Rembrandt van Rijn, 1627
Jesus said, “There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed in purple and fine linen and who lived each day in luxury. At his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus who was covered with sores. As Lazarus lay there longing for scraps from the rich man’s table, the dogs would come and lick his open sores.
“Finally, the poor man died and was carried by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and his soul went to the place of the dead. There, in torment, he saw Abraham in the far distance with Lazarus at his side.
“The rich man shouted, ‘Father Abraham, have some pity! Send Lazarus over here to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue. I am in anguish in these flames.’
“But Abraham said to him, ‘Son, remember that during your lifetime you had everything you wanted, and Lazarus had nothing. So now he is here being comforted, and you are in anguish. And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. No one can cross over to you from here, and no one can cross over to us from there.’
“Then the rich man said, ‘Please, Father Abraham, at least send him to my father’s home. For I have five brothers, and I want him to warn them so they don’t end up in this place of torment.’
“But Abraham said, ‘Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers can read what they wrote.’
“The rich man replied, ‘No, Father Abraham! But if someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will repent of their sins and turn to God.’
“But Abraham said, ‘If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Categories: Art
Blogging Theology 
Amazing. If Jesus really said those words it means
– People can be saved without the death and resurrection of Christ
– Jesus and Abraham said you can be saved by following God’s commandments
– Jesus and Abraham agree that following God’s commandments is more valuable than believing in a resurrected person
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
The Parable of the Rich Man is attested to do very little with eschatology, and more-so to do with addressing the Pharisees (cf. Luke 16:14-18, and compare that to Luke 16:19-21). In fact, the Parable of the Rich Man is considered as a Jewish/Egyptian mythology, used as a parallel/new construct that may be a form of mimicry (cf. Richard Bauckham’s ‘The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and the Parallels’).
Also, I think my comment was deleted? 😦
LikeLike
a fake story – a lie?
LikeLike
No, a parable. I’m not even sure as to what’s meant by a “fake” story? A story is a story, usually intended to portray a particular narrative. Using this story was meant as a way of addressing the Pharisees’ hypocrisy: this is evident in the context of Luke 16.
LikeLike
Zozo do you believe in God and an afterlife? Does this story of Jesus help you to reflect on these things?
LikeLike
To an individual who has no knowledge of exegesis, then this story MAY come off as a story on the afterlife (but that in itself is difficult to even conclude, considering the entire purpose of Lk. 16 is about the nature of the Pharisees). But no, this story has very little to do with eschatology (it does demonstrate a work-based form of salvation, which is consistent with the Gospels — so one can assume that), but the nature of the rest of the content (in regard to what occurs in She’ol, etc,.) is merely a retelling of mythology that the Pharisee understood.
Do I believe in God: may be? I don’t know. If there were to be one, then I think the Incarnation is the most telling/reflective of who this God may be.
Do I believe in the afterlife: not too sure. But if it were to exist, then it would be in the frames of Orthodoxy, a form of theosis.
LikeLike
Aren’t you the guy who loves eastern orthodox liturgy and to prostrate in church?
LikeLike
I continue to prostrate. And yes, Orthodox chants are all what I listen to.
Check out http://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChants/, and listen to some of the chants. You might enjoy a few.
LikeLike
What do you prostrate to – a maybe?
LikeLike
“and how do you propose to do that?”
As I said, I’ve already come to terms with it. There was no definitive change required.
LikeLike
I prostrate, and as I do, I reflect on the words of Christ. That is all. There isn’t much I can do about my lack of faith. It goes back and forth. But at least I try and be consistent in the morality that is associated with Christianity.
And if there is a God, I hope He can find it in His heart to forgive me for this lack of faith.
Regardless, I’m not aware of anyone who is 100% of their faith. And if there is such an individual, then I’m afraid to say — and to generalise — that much more thinking and reading is required on their part.
LikeLike
do you think Jesus was agnostic like you?
LikeLike
“But at least I try and be consistent in the morality that is associated with Christianity.”
Consistent with your opinion about Christian morality, consistent with your subjective interpretation of subjective opinions expressed in long gone historical contexts
LikeLike
“Consistent with your opinion about Christian morality, consistent with your subjective interpretation of subjective opinions expressed in long gone historical contexts”
I don’t think you know what the term “subjective” means. If that was the case, then you would realise that by me applying higher/Biblical criticism to understanding what the intentions of the original authors is an objective attempt to realising scripture.
LikeLike
it is impossible to be truely ‘objective’ in exegesis of the Bible. Humans are not neutral.
LikeLike
“it is impossible to be truely ‘objective’ in exegesis of the Bible. Humans are not neutral.”
Which is why I carefully said “objective attempt”, an attempt. I didn’t say it wasn’t subjective, but my process is determining what may have originally intended through exegesis – which ATTEMPTS to derive meaning through an objective and analytical manner, or rather, as objective as it can get.
Secondly, this is applicable to all scripture, including the Qur’an. Without understanding the nuances of the surrounding culture, or the intended audience, then different — and mostly faulty — interpretations can arise. The meaning can extend further than this, and can imply a sense of universality, but the narrative is dictated in such a manner that it is better understood through the lens of the original audience (cf. Verbal Idioms of the Quran by Mustansir Mir).
I personally believe that all interpretations are corrupt, and none of them are completely and entirely true, but some may be closer to this truth (cf. Q3:7, “And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah”).
LikeLike
I appreciate your views Zozo, I’m quite similar.
You don’t need to prove yourself to the people here anyway.
God bless
LikeLike
Zozo why are you unsure about the existence of your Creator?
LikeLike
What’s there to be sure about?
Although I’m inherently sceptical, I mostly don’t doubt the existence of an imperfect Creator. But I most certainly doubt the existence of a “perfect” entity. This world is a broken mess, a mere reflection of its supposed creator.
LikeLike
The Orthodox Church believes God is perfect
LikeLike
“The Orthodox Church believes God is perfect”
Being Ortho-curious does not mean I have the complete set of orthodox beliefs. This is something I have come to terms with.
LikeLike
and how do you propose to do that?
LikeLike
God himself using a parable contradicting the core beliefs of “orthodox” gentile Christianity that was going to come?
LikeLike
Once again, the focus of the story is on the Pharisees and not on salvation. Read the entire chapter.
The intention was to use their story, their mythology, and to place the Pharisees in their own narrative. I’m curious as to what the core beliefs of “orthodox” gentile Christianity are in regard to salvation? There are 3 particular camps: eternal concious torment (as expounded in the Qur’an), universalism, and annihilationism. Modern scholars would affirm that annihilationism/universalism being backed with the most Biblical support, but I believe that quasi-universalism may also be supported.
And your pugnaciousness is telling, particularly when the answer you’re looking for is in the article, and (B) it’s an incoherent proposition, since stories are told to demonstrate a particular reality. That’s the entire purpose of a parable.
As St. Isaac of Nineveh beautifully put it: “A zealous man never achieves peace of mind”. Your impassioned rhetoric does little to your cause, and your assertions bare little merit since they’re emotional responses instead of rational propositions.
LikeLike
Your adhominems won’t help. “since stories are told to demonstrate a particular reality.” OK then, we read the Bible then as mere opinions in particular historical contexts
LikeLike
It was not an ad hominem. I do apologise if it came across as such.
Of course. All scripture must be read within their historical contexts, otherwise the nuances of that time will be left to dry, and you’re left with scripture that could be telling of something completely different.
LikeLike
“I’m curious as to what the core beliefs of “orthodox” gentile Christianity are in regard to salvation?”
– People can not be saved without the death and resurrection of Christ
– Jesus says you cannot be saved by following God’s commandments
– Jesus and Abraham agree that believing in a resurrected person is more valuable than following God’s commandments
The opposite of what the parable presented by God almighty himself is saying
LikeLike
There’s a discrepancy between “orthodox” classical beliefs, and traditional beliefs (what’s now, and unfortunately, taken root). I wholeheartedly reject the Reformation. Calvinism, alongside its Protestant denominational sisters, introduced a new theology far-removed from the realities of the Gospels. Their fixation on the redemptive form of atonement is classically unorthodox, as Wallace and Rusk would indicate in ‘Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation’ that the early Christians were not too concerned with varying redemptive theories, but adhered to, and exclusively, to the moral-transformation instigated by it (if you wish to see the writings of a proponent of the moral-example theory, then read St. Isaac of Nineveh’s work). In other words, the moral-example indicated within the Gospels which led to the Crucifixion, are all events that reflect a sense of morality… and it is this that’s considered as a form of salvation. Now they know what God’s commandments are, and as interpreted by their new Moses, Jesus Christ, they can do what is expected as a Christian to be considered for an immediate positive eschatological outcome. Matthew 19:16-30 summarises the Gospels in their entirety, and Christ’s approach to what the commandments are is as follows “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12).
The Parable of the Rich Man does not create eschatological theology because that is not what it is intended for. However, I would agree with you otherwise on most points — I would also add that it is not a necessity to believe in a God to be saved, but this is the quasi-universalism I discussed earlier (I keep on referencing this research book, but I genuinely suggest picking up ‘The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis’).
LikeLike
“Calvinism, alongside its Protestant denominational sisters, introduced a new theology far-removed from the realities of the Gospels.”
I think introduction of a new theology far removed from the historical Jesus started much much earlier based on teachings like Paul of Tarsus.
“I would also add that it is not a necessity to believe in a God to be saved,” I don’t agree. Jesus says the first commandment is to love God, and in order to be saved you have to follow the commandments.
LikeLike
Excellent post. I did not read or knew about this when defending the followers of Moses and all the prophets because my friend Ken Temple has condemned all of them to hell by saying it is only believing “Jesus died for your sins” alone will send you to heaven and the followers of Moses and all the prophets and babies and people in the Amazon forest do not know who the heck Jesus is.
But Ken Temple said, man is saved only when that man believed Jesus died for his sins. I do not know whether Ken Temple did not read the above in the Bible or he(Ken Temple) is just lying and not telling the truth, in order to convert Muslims.
I keep telling my friend Ken that, the people of Moses time who are his(followers) and the followers of all prophets will go to heaven and be saved based on the message from God at that time.
We knew Moses brought ten commandments to his people and some believed the ten commandment and worked with it. The ten commandment is the important commandment and “Jesus will die for your sins” is completely missing from the ten commandment.
Will the followers of Moses go to hell Mr. Ken? The God of Moses and all the prophets in the Bible is the God of Muslims and He saves without the blood of Jesus Christ, but by faith and Good Deeds.
Thanks
LikeLike
I’m not sure why Ken is claiming that the followers of Moses will receive a negative eschatological outcome. I mean, even Paul would suggest the complete opposite. Read Romans 9-11, especially Romans 11:26.
LikeLike
Zozo do you believe in God and an afterlife? Does this story of Jesus help you to reflect on these things?
LikeLike