Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding 169 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Ding

DJeggnog,
You said:
<<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. >>
And 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 story of Jesus than I do.
The way I interpret the terms in the story is constent with what Josephus said those terms meant to the Jews in Jesus' day.
Jesus didn't provide an alternate explanation of the terms beyond what the Jews already understood them to mean.
In a previous post, I asked:
Can you point to anyone who gave [your] interpretation until the Watchtower came up with it in the 20th century?
You replied:
I'm not sure how to best answer this question. Does Jesus count or do you wish me to name someone greater than Jesus?
Please don't patronize me.
Jesus told the story and didn't give any explanation or further interpretation of it at all.
Therefore, your interpretation wasn't given by Jesus; it came from the Watchtower.
My question is whether you can point to any person or group who posited the interpretation you are presenting prior to the WTS coming up with it in the 20th century.
You said:
<< 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. >>
1. The rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to the 5 brothers to warn them so that they will not also come to this place of torment.
27 "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
2. Abraham does not send Lazarus to give this warning to the 5 brothers, saying that the words of Moses and the prophets are enough.
29 "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
3. The rich man says that if someone from the dead goes to the brothers, then they will repent.
30 "'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
4. Abraham still refuses to send Lazarus to give the warning because these 5 brothers won't be convinced of their need of repentance even if someone rises from the dead.
31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"
THUS, ABRAHAM WILL NOT ALLOW LAZARUS TO GO GIVE THE BROTHERS THE WARNING THE RICH MAN REQUESTED HIM TO GIVE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE FRUITLESS TO DO SO.
5. Nowhere does Abraham question the rich man's motives in asking him to send Lazarus to his brothers to give them a warning that would persuade them to repent. Nowhere does Abraham say to the rich man, "If you really wanted your brothers to repent, you would repent and then go warn them yourself."
I asked you:
<< If the rich man is still being tormented by this message, why would he want Lazarus to take the message to his brothers? >>
You replied:
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) >>
Where do you find "ecumenical arrangement" in this story?
Why would the rich man think Abraham [Jehovah] would be stupid enough to fall for a trick like that?
If this is the rich man's scheme, how would that keep the 5 brothers from getting to the place of torment "away from Abraham's bosom of favor" (your words)? Wouldn't the brothers be incurring even more disfavor from Abraham by corrupting Lazarus?
Ding

Djeggnog:
I said: <<I think you've got the wrong John reclining at Jesus' bosom. >>
You said:
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?
Where does the Bible say Salome was Jesus' aunt?
The disciple referred to at John 19:26 and John 20:2 was John, the son of Zebedee. But where does the Bible say that Salmone was Jesus' aunt?
I asked:
Aren't JWs constantly trying to merit Jehovah's approval by keeping commandments and regulations of the Watchtower Society?
You answered:
No.
Of course they are!
djeggnog

@Vanderhoven7:
Your question was ambiguous DJ.
Ok.
Actually there are a number of reasons that suggest this account is not be a parable.
Ok.
@Ding:
The way I interpret the terms in the story is [consistent] with what Josephus said those terms meant to the Jews in Jesus' day.
I don't care. When you asked me in an earlier post:
And you got this interpretation where?
I replied:
Holy spirit.
Because your interpretation of Jesus' parable regarding the rich man and Lazarus is inconsistent with what the holy spirit says, I believe you're mistaken, and that's fine. I've already explained here what this parable means and I don't feel compelled to argue with you about its meaning.
Where does the Bible say Salome was Jesus' aunt?
Salome was Mary's sister, which would make her Jesus' aunt. Maybe you should do a bit of research on the matter, since at every turn you want to argue with me. There's no reason you shouldn't do research of your own, @Ding, so that you might learn for yourself what Salome's relationship was to Jesus.
@djeggnog
Ding

Djeggnog,
And you got this interpretation where?
I replied:
Holy spirit.
And how do you know that?
Because it's from the Watchtower and the Watchtower is Jehovah's spirit-directed organization?
The same organization that can't get one end times prophecy right in 100 years?
<< Because your interpretation of Jesus' parable regarding the rich man and Lazarus is inconsistent with what the holy spirit says, I believe you're mistaken, and that's fine. I've already explained here what this parable means and I don't feel compelled to argue with you about its meaning. >>
It means what you say it means because the Watchtower says that's what it means and the Watchtower cannot be questioned.
Where does the Bible say Salome was Jesus' aunt?
Salome was Mary's sister, which would make her Jesus' aunt. Maybe you should do a bit of research on the matter, since at every turn you want to argue with me.
I'm aware that a number of churches in Christendom teach this, but it isn't required by the Bible texts, and I didn't know that disagreeing with them or with you is disallowed.
djeggnog

@Ding wrote:
Where does the Bible say Salome was Jesus' aunt?
@djeggnog wrote:
Salome was Mary's sister, which would make her Jesus' aunt. Maybe you should do a bit of research on the matter, since at every turn you want to argue with me.
@Ding wrote:
I'm aware that a number of churches in Christendom teach this, but it isn't required by the Bible texts, and I didn't know that disagreeing with them or with you is disallowed.
This is what I had originally written (to which you took exception):
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)
Your original response to this was as follows:
I think you've got the wrong John reclining at Jesus' bosom.
In response to this, I stated:
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?
You didn't reply, and that's ok, but, like I stated earlier, John was Jesus' first cousin. You may continue to dispute whether this is so, if you want, but I was answering your question based on what things I have come to learn. Faith is about believing what a person says, about taking people at their word, and when it comes to Christian faith, cynicism is a bar to anyone's receiving the holy spirit. I suppose you could give me the benefit of the doubt, and then, should it turn out that I was lying to you or if you should otherwise discover that I was mistaken in my view about something, you could inform me as to what you learned so that I might make an adjustment in my incorrect understanding of the matter.
But that's not your style.
In the first century, it was Jesus that explained to his disciples those things that pertained to him in the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets, regarding the kingdom of God, as well as many other things that had not been understood correctly. After Pentecost, after the holy spirit had been poured out, it was Jesus' disciples that went on to provide explanations to those listening to them about the kingdom of God, and those accepting their word repented and were baptized. Jehovah's Witnesses today are providing explanations to those listening to them as well about the kingdom of God during the presence of Jesus Christ, and those accepting our word are repenting and being baptized.
Look, @Ding: No one at all is going to be saved apart from a hearing by faith. (Galatians 3:5) Apart from a preacher, no one can be saved. (Romans 10:14) This is primarily what Jesus demonstrated through his preaching of the kingdom of God to be the meaning of the commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself." And, as Jesus stated: "There is no love greater than this, that one should "surrender his soul in behalf of his friends," which is exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide strive to do as a united group. (John 15:13) We are becoming "completely spent" for the souls of our neighbors because we, like Jehovah Himself, do not wish "any to be destroyed, but [desire] all to attain to repentance." (2 Corinthians 12:15; 2 Peter 3:9)
I will discuss the Bible with anyone, even with you, but I will not argue with you, even if you happen to be of the belief that you know more things than I do, things in the Bible that would lead to my salvation. Whether I will ultimately be saved, I cannot say, but what I can say for a certainty is that there are many things that you do not know, and that unless you should hear these things from someone, believe these things and act in harmony with the good news, you will not be saved, for during the manifestation of Jesus' presence, people are now being judged based on how they respond to the good news.
Not everyone is going to actually hear the good news, not everyone is going to given the same opportunity that you have now to respond favorably to it. Keep this one thing in mind though: That (1) those who do not know God and (2) those that do not obey the good news will "undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction" at the revelation of the Lord Jesus. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)
@djeggnog
Vanderhoven7

Hi DJ,
You wrote: "I will discuss the Bible with anyone, even with you, but I will not argue with you, even if you happen to be of the belief that you know more things than I do, things in the Bible that would lead to my salvation. Whether I will ultimately be saved, I cannot say, but what I can say for a certainty is that there are many things that you do not know, and that unless you should hear these things from someone, believe these things and act in harmony with the good news, you will not be saved, for during the manifestation of Jesus' presence, people are now being judged based on how they respond to the good news"
The problem with the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is that it is extra-biblical. By that I mean that every doctrine which is both unique and original to your religion is extra-biblical. Just look at the foundation of WTS authority for starters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LowZJLAiJQ
Vander
Vanderhoven7

Hi DJ,
"I will discuss the Bible with anyone"
Even apostates? ;^)
P.S. I'm thinking of a specific brand of apostate here...i.e. that being a former member of your organization who has been disfellowshipped either for expressing beliefs or engaging in practices which are contrary to extra-biblical WTS teachings and practices. I can list some of those if you like. I'm thinking of serious offenses like saying light did not flash from heaven in 1935 or having a birthday party for your kid every year. You know, stuff like that.
djeggnog

@djeggnog wrote:
I will discuss the Bible with anyone....
@Vanderhoven7 wrote:
Even apostates? ;^)
Especially with apostates. Is there something more that you would like to discuss on this topic or on some other? Whatever brand you believe yourself to be doesn't much matter, does it?
@djeggnog
Vanderhoven7

Hi DJ,
Even apostates? ;^)
<<Especially with apostates...>>
Are you a Jehovah's Witnesses in good standing?
I say that's kind of you. But aren't you advised to hate apostates and have nothing to do with them aside from what is necessary?
"Apostasy is, in reality, a rebellion against Jehovah. Some apostates profess to know and serve God, but they reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah's organization and actively try to hinder its work. When they deliberately choose such badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of their makeup, then a Christian must hate (in the Biblical sense of the word) those who have inseparably attached themselves to the badness. True Christians share Jehovah's feelings toward such apostates; they are not curious about apostate ideas. On the contrary, they "feel a loathing" toward those who have made themselves God's enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance." Watchtower 1993 October 1 p.19

"Haters of God and his people are to be hated, but this does not mean that we will take any opportunity of bringing physical hurt to them in a spirit of malice or spite, for both malice and spite belong to the Devil, whereas pure hatred does not. We must hate in the truest sense, which is to regard with extreme and active aversion, to consider as loathsome, odious, filthy, to detest. Surely any haters of God are not fit to live on his beautiful earth. The earth will be rid of the wicked and we shall not need to lift a finger to cause physical harm to come to them, for God will attend to that, but we must have a proper perspective of these enemies. His name signifies recompense to the enemies." Watchtower 1952 October 1 p.599
"Is strict avoidance really necessary? Yes for several reasons. ... In other cases, the disfellowshipped relative may be living outside the immediate family circle and home. Although there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum."Keep Yourself in God's Love (2008) pp.207,208
"disfellowshiping" is what Jehovah's Witnesses appropriately call the expelling and subsequent shunning of such an unrepentant wrongdoer.... a simple "Hello" to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?" WT Sept 15, 1981 pp.22,25
Vander
djeggnog

@Vanderhoven7:
Are you a Jehovah's [Witness] in good standing?
Yes.
But aren't you advised to hate apostates and have nothing to do with them aside from what is necessary?
No, but Jehovah's Witnesses are generally advised to keep their distance from apostates, since they typically will have learned everything that most Jehovah's Witnesses know from having studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, except, lacking humility, they have failed to obtain more than a cursory knowledge of the true God. It can take 20, 30, even 40 years to become "solid in the faith," for only those, who have taken up "the large shield of faith" that are able to withstand, even quench, any missile launched by God's enemies. (1 Peter 5:9; Ephesians 6:16)
I noticed that you quoted something you read in a 1952 issue of the Watchtower, but you would be incompetent to think that Jehovah's Witnesses today are being taught according to what was being taught in 1952 or 1920 or even 1879. While there are some who would have been disfellowshipped for apostasy in those years, those taking the lead in God's organization have now learned to take up God's view on the matter, and so elders today are not only distinguishing between those with legitimate questions and concerns, and those who seek to make trouble for Jehovah's Witnesses with a view to perverting the good news about the Christ. (Galatians 1:7)
I think it rather strange that you would be quoting from any WTS publication, even from the NWT Bible, to someone that is actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which suggests that you are one of those that Jehovah cleaned up from your filth, stripping away your Philistine pride, removing the bloodstained things from your mouth and the disgusting things from between your teeth so that you were once a sheik in Judah (Zechariah 9:7) But you have since returned to your Philistine ways and think that my God, Jehovah God, recognized you as a worshipper of His, totally deluding yourself in believing you fooled the true God. Sure, you had some fooled, but you would be a fool to think that you managed to fool Jehovah.
At Luke 12:49, Jesus stated that he had come "to start a fire on the earth," and the kingdom of God. At Matthew 10;34, he also stated that he had come to put a sword, not "peace upon the earth." Although you may have thought the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses to be like the churches of Christendom, membership clubs that one can join in exchange for tithes, but what you should have learned is that families are being divided based on their stand on the Kingdom issue, whether they are for the rule of God's kingdom by Jesus Christ or for the rulership of Satan and his world. There is no in-between, for either one if for God's kingdom or against God's rulership over them.
Often the enemies of Jehovah's Witnesses are accused by of breaking up their families, but Jesus came to divide families on the basis of their acceptance or rejection of the good news. At Luke 12:51-53, Jesus said from that point forward that "there will be five in one house divided, three against two and two against three, ... father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." (Luke 12:51-53)
Just as was the case during the first century AD, separateness from the world and its view of families worshipping in their own way or not worshipping at all is a distinctive mark of Jehovah's Witnesses that seek to worship God "with spirit and truth," even if it means become separated from members of our own families. (John 4:24) You may not like this about the truth (and neither do many of those who have left God's organization or were disfellowshipped from it), but in the end the sheep will be separated from the goats, and the latter "will depart into everlasting cutting-off," while the former will go off "into everlasting life." (Matthew 25:46)
What things you read in the Bible and what things are quoted from the Bible in WTS publications are sacred things, and if I know that you are one not having appreciation for sacred things, why would you expect any worshipper of the true God to listen to you quote scriptures? (Hebrews 12:16) Why even Satan proved that he could do that! (See Matthew 4:6, where Psalm 91:11, 12 is quoted) The NWT and all of the WTS publications that are dedicated to Jehovah, which you now trample upon underfoot with contempt belong to Jehovah. (Matthew 7:6)
Since you apparently have access to WTS publications, I would direct you to read the article, "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshipped Ones" [w74 8/1 paragraphs 24-26, pp. 472, 473]. The elders will helpfully show you what you need to do to regain an approved standing in God's organization, and I want to underscore here that where elders have real reason to believe that some disfellowshipped ones are ignorant of such provisions, "they may feel it advisable to communicate this information to them." I especially wanted to emphasize this last part because I don't want you to think you know what Jehovah's Witnesses believe or that you are qualified to teach any of Jehovah's Witnesses what things we believe when you clearly do not.
You will only benefit yourself should you decide to return to us, and if you should ever decide in the future to do so, it would behoove you to make a real effort to build up your faith in Jehovah and in His word, the Bible. I have no interest in paling around with you, but I do have a genuine interest in your returning to Jehovah, because I do think you to be ignorant of Jehovah's provisions. Only in this regard am I here for you.
@djeggnog

Rich Man and Lazarus

Share this