dear Vander...
you have a pm...
love michelle
Rich Man and Lazarus
by Ding 169 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Vanderhoven7
Yes, his name is Stephen Harper.
-
streets76
This is all ultimately much ado about nothing. If Jesus was who he was purported to be, why didn't he just give it to us straight? What's with all the parable bullshit anyway? It's all a sad, sorry, time-wasting joke.
-
Vanderhoven7
Actually Streets, Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable. Abraham's Bosom represented a literal place in the minds of Jesus' audience. It was used, much the same way as "Davy Jones' Locker" is used today to represent a literal place i.e. the bottom of the sea.
Jesus was teaching nothing new here. So if He was not teaching, what do you think He was doing?
-
djeggnog
@streets76 wrote:
This is all ultimately much ado about nothing. If Jesus was who he was purported to be, why didn't he just give it to us straight? What's with all the parable bullshit anyway? It's all a sad, sorry, time-wasting joke.
@Vanderhoven7:
Actually Streets, Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable. Abraham's Bosom represented a literal place in the minds of Jesus' audience. It was used, much the same way as "Davy Jones' Locker" is used today to represent a literal place i.e. the bottom of the sea.
Did you come up with this conclusion on your own or are sharing here with us what you were persuaded by someone else to believe to be true as to the meaning of "Abraham's bosom" at Luke 16:22?
Jesus was teaching nothing new here. So if He was not teaching, what do you think He was doing?
Actually, Jesus parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable and should not be taken literally. Expressions also used in the Bible as to Jesus being in the "bosom position" with the Father (John 1:18) or Jesus' first cousin, John, reclining in front of Jesus' "bosom" (John 13:23) is the same as the one used at Luke 16:22, 23, which expression relates to a position of favor, since the class of people that listened to Jesus, represented by "Lazarus," were the ones that had God's favor, represented by "Abraham" in Jesus' parable. The class of people that refused to listen to Jesus, represented by the "rich man," were the religious leaders, like the money-loving Pharisees to whom Jesus was relating and applying this parable. (Luke 16:14)
Whereas Lazarus had formerly begged for spiritual food at the rich man's table and subsisted from what crumbs had fallen from the rich man's table and was otherwise neglected by the rich man, so that he was treated as were the dogs that would lick Lazarus' ulcers, "in the course of time" Jesus came and began providing spiritual food to Lazarus so that, after Jesus' death, Lazarus died to the Law whereby under the Kingdom of God it was no longer acceptable for a man to have more than one living wife. (Luke 16:16-18) By his acceptance of the Kingdom of God, after Pentecost, Lazarus thereby entered into God's favor, whereas the rich man, who had refused to accept the message of the Kingdom desirous of proving himself righteous under the Law came into God's disfavor, and so, after Pentecost, he died to the privilege of becoming associated with the Kingdom of God. (Luke 16:15)
Jesus also foretold in this parable the anguish that the rich man would experience after Pentecost as he would exist in torments due to the fiery message being preached by Lazarus, but a great chasm would become fixed between the rich man and Lazarus, so that it would be an impossibility for the rich man to gain Abraham's favor, and Lazarus would not be dipping his finger in water to cool the rich man's tongue either to give relief to the rich man from the preaching of the message of the Kingdom of God, which message tormented the rich man. (Luke 16:24-26)
Failing to get that relief from Lazarus, the rich man then asks "Abraham" to send Lazarus to his father's house in order to "give them a thorough witness" in such a way that they might not be tormented in anguish as the rich man had been over the message that Lazarus had been preaching. (Luke 16:27, 28) Jesus reveals in his parable that the rich man's father is not "Abraham" at all, but is in reality the Devil (John 8:44), so "Abraham" tells him that the rich man's five brothers could listen to Moses and the Prophets to obtain relief from their torment, but in reply the rich man says that they would repent if someone from the dead were to preach to them, but "Abraham" tells the rich man in reply that if they refused to listen to Moses and the Prophets that neither would they be persuaded to repent if someone that had risen from the dead were to preach to them. (Luke 16:29-31)
@djeggnog
-
Ding
And you got this interpretation where?
Can you point to anyone who gave this interpretation until the Watchtower came up with it in the 20th century?
<< Jesus' first cousin, John, reclining in front of Jesus' "bosom" (John 13:23) ??
I think you've got the wrong John reclining at Jesus' bosom.
<< after Jesus' death, Lazarus died to the Law whereby under the Kingdom of God it was no longer acceptable for a man to have more than one living wife. (Luke 16:16-18) By his acceptance of the Kingdom of God, after Pentecost, Lazarus thereby entered into God's favor, >>
Where do we see Pentecost, marriage, and "after Jesus' death" in Jesus' story?
Why "after Pentecost"?
<< whereas the rich man, who had refused to accept the message of the Kingdom desirous of proving himself righteous under the Law came into God's disfavor >>
Where in Jesus' story is righteousness under the Law mentioned?
Aren't JWs constantly trying to merit Jehovah's approval by keeping commandments and regulations of the Watchtower Society?
<< and so, after Pentecost, he died to the privilege of becoming associated with the Kingdom of God. (Luke 16:15) >>
So after Pentecost, Pharisees and other legalists like Saul of Tarsus couldn't come to repentance?
<< Jesus also foretold in this parable the anguish that the rich man would experience after Pentecost as he would exist in torments due to the fiery message being preached by Lazarus, but a great chasm would become fixed between the rich man and Lazarus, so that it would be an impossibility for the rich man to gain Abraham's favor, and Lazarus would not be dipping his finger in water to cool the rich man's tongue either to give relief to the rich man from the preaching of the message of the Kingdom of God, which message tormented the rich man. >>
Where in the story is Lazarus preaching a message?
If anything, we see Lazarus forbidden by Abraham to go say anything.
<< Failing to get that relief from Lazarus, the rich man then asks "Abraham" to send Lazarus to his father's house in order to "give them a thorough witness" in such a way that they might not be tormented in anguish as the rich man had been over the message that Lazarus had been preaching. (Luke 16:27, 28) >>
Who are these brother? Fellow rich Pharisees?
If the rich man is still being tormented by this message, why would he want Lazarus to take the message to his brothers?
Is he angry with his brothers and hoping they'll be tormented too?
Why aren't they already being tormented by the preaching work of Lazarus or others?
Or does the rich man now WANT his brothers to heed Lazarus' message?
Does this mean the rich man now understands and agrees with Lazarus' message?
If so, why doesn't he repent and join Lazarus in preaching the message?
Why doesn't he just go give the message to his brothers himself and tell them that Lazarus is right?
Does this mean no one should preach to rich people because it's a waste of time?
<< Jesus reveals in his parable that the rich man's father is not "Abraham" at all, but is in reality the Devil >>
Where in the story does Jesus say this???
<< so "Abraham" tells him that the rich man's five brothers could listen to Moses and the Prophets to obtain relief from their torment, but in reply the rich man says that they would repent if someone from the dead were to preach to them, but "Abraham" tells the rich man in reply that if they refused to listen to Moses and the Prophets that neither would they be persuaded to repent if someone that had risen from the dead were to preach to them. >>
Where in Moses' writings does it say that people need to die to the righteousness that comes from keeping the Law?
-
Vanderhoven7
Hi DJ
<<Did you come up with this conclusion on your own or are sharing here with us what you were persuaded by someone else to believe to be true as to the meaning of "Abraham's bosom" at Luke 16:22?>>
Actually, I heard a tape on the subject by Larry Urbaniac (IBSA) that convinced me. He picked this up from O. J. Sellers, whose church affiliation I am unaware of. So there is no cult association with this perspective on Luke 16, at least not that I am aware of, if that's what you are inquiring about.
<<...the rich man and Lazarus is a parable and should not be taken literally.>>
How do you think the people in Jesus audience would have understood "Abraham's Bosom" and torment in Hades? Were these literal places to them? Were very similar stories being told at the time and believed to be literal happenings?
Vander
-
Ding
To summarize my eariler criticism of the Watchtower's spin:
1. If the rich man is being tormented by Lazarus' message (WT interpretation), why does he ask Abraham to send Lazarus TO his 5 brothers so they won't be tormented?
Wouldn't he be begging Abraham to keep Lazarus AWAY from his 5 brothers so they won't be tormented?
2. Because the rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus to preach to his brothers, doesn't this mean the rich man now AGREES that his brothers need to hear and heed the message?
Doesn't this mean the rich man has repented?
So if he is still alive, why can't he get to Abraham's bosom along with Lazarus?
And if he is still alive, why doesn't the rich man go talk to his brothers himself and warn them that they need to listen to Lazarus and his message?
3. Could it be that when Jesus says that Lazarus and the rich man both died the he means that Lazarus and the rich man both... died?
Wouldn't that explain why neither Lazarus nor the rich man can bridge the great chasm?
Wouldn't that explain why the rich man can't go warn his own brothers?
-
djeggnog
@Ding:
And you got this interpretation where?
Holy spirit.
Can you point to anyone who gave this interpretation until the Watchtower came up with it in the 20th century?
I'm not sure how to best answer this question. Does Jesus count or do you wish me to name someone greater than Jesus?
@djeggnog wrote:
Expressions also used in the Bible as to Jesus being in the "bosom position" with the Father (John 1:18) or Jesus' first cousin, John, reclining in front of Jesus' "bosom" (John 13:23) is the same as the one used at Luke 16:22, 23, which expression relates to a position of favor, since the class of people that listened to Jesus, represented by "Lazarus," were the ones that had God's favor, represented by "Abraham" in Jesus' parable.
@Ding wrote:
I think you've got the wrong John reclining at Jesus' bosom.
Ok, but I think I've got the right John (since there weren't two "Johns" among Jesus' 12 apostles, that was also paired with James, who was also Jesus' first cousin, one of the two "sons of thunder" [Mark 3:17], the kids of Jesus' aunt, Salome. Whatever. BTW, who is the "disciple" referred to at John 19:26 and John 20:2, if you know?
@djeggnog wrote:
Whereas Lazarus had formerly begged for spiritual food at the rich man's table and subsisted from what crumbs had fallen from the rich man's table and was otherwise neglected by the rich man, so that he was treated as were the dogs that would lick Lazarus' ulcers, "in the course of time" Jesus came and began providing spiritual food to Lazarus so that, after Jesus' death, Lazarus died to the Law whereby under the Kingdom of God it was no longer acceptable for a man to have more than one living wife. (Luke 16:16-18) By his acceptance of the Kingdom of God, after Pentecost, Lazarus thereby entered into God's favor, whereas the rich man, who had refused to accept the message of the Kingdom desirous of proving himself righteous under the Law came into God's disfavor, and so, after Pentecost, he died to the privilege of becoming associated with the Kingdom of God. (Luke 16:15)
@Ding wrote:
Where do we see Pentecost, marriage, and "after Jesus' death" in Jesus' story? Why "after Pentecost"? Where in Jesus' story is righteousness under the Law mentioned? So after Pentecost, Pharisees and other legalists like Saul of Tarsus couldn't come to repentance?
You don't see and cannot see any of the things that Luke chapter 16 says because you evidently believe you know more about this parable of Jesus' than I do, @Ding.
Aren't JWs constantly trying to merit Jehovah's approval by keeping commandments and regulations of the Watchtower Society?
No.
@djeggnog wrote:
Jesus also foretold in this parable the anguish that the rich man would experience after Pentecost as he would exist in torments due to the fiery message being preached by Lazarus, but a great chasm would become fixed between the rich man and Lazarus, so that it would be an impossibility for the rich man to gain Abraham's favor, and Lazarus would not be dipping his finger in water to cool the rich man's tongue either to give relief to the rich man from the preaching of the message of the Kingdom of God, which message tormented the rich man. (Luke 16:24-26)
@Ding wrote:
Where in the story is Lazarus preaching a message?
With no understanding of Jesus' parable, it's not likely that you would see where "Lazarus" would represent those who would be preaching the message about the kingdom of God, that Jesus mentions to the Pharisees at Luke 16:16 just before he goes on to relate his parable about the rich man and Lazarus.
If anything, we see Lazarus forbidden by Abraham to go say anything.
I don't see Abraham forbidding Lazarus to speak in Jesus' parable. In which verse specifically did you find Abraham forbidding Lazarus to speak in the parable at Luke 16:19-31? If you cannot provide such a verse, then please don't make this up here.
@djeggnog wrote:
Failing to get that relief from Lazarus, the rich man then asks "Abraham" to send Lazarus to his father's house in order to "give them a thorough witness" in such a way that they might not be tormented in anguish as the rich man had been over the message that Lazarus had been preaching. (Luke 16:27, 28)
@Ding wrote:
Who are these [brothers]? Fellow rich Pharisees?
Yes, as well as the other religionists of Jesus' day, like the Sadducees, anyone that stood in opposition to Jesus' message about the kingdom of God, not limited to just the Pharisees although Luke 16:14 does indicates that the Pharisees were present when Jesus related the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
If the rich man is still being tormented by this message, why would he want Lazarus to take the message to his brothers?
With the hope that they might enter into an ecumenical arrangement with Lazarus so that Lazarus might gain God's disapproval as well (notice that in Jesus' parable, the rich man was requesting "Abraham" to send Lazarus "to the house of his father," that is to say, away from Abraham's bosom position of favor, in order to that his five brothers "should not get into this place of torment" where the rich man was existing away from Abraham's bosom position of favor. That "house" btw where the rich man's "five brothers" lived was Satan's house, for as Jesus pointed out at John 8:44, the Devil was the "father" of these six men. (John 8:44)
Is he angry with his brothers and hoping they'll be tormented too?
No; that's silly.
Why aren't they already being tormented by the preaching work of Lazarus or others?
Well, the holy spirit had not yet been poured out, which is why I pointed out in my previous post that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was a prophecy that was fulfilled "after Pentecost." The preaching work by the "Lazarus" class did not commence until after Jesus' the spirit was poured out upon the 120 disciples of Jesus in that upper room there in Jerusalem.
Or does the rich man now WANT his brothers to heed Lazarus' message?
No.
Does this mean the rich man now understands and agrees with Lazarus' message?
No.
If so, why doesn't he repent and join Lazarus in preaching the message?
No doubt some of the Pharisees did repent and join Lazarus in preaching the message of the kingdom of God. Joseph of Arimathea, for example, had been a member of the Sanhedrin and a "secret disciple" of Jesus Christ. (Luke 23:50, 51; John 19:38)
Why doesn't he just go give the message to his brothers himself and tell them that Lazarus is right?
You're not quite appreciating the meaning of Jesus' parable. The "rich man" class had lost God's favor in his failure to accept the teachings of Jesus Christ as had the "Lazarus" class. The rich man didn't believe Lazarus was right, didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah. The purpose of the rich man's request was to ask Lazarus to stop preaching the message of the kingdom of God, which message had exposed their works as being in accord with their father's works, that of the Devil, that Lazarus might also lose Abraham's favor even as they had due to their lack of faith.
Does this mean no one should preach to rich people because it's a waste of time?
No. You are that "rich man" and yet I'm preaching to you now because I don't think what I'm doing to be a waste of my time. Maybe someone reading my post to you will be encouraged by what things I say here to return to Jehovah. This designation "rich man" that Jesus uses in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus refers to the rich spiritual privileges that the religious leaders enjoyed as teachers of the Law and the Prophets, which privileges they squandered by teaching the "commands of men as doctrines." (Matthew 15:9)
@djeggnog wrote:
Jesus reveals in his parable that the rich man's father is not "Abraham" at all, but is in reality the Devil (John 8:44), so "Abraham" tells him that the rich man's five brothers could listen to Moses and the Prophets to obtain relief from their torment, but in reply the rich man says that they would repent if someone from the dead were to preach to them, but "Abraham" tells the rich man in reply that if they refused to listen to Moses and the Prophets that neither would they be persuaded to repent if someone that had risen from the dead were to preach to them. (Luke 16:29-31)
@Ding wrote:
Where in the story does Jesus say this???
Read Luke 16:27, and you will notice that in addressing "Abraham" as "father," the rich man goes onto to make reference to another "father" when he says in this verse, "house of my father," and this particular "father" cannot be Jehovah God, now can it?
Where in Moses' writings does it say that people need to die to the righteousness that comes from keeping the Law?
I don't know. I don't think such writings exist. What do you know?
@Vanderhoven7 wrote:
Actually Streets, Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable.
@djeggnog wrote:
Did you come up with this conclusion on your own or are sharing here with us what you were persuaded by someone else to believe to be true as to the meaning of "Abraham's bosom" at Luke 16:22?
@Vanderhoven7 wrote:
Actually, I heard a tape on the subject by Larry Urbaniac (IBSA) that convinced me. He picked this up from O. J. Sellers, whose church affiliation I am unaware of. So there is no cult association with this perspective on Luke 16, at least not that I am aware of, if that's what you are inquiring about.
So what does a "perspective" that someone else (other than Jesus') that evidently convinced you that he was right have to do with your statement that "Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable"? I was responding to what you wrote, and I wasn't discussing whether Sellers had a "cult association" or not, so why do you mention this? Either you are going to defend your comment or you going to behave as if you didn't make it, and I'm fine with that.
@djeggnog wrote:
Actually, Jesus parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable and should not be taken literally.
@Vanderhoven7 wrote:
How do you think the people in Jesus audience would have understood "Abraham's Bosom" and torment in Hades? Were these literal places to them?
I don't believe the people in Jesus' audience (among whom would have been the Pharisees to whom he was speaking [Luke 16:14-18]) would have understood either what Jesus meant by the rich man's "existing in torments" in Hades, nor that by "Abraham" in the expression "Abraham's bosom" he uses in the parable that he was there referring to Jehovah God. Jesus would never speak to the crowds without the use of illustrations in fulfillment of prophecy (Psalm 78:2; Isaiah 6:9, 10), for he would only explain his illustrations to those who humbly approached him seeking to comprehend the full meaning of his words, so that those lacking humility simply went away without getting the sense of them. (Matthew 13:10-15, 36; Mark 4:34)
Were very similar stories being told at the time and believed to be literal happenings?
Why, yes! One of the "proofs" that the religious leaders sought from Jesus that he was, in fact, the Coming One, the Messiah or Christ, was what they wrongly understood to refer to THE coming of the Messiah at Daniel 7:13, 14, when these verses referred to Messiah's second coming with reference to Messiah's coming "with the clouds of the heavens," for a suffering, persecuted, rejected, impaled Messiah about which the prophet Isaiah prophesied (Isaiah 53:1-12), who would be "pierced for our transgression" and whose soul would be poured out "to the very death" "as a guilt offering "because of the transgression of my people," were things that occurred during Messiah's first coming. Because Jesus didn't literally come "with the clouds of the heavens" in kingly power, exalt the Jews with political power and thereupon break the oppressive yoke of Rome from off their necks, as they had imagined to have been the sign of Messiah, they rejected Jesus as the Messiah.
@djeggnog
-
Vanderhoven7
DJ: "Did you come up with this conclusion on your own or are sharing here with us what you were persuaded by someone else to believe to be true as to the meaning of "Abraham's bosom" at Luke 16:22?"
Van: "Actually, I heard a tape on the subject by Larry Urbaniac (IBSA) that convinced me. He picked this up from O. J. Sellers, whose church affiliation I am unaware of. So there is no cult association with this perspective on Luke 16, at least not that I am aware of, if that's what you are inquiring about."
DJ: So what does a "perspective" that someone else (other than Jesus') that evidently convinced you that he was right have to do with your statement that "Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable"? I was responding to what you wrote, and I wasn't discussing whether Sellers had a "cult association" or not, so why do you mention this? Either you are going to defend your comment or you going to behave as if you didn't make it, and I'm fine with that.
Your question was ambiguous DJ. I answered the question I believed you were asking about the origin of the viewpoint i.e. how I came to believe this Lukian account represents satire. It would have been more clear if you simply asked why I don't accept Luke 16:19-31 as a parable.
Actually there are a number of reasons that suggest this account is not be a parable. Firstly, Jesus’ parables are usually identified for us by the gospel writers themselves; this one is not. Secondly, gospel parables tend to center on one clear concept or point out one clear truth; this one does not. Thirdly, the parables of Jesus all involve everyday common events and possible human experiences; this one does not. Lastly, there are no other parables of Jesus where one finds personal names weaved into the story. The Rich Man and Lazarus then does not readily fit the mold of parable.
It's best to assume others are doing their best to answer the questions you ask.
Vander