The rich man and the beggar at his gate?

[Marymog]

Yeah, I imagine Jesus worked hard to make things as confusing as He could for His listeners.

Do people sit up nights trying to dream all this stuff up? LOL

Hi Willie,

Are you suggesting that all of us have “dream(ed) this stuff up”? Our interpretations of that parable are not plausible? At least that is what i have taken away from you statement.

 

[Marymog]

Most of us are blinded into thinking the condemnation of "sin" is considered by a particular action — worse or less evil by the vileness of a specific thing we "do." Thus, you hear us consistently judging others and comparing ourselves with them by the "degree" of sinner THEY are because of the selected "sin" we choose to point out in THEIR lives. The awful "sin" that WE are too good to ever commit. ("God, I thank you that I am righteous, not like THAT OTHER man...)

Jesus didn't go to the cross to hang there forever, waiting in eagerness to "hammer" each individual sinful action we "DO" like a "Whack-A-Mole" at Chuckie Cheese', as it crops up in our lives. He died to correct attitude.... thought... a way of living life.

And this is what the Jewish Rich Man was not seeing. He had been taught (by mistaken elders in his religion) that he and all the tribes of his brothers needed only rely upon the fact that they were born under the lucky and blessed star of Judaism, and the were automatically guaranteed enterance into a blissful Everafter.

He got surprised. That was not the case, and he wanted Abraham to warn the rest of the Jews, his brothers, that just being a Jew wasn't going to cut it.

Thank you. I am not seeing what you are seeing in the parable.

 

[Willie T]

Although he is not named in the Bible, but only described as "Abraham's servant" (Genesis 24:34), Jewish tradition has that his name was Eliezer.

 

[Willie T]

Hi Willie,

Are you suggesting that all of us have “dream(ed) this stuff up”? Our interpretations of that parable are not plausible? At least that is what i have taken away from you statement.

No, you didn't dream it up. You were told by someone else, just like I was, and we each chose to believe the conclusions others came up with.

 

[Waiting on him]

Although he is not named in the Bible, but only described as "Abraham's servant" (Genesis 24:34), Jewish tradition has that his name was Eliezer.

Agreed, at one time Abraham reference him as his heir

 

[Willie T]

Thank you. I am not seeing what you are seeing in the parable.

Probably true. You are seeing what you were told is there. I did too... until I began searching beyond the limitations of the teachings of my teachers all my life.

 

[Marymog]

No, you didn't dream it up. You were told by someone else, just like I was, and we each chose to believe the conclusions others came up with.

Good point. I have never had an original interpretation of Scripture. After 2,000 years of the bible being interpreted it is impossible to come up with a new interpretation of a passage.

 

[Willie T]

Good point. I have never had an original interpretation of Scripture. After 2,000 years of the bible being interpreted it is impossible to come up with a new interpretation of a passage.

That, especially, is the reason we need to be so very careful that we thoroughly understand WHY we are believing the esoteric stories with which we have been inculcated.

The Catholics, the Jews, the JW's. the LDS', the Hindus, Shintos, et al, are all just as convinced of the stories THEY have also been told.

 

[Marymog]

Probably true. You are seeing what you were told is there. I did too... until I began searching beyond the limitations of the teachings of my teachers all my life.

Ummmmm.......a bit confusing you are. Previously you said I was told by someone else, just like you were, and we each chose to believe the conclusions others came up with.

Now it seems you are saying you used to rely on others interpretations. But since you “began searching beyond the limitations of the teachings of my teachers....” you now have a better or more accurate interpretation? Your knowledge has exceeded that of your teachers? Is that what I understand you to be saying?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

That, especially, is the reason we need to be so very careful that we thoroughly understand WHY we are believing the esoteric stories we have been inculcated with.

Hi Willie,

I have my reason why and it is grounded in Scripture.

Mary

 

[Truther]

In this parable are they two separate individuals, or are they one in the same?

This was a real event with real people, even one of them named by name.

 

[Truther]

.
Fiction can be defined as stories about people, places, and events that,
though untrue; are plausible; viz: realistic.

Fantasy can be defined as stories about people, places, and events that are
not only untrue; but implausible; viz: unrealistic.

For example: a story about a wooden boy like Pinocchio is unrealistic; while
a story about a boy with autism is realistic. The difference between Pinocchio
and the autistic boy is that the one is compatible with normal reality; while
the other is far removed from normal reality.

I have yet to read even one of Jesus Christ's parables that could not possibly
be a real-life story. They're all actually quite believable-- banquets,
stewards, weddings, farmers sowing seed, pearls, lost sheep, fish nets,
women losing coins, sons leaving home, wineskins bursting, tares among the
wheat, leavened bread, barren fig trees, the blind leading the blind, et al.

Now; if Christ had told one that alleged the moon was made of green
cheese; we would have good reason to believe that at least that one was
fantasy; but not one of them is so far removed from the normal round of
human experience that it has no basis in reality whatsoever. No; there's
nothing out of the ordinary in his parables. At best; Christ's parables might
qualify as fiction; but never fantasy.

Luke 16:19-31 is commonly alleged to be a parable; which of course implies
that the story is fiction; and some would even say fantasy. But the parable
theory has a fatal flaw. Abraham is not a fictional character: he's a real-life
man; the father of the Hebrew people, held in very high esteem by at least
three of the world's prominent religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
And he's also the friend of God (Isa 41:8).

I simply cannot accept that Jesus Christ-- a man famous among normal
Christians for his honesty and integrity --would say something untrue about
a famous real-life man; most especially a prophet and one of his Father's
buddies.

And on top of that, the story quotes Abraham a number of times. Well; if the
story is fiction, then Jesus Christ is on record testifying that Abraham said
things that he didn't really say; which is a clear violation of the
commandment that prohibits bearing false witness.

Abraham was also a prophet (Gen 20:7) which means he was an inspired
man. As such, he would be privy to information that would normally be
unavailable to the average rank and file pew warmer. However prophets
aren't meant to keep what they hear from God to themselves; they're
messengers, e.g. Abraham was a teacher/mentor. (Gen 18:19)

So then, I think it's fairly safe to assume the information that Abraham
passed on to the rich man came to Abraham via inspiration; which, if so,
means that our reaction to his remarks should be very different than the rich
man's. He brushed aside what Abraham told him; but we, I should hope, are
wiser than that impious dunce because we know that a prophet's teachings
are the voice of God.

There is something else to consider.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus didn't originate with Jesus Christ. No,
it originated with his Father. In other words: Jesus Christ was micro
managed.

● John 3:34 . . He is sent by God. He speaks God's words

● John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those
things which I have heard of Him.

● John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things as
the Father taught me.

● John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me,
He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

● John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who
sent me.

So, by alleging that Luke 16:19-31 is fiction/fantasy, the parable theory
slanders God by insinuating that He's a person of marginal integrity who
can't be trusted to tell the truth about people, not even about His own
friends, which is ridiculous seeing as how Titus 1:2 and Heb 6:18 testify that
God cannot lie.

God's impeccable character is what makes that narrative all the more
terrifying. Unless somebody can prove, beyond a shadow of sensible doubt,
that Christ's Father is a tale-spinner; I pretty much have to assume Luke
16:19-31 was drawn from real-life; and if not drawn from real life, then at
least based upon real life.

In other words: there really is an afterlife place of conscious suffering where
people endure unbearable anxiety worrying their loved ones are on a road to
where they are and there is no way to warn them; similar to the survivors of
the Titanic watching their loved ones go to Davy Jones while utterly helpless
to do anything about it.

People for whom I feel the most pity are parents that brought up their
children in a religion whose pot at the end of the rainbow is filled with
molten sulfur instead of gold. How do people bear up under something like
that on their conscience?
_

Excellent post.

Jesus made nothing up.

Jesus told stories of actual events and used them accordingly.

Jesus is not like Isaac Asimov etc.

 

[Willie T]

Ummmmm.......a bit confusing you are. Previously you said I was told by someone else, just like you were, and we each chose to believe the conclusions others came up with.

Now it seems you are saying you used to rely on others interpretations. But since you “began searching beyond the limitations of the teachings of my teachers....” you now have a better or more accurate interpretation? Your knowledge has exceeded that of your teachers? Is that what I understand you to be saying?

Curious Mary

No, not at all. I am saying that as I now can assess and evaluate information better than I could when I was younger, my understanding is based upon far more than it ever was when I was listening, almost exclusively, to teachers who naturally may have been simply passing on the particular biases THEY, themselves, were given from their own teachers.

I see things today that they never mentioned. It may be more accurate, it may not be. It is just MORE than I was given to look at than I was years ago. I don't like the idea of deciding things based upon only having "partial-information." Tomorrow, I may have discovered even more.

 

[Waiting on him]

Lazarus is a given name and surname. It is derived from the Hebrew אלעזר, Elʿāzār (Eleazar) meaning "God has helped".
My wife just shared this, I believe those hearing the parable should have fully understood why he choose a specific name. I mean He could have used any name,,,

 

[icxn]

Familiar, but I fail to see how its connected to Lazarus story

They are both - the rich man and the woman of revelation - symbols of the sinful soul that wasted her life in pleasures, riches and the vain glory of this world. Lazarus is a symbol of Christ (Matthew 25:40), Whom sinners did not feed, clothe, taken care of, etc (Matthew 25:42-43). The dogs are those humble and faithful souls (Matthew 15:27-28) that did their best to alleviate His pain.

 

[Willie T]

Let us not get too sidetracked with a name...
Latinized form of Λαζαρος (Lazaros), a Greek form of ELEAZAR used in the New Testament. Lazarus was a man from Bethany, the brother of Mary and Martha, who was restored to life by Jesus.

See All Relations · Show Family Tree
Related Names
Other Languages & CulturesEleazar, Lazaros(Biblical Greek) 'El'azar(Biblical Hebrew) Lazar(Bulgarian) Lazar(Croatian) Lazare(French) Lazaros(Greek) Elazar(Hebrew) Lázár(Hungarian) Lazzaro(Italian) Lazar(Macedonian) Lazar(Russian) Lazar(Serbian) Lázaro(Spanish)

 

[Truther]

They are both - the rich man and the woman of revelation - symbols of the sinful soul that wasted her life in pleasures, riches and the vain glory of this world. Lazarus is a symbol of Christ (Matthew 25:40), Whom sinners did not feed, clothe, taken care of, etc (Matthew 25:42-43). The dogs are those humble and faithful souls (Matthew 15:27-28) that did their best to alleviate His pain.

Quite an imagination.

 

[Willie T]

They are both - the rich man and the woman of revelation - symbols of the sinful soul that wasted her life in pleasures, riches and the vain glory of this world. Lazarus is a symbol of Christ (Matthew 25:40), Whom sinners did not feed, clothe, taken care of, etc (Matthew 25:42-43). The dogs are those humble and faithful souls (Matthew 15:27-28) that did their best to alleviate His pain.

A very interesting and thoughtful perspective. Thank you for that.

 

[Taken]

In this parable are they two separate individuals, or are they one in the same?

Separate individuals.

It's a lesson about about TWO men.
One man with MUCH in necessity of Food, to sustain his body.
One man with Nothing TO EAT to sustain his Body, begging for the OTHER'S "left overs".

Notice...it has nothing to do with Stealing, (by the "poor" man, or a government),
No Demanding the poor man be Given Anything of the Rich man's possessions, (or tending to the poor man's wounds and sores), but rather, Left over Scraps/crumbs of Food, the Rich man would throw-away.

It's a lesson...for a man, Who IS "poor" should limit his BEGGING FOR.

It is also a lesson...about the Righteous thing
FOR a rich man TO DO, when a poor man "asks" for the rich man's "left-overs".

This is the same principled lesson taught long ago:
Lev 23:
[22] And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.

Notice: it has nothing to do with the Rich man, "( being Forced by a LAW ) to GIVING" the Beggar... the rich man's, money, house, clothing, medical care, groceries, transportation, childcare, and ON and on.

It is a principle of Charity...for the well off to give their..."left overs"...to the poor....(rather than to simply throw away things).

And there are other Principled Lessons in Scripture ABOUT:
Lending A HAND (to the poor)....coupled with: Teaching the Word of God.

Lending a Hand...giving a poor man, a meal, a set of clothes, and work to do, to earn his own way to provide for himself and family...and Give God the Glory for THAT being made possible.

In Jesus Parable...the rich man...Kept "his gate" closed.
No left over scraps/crumbs given the beggar,
No charity.
No Offer of work or suggestion to find work.
No Teaching of God.
No Glory to God.

It a lesson, of the Rich man's demise, who "Has Riches of Things" yet himself "poor" in his own "spirit", unable "himself" to Glorify God.

Yet the "beggar", who was Poor in "Things", was Rich in "spirit", only hoping for a rich man's Crumbs.

Had the TWO, compromised...
The poor man, could have worked for the Rich man...(provided for his own) and taught the rich man about ... The Richness of the Glory of God.

^ But they didn't...and why there was NO Point for Anyone to be sent to the Rich man in hell, to go speak to his (rich in things) brothers.
(Luke 16: 28-31)

The rich man was Concerned about his brothers ending up in TORMENT...NOT concerned About Gods Glory.


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[VictoryinJesus]

The rich man was Concerned about his brothers ending up in TORMENT...NOT concerned About Gods Glory.

Then why did the rich man ask for Lazarus to be sent? John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


“Concerned about his brothers ending up in torment” Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Paul is a good example of a rich man who counted it all dung 2 Corinthians 6:10 As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

2 Corinthians 11:29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?