Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
R. Hartono

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

Recommended Posts

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 ?

  • Huh?  I don't get it. 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Huh?  I don't get it. 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.)

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, OldCoot said:

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.

 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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by OldCoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OldCoot said:

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.

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 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...