell. There is talk of a "flame" that "torments" so I can only deduce that it is equivalent to the "hellfire" and "torment" discussed in other places. You are adding to the parable, imo.
No, I am not adding. The Bible is clear about Hades and lake of fire aka hell. After judgment Hades itself will be thrown in to the lake of fire, but no one is in hell today, so it is impossible Abraham, Lazarus or the rich man were in hell. They were in hades, and most, if not all, translations (including Young's literal) even spell it out.
Quote:
The rich man also talks about "cooling his tongue with water." So this tells me that it is the tongue, not other body parts, which are in torment.Again, we must not add to scripture what is not there... even if Christendom insists that we do!
If someone is adding, it is you since the story says nothing about his toungue being in fire. It says the rich man was tormented in fire. It is obvious your tongue would be dry if you were tormented in fire. Have you ever been in a sauna? You will become thirsty, but not because your tongue is hot, but because your entire boy is hot.
No, I am not adding. The Bible is clear about Hades and lake of fire aka hell. After judgment Hades itself will be thrown in to the lake of fire, but no one is in hell today, so it is impossible Abraham, Lazarus or the rich man were in hell. They were in hades, and most, if not all, translations (including Young's literal) even spell it out.
If someone is adding, it is you since the story says nothing about his toungue being in fire. It says the rich man was tormented in fire. It is obvious your tongue would be dry if you were tormented in fire. Have you ever been in a sauna? You will become thirsty, but not because your tongue is hot, but because your entire boy is hot.
Whether it is called hades or hell, I still read about a "flame" and "torment." And Christendom today (including most fundamentalist groups) will tell you that the rich man was/is indeed in hell. That's the "fundamental" part of it, according to them! To most of Christendom, there is no distinction. Only heaven and hell. (They would probably argue that if it was "the grave" then there would be no such discussions, since the dead do not talk!)
Now you say that the rich man was thirsty. But he asks that his tongue be "cooled." It doesn't say that he was thirsty. This is an addition, but you may be right; only it doesn't say "thirsty" but "cool."
Also, I see you didn't say anything with regards to whether they "believed in Jesus" or not, as per their differing "eternal" destinations. (whether they were left there eternally or not, we cannot know. there is not indication.)
Christendom teaches us to interpret this story in a very precise way, namely:
- "Lazarus" was a "believer:" a good Christian; an Assemblies of God-type of guy; would have attended lots of bible-studies. God fearing, handing out tracts. Would have even had a Christian bumper sticker on his car. (Never mind that he was poor, sick, low-life, despised, and therefore not a candidate for the "name it and claim it" groups.)
- The rich man was an "unbeliever:" a heathen and agnostic or atheist. Definitely an evolutionist, partier, communist. He was also probably gay. Hence he went to hell.
Whether it is called hades or hell, I still read about a "flame" and "torment." And Christendom today (including most fundamentalist groups) will tell you that the rich man was/is indeed in hell. That's the "fundamental" part of it, according to them! To most of Christendom, there is no distinction. Only heaven and hell. (They would probably argue that if it was "the grave" then there would be no such discussions, since the dead do not talk!)
No, not true. Hades is hades, and hell is hell, they are two different places. After Jesus died he took the believers from hades with him to heaven, and at this time only unbelievers and fallen angels occupy hades.
Quote:
Now you say that the rich man was thirsty. But he asks that his tongue be "cooled." It doesn't say that he was thirsty. This is an addition, but you may be right; only it doesn't say "thirsty" but "cool."
If you don't believe that people ask for water on their tongue because they are thirsty, then what can I say? It is typical of a UR to go on argueing something that.
Quote:
Christendom teaches us to interpret this story in a very precise way, namely:
- "Lazarus" was a "believer:" a good Christian; an Assemblies of God-type of guy; would have attended lots of bible-studies. God fearing, handing out tracts. Would have even had a Christian bumper sticker on his car. (Never mind that he was poor, sick, low-life, despised, and therefore not a candidate for the "name it and claim it" groups.)
- The rich man was an "unbeliever:" a heathen and agnostic or atheist. Definitely an evolutionist, partier, communist. He was also probably gay. Hence he went to hell.
See what I'm trying to tell you?
I see what YOU are telling me, but that is the first time I see such statements, so why do you claim this is what Chiristians teach? You are obviously putting words in other people's mouths.
Whether it is called hades or hell, I still read about a "flame" and "torment." And Christendom today (including most fundamentalist groups) will tell you that the rich man was/is indeed in hell. That's the "fundamental" part of it, according to them! To most of Christendom, there is no distinction. Only heaven and hell. (They would probably argue that if it was "the grave" then there would be no such discussions, since the dead do not talk!)
Now you say that the rich man was thirsty. But he asks that his tongue be "cooled." It doesn't say that he was thirsty. This is an addition, but you may be right; only it doesn't say "thirsty" but "cool."
Also, I see you didn't say anything with regards to whether they "believed in Jesus" or not, as per their differing "eternal" destinations. (whether they were left there eternally or not, we cannot know. there is not indication.)
Christendom teaches us to interpret this story in a very precise way, namely:
- "Lazarus" was a "believer:" a good Christian; an Assemblies of God-type of guy; would have attended lots of bible-studies. God fearing, handing out tracts. Would have even had a Christian bumper sticker on his car. (Never mind that he was poor, sick, low-life, despised, and therefore not a candidate for the "name it and claim it" groups.)
- The rich man was an "unbeliever:" a heathen and agnostic or atheist. Definitely an evolutionist, partier, communist. He was also probably gay. Hence he went to hell.
See what I'm trying to tell you?
Blessings,
brian
The Rich man is the High Priest and Lazarus the leper that Jesus raised from the dead. The cooling of the tongue is a reference that the High Priest was causing people to error by the things the Priest spoke (preached).
This would probably have been well understood in its day.
The Rich man is the High Priest and Lazarus the leper that Jesus raised from the dead. The cooling of the tongue is a reference that the High Priest was causing people to error by the things the Priest spoke (preached).
This would probably have been well understood in its day.
So, when the rich man to asked Lazarus to bring him water to cool his tongue (because he was in torment), means that the rich man was causing people to error Come on now...
So, when the rich man to asked Lazarus to bring him water to cool his tongue (because he was in torment), means that the rich man was causing people to error Come on now...
No Finn the rich man wanted the "living water" Jesus Christ who is the living water and who drinks of him will never thirst again. This also helps prove it is a parable. One drop of water to a man in torment would mean nothing, but one drop of the living water will flow through out and like the leven will leven the whole loaf the living water will bring life and relief to the whole person. This parable along with the unjust steward was directed at the pharisees and you can bet they knew exactly what Jesus was saying and what it meant. The fact that Jesus was telling them that the gentiles would replace the Jews in " the bosom of Abraham" was very disturbing to them they lorded over other that they were the chosen people, that they "feasted sumptuously "on the favor of God and to be replaced by "dogs" . Well now you can see why many Jews wanted to kill Jesus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
