How Can This Be?
 

The rich man and Lazarus both die, and both go to Paradise. While it seems easy to understand how the day of Lazarus' death might be better than the day of his birth, how can this be true for the rich man?
A clue is that, obviously, we make assumptions about the rich mans state that are not true.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

how can what be true for the rich man?

Re: How Can This Be?
 

That the day of his death was better than the day of his birth. Ecclesiastes 7:1.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

I don't see in Luke 16 that either of them went to Paradise. Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom and the rich man went to hell, and was tormented in flames. Begged for a drop of water to cool his tongue. So, what assumptions do we make that aren't true?

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Lol, ok, you're going to make me read Luke here, and adjust--ok, you'll please allow me some latitude for a minute, as the lesson of the rich man and Lazarus is different than what I am saying, number 1; the rich man is here "in hell," which can't tally very well with the definition of hell in Revelation, and now has me wondering if I should find a better example for my illustration, but maybe not. We'll give this a shot, but I'll tell you that this is coming from me, and can prolly be shot with holes; it's like something I see, but incompletely, ok? But the point here is that the rich man is in "torment" the same way someone on earth thinks they are rich but they are ignorant, blind, and naked. the rich man is "thirsty," which we naturally assume some water would satisfy, but of course he is dead, and has no mouth, or tongue to put a drop of water on. He is thirsty for knowledge. The sense in which there is no change in his state, from his life on earth to the point when he's asking for a drop of water to put on his non-existent tongue, is the sense I'm trying to get at. And yes, I am able to read the same description as you are, it is also true, but it leads to a literal understanding only, which works well enough for the stated lesson in the parable.
The day of the rich mans death was better than the day of his birth, and if you asked him, there with his "tongue" hanging out, if he would like to return to earth even if he could not warn his brothers, or even ever see them again, he would decline! Yikes, I can hear the howls now, how is it I can see this so clearly, but can't seem to clarify it? Lol, whenever you bump up against a "well, but I thought this was true..." trust that there is the sense in which both are surely true, but there has been a perspective shift that the reader must consciously participate in.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

I don't think that's fair, so to avoid confusion, I'd like to illustrate "lack of understanding" a bit, which it is often the proxy for confusion when a contradiction is perceived:

"The day of a man's death is better than the day of his birth."

Lazarus and the rich man both die, and go wherever you think that they went-one to eternal bliss, and the other to unspeakable, gasping horror. While it may be easy for us to understand how the day of Lazarus' death might be deemed better than the day of his birth, how can we reconcile this Scripture to the..."fate" of the rich man?

Just to eliminate any confusion.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

:didimiss

....umm...say again?

Re: How Can This Be?
 

huh?

Re: How Can This Be?
 

where is Riverslivnwtr when you need him, he would clear this all up I'm thinkin . . .

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Oprah would OWN this!

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Lol. How could the day of the rich man's death be better than the day of his birth, if we see that he is thirsty and "in hell" in even the...lamer translations? How can both be true?

Re: How Can This Be?
 

I'd say they can't.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Ha, and yet they are. It was extremely clear last night, and now it has faded into near obscurity, but something about our perception of the rich man's state is obviously wrong here--one or the other can only seem to be true. The translation here is generally horrible, imo, first off, please see here http://bible.cc/luke/16-23.htm for multiple translations to get a better sense. And then see that God's idea of torment is not that image in your mind. It is presented that way to provoke the idea of torture, but see how your 16 year old daughter can torture you (is the first thing that pops to mind). And also, this verse has the rich man in a "final state," imo, jumping him right to damnation for purposes of making the main point.
The rich man thirsted for knowledge, just like before he died; there is a sense in which his state did not change, spiritually, and this passage seems to take liberties in sending him to hell both for the reason that hell would not seem to exist yet, according to Revelation, and "no one knows where we go when we die," so some latitude should, I think, be allowed due to the fact that this passage is actually presenting a different lesson, trying to make a different point. However, this does not mean that we cannot connect the three verses, but that some change in premise must occur. I believe the "torture" the rich man suffered was lack of knowledge, the torture a kid might endure having to watch all the rides he can't go on, if you will, because of lack of knowledge. Pardon the redundancy.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Every translation of v 25 mentions begging for a tiny bit of water, torment or agony or anguish or suffering, in fire or flame. But fine. The day he entered this situation was greater than the day of his birth, I'm sure he would agree.

:blink

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Ya'll be confused.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Um, yes, he would not return to his old life if he could, is my pretty firm belief. "The day of my death was better than the day of my birth" would issue from his mouth, verifying Scripture. But the reason becomes vastly obscured in this example, I'm afraid, due to the assumed finality of his position here, which I have a weird feeling isn't true, although this would seem to have to make general reincarnation true? Don't know if I could go there, although we have refs for it...

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Ah, well understand I didn't mean to present this as gospel. i still felt it was worth the risk for purposes of edification, and I don't doubt some reflection of truth in this; I've even read, in my ref above, some translations that lend themselves much better to this, but I've given you the gist. My story has a spirit that can be interrogated : )

Re: How Can This Be?
 

:didimiss

Re: How Can This Be?
 

mmkay

Re: How Can This Be?
 

The passage is speaking of the final assessment of their one's lifetime at death. The Message says it best....

Ecc 7:1 A good reputation is better than a fat bank account. Your death date tells more than your birth date.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

I think that the context of Ecclesiastes 7:1 is referring to the death of a righteous individual; not that the same could be said of everyone, for it is obvious that such is not the case for the "rich man" whom Jesus clearly portrayed as an unrighteous man.

I also believe that Jesus' telling of the events surrounding the fate of the unnamed rich man and a certain beggar named Lazarus, should not be construed as a depiction of a historical event but was, in fact, a parable which evidences the eventual fate of the righteous as opposed to the unrighteous. Jesus never spake openly to anyone except His chosen disciples; and seeing that in this discourse He was conversing with the Pharisees, then how could it be interpreted otherwise?

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Now that makes sense! ;)

Re: How Can This Be?
 

You mean, Jesus's point was that the righteous will be comfortable when they die, and not that the unrighteous will not be? And you glean this from recognizing that He was talking to Pharisees? :blink

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Timmy, the words of Luke 16:14, as well as the opening portion of verse #15, explicitly advises us to whom Jesus was conversing - the Pharisees.

Jesus' parable here was foretelling of the circumstances which both the righteous as well as the unrighteous can expect to experience following the coming resurrection and judgment.... NOT that this is the condition of those who have and will die until these two future events occur.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Good thoughts, Lafon. Jesus was testifying against the Pharisees. They did not believe the law and the prophets concerning Christ, and they were not going to believe in Jesus after His ressurrection.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Oh. I misread your post, sorry.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Yup, sounds right; I see the actual message of the parable clearly enough.
I mainly embarked on this to expose our premises, our assumptions, here, and don't want my analogy to be taken too far; but wish to highlight that a human adult with children, at least, will experience forms of "torture" for which a quick dip in a "lake of fire" as a solution would be a...blessing? Lol, might be perceived as one, anyway...

Re: How Can This Be?
 

:toofunny

Re: How Can This Be?
 

:nod I understand, being the parent of 3 girls & 2 boys I have, at times, been compelled to endure their "torture" which, at the moment, I might have preferred a quick dip in a "lake of fire" instead (albeit, not really, but when confronted with such that certainly might have been considered as a possible alternative). However, having said that, just as Paul advised Timothy, it is IN THIS LIFE that we can expect persecution....

2 Timothy 3:12
"Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Thanks for adding more confusion.:foottap

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Then none of your assumptions have yet been altered, and I have not edified you.

To Lafon, amen. See that in this parable of the afterlife, we take from it the unspeakable horror of "burning," that God our Father might stick a match under various parts of your...your what? body? See the fire as a metaphor for what GOD cares about, that you will be burning and thirsty for lack of knowledge, which might sound like a reprieve of some sort to a human, but
is actually more painful, fire is not really even a strong enough metaphor, in a sense, lol.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Why do you say "righteous, unrighteous?" Note neither one of these men has been represented to you as saved or lost...a clue to the poor translation...

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being, become, look, seem, and appear...and your five senses?

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Lafon used those words. Man, you must have trouble keeping straight who to agree with and disagree with! :lol

Re: How Can This Be?
 

I am sorry; I see I'm maybe behind here, I'll try to catch up tonite.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Ah, I haven't read that yet, lol. I'll get caught up here tonite, and I'd like to address that later, if you like, as it is central to the point here in a way. There is the literal truth, and then there is the truth, which is what generates all the seeming "contradictions."

However, I came here because I couldn't find "HMH," another strange idea, and persecution not of the bamboo-under-fingernails variety, but the kind we give/receive every day; I would like to submit that Tongues, Serpent Seed, HMH, or any weird insight I or you might post, often contains a grain of truth that has been purposely confused because it contains a grain of truth that satan wishes to remain obscured, and that if you just go back to the beginning of the story (hey, just like the Bible, you have to go to the MSS...), the bit of truth will often become more apparent; and interrogate the spirit, if needed, rather than toss baby with bathwater, as satan hopes. The path to illumination, walking on water, etc. has to be accomplished with God's sense, which we can only grope for, and will sound like nonsense to you.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

well, if you already understand how the day of the rich man's death could be better than his birth, you have missed nothing.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

ha, or maybe i misunderstood your laughter, as I was on the run, lol.

Re: How Can This Be?
 

Ah, we are trying to translate the experience of the last into the language of the first here, and I am trying to illuminate that people hear "stay here for the present" in different ways...