Does the story of Lazarus and the Rich man happen after the resurrection ?

[R. Hartono]

Retrobyter says :

"I should also mention that the rich man and Elezar ("Lazarus") is frequently misunderstood. The timing of this parable is NOT between death and the Resurrection; it's AFTER the Resurrection!" 

Is it correct ?

[childoftheking]

In my opinion, it cannot be after the Resurrection because the Saints were still being held.   The Resurrection of Yeshua would have released them, and Lazarus would have been in another realm far away from the rich man to be able to notice him and speak to Father Abraham.

 

The interesting point of this parable is that it's only found in one of the Gospels (Luke).   Other than the Gospel of John, Matthew, Mark, and Luke seemed to mirror one another.   I've heard some interesting theories of why this parable is only found in 1 of the 4 Gospels.   Some even claim that Yeshua never told this parable.   They claim it was an early sermon in the 2nd Century that was very popular, and was just added to the Bible, since Bibles were hand written in those days.

 

I have no leg in this argument one way or another, but it does place Abraham and Lazarus in some sort of Purgatory condition.   So I suppose, it could be a Catholic folklore.

[WilliamL]

On 5/19/2019 at 1:51 AM, childoftheking said:

In my opinion, it cannot be after the Resurrection because the Saints were still being held.   The Resurrection of Yeshua would have released them, and Lazarus would have been in another realm far away from the rich man to be able to notice him and speak to Father Abraham.

The interesting point of this parable is that it's only found in one of the Gospels (Luke).   Other than the Gospel of John, Matthew, Mark, and Luke seemed to mirror one another.   I've heard some interesting theories of why this parable is only found in 1 of the 4 Gospels.   Some even claim that Yeshua never told this parable.   They claim it was an early sermon in the 2nd Century that was very popular, and was just added to the Bible, since Bibles were hand written in those days.

I have no leg in this argument one way or another, but it does place Abraham and Lazarus in some sort of Purgatory condition.   So I suppose, it could be a Catholic folklore.

It places them in Hades, the biblical Sheol, which was the abode of ALL the souls of the dead. However, Hades was divided into sections (still is), depending upon the types of souls that cleaved to one another in spirit. Because, in the spiritual worlds, distance is not determined by space, which does not exist in heaven or hell, but by the similarity and oppositeness of one's spiritual nature to the natures of other spirits.

All the dead were cut off since the Fall from the Presence of God. Christ's sacrifice redeemed men from the Fall, allowing them to enter back into the Presence. At that point, Abraham's bosom shifted from being in Hades to being in heaven, and only the souls of the damned remained in Hades.

As to the nature of Luke's gospel, it was rather unique because he was the only one of the four not writing from a personal perspective, but rather from a collective perspective of "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses." Lk. 2:2 Luke was a true writer, who researched his book by interviewing many of the eyewitnesses, and compiling a report based upon his research. (This is why his narrative has quite a bit of problem establishing the sequence of events.)

[childoftheking]

59 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

It places them in Hades, the biblical Sheol, which was the abode of ALL the souls of the dead. However, Hades was divided into sections (still is), depending upon the types of souls that cleaved to one another in spirit. Because, in the spiritual worlds, distance is not determined by space, which does not exist in heaven or hell, but by the similarity and oppositeness of one's spiritual nature to the natures of other spirits.

All the dead were cut off since the Fall from the Presence of God. Christ's sacrifice redeemed men from the Fall, allowing them to enter back into the Presence. At that point, Abraham's bosom shifted from being in Hades to being in heaven, and only the souls of the damned remained in Hades.

As to the nature of Luke's gospel, it was rather unique because he was the only one of the four not writing from a personal perspective, but rather from a collective perspective of "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses." Lk. 2:2 Luke was a true writer, who researched his book by interviewing many of the eyewitnesses, and compiling a report based upon his research. (This is why his narrative has quite a bit of problem establishing the sequence of events.)

 

Thank You, I like that!!

 

It is hard to imagine that the other 3, especially John, since he was the "Beloved Disciple," would not have mentioned Lazarus and the rich man.   The other 2, 1 being Mark, wrote down the accounts from Peter's perspective (which seems Peter would have included Lazarus and the rich man).

 

Definitely is a mystery!!   And I would not be shocked to eventually learn in Heaven, that it never actually happened.   But that it was a good story preached in those days, and added by those monks, whose job was copying the Bible to make more Bibles.

[WilliamL]

3 minutes ago, childoftheking said:

It is hard to imagine that the other 3, especially John, since he was the "Beloved Disciple," would not have mentioned Lazarus and the rich man.   The other 2, 1 being Mark, wrote down the accounts from Peter's perspective (which seems Peter would have included Lazarus and the rich man).

Mark wrote from Peter's perspective. Matthew followed the order of Mark, with additions to it. But Luke only generally followed that order, and in many places varied from it.

Luke's Gospel was more of a collection of remembrances of many different people, not a sequential narrative. So it should be of no surprise that this story of Lazarus might not have been heard by Peter. He was not with Jesus every moment; no one was. As far as John goes, this type of story was not something he deals with; his list of topics is very limited, and mostly concerns sayings and events that the other Gospels left out.

So there is no good reason to disbelieve that Jesus told this story, any more than there is reason to disbelieve Luke's stories about the nativity of Jesus which only Luke reported.

[childoftheking]

11 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Mark wrote from Peter's perspective. Matthew followed the order of Mark, with additions to it. But Luke only generally followed that order, and in many places varied from it.

Luke's Gospel was more of a collection of remembrances of many different people, not a sequential narrative. So it should be of no surprise that this story of Lazarus might not have been heard by Peter. He was not with Jesus every moment; no one was. As far as John goes, this type of story was not something he deals with; his list of topics is very limited, and mostly concerns sayings and events that the other Gospels left out.

So there is no good reason to disbelieve that Jesus told this story, any more than there is reason to disbelieve Luke's stories about the nativity of Jesus which only Luke reported.

 

That's a good enough answer for me!!

 

On a side note: Have you ever read or heard where the idea of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man was an add in?

 

I found this floating around from actual renowned Biblical Scholars whose jobs included dating Papyrus.   And they claimed, there are some versions of Luke that do not include this"parable."

[OldCoot]

I would suggest that the resurrected saints of Matthew 27 were those in the section of hades reserved for the redeemed dead. The passage in Matthew doesn't say specifically, but many of the early church writers who knew the apostles or students of the apostles wrote that Yeshua took these resurrected saints to the Father.  Without any appreciable evidence to contradict that, that is what I am sticking with.

[OldCoot]

49 minutes ago, Da Puppers said:

 How about this: 

Verse list:    
1Ti 6:15-16 KJV    Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; WHO ONLY hath IMMORTALITY, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

If Jesus is the only one who currently possesses immortality,  then those saints resurrected at the time of the crucifixion do not.   

Be Blessed, 

The PuP 

Possible.  But it isn’t evidence enough to disprove the idea.  The Father and the HS also possess immortality, not just Yeshua.  You are being hyper literal to the detriment of your argument.  Paul is discussing how mortal man cannot approach or has seen.  Paul is not discussing resurrected saints.

Edited May 22, 2019 by OldCoot

[OldCoot]

1 hour ago, Da Puppers said:

And you are defining "only" and "immortality" in a hypo-literal fashion that defines the Father as being immortal,  rather than eternal.  Being Immortal and being eternal are not congruent terms. 

*[[1Ti 1:17]] KJV* Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Be Blessed, 

The PuP 

 

Well Yeshua is eternal.  As is the redeemed are eternal in that the redemption includes eternal life which by definition is immortal.  While He did come to be a man upon the earth, He is the eternal one Isaiah wrote of. The Mighty God, the Eternal One.  And He is the child who is given to us.  

Isaiah 9:6 (NKJV) For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The "Everlasting Father" in that passages should actually be translated literally as "the Father of Eternity".   And that is attributed to the Son. You don't agree with my position.  That's fine. I am not offended and I am not a salesman trying make the deal.  I stated it.  You have not offered any definitive evidence to refute it.  You like going on side trips to divert the discussion, and that is fine also.  But that doesn't sway me from my position.  

These resurrected of Matthew 27 are called saints (redeemed) by Matthew.  Paul in Ephesians applied Psalms 68:18 to suggest that Yeshua led the captive of Abraham's bosom captive, meaning that He took possession of the righteous being held in Abraham's bosom.   Many early church writers who directly knew the Apostles or students of the Apostles, and therefore had access to what would be called in legal terms "primary source material".  These early writers expressed that these saints of Matthew 27 were taken to the Father. Even elaborating that these saints were the righteous held in Abraham's bosom and Yeshua emptied it.  Dr. Norman Geisler did a major expository article on this very issue, documenting these early church writers, of which you can readily find online.  

But if one has eternal life, then one is immortal.... beyond mortality.  And the redeemed saints of Matthew 27 are just that... immortal.  Just like every other redeemed that is resurrected,  or changed at the rapture.  The redeemed cast off mortality and gain immortality.  Romans 2:7, 1 Corinthians 15:53-54, 2 Timothy 1:10, Job 19:25-27, Psalms 37:28, etc.

You want a food fight over whether Yeshua is the only one who is immortal.  You will have to provide something a little more substantive to refute my position or we will just have to leave it there.

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by OldCoot

[OldCoot]

Those saints of Matthew 27 were resurrected according to Matthew and by some accounts taken to be with the Father.  They are no longer mortal but immortal. They are classified as saints so they are redeemed to eternal life.  Nothing substantive to refute that still.    And that is the truth of both scripture and several early church writers who had contact with the Apostles or their students, which means they had access to primary source material on the matter.

Edited May 23, 2019 by OldCoot