Posted on 07/19/2008 8:36:59 AM PDT by DouglasKC
I had to look up "logorrhea". Yeah, it's wordy, but if you take the time to read it through in context with the rest of scripture you'll see that it's an educational, edifying and fascinating read.
Not a good explanation at all, you lack the Holy Spirit big time! The rich man was no priest, he was a rich man, Jesus was showing you the difference between a rich man and a poor man. He was trying to illustrate to you that there is a point in being rich to help the poor that are in need. But this rich man did not do this. And look at the fact how the rich man in hell even asked to let his brothers know about the torment he was in! Brother you need to read and pray to Jesus about having an increase in knowledge and wisdom!
I'm certainly glad that it's you making that determination and not my saviour Jesus Christ. :-)
The rich man was no priest, he was a rich man, Jesus was showing you the difference between a rich man and a poor man. He was trying to illustrate to you that there is a point in being rich to help the poor that are in need. But this rich man did not do this. And look at the fact how the rich man in hell even asked to let his brothers know about the torment he was in!
That certainly may be one aspect. But the parables of Christ are deeper than what they appear to be on the surface. That's what Christ meant in Matthew 13:10-16.
Brother you need to read and pray to Jesus about having an increase in knowledge and wisdom!
I certainly do! All who serve the living God need to do this daily. I would ask for your prayers in this regard.
Maybe this guy was a rich Democrat.
“Brother you need to read and pray to Jesus about having an increase in knowledge and wisdom!” ~ ibtheman
He’s involved in one of the Herbert W. Armstrong / Worldwide Church of God cult spin-off “churches” of which some of the ex-members keep track of here:
http://shadowsofwcg.blogspot.com/2008/07/biblical-debate-genesis-6.html
Let the reader pray for discernment when reading his posts.
That is a prideful statement of something you do not know.
The rich man was no priest, he was a rich man, Jesus was showing you the difference between a rich man and a poor man. He was trying to illustrate to you that there is a point in being rich to help the poor that are in need.
Certainly that is one meaning, but in parables there is a deeper meaning. You speak as though the parable of the sower was only about planting seed.
Solomon or Abraham were never described as 'rich man'. They were blessed and had great wealth. The 'rich' men in the Bible usually were men who loved money, and thus are sinners. I think the rich man/poor man is only the surface meaning though, and the author of this piece got the deeper meaning correct.
Agree with your second point, disagree with your first interpretation. Matthew was pretty well off, too.
Show me one place in the Bible were a righteous man was called a ‘rich man’. The only one maybe, was the man who buried Christ in his tomb, but I don’t think he was considered righteous. Every man called a ‘rich man’ was evil, but not all men who had riches were evil.
Actually as you well know I currently proudly fellowship with United Church of God
If anyone is interested in the link to Armstrong (who was dead and buried nearly 10 years before United began) you can look at a brief history of the church.
Also see Good News Magazine
Let the reader pray for discernment when reading his posts.
Thank you! I would ask that nobody accept what I say or what anyone says about scripture or doctrine without a prayer of discernment. See if it matches up against scripture and vigorously defend scripture if you see that it doesn't match up.
>> Those who insist that this is not a parable, but a true, literal story Christ told to describe the condition of the lost in hell must overlook several facts to arrive at that conclusion. First, Yeshua the Messiah never accuses the rich man of any sin. He is simply portrayed as a wealthy man who lived the good life. Furthermore, Lazarus is never proclaimed to be a righteous man. He is just one who had the misfortune to be poor and unable to care for himself. If this story is literal, then the logical implication is that all the rich are destined to burn in hell, while all the homeless and destitute will be saved. <<
Wow. I’m simply amazed at the presumptiveness of this article. While it doesn’t detail the sins of the rich man, he is told that Moses and the prophets would prevent his brothers from his torments, if they would but listen to them. Daily the rich man probably had to step over the poor man, since the bible tells us he laid at his gate, full of sores. The rich man never once aided the poor man in the slightest way: he wasn’t just rich, he was greedy and selfish, with no human compassion.
Further, the passages from Matthew 13 are from an entirely different context, including parables which don’t relate to morality in any obvious way. Because the meaning isn’t plain, we look to less apparent meanings. But the meaning of Luke 16 is plain: “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (v.13) That’s not a parable. That’s a direct statement.
Christians must be charitable. Conservatives realize that government-controlled appropriations of other people’s money isn’t charity; it’s control, so we oppose government programs which forcibly remove money from people to give to those who may well be poor because of their own sinful behavior.
There certainly are some worthwhile points: those who have spiritual wealth must also share their spiritual wealth, using it to uplift rather than oppress others, to enable godliness in the less fortunate. I’ll even say this: precisely because we have the benefit of the Eucharist and the teachings of the magisterium, it is so much more dire when Catholics neglect spiritual charity. BUt this is consistent with the evident meaning of the passage.
Jesus said, "There WAS a beggar....." He did not say, "Let me tell you of a parable of a beggar...".
Jesus spoke of an act of ABRAHAM. Certainly Abraham was a Bible character of HISTORY, not a parabolic character. He was a real person,..a person of renoun in Jewish and Christian history.
One departed this world unjustified and one departed justified. For some reason, perhaps the same reason we find in 2 Cor 12:1-4, Lazarrus was allowed to see across this great gulf fixed as was the rich man. Here Jesus was teaching the same thing as in Heb.9:27.
Jesus went on to say that the rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his 5 brothers. Here again, the fact that the 5 brothers have Moses and the Prophets, 'Let them hear them", is the similar teaching that was taught to the children of Israel as they wandered in the wilderness being fed by God with the miraculous events each day of providing manna and quail, yet as Moses ascended the mountain they built false Gods, thus proving that "miracles" (of quail/manna or sending back Lazarus) would not convince people of Gods' truths.
No, this is the story of real people and real events as reported by Jesus. Jesus taught many parables, but this is not one of them.
Did Jesus preface all his parables, 'let me tell you of a parable...'
It's entirely possible he was. But whatever it means it's not meant to teach what heaven and hell are like which is the whole point of the article.
Christians must be charitable. Conservatives realize that government-controlled appropriations of other people’s money isn’t charity; it’s control, so we oppose government programs which forcibly remove money from people to give to those who may well be poor because of their own sinful behavior.
Christians should certainly NOT be greedy or covetous and should be charitable and giving. But again the article is pointing out a deeper meaning. It's not meant to be taken as a literal view of heaven and hell but as a teaching tool or lesson for something else.
You have to remember that Jesus was talking to Pharisee's in the PARABLE (sorry) of Lazarus and the rich man.
Luk 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. Luk 16:15 And he said unto them,
And since the Pharisee's were NOT disciples, this applied to them:
Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
So Jesus revealed the mysteries of the kingdom of God in PARABLES to those who weren't his disciples. He wasn't telling them straight out "this is the way it is Pharisees'" because they weren't meant to see or understand.
And another thing... :-)
Luk 7:40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
Luk 7:41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
Luk 7:42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
Luk 7:43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
This isn't identified as a parable and it used "there was". Now do you think Jesus was trying to teach Peter about the intricacies of borrowing and lending or was he trying to teach Peter something else?
Thank you for posting. I think it presents a good insight that I have not heard before.
Actually, there is great debate as to whether Solomon was not condemned to hell. At the end of his reign, Solomon was worshiping and building temples to false gods and even permitting and encouraging the horrendous worship of some of the most vilest gods. One of these gods included Molech where people sacrificed their children to a slow flaming, torturous death, and was specifically forbidden by Moses. Because of Solomon's idolatry God rent the kingdom from him. Unlike most of the other kings in the Old Testament, the scriptures are silent when it comes to knowing whether Solomon "did good in the sight of the Lord" or "did evil in the sight of the Lord". Solomon might have been worldly wealthy and wise, but he was not spiritually wise.
This author is clearly wrong to try to minimize-or eliminate-the existence of hell. Scripture is very clear what will happen to the wicked. There is nothing in the Lazarus parable to suggest the rich man ever reconciled to God. If the rich man is suppose to represent the Jews, and this author suggests that the Jews will be reconciled, then this makes his analogy fall apart. I'd stick to the vast amounts of other consistent interpretation that this writer seems to reject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.