Parable or not

[HisWitness]

do you say the rich man and lazarus is a parable or not ?

if you say it is not a parable--you are saying it is literal.

I say it is a parable and will offer some thoughts as to why.

first we see both men being dead and in the place they go unto as soon as they die-now we know that the body is buried in the ground and remains there--so I have some questions for you who think it is literal..

does a soul have a tongue ?
does a soul have a finger ?
does a soul have legs and feet to walk and run--this question is based on the great gulf between them--it would be impossible to walk or run from that gulf to the other side--as it said.

but I ask you--does a soul truly have physical parts such as these ??
a soul could travel over the great gulf to the other side ??

Soul has no physical parts as the body has until it receives its new body--so therefore how can you say this is not a parable and is literal--its evident that this is a parable and is not literal--Souls do not keep the physical body and limbs after bodily death--I know some of you will still reject this but at least hopefully you will give it some honest thought:love2::love2:

 

[DrJamesAch]

You've been reading too many Watchtower magazines

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28

 

[HisWitness]

You've been reading too many Watchtower magazines

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28

I do believe that scripture also--but what is your imput on whether this is a parable or not ?

 

[agedman]

do you say the rich man and lazarus is a parable or not ?

if you say it is not a parable--you are saying it is literal.

I say it is a parable and will offer some thoughts as to why.

first we see both men being dead and in the place they go unto as soon as they die-now we know that the body is buried in the ground and remains there--so I have some questions for you who think it is literal..

does a soul have a tongue ?
does a soul have a finger ?
does a soul have legs and feet to walk and run--this question is based on the great gulf between them--it would be impossible to walk or run from that gulf to the other side--as it said.

but I ask you--does a soul truly have physical parts such as these ??
a soul could travel over the great gulf to the other side ??

Soul has no physical parts as the body has until it receives its new body--so therefore how can you say this is not a parable and is literal--its evident that this is a parable and is not literal--Souls do not keep the physical body and limbs after bodily death--I know some of you will still reject this but at least hopefully you will give it some honest thought:love2::love2:

Can you actually say that the soul does not have these?

What makes you think that the body is not just a covering or physical emanation of the soul?

Consider the body as a jacket for the soul. The tongue and other sense organs are merely coverings. The soul then leaves the body but does not loose any of the ability of sensing - it can still see, hear, taste, feel, think, ... for it is the true living part.

Two verses pop into my thinking:

Did not the Lord say - take no thought what you eat, drink.... Showing how little the body is important to the believer.

Did not Paul say - bodily exercise profits little - showing how priorities should be taken into account in the believer and the living of the believer.

 

[HisWitness]

Can you actually say that the soul does not have these?

What makes you think that the body is not just a covering or physical emanation of the soul?

Consider the body as a jacket for the soul. The tongue and other sense organs are merely coverings. The soul then leaves the body but does not loose any of the ability of sensing - it can still see, hear, taste, feel, think, ... for it is the true living part.

Two verses pop into my thinking:

Did not the Lord say - take no thought what you eat, drink.... Showing how little the body is important to the believer.

Did not Paul say - bodily exercise profits little - showing how priorities should be taken into account in the believer and the living of the believer.

if the soul had these--what would be the need to receive a new body ?

 

[DrJamesAch]

Even if it were true that these features were not possessed by the Rich Man, and it's merely an anthropomorphism, it would still not change the fact that this is not a parable. It's a real story, with a burning man that had a soul and body, dead in sin talking to Abraham (Even though Calvinists claim dead man can't communicate!)

 

[AresMan]

do you say the rich man and lazarus is a parable or not ?

I believe it is quite possible that this is a parable (*gasp*), but that, like all of Jesus' other parables, they are teaching something in the realm of truth. In other words, the teaching about the "intermediate state" in this passage can be true even if the characters are fictional. Just like the sower in the parable may be fictional, but the analogy is of the truth that there are real sowers who plant seed, so the Rich Man and Lazarus account can reflect the reality of the "intermediate state" even if it is not an historical account of actual events.

 

[HisWitness]

You've been reading too many Watchtower magazines

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28

I do agree that at time time at death the body,soul,spirit were dead--so I don't believe before the resurrection anyone went into paradise or what is called hell--they all went to the same place--they were DEAD soul,body,spirit

after the resurrection they went into their places--after they were judged according to the deeds they had done while on the earth

 

[DrJamesAch]

if the soul had these--what would be the need to receive a new body ?

You are building your own caricature of this issue, and then critiquing your own caricature. It's not the soul that has the body parts, it's the body, and Matthew 10 (and other verses) show that both soul and body are part of the person in hell.

 

[agedman]

Here is were I am:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCm83w1dAPE&list=PLEF72BEEC3997B397&index=14

Heaven is so much closer than it was yesterday.

 

[agedman]

if the soul had these--what would be the need to receive a new body ?

Because that is what God desires and that is what the Bible teaches.

 

[HisWitness]

Even if it were true that these features were not possessed by the Rich Man, and it's merely an anthropomorphism, it would still not change the fact that this is not a parable. It's a real story, with a burning man that had a soul and body, dead in sin talking to Abraham (Even though Calvinists claim dead man can't communicate!)

beg your pardon the rich man did have these features--how can a one dip the finger and water and touch his tongue if he had not these features ?

if you say this is literal then you have stated that 1 man has physical features and one man doesn't ??

I would like to know more of your view on this matter ?

 

[HisWitness]

I believe it is quite possible that this is a parable (*gasp*), but that, like all of Jesus' other parables, they are teaching something in the realm of truth. In other words, the teaching about the "intermediate state" in this passage can be true even if the characters are fictional. Just like the sower in the parable may be fictional, but the analogy is of the truth that there are real sowers who plant seed, so the Rich Man and Lazarus account can reflect the reality of the "intermediate state" even if it is not an historical account of actual events.

wasn't referring to intermediate state before the resurrection but afterwards

men were DEAD before the resurrection soul,body,spirit DEAD that's why they had to be a resurrection ? then the judgement and then their proper places to go.

 

[DrJamesAch]

beg your pardon the rich man did have these features--how can a one dip the finger and water and touch his tongue if he had not these features ?

if you say this is literal then you have stated that 1 man has physical features and one man doesn't ??

I would like to know more of your view on this matter ?

Now you're just playing games because you initially argued AGAINST this in your original post.

 

[HisWitness]

You are building your own caricature of this issue, and then critiquing your own caricature. It's not the soul that has the body parts, it's the body, and Matthew 10 (and other verses) show that both soul and body are part of the person in hell.

this text was right after bodily death--in that case the body goes into the ground--so how can you say these had a body in this text if they had just died ?

 

[HisWitness]

Now you're just playing games because you initially argued AGAINST this in your original post.

what do you mean ?

 

[AresMan]

wasn't referring to intermediate state before the resurrection but afterwards

men were DEAD before the resurrection soul,body,spirit DEAD that's why they had to be a resurrection ? then the judgement and then their proper places to go.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus has to be about the intermediate state, not the final resurrection. The rich man is in hades--the abode of the dead (Luke 16:23). The rich man, who is dead (v.25), mentions that he has five brothers who are still alive, and that Lazarus would have to be resurrected to visit them (vv.30-31).

Now, hades does not always refer to this fiery intermediate state, but generally to the abode of the dead. At the resurrection, we experience the victory over hades (1 Cor 15:54-55). At the resurrection, hades delivers up the dead to be judged (Rev 20:13-15), and hades is also destroyed. Therefore, if someone is in hades, whatever that may be like, he has not yet been resurrected.

If the parable of the rich man and Lazarus teaches truth and is not "spiritualizing" anything, there must be some who experience suffering during the intermediate state while others experience comfort.

 

[HisWitness]

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus has to be about the intermediate state, not the final resurrection. The rich man is in hades--the abode of the dead (Luke 16:23). The rich man, who is dead (v.25), mentions that he has five brothers who are still alive, and that Lazarus would have to be resurrected to visit them (vv.30-31).

Now, hades does not always refer to this fiery intermediate state, but generally to the abode of the dead. At the resurrection, we experience the victory over hades (1 Cor 15:54-55). At the resurrection, hades delivers up the dead to be judged (Rev 20:13-15), and hades is also destroyed. Therefore, if someone is in hades, whatever that may be like, he has not yet been resurrected.

If the parable of the rich man and Lazarus teaches truth and is not "spiritualizing" anything, there must be some who experience suffering during the intermediate state while others experience comfort.

I understand your view friend--I use to hold it--but there was no intermediate state before the resurrection--everyone suffered the DEATH that was passed from adam--soul,body,spirit DEAD--all went to the same place before the resurrection--the parable of the rich man and lazarus is showing truth what will happen after the resurrection to people--those into heaven and comforted and those in the FIRE tormented--both receieving their rewards according to their deeds upon earth.

 

[salzer mtn]

Christ said, THERE WAS a certain rich man and THERE WAS a certain beggar NAMED Lazarus. If Christ said there was and called out his name that is good enough for me.

 

[HisWitness]

Christ said, THERE WAS a certain rich man and THERE WAS a certain beggar NAMED Lazarus. If Christ said there was and called out his name that is good enough for me.

when you read all the texts before and after this text they are ALL parables--
Jesus only spoke in parables unto the multitudes--why would he throw a non-parable in the middle of all the other parables before and after this scripture.
it contradicts him saying he only spoke in parables unto the multitudes--after all everything before and after this text was all parables--think about it.