- The Rich Man and Lazarus -

[pearl]

It was not intrinsic to the Pharisees. Jesus was of the Pharisee tradition as was Paul and probably most of the other Twelve. What I think what you were looking at is an internal argument with many of the Pharisee and Sadducee leaders were enjoying their lofty positions and being rather hedonistic.

Jesus is not speaking of the teaching of the Pharisees, for they 'hold the seat of Moses' and teach what is true. The concern, I think, in this case is for the hypocrisy, as Jesus states, 'do as they teach, not as they do.' The parable illustrates the difference between a well fed life with that of a beggar.
The parable is not meant to attribute right and wrong to the Pharisee or to Lazarus. According to what I have read this ought to be understood as a two layered story, (19-26, 27-31) and concerns the rich man, his five brothers and the readers, will they follow the example of the rich man or Jesus teaching and the OT concerning care of the needy like Lazarus, like the children of Abraham. And if they do not there is no place for them at the messianic banquet. Another aspect of interest, I think for all of us Christians, Lazarus, in the bosom of Abraham does not gloat about the punishment of the rich man. The rich man failed to do what is called for in the OT or with Jesus teaching.
How many of us Christians today fail the Lazaruses all around us?

If Jesus identified with any movement of his time it would have been the Pharisees.

 

[metis]

Jesus is not speaking of the teaching of the Pharisees, for they 'hold the seat of Moses' and teach what is true. The concern, I think, in this case is for the hypocrisy, as Jesus states, 'do as they teach, not as they do.' The parable illustrates the difference between a well fed life with that of a beggar.
The parable is not meant to attribute right and wrong to the Pharisee or to Lazarus. According to what I have read this ought to be understood as a two layered story, (19-26, 27-31) and concerns the rich man, his five brothers and the readers, will they follow the example of the rich man or Jesus teaching and the OT concerning care of the needy like Lazarus, like the children of Abraham. And if they do not there is no place for them at the messianic banquet. Another aspect of interest, I think for all of us Christians, Lazarus, in the bosom of Abraham does not gloat about the punishment of the rich man. The rich man failed to do what is called for in the OT or with Jesus teaching.
How many of us Christians today fail the Lazaruses all around us?

If Jesus identified with any movement of his time it would have been the Pharisees.

OK, thanks for clarifying that in terms of where you're coming from.

It appears that Jesus does not accept the Pharisee's "Oral Law" and/or their "building a fence around the Torah", namely making the Law more stringent since there's a human propensity to "fudge". This might explain his words "laws made by men".

I don't know how familiar you might be with these Pharisee teachings, but let me also add that the Pharisees were not a monolithic group. Historians know of at least four different groups, with at least one of them being quite liberal in regards to the Law. However, the largest group was the one who fully accepted the Oral Law and the "...fence...".

So, what we appear to see in the gospels is a "family" argument of sorts and, as you well know, they can be the nastiest. Now, whether Jesus saw himself as being a Pharisee is not clear to me, but he definitely operated out of that tradition, but more so on the very liberal side-- at least somewhat like Hillel did, although further.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now, whether Jesus saw himself as being a Pharisee is not clear to me, but he definitely operated out of that tradition, ...

I find the certainty curious. Given, for example, Kirby's Historical Jesus Theories, a good many highly informed Jesus experts fairly definitely believe fairly diverse theories.

 

[metis]

I find the certainty curious. Given, for example, Kirby's Historical Jesus Theories, a good many highly informed Jesus experts fairly definitely believe fairly diverse theories.

But the diversity often involves other aspects of Jesus' character, real or imagined.

When we look at the major "players" 2000 years ago and where they were coming from, the closest match appears to be one or more of the liberal Pharisee groups.

 

[pearl]

whether Jesus saw himself as being a Pharisee is not clear to me, but he definitely operated out of that tradition, but more so on the very liberal side-- at least somewhat like Hillel did, although further.

The Evangelists often set Jesus' teaching within the opposing sides of the Pharisees and the Sadducees who did not believe the Torah could be interpreted whereas the Pharisees, along with Jesus, believed in an oral tradition and interpretation. Matthew's gospel presents pretty clear Jesus' thoughts on the Pharisees in 'the woes';

"The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice."

whether Jesus saw himself as being a Pharisee is not clear to me,

Nor is it clear in the Gospels. Jesus' belief in angels, resurrection of the body, and eschatological expectations found in the Gospels is in tune with both Pharisee and Essene theology. But Jesus himself is remembered in the Gospels as observing Jewish feast days at Temple and not in accordance with the Essene calendar.

Historians know of at least four different groups,

We may not know the views of the Pharisees in Jesus' lifetime. According to some Jesus was simply a pious Jewish layman. To others, Jesus related to Hillel Phariseeism bitterly opposed to other groups. The only place that info is to be found is in the intertestamental period, the DSS and Josephus etc. Interesting as it may be it is not relevant to faith.

 

[metis]

The Evangelists often set Jesus' teaching within the opposing sides of the Pharisees and the Sadducees who did not believe the Torah could be interpreted whereas the Pharisees, along with Jesus, believed in an oral tradition and interpretation.

Instead of using the word "interpreted", let me suggest using the word "commented", as in "commentary system" that is a large part of what's found in the Talmud. What we call the "sermon" was essentially a Pharisee invention, whereas the Sadducees did not allow for that. I don't know if the Essenes, Samaritans, or the Karaites did or did not, although we do know that each of them had their own "oral tradition", and they resented the use of "oral law" by the Pharisees.

As far as your last post is concerned, I very much agree with it. Hope you had a great weekend.

 

[pearl]

Instead of using the word "interpreted", let me suggest using the word "commented", as in "commentary system" that is a large part of what's found in the Talmud.

And its exactly what Jesus did in the "Sermon on the Mount.'

Hope you had a great weekend.

Spent the weekend cleaning up after one storm, now bracing for the next, tonight through tomorrow. Will surely appreciate spring whenever it gets here.

 

[metis]

And its exactly what Jesus did in the "Sermon on the Mount.'

And in the synagogue and elsewhere, so we agree.

Spent the weekend cleaning up after one storm, now bracing for the next, tonight through tomorrow. Will surely appreciate spring whenever it gets here.

Ya got that right. Here in s.e. Michigan, we dodged that bullet, but out place in da U.P. has plenty of snow, let me tell ya. About 12 years ago we got 320" over one winter, and we've been there on Memorial Day and seen ice still on Lake Superior whereas our place is nearby.

 

[Mark La Buda]

I remember this bible passage from my childhood the most. I remember as a kid feeling frustrated by the rich man in this story but then felt bad for his outcome. My views on this passage since has layered and taken my thoughts to other than the moral of the story. Aside from the golden rule, what do you get from this passage?




Jesus Christ was speaking to his disciples in the present of the Pharisees and scribes prior to the account at Luke 16:19-31; and, often taught a lesson by telling a story through the means of parables or illustrations.

In this illustration, the rich man depicts the Jewish clergy who were well provided for with spiritual provisions; who considered themselves children of the kingdom, clothed in purple; who were very self-righteous, wearing fine linen; and who were proud of being Abraham’s offspring. (Matthew 23:27, 28; Romans 3:1, 2; Revelation 19:8) The beggar Lazarus depicts the Jewish common people, who were despised by the clergy, who because of neglect were spiritually sick and were hungering and thirsting for righteousness, and who appreciated their need of Christ Jesus.-John 7:49; Matthew 5:6; Mark 2:17.

The death of the rich man and of Lazarus pictured a change taking place in the relative positions of these two classes. This should be no surprise to us because the Bible shows that death can be used symbolically, representing people as dying or having died though still alive, meaning thereby that a great change in one’s life or course of action. Compare Romans 6:2, 11-13; 7:4-6; Colossians 3:3; 1 Timothy 5:6. A death, or change from former conditions, happened when Jesus fed the Lazarus class spiritually; and, they thus came into the favor of the greater Abraham: God. At the same time, the false religious leaders “died” with respect to having God’s favor. Being cast off, they suffered torments when Christ’s followers after Pentecost forcefully exposed their evil works. (Acts 7:51-57) So this illustration is not literal and does not teach that some dead persons are tormented in a literal fiery hell.

Furthermore, it is not reasonable or Scriptural to believe that a man suffers torment simply because he is rich, wears good clothing and has plenty to eat. It is not Scriptural to believe that one is blessed with heavenly life just because he is a beggar. Jesus said nothing about the rich man’s living a degraded life worthy of “fiery” punishment; the man’s failing was that he did not feed (spiritually) the poor. Further, Jesus said nothing about Lazarus’ doing good things, things that clearly would merit his going to heaven.

Furthermore, “No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.” (John 3:13) The resurrection of the dead did not start at that time.

 

[Estro Felino]

Jesus Christ was speaking to his disciples in the present of the Pharisees and scribes prior to the account at Luke 16:19-31; and, often taught a lesson by telling a story through the means of parables or illustrations.

In this illustration, the rich man depicts the Jewish clergy who were well provided for with spiritual provisions; who considered themselves children of the kingdom, clothed in purple; who were very self-righteous, wearing fine linen; and who were proud of being Abraham’s offspring. (Matthew 23:27, 28; Romans 3:1, 2; Revelation 19:8) The beggar Lazarus depicts the Jewish common people, who were despised by the clergy, who because of neglect were spiritually sick and were hungering and thirsting for righteousness, and who appreciated their need of Christ Jesus.-John 7:49; Matthew 5:6; Mark 2:17.

The death of the rich man and of Lazarus pictured a change taking place in the relative positions of these two classes. This should be no surprise to us because the Bible shows that death can be used symbolically, representing people as dying or having died though still alive, meaning thereby that a great change in one’s life or course of action. Compare Romans 6:2, 11-13; 7:4-6; Colossians 3:3; 1 Timothy 5:6. A death, or change from former conditions, happened when Jesus fed the Lazarus class spiritually; and, they thus came into the favor of the greater Abraham: God. At the same time, the false religious leaders “died” with respect to having God’s favor. Being cast off, they suffered torments when Christ’s followers after Pentecost forcefully exposed their evil works. (Acts 7:51-57) So this illustration is not literal and does not teach that some dead persons are tormented in a literal fiery hell.

Furthermore, it is not reasonable or Scriptural to believe that a man suffers torment simply because he is rich, wears good clothing and has plenty to eat. It is not Scriptural to believe that one is blessed with heavenly life just because he is a beggar. Jesus said nothing about the rich man’s living a degraded life worthy of “fiery” punishment; the man’s failing was that he did not feed (spiritually) the poor. Further, Jesus said nothing about Lazarus’ doing good things, things that clearly would merit his going to heaven.

Furthermore, “No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.” (John 3:13) The resurrection of the dead did not start at that time.

With all due respect...but these are conjectures.

My catechism teacher clearly said that this parable shows that selfishness brings us to Hell.
It does not matter how wealthy we are.
It is not a parable against the wealthy...because so many wealthy people are selfless, good and altruistic.

 

[Triumph]

Jesus Christ was speaking to his disciples in the present of the Pharisees and scribes prior to the account at Luke 16:19-31; and, often taught a lesson by telling a story through the means of parables or illustrations.

In this illustration, the rich man depicts the Jewish clergy who were well provided for with spiritual provisions; who considered themselves children of the kingdom, clothed in purple; who were very self-righteous, wearing fine linen; and who were proud of being Abraham’s offspring. (Matthew 23:27, 28; Romans 3:1, 2; Revelation 19:8) The beggar Lazarus depicts the Jewish common people, who were despised by the clergy, who because of neglect were spiritually sick and were hungering and thirsting for righteousness, and who appreciated their need of Christ Jesus.-John 7:49; Matthew 5:6; Mark 2:17.

The death of the rich man and of Lazarus pictured a change taking place in the relative positions of these two classes. This should be no surprise to us because the Bible shows that death can be used symbolically, representing people as dying or having died though still alive, meaning thereby that a great change in one’s life or course of action. Compare Romans 6:2, 11-13; 7:4-6; Colossians 3:3; 1 Timothy 5:6. A death, or change from former conditions, happened when Jesus fed the Lazarus class spiritually; and, they thus came into the favor of the greater Abraham: God. At the same time, the false religious leaders “died” with respect to having God’s favor. Being cast off, they suffered torments when Christ’s followers after Pentecost forcefully exposed their evil works. (Acts 7:51-57) So this illustration is not literal and does not teach that some dead persons are tormented in a literal fiery hell.

Furthermore, it is not reasonable or Scriptural to believe that a man suffers torment simply because he is rich, wears good clothing and has plenty to eat. It is not Scriptural to believe that one is blessed with heavenly life just because he is a beggar. Jesus said nothing about the rich man’s living a degraded life worthy of “fiery” punishment; the man’s failing was that he did not feed (spiritually) the poor. Further, Jesus said nothing about Lazarus’ doing good things, things that clearly would merit his going to heaven.

Furthermore, “No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.” (John 3:13) The resurrection of the dead did not start at that time.

Jesus allowed 12 Apostles, there are 12 thrones in heaven for them near the End of Days judgement. There is no throne in heaven for a lying Pharisee named Paul that stole the title of Apostle. 12 Apostles not 13.

 

[Triumph]

Jesus was saying that if the people did not even believe those who were chosen by God to prophecy and lead,then they will not believe anything at all.They are a people of little faith.

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

• 2 Corinthians 5:7
  7 for we are walking by faith, not by sight.

Luke did not learn any of what he wrote from Jesus.Luke was not around Jesus.Luke was a physician and sailor.Very well educated.He gathered information from all the true disciples of Jesus and wrote what he heard.Luke was a Gentile who converted to christianity.Lukes main contributions, besides writing the book of Luke and Acts, was joining Paul on his many quest, and spreading christianity

Here in this passage Paul speaks of Luke while greeting people in a letter.

• Colossians 4:14
  14 Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and so does Deʹmas.
  
  The true meaning of that parable is this.
  
  View attachment 10705
  
  
  h

Only 12 Apostles are accepted by Jesus and Matthias is the 12th and final Apostle. If Jesus wanted Paul as an Apostle then he would have said so before he died. Paul said Jesus selected him. Jesus never said he selected Paul but Jesus did say no Pharisee is in the kingdom of God. Paul is a Pharisee. The gospel of Paul does not match the gospel of Jesus. They are very different on many topics.
Jesus supports water baptism for removal of sin and never said his death would remove sin. The blood of Jesus is explained by Jesus as doctrine just like his flesh is doctrine. Eat and drink the new doctrine Jesus presents for salvation. One new commandment from Jesus is believe in water baptism for remission of sin. Paul tries to make baptism of no significance and supports the paid for death of a life to remove sin.
Paul tells women to remain silent and not to teach men. Jesus told Peter to tell wives to teach their husbands and win them over by kind conversation so they will convert. and follow Jesus.
Paul disallows a woman inheritance rights and wants her to lose her home when her husband dies with the house going to the nearest male relative of the dead man. Jesus taught equal rights for women so they have inheritance rights so the widow does not lose her home.. Jesus said those that take a widows home not allowing her to inherit will be damned
These are 3 major differences between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught but there are many more.
God did not send Jesus to teach truth so a merciless killer could destroy everything Jesus taught after that killer supported the death of Jesus. Paul did not just want Jesus dead, Paul also wanted the Gospel of Jesus destroyed... That is why Paul is found in the house of Judas the other false Apostle.

 

[Dogknox20]

I remember this bible passage from my childhood the most. I remember as a kid feeling frustrated by the rich man in this story but then felt bad for his outcome. My views on this passage since has layered and taken my thoughts to other than the moral of the story. Aside from the golden rule, what do you get from this passage?


.

Wilson Wilson Good to meet you..
What I get from the passage is the Rich Man was NOT in Gehenna the place of the Damned.. He called Abraham "Father" IF...

Wilson Wilson if he was in Gehenna Satan would be his Father! If he was with Satan Abraham would not address the Rich Man as "Son"! He would be the Child of Satan NOT Abraham! ALSO...

The Rich Man had Compassion he wanted to warn his brothers ... IF..
Wilson Wilson if the Rich Man was with Satan he would be full of hate he would not have any compassion!