Where was Lazarus?

[Darrell C]

Yes, we see Abraham and the rich man, a descendant of Abraham, speaking of the rich man's brothers, meaning the Jews,

The Lord said he spoke of his brothers.

Who do you think I am going to believe? The Lord? Or someone who embraces Soul Sleep?

who are also destined to eternal punishment for rejecting Christ, because they didn't listen to Moses and the prophets who foretold of Christ.

Eisegete much?

Scripture gives no conclusion on their eternal destiny, just that they have available to them the same revelation that could have kept him from torment in Hades.

Now, pay attention, because you need to see that it is not "The Jews" in view because shortly after this teaching it would not be The Law and the Prophets that would keep men from Hades, but...

...the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Think about that, my friend.

Let's take it literally, that Abraham's Bosom really is a real place,

Why wouldn't we?

Why would the Lord use a fictitious event concerning Abraham. That would have violated the Law, to give testimony of these men that was not true.

where do you get that it's a place before the resurrection, from the story?

I told you: because Abraham presents the Law and the Prophets...not the Gospel.

You still have no case, even if we assume it's literal.

Its not my case to make, lol, its simply what Scripture teaches.

In the Parable Lazarus died.

This is true. And in another account we see a Lazarus who dies, and is then resurrected.

So who among those who saw his resurrection...believed?

I can tell you...not one man among men can be found in the Gospels who believed.

He could have gone to Hades, and after the resurrection went to Abraham's Bosom where the story now takes place.

Sorry, but believers do not go to Hades any longer. Abraham's Bosom is not Heaven. That is a term, whether you like it or not, that is found in Jewish Tradition describing the compartment, or side of Hades reserved for the Just.

The other Lazarus died and Jesus resurrected him out of Hades, back into the world.

And...?

Again, the thing to keep in mind is that this event takes place prior to the establishment of the New Covenant, and we know that because of Abraham's statement. We do not point men to the Law and the Prophets, but to the Gospel of Christ in this Age.


God bless.

 

[John Toppass]

We can turn our heads to the left and turn them to the right. Lazarus was dead indeed, just as our Lord said. Dead for 4 days according to our time, but he was where time was not kept. As far as Lazarus was concerned it was probably less than a piece of a blink of the eye. When we try to put our watches on God's wrist, we merely prove that there are many subjects above our paygrade.

 

[Van]

Does the Bible tell us specifically where the spirit of Lazarus was located (Hades or Abraham's bosom) during the period from when he physically died, and when his spirit reanimated is body? And do we know he had awareness of his location, or was unaware, or had his memory wiped when Jesus caused his spirit to return?

Speculation is the mother of false doctrine.

 

[Baptist Brother]

So the blessings of God equate to material possessions?

The rich man's wealth in the parable is symbolic. Remember, it's a parable not meant to be taken literally.

27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


His soul, the person, would not be left in Hades, and corruption is a reference to the physical body (he believed he would be resurrected).

Why did Jesus go to Hades, if only the lost go go Hades? Jesus went to Hades because that is where all the dead go, awaiting resurrection.

The soul goes to the grave, Hades. The body goes into the hole in the ground. Hades is the grave, not the hole in the ground. Hades is the grave for the soul.

The Parable of the Sower teaches about a literal process.

Jesus said, "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand... Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower." If you're looking for a literal meaning in a parable, you understand neither the meaning of the word parable nor the parable itself that is being told.

The Lord said he spoke of his brothers.

No, the Lord spoke of the Jews. It's a parable.

Abraham presents the Law and the Prophets...not the Gospel.

Funny how no place in the Old Testament mentions anything about "Abraham's Bosom", in spite of scores of mentions of Sheol. What is it you believe? That people in the OT were judged apart from and prior to Christ and they went to Sheol or [insert the other place identified in OT]? And, then what? They're judged again (with the same verdict) and sent to Heaven or the Lake of Fire?

Abraham presents the Law and the Prophets because the Rich man (identified as Abraham's child) and his brothers are the Jews.

Abraham's Bosom is not Heaven. That is a term, whether you like it or not, that is found in Jewish Tradition describing the compartment, or side of Hades reserved for the Just.

"Jewish Tradition"? You mean you're getting your doctrine outside of the Bible? What tradition is this? Is this a tradition based to the time before Christ, or one invented the Talmud? And, what? You agree that the righteous go to Hades, just a different part of Hades? Then why have you been disputing me for saying the dead to go Hades?

 

[Darrell C]

The rich man's wealth in the parable is symbolic. Remember, it's a parable not meant to be taken literally.

Nowhere is the story identified as a parable, and not all of Christ's teachings were parables. And again, the teachings have a literal instruction the hearer/reader is to glean.

And the teaching falls apart if the rich man's wealth is symbolic, and the poverty and hardship of Lazarus is not real.

And its a very simple teaching that illustrates the need to be in obedience to God, and how that impacts the disposition of an individual when they die.

Why did Jesus go to Hades, if only the lost go go Hades? Jesus went to Hades because that is where all the dead go, awaiting resurrection.

And that was the case prior to the Cross. However, as taught by Christ, the just and the unjust were...divided. For the unjust there was torment, and for the just...comfort.

He went there to liberate the Just, who had died not having obtained Eternal Redemption. In other words, while alive, the Just were "saved" by grace through faith in God, however, that does not mean they went to be with the Lord in Heaven. They could not because they had not yet had their sins forgiven on an eternal basis. The Book of Hebrews makes this clear, and just to give you a few verses to consider...


Hebrews 10:1-4
King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


Those who lived according to the system of atonement provided by God prior to the Cross (and this includes those under Law and those prior to that Age) were afforded remission of sins through this system, but...it was not on an eternal basis. Only the Sacrifice of Christ could provide that to men:


Hebrews 10:10-14
King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


The "once" (for all is a translational insertion, not in the text) is contrasted with the continuous nature of the sacrificial system men engaged in prior to the Cross, which could not make the comers (worshipers) thereunto perfect, or, complete (in regards to remission of sins).

Verse 14 clarifies that those sanctified by the Sacrifice of Christ are made perfect/complete (in regards to remission of sins, on an eternal basis)...for ever.

So when men died prior to the Cross, they died either just or unjust, and determined whether they went into the compartment for the just or the unjust.

Those compartments are validated by Christ in the story of Luke 16.

And when the writer speaks about believers here...


Hebrews 12:22-23
King James Version (KJV)

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,


...he contrasts the Church of the Firstborn (Christ) and "the spirits of just men...made perfect."

Those are they that died prior to the Cross, who were retroactively made perfect/complete through the Work of Christ.

Here is a very controversial and debated passage to consider:


Ephesians 4:8-10
King James Version (KJV)

8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)


I view this to speak of Christ first descending (the Incarnation), then destroying that which held men in captivity, then speaks of His Ascension. It ties His Work to the time of the Incarnation, and does not allow for the "credit" popularly taught by most. While the Just were indeed saved from the eternal perspective, that does not mean we erroneously apply that which was accomplished solely by Christ through His Work, or...ignore or negate what Scripture teaches explicitly as well as implicitly.

And one more statement I think relevant:


John 3:13
King James Version (KJV)

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.


Men went into Sheol, also known as Hades, and that place was divided according to Abraham in Christ's teaching...


Luke 16:26
King James Version (KJV)

26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The soul goes to the grave, Hades. The body goes into the hole in the ground. Hades is the grave, not the hole in the ground. Hades is the grave for the soul.

Hades is not a grave, it is a place of conscious existence. It is because people merge concepts between Old and New Testament revelation they are able to confuse themselves about what is said in the Old Testament.

Nowhere is the word grave used to refer to Hades in the New Testament, and only in 1 Corinthians 15:5 do we see it used to signify death and the death of the body.

Jesus said, "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand... Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower." If you're looking for a literal meaning in a parable, you understand neither the meaning of the word parable nor the parable itself that is being told.

The meaning of parables are for those the Lord enlightens to understand:


Matthew 13:10-11
King James Version (KJV)

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

No, the Lord spoke of the Jews. It's a parable.

Here it is:


Luke 16:27-31
King James Version (KJV)

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Both Lazarus and the Rich Man are Jews, presumably, so it makes little sense to make the brethren of the rich man in the story Jews, unless Lazarus were a Gentile. The distinction drawn between the two is rich and poor, not Jew and Gentile.

I have read a number of eisegetical efforts which analogize this story in great detail. The problem with that is that one must insert into the text what they think it states, whereas I can simply take what is there and learn from it.

Both men are in Hades, that is clear seeing they (Abraham and the Rich Man) communicate, though a great gulf were between them.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Funny how no place in the Old Testament mentions anything about "Abraham's Bosom", in spite of scores of mentions of Sheol.

And it is known that "the Bosom of Abraham" derives from Jewish Tradition. And here we have the Lord utilizing a concept from Jewish Tradition in His Teaching, which is no stranger than He, a Jew, using the term Hades rather than Sheol.

The reason seems fairly simple to me: the Lord used concepts that the people understood. We might liken that to someone in our day using a modern term to describe something from the "old country," in the case of an immigrant.

Secondly, as I have mentioned several times, it is vital to maintain a proper context in regards to the periods of revelation found in Scripture. Just as we would not insert the concept of the rapture taught by Paul into the Old Testament, neither would we insert the concept of Hades into it, because revelation concerning the afterlife and resurrection was more than limited, it is almost nonexistent in the Old Testament, when we compare it to the revelation we are provided in the New.

What is it you believe? That people in the OT were judged apart from and prior to Christ and they went to Sheol or [insert the other place identified in OT]?

Judgement has not yet been rendered for the unjust who are in Hades. Not yet. Not beyond the fact that they remain separated from God, and have only eternal separation in their future. They will stand before the Great White Throne and receive judgment on an eternal basis. They will all be resurrected and then cast into Hell (the Lake of Fire).

Men are conceived separated from God and this can only change one way: to be reconciled to God through Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19). Under Old Testament Economies men could be justified through obedience to the revealed will of God, which obedience was a direct result of faith. But it is grace which all men depended on. The great men and women of faith were sinners like as you and I, yet by the grace of God they were not eternally judged for their failures, but, were afforded grace despite their failures.

Going back to Perfection/Completion, let us now look at the "Hall of Faith:"


Hebrews 11:13
King James Version (KJV)

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.


Hebrews 11:39-40
King James Version (KJV)

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.


They died...not having received the Promises of God, and not having been made perfect.

Now hear Christ tell His disciples to await the Promise of the Father:


Acts 1:4-5
King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


The Promise of the Father here is specific to the Eternal Indwelling of the Holy Ghost, but, many promises awaited fulfillment in the establishing of the New Covenant. Remission of sin on an eternal basis was one of those, and not one Old Testament Saint died having received that particular promise.

Hence they went, not to Heaven to be with the Lord, as we do today, but to Hades. I should point out that while men did not go to Heaven to be with the Lord, that does not mean we assume they were bereft of the Lord's Presence: there was nothing keeping Him from visiting them there.

One last quotation in regards to the Promises of God and the promise and establishing of the New Covenant:


Hebrews 8:7-13
King James Version (KJV)

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


And if you read Hebrews, you will see that only the Sacrifice of Christ could establish the platform upon which God forgives sin to the point where the previous sacrificial system was made incomplete for those sanctified by Christ.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

And, then what? They're judged again (with the same verdict) and sent to Heaven or the Lake of Fire?

Only the unjust will go into the Lake of Fire, and it is a debatable issue concerning whether any among the "dead" will stand before the Great White Throne and have their names found in the Book of Life (which is an issue we must decide upon in order to maintain a balanced position on this particular issue, meaning, when men are written into the Book of Life (and by the way I take the position they are written into it upon conception)).

I think it quite possible that there are those who may find pardon at that day, perhaps those spoken of by Paul here:


Romans 2:11-16
King James Version (KJV)

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


These are men, in my view, who obeyed the internal witness of God, and I think, again, it may be possible they may stand when judged by Christ. I would not be dogmatic about that, though.

Abraham presents the Law and the Prophets because the Rich man (identified as Abraham's child) and his brothers are the Jews.

They certainly are Jews, though I think you read The Jews into the teaching.

Again, the distinction is between rich and poor, obedient and disobedient.

"Jewish Tradition"? You mean you're getting your doctrine outside of the Bible?

No, my Doctrine is based on Scripture, which is why I pointed out that the concept of Abraham's Bosom was from Jewish Tradition.

No different than what Paul does here:


1 Corinthians 10
King James Version (KJV)

1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.


Paul uses a Jewish tradition in Scripture, so I see nothing wrong with pointing out that "Abraham's Bosom in Christ's teachings may be a reference to the Jewish Traditional belief that Sheol/Hades had two compartments, on of torment for the unjust, and another of comfort, which in Jewish Tradition is called Paradise and the Bosom of Abraham.

What tradition is this?

Jewish. And it was present in the Day of Christ.

Is this a tradition based to the time before Christ, or one invented the Talmud?

The time of Christ.

And for the record, I am against any extra-biblical resources, and against giving them an equal status with Scripture.

And you, my friend, are far more guilty of that than I am, so as I cautioned you before, you should be careful of creating false arguments in an attempt at deflection from the topic at hand. There is only one place one can get the fanciful notion that the rich man's brethren represents the Jews, and that is from extra-biblical eisegetic commentaries by those who analogize Scripture to great lengths. It is doubtful you concluded his brethren represents the Jews on your own. You certainly did not get it from Christ's teachings.

The distinction of those in power over those in poverty is a familiar Biblical Theme found through both Old and New Testaments. Psalm 82 is an example of that.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

And, what? You agree that the righteous go to Hades, just a different part of Hades?

Not now. Now only the unjust go to Hades. Believers go to be with the Lord, as Scripture teaches.

Then why have you been disputing me for saying the dead to go Hades?

The posts answer that question.

The question in view now is what Biblical presentation do you have to verify your belief that believers...still go to Hades.

I would like to see that.


God bless.

 

[Baptist Brother]

Nowhere is the story identified as a parable, and not all of Christ's teachings were parables.

Jesus said he spoke in parables, so why does a particular parable need to be explicitly identified as a parable to be recognized as a parable? In the parable of the unnamed rich man, Jesus treatment of Hades and reference to Abraham's Bosom is completely foreign to the rest of scripture. The story itself isn't a reference to anything in the Hebrew scripture, or anything his followers would have known of. Everything about it looks like a parable, right down the the context of parables Jesus was delivering that day.

Your two arguments that it's not a parable is that it isn't explicitly identified as a parable one on of the people in story is given a name. I think the preponderance of the evidence is against you.

Your real problem is that you're trying to prove something using something else that itself is unproven. To prove Abraham's Bosom is a real place, you have to first prove the Parable of the Rich Man is a non-parable. I, myself, have a rule not to base doctrine on any single verse of scripture. And, you have only one verse that mentions Abraham's Bosom, and that verse itself probably isn't meant to be taken literally. I have that rule so I don't follow bad doctrine on weak evidence, like thinking my interpretation of that one verse is right. The more verses you have, the less likely are you are misinterpreting.

And its a very simple teaching that illustrates the need to be in obedience to God, and how that impacts the disposition of an individual when they die.

You think the fact that the rich man is identified as a child of Abraham has no meaning, even though this identification is repeated? Your view of what it teaches ignores details of the story, details that don't fit your doctrinal agenda. You think the unnamed brothers are literal, even though no detail is given about hem. Their names? Where they lived? Who their mother is? You've argued that it's not a parable because Lazarus is named, so why doesn't the lack of names of everyone else show it's a parable?

 

[percho]

IMHO Luke 16 is about who will be and how they will be, in the kingdom of God.
Will not be according to riches or kinsman.

The bosom of the Abraham in nothing but being of the faith of Abraham and the faith of Abraham was/is the seed, singular, of Abraham, which is Christ Gal 3:16 And for one to be Christ's makes one Abraham's seed and an heir (of the kingdom of God) of the promise V29

The kingdom of God will be inherited by, resurrection and or instant change, from body of corruption to body of incorruption at the coming of Christ.

IMO, The flames of torment will be come much later at another resurrection. And even then one might need to consider the river flowing from the tree of life, the twelve manner of fruit and the leaves.

The final sacred assembly day of my thread,

A thought for discussion.

 

[percho]

I think Lazarus is none other than Eliezer, the servant of Abraham and the rich ruler Judah and his brothers of the same mother, yet that gets none of them into the kingdom of God. By only being born again, as a son of God, a son of Faith will they enter the kingdom of God. That son ship comes through the seed of Abraham, Christ.

 

[percho]

The dead ones in Christ shall be rising first 1 Thes 4:16 are the same as, to be dead in the bosom of the Abraham Luke 16:22 and are equal to having died in faith Hebrews 11:13, 39&40.

Think about It.

 

[Darrell C]

Your two arguments that it's not a parable is that it isn't explicitly identified as a parable one on of the people in story is given a name.

Then I am two ahead of you. So far all you have offered is...

The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is tucked into a string of parables.

...and even that is not true.

I think the preponderance of the evidence is against you.

I have seen nothing from Scripture on your side. Simply assertions.

Your real problem is that you're trying to prove something using something else that itself is unproven. To prove Abraham's Bosom is a real place, you have to first prove the Parable of the Rich Man is a non-parable. I, myself, have a rule not to base doctrine on any single verse of scripture.

Both men are in...Hades. I don't have to prove they were there, the Lord said they were, lol. And I made it clear concerning the term "Abraham's Bosom," that I see two viable possibilities as to what is meant. A third would simply be that he was with Abraham, where Abraham was. The point remains: both were dead, both are in relatively the same place, and there is a s different destination for the just and the unjust.

You think the fact that the rich man is identified as a child of Abraham has no meaning, even though this identification is repeated?

False argument. That is a point you have presented which has no bearing on what we are discussing. Both the Rich Man and Lazarus are presumably Jews, which means both are the sons of Abraham.

How does that impact what I have said, or contribute to your belief that Christians go to Hades when they die today?

Your view of what it teaches ignores details of the story, details that don't fit your doctrinal agenda.

I'm the only one actually addressing what is actually taught. You are inserting what you think is meant. For example, "The Rich Man represents the Jews." Only if Lazarus were identified as a Gentile, as the Good Samaritan is, would we speculate on this idea. But we don't see that. Secondly, you have yet to address the Scripture presented dealing with the issue of Hades, which is not Hell, and it is not the Grave. All three have a representative meaning of death throughout Scripture, but as my original point states, we have to be careful to distinguish what is in view, else we make the mistake of cultists and conclude Soul Sleep, which is denied by the Word of God.

You think the unnamed brothers are literal, even though no detail is given about hem. Their names? Where they lived? Who their mother is? You've argued that it's not a parable because Lazarus is named, so why doesn't the lack of names of everyone else show it's a parable?

They are not central to the story. Abraham, Lazarus, and the Rich Man are. Two proper names given, which distinguishes it from the parables.

Now, I will ask you to do this: find someone else on this forum that agrees with you that believers go to Hades when they die now...to await resurrection.

Just one.


God bless.

 

[percho]

Then I am two ahead of you. So far all you have offered is...



...and even that is not true.




I have seen nothing from Scripture on your side. Simply assertions.




Both men are in...Hades. I don't have to prove they were there, the Lord said they were, lol. And I made it clear concerning the term "Abraham's Bosom," that I see two viable possibilities as to what is meant. A third would simply be that he was with Abraham, where Abraham was. The point remains: both were dead, both are in relatively the same place, and there is a s different destination for the just and the unjust.




False argument. That is a point you have presented which has no bearing on what we are discussing. Both the Rich Man and Lazarus are presumably Jews, which means both are the sons of Abraham.

How does that impact what I have said, or contribute to your belief that Christians go to Hades when they die today?



I'm the only one actually addressing what is actually taught. You are inserting what you think is meant. For example, "The Rich Man represents the Jews." Only if Lazarus were identified as a Gentile, as the Good Samaritan is, would we speculate on this idea. But we don't see that. Secondly, you have yet to address the Scripture presented dealing with the issue of Hades, which is not Hell, and it is not the Grave. All three have a representative meaning of death throughout Scripture, but as my original point states, we have to be careful to distinguish what is in view, else we make the mistake of cultists and conclude Soul Sleep, which is denied by the Word of God.




They are not central to the story. Abraham, Lazarus, and the Rich Man are. Two proper names given, which distinguishes it from the parables.

Now, I will ask you to do this: find someone else on this forum that agrees with you that believers go to Hades when they die now...to await resurrection.

Just one.


God bless.

What is Hebrew for Lazarus? Is the Hebrew for Lazarus associated with Abraham? Where was he from? Were there any, "Jews," at the time he was living?

 

[Darrell C]

What is Hebrew for Lazarus?

It is thought to derive (or is a "form of") from Eleazar.

See LINK.

Is the Hebrew for Lazarus associated with Abraham?

Yes.

Where was he from?

I was not able, in a quick look, lol, to see anything that we could be dogmatic about.

Were there any, "Jews," at the time he was living?

For Abraham's servant, no. The term "Jew" derives from "Judah," and in my understanding primarily the province. One from Judah was a "Jew."

While it might be said we cannot be dogmatic about Lazarus being a Jew, it would seem unlikely that a Gentile would be presumed. I think it quite possible that Lazarus was in fact the Lazarus the Lord raised from the dead. We have a reference to resurrection in Luke 16, and if this is the case, it is a lesson concerning man's condition that prefigures Christ's Own resurrection, in the sense that no-one believed due to Lazarus being resurrected, and no-one believed immediately after Christ's resurrection, not even the disciples.


God bless.

 

[Baptist Brother]

Both men are in...Hades. I don't have to prove they were there, the Lord said they were, lol.

In the Parable, only the rich man is identified as being in Hades. And, this description of Hades doesn't match any other passage in the Bible. You're adding to scripture when you say Lazarus was also in Hades.

Both the Rich Man and Lazarus are presumably Jews, which means both are the sons of Abraham.

Only the rich man is identified as a child of Abraham (as well as the one to whom Moses and the prophets were given). He's twice identified as a child of Abraham. You're again adding to scripture when you insist Lazarus is also a child or Abraham.

I'm the only one actually addressing what is actually taught. You are inserting what you think is meant. For example, "The Rich Man represents the Jews."

Indeed, the Rich Man representing the Jews is my interpretation. But, I'm not adding to scripture to reach that conclusion.

Only if Lazarus were identified as a Gentile, as the Good Samaritan is, would we speculate on this idea.

Samaritans had a false religion. You shouldn't expect Jesus to refer to someone who has a false religion as someone who goes to Abraham's Bosom. Lazarus means God is my Help. Jesus gives the man a name to show he's godly.

Secondly, you have yet to address the Scripture presented dealing with the issue of Hades, which is not Hell, and it is not the Grave. All three have a representative meaning of death throughout Scripture, but as my original point states, we have to be careful to distinguish what is in view, else we make the mistake of cultists and conclude Soul Sleep, which is denied by the Word of God.

You need to be reminded again that Hades, Hell and, the grave (for the soul) are not three words that appear in the Greek. Hell is a typical translation of Hades, not another place named by scripture. Grave is also a typical translation of Hades. "Hades" is untranslated.

They are not central to the story. Abraham, Lazarus, and the Rich Man are. Two proper names given, which distinguishes it from the parables.

There's no logic to the claim that proper names shows something isn't a parable. Details of their lives used to identify them rather than details to advance the story, would show a story not to be a parable. E.g. "Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was..." The fact that you're resorting to claiming proper names per se show it's not a parable shows how weak your case is.

find someone else on this forum that agrees with you that believers go to Hades when they die now...to await resurrection.

A popularity contest? Several verses strongly show that believers go to Hades, such as the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church. You have to twist those verses into something unnatural.

Natural: Hades can't hold Christians who have gone there.
Unnatural: Whatever you think the verse means.

 

[Darrell C]

Both the Rich Man and Lazarus are presumably Jews, which means both are the sons of Abraham.

Only the rich man is identified as a child of Abraham (as well as the one to whom Moses and the prophets were given). He's twice identified as a child of Abraham. You're again adding to scripture when you insist Lazarus is also a child or Abraham.

I said presumably they are both Jews, and gave reason why that is a safe assumption. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan...Jew and Gentile is distinguished.

I'm the only one actually addressing what is actually taught. You are inserting what you think is meant. For example, "The Rich Man represents the Jews."

Indeed, the Rich Man representing the Jews is my interpretation. But, I'm not adding to scripture to reach that conclusion.

No, of course you are not.

The fact is you are both adding and taking away, because you continue to argue when Paul makes it clear that for the believer, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

Only if Lazarus were identified as a Gentile, as the Good Samaritan is, would we speculate on this idea.

Samaritans had a false religion. You shouldn't expect Jesus to refer to someone who has a false religion as someone who goes to Abraham's Bosom. Lazarus means God is my Help. Jesus gives the man a name to show he's godly.

This shows even further the lack of understanding you have concerning Scripture. For your information, lol, Abraham himself was a Gentile. Secondly, the Good Samaritan could very well be consider among the just based on his actions, which kept the works of the Law written on his heart, whereas the Jews who passed the wounded man by did not.

Lazarus means God is my Help. Jesus gives the man a name to show he's godly.

It was actually Lazarus' parents who likely named him. It is possible that the Lord told them what to name him, as we see with John, but, again...more speculation.

Secondly, you have yet to address the Scripture presented dealing with the issue of Hades, which is not Hell, and it is not the Grave. All three have a representative meaning of death throughout Scripture, but as my original point states, we have to be careful to distinguish what is in view, else we make the mistake of cultists and conclude Soul Sleep, which is denied by the Word of God.

You need to be reminded again that Hades, Hell and, the grave (for the soul) are not three words that appear in the Greek. Hell is a typical translation of Hades, not another place named by scripture. Grave is also a typical translation of Hades. "Hades" is untranslated.

Actually I need no such reminder, because this is the very point I originally addressed.

While Hell is used to speak of Hades, that does not negate that there is a concept of eternal judgment that we, in our traditional use of the English word Hell...distinguish from the concept of Hades, which is the equivalent of the Old Testament concept of Sheol.

Because of a lackadaisical approach such as you have displayed, many have confused themselves and equated the meanings of various concepts in which they under-gird their cultish doctrine.

The only way you are going to get straight on this is to actually...study. Stop reading commentaries and spend a little time reading Scripture.

HERE is a link that will help you. Look through the use of grave and see if there are not multiple applications for it.

Grave is also a typical translation of Hades. "Hades" is untranslated.

Actually it is not, I already told you that. There is only one verse you might argue that about, and you would lose that argument, because the context of 1 Corinthians 15 is about physical resurrection, thus...physical death.

They are not central to the story. Abraham, Lazarus, and the Rich Man are. Two proper names given, which distinguishes it from the parables.

There's no logic to the claim that proper names shows something isn't a parable. Details of their lives used to identify them rather than details to advance the story, would show a story not to be a parable. E.g. "Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was..." The fact that you're resorting to claiming proper names per se show it's not a parable shows how weak your case is.

Its a simple point...

Two proper names given, which distinguishes it from the parables.

...and the point remains. There is no parable that uses proper names.

Details of their lives used to identify them rather than details to advance the story, would show a story not to be a parable. E.g. "Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was..."

How about...


Luke 16:19-21
King James Version (KJV)

19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.


These meet your criteria...

Details of their lives used to identify them rather than details to advance the story, would show a story not to be a parable.

A popularity contest?

No, an attempt to show you that...no Baptist believes that.

Exactly what kind of Baptist Church do you go to and is this what your leadership teaches?

Several verses strongly show that believers go to Hades, such as the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church.

Believers did go to Hades, lol.

But not anymore. I gave you numerous Scriptures and you have ignored every one of them, which shows...you are not interested in what Scripture teaches, but in supporting what you want to believe.

Now show me these "several verses" that strongly show believers go to Hades. Let's have them and clear this up.

You have to twist those verses into something unnatural.

I don't recall ever giving my own view of this, which is that I take the position that the Gates of Hell in view is a Jewish euphemism for death.

It is death that will not stop the function of the Church in this world.

But for those who think it means an assault on Hades, okay, that is their right. And if you have another suggestion, let's hear it.

Natural: Hades can't hold Christians who have gone there.
Unnatural: Whatever you think the verse means.

Again with the cultish doctrine.

Believers do not go to Hades when they die now. And you want to talk to me about what is unnatural?

Perhaps if you addressed the Scripture already given, we might be able to actually come to a conclusion.

I will give this one for discussion again:


2 Corinthians 5:5-8
King James Version (KJV)

5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.



God bless.

 

[percho]

2 Corinthians 5:5-8
King James Version (KJV)

5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Is the body we home in the earthly house of tabernacle (home) of verse 1?
Even if this home/tabernacle be dissolved/destroyed, do we still home in it awaiting out house from heaven?

Do we groan in this home/tabernacle wanting the mortality of this home/tabernacle to be swallowed up in life?

Does that sound much like and is speaking of the same thing as: 1 Cor 15:53.54 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. -- The victory of life?
Also as Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.?

Is that the very same groaning that is taking place in 2 Cor 5:4?

Do these take place at the same moment in time; the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body./ In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality./For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so (οὕτως in this manner, thus, so) shall we ever be with the Lord.

Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

 

[Baptist Brother]

This shows even further the lack of understanding you have concerning Scripture. For your information, lol, Abraham himself was a Gentile. Secondly, the Good Samaritan could very well be consider among the just based on his actions, which kept the works of the Law written on his heart, whereas the Jews who passed the wounded man by did not.

You'll have to be talking face to face with God before you have more understanding than I have now. In what way is your declaration that Abraham was a gentile relevant? And, yes, the Good Samaritan represents a Christian virtue, so?

While Hell is used to speak of Hades, that does not negate that there is a concept of eternal judgment that we, in our traditional use of the English word Hell...distinguish from the concept of Hades, which is the equivalent of the Old Testament concept of Sheol.

Yes, so?

Because of a lackadaisical approach such as you have displayed, many have confused themselves and equated the meanings of various concepts in which they under-gird their cultish doctrine.

Your idea that Hades is temporary punishment might be thought of as cultish.

Two proper names given, which distinguishes it from the parables.

...and the point remains. There is no parable that uses proper names.

Maybe the parable of the ten virgins isn't a parable because I declare that having ten virgins distinguishes it from a parable. Parables don't have 10 virgins.

Believers did go to Hades, lol.

Even Jesus went to Hades when he died. At least the Bible says so.

But not anymore. I gave you numerous Scriptures and you have ignored every one of them,

None of the scripture you quoted supports you. I don't see how and you often don't even attempt didn't explain how.

I don't recall ever giving my own view of this, which is that I take the position that the Gates of Hell in view is a Jewish euphemism for death.

It is death that will not stop the function of the Church in this world.

Do you envision a set of gates chasing you? How would the Gates of Hell stop the function of the church, if somehow they could? Are you trying to get past the gates, into Hell?

I will give this one for discussion again:


2 Corinthians 5:5-8
King James Version (KJV)

5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.



God bless.

Per your typical abuse of the Bible, you quote verses without even attempting to give any explanation of how it supports you. If you're going to give it for discussion, then discuss it. You read, "to be absent from the body IS to be present with the Lord". But, what the verse says is "...to be absent from the [mortal] body, AND to be present with the Lord..." In your mind, you change the verse to make it support you. In reality, the verse doesn't equate being dead with being with God (as in the bosom of Abraham).

You shouldn't stop reading at v8. Read through v10, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." We are judged before receiving our punishment or reward. You believe we receive punishment or reward before we appear before the judgement seat of Christ. Elsewhere in the Bible, we ready that judgment is after the resurrection.

On every point where we disagree, the Bible agrees with me. You accomplish absolutely nothing by just spamming verses. Well, nothing except to show that you don't understand what you're quoting. For if you did understand, you would be spending your time explaining how the Bible supports you instead of laboring under the delusion that somehow you're actually presenting others with verses they haven't seen before.