Something I found on the internet about luke 16:19-31

[ToGodorNottoGod]

If we honestly want to know what early Jews believed then we will use the early Jewish interpretation

I have enjoyed your back and forth very much here. This sentiment reminds me strongly of J.D.G. Dunn's comments on the Apostle Paul about if how we want to understand him, we have to see what he says, and let him speak, not tell him what we think he ought to have said. For that he has been accused of being "anti-Lutheran."
The fascinating thing is Paul can legitimately be considered an early Jew! And there is absolutely no question he believed in the resurrection.

 

[Clear]

I have enjoyed your back and forth very much here. This sentiment reminds me strongly of J.D.G. Dunn's comments on the Apostle Paul about if how we want to understand him, we have to see what he says, and let him speak, not tell him what we think he ought to have said. For that he has been accused of being "anti-Lutheran."
The fascinating thing is Paul can legitimately be considered an early Jew! And there is absolutely no question he believed in the resurrection.

Hi @ToGodorNottoGod

Thank you for the sentiments.

While the later Christian schizms and various movements have multiple theories regarding the resurrection and other doctrines, I think the early Judeo-Christian religion described in the earliest Judeo-Christian literature has the most rational, most logical, and most intuitive doctrines of all of them. I do not see any advantage of the later religious movements with their theories over the earliest doctrines the early judeo-christians describe in their early literature.

I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful.

Clear
δρσενετζω

 

[Muffled]

Luke 16:19 to 31 is another scripture that shows very plainly that the souls or spirits of people are alive after someone dies physically. They can talk, think, remember, and feel pain as it says, but if we take this scripture literally then it destroys the doctrine of 'soul-sleep'. For this reason there are many who would like to explain this scripture away as a parable, because then it enables them to ignore the literal interpretation. This is wrong, and if Jesus believed the doctrine of soul-sleep he would never have told a parable like this which contradicts it very plainly. This bible study gives plenty of scriptural proof that the scripture about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 is not a parable.

[paste:font size="5"]Luke 14:31-42), "the master of the house" (Matthew 24:42-44), "that evil servant" (Matthew 24:48-51), "a man taking a far journey" (Mark 13:34-37), "a judge" (Luke 18:2), "a widow" (Luke 18:3), "a certain man" (Luke 13:6), "a certain rich man" (Luke 12:16), and so on; but none named.

(2) Every parable has an earthly setting, which the people hearing could relate to, but never a heavenly or spiritual one. In this scripture however, Hades1 (Gtr. hades) (v23), and 'Abraham's bosom' (v22), are not earthly settings, showing that this is not a parable.

(3) Because the settings of parables are always earthly they never include spiritual beings either, although God may be mentioned. The interpretation of a parable may include spiritual beings though, because a parable is a simile, which has a spiritual comparison to it. For example 'the reapers' in the parable of the wheat and tares, are 'angels' in the explanation, and 'the enemy' in the parable is 'the Devil' in the comparison (Matthew 13:39). So if spiritual beings such as angels only appear in a comparison, but never in a parable, then this scripture about the rich man in hell cannot be a parable, because angels are also mentioned (v22). The conclusion to be drawn is that Jesus was relating a true story here, either one that happened in the past or it was prophetic; the rich man and Lazarus were people who had or would actually live and die.

(4) If Jesus believed the doctrine of soul-sleep he would never have told a parable like this which plainly contradicts it. Doctrine should be based on plain statements of scripture, and parables are an earthly story similar to the spiritual truth, and are meant to illustrate it. They are laid alongside spiritual truths as a comparison. Parables should NEVER contradict spiritual truth, and Jesus would never tell one that did.

There are some who would object to this on the basis of this verse, "All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables, and without a parable he did not speak to them." (Matthew 13:34). Now looking back in Luke 16 it says, "Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard these things, and they derided him. And he said to them ... " (Luke 16:14-15). So the argument is that Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, and therefore he must have been speaking a parable. This is a failure to rightly divide the word of God on the subject, for if we look immediately before he spoke about the rich man and Lazarus, we see this:

(Luke16:18) "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery."

The parallel scriptures that go with this are Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11-12. We see that prior to these verses in Mark it says, "And in the house his disciples asked him again about the same matter." (Mark 10:10). So when he spoke the scripture in Luke 16:18 he was in the house talking to his disciples, not the Pharisees. After all, he was speaking plain language in Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18 so on the basis of their argument that he would only speak to the people in parables, he was not speaking to the Pharisees. Matthew confirms that after this statement about adultery (Matthew 19:9) he was speaking to his disciples; "His disciples said to him, ... But he said to them, ... ." (Matthew 19:10-11). So their argument to try and prove that this was a parable, on the basis that he was speaking to the Pharisees, is false.

I found all this on this website: THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS (Luke 16) IS NOT A PARABLE

What do you think about all the information on this website?I think it makes it look like the lazarus and the rich man is NOT a parable.

Sorry if I have posted this before.

I believe to start with the argument is specious that it is only about the spiritual. It starts out with what people did while alive. The parable of the sower is about spiritual things and that is clearly a parable.

 

[Muffled]

[QUOTE="

(2)

(Luke16:18)[/B]

Hi,

If Lu 16:19 was literal, then a drop of water could travel from heaven all the way to a fiery hell, not evaporate and be sufficient to quell the thirst of a person agonizing in a blazing fire. It has to be a parable.

Cheers.[/QUOTE]

I believe God is capable of doing that but certainly not a person in Abraham's bosom, whatever that is.

 

[Muffled]

Hi,

If Lu 16:19 was literal, then a drop of water could travel from heaven all the way to a fiery hell, not evaporate and be sufficient to quell the thirst of a person agonizing in a blazing fire. It has to be a parable.

Cheers.

Remember that Jesus said flesh and blood can't go to heaven.So i think that means that heaven and hell are energy.So the water thing makes sense.[/QUOTE]

I believe there is no energy in Heaven. I suppose people might speculate that a spirit is energy but we have no knowledge to support it.