![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, a German Catholic nun who's constant visions concerning Judeo-Christian history (at least one of which, the location of the home of Mary the Mother of Jesus in Ephesus, has since been validated) were recorded by the German poet Clemens Brentano, states that the rich man and Lazarus were real people. The rich man was a Pharisee (though not living in Jerusalem), and his history, annoyance with the beggar Lazarus, and later terrible death were common knowledge to the Pharisees who were confronting Jesus, as well as to most Jewish people around Jerusalem at the time. The Pharisees were enraged because Jesus, in relating the rich man's eternal destination, was suggesting their own similar attitudes would lead to a similar fate. I think this is worthy of mention in the article, but since others may or may not, I'm mentioning it here. Here is a link with the pertinent text as written by Clemens Brentano. http://tandfspi.org/ACE_vol_03/ACE_3_0271_out.html#ACE_3_0000192
Incidentally I'm very impressed with the article gatekeepers' determination to resist giving undue weight to the Jesus Seminar. It's probably clear I'm a convert, but had a prior degree in history while an atheist and am in full agreement that their historical methods and any conclusions derived from them more than deserve the rejection they've received from the educated historical community. 172.10.237.153 ( talk) 06:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
There is evidence in the Bible for both a general judgment (the judgment of nations and of Judgment Day) and for particular judgment (judging the souls of the dead individually upon their mortal deaths). This debate has many branches. Only one of these is the subject of what happens to the soul awaiting general judgment. That breaks down into a limbo and a "sleep" argument, as well as some who even argue for a universalist reconciliation. Most Christian churches are a bit torn on the subject, as there is plenty of evidence for both the judgment of nations and cities and the whole world and for an individual reward or punishment, so it's not quite right to say that all churches but two are against the idea of the sleep or that this parable should be viewed primarily in that context. After all, when Jesus tells the good thief ( Dismas) that he will dine in heaven with Christ that very day, that would be much more compelling argumentatively, as there is no allegory involved. That's why I reverted the over-linking to soul sleep. The parable is part of the general argument about particular and general judgment, indeed, but that's just one use, and a very specialized one. Geogre 14:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, to me, that's Paul in his Stoic mode, trying to offer a proof, so I have some trouble with it altogether, as Paul frequently writes ex cathedra, as the Roman Catholic church would say, and frequently in personis, as just a guy trying to explain things, so I always have trouble with Paul in his proving mode, because that's where he most often mixes. (I'm not saying that I think it's a good proof or disproof of limbo, only that it requires more careful reading than the usual words.) The arguments for limbo are weak, I think, but they're not non-existent. I don't find them compelling, but, on the other hand, C. S. Lewis made a sort of interesting argument about purgatory that would apply to limbo, too. If the soul after death is alive, just as it is before, then it is living, moving, improving and remaining static. If God's presence is infinite, then there is such a thing as being farther and nearer to God's essence in heaven, and those far from the essence of God would be, inasmuch as they were in the divine presence and therefore unable to sin, constantly improving, constantly purifying, constantly moving toward God, and there is little functional difference between this movement and "purgatory." Similarly, would it not be possible to be pending judgment, be in the divine presence, and yet be not dispensed? If so, isn't that the same as limbo? Again, I'm an Anglican, so I don't embrace the concept of limbo at all, but it is a valid topic in scholasticism, and some neo-scholastics keep it alive, so I felt like saying, as I did above, that some churches still enunciate it. Geogre 15:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right, of course. It was sloppy writing on my part. Whether limbo is heaven or hell is.... Well, heaven is only for the redeemed, so it's hell, but it's hell in a way that isn't hellish. Yes, Anglicans do believe in the limbo of the fathers. All of the just who died before Christ were in limbo, by doctrine. Again, very bad wording on my part. (On an original research note, I have trouble with limbo being hell, as I understand hell to be "the absence of the presence of God." As God is the source of life, happiness, and love, to be cut off from God would mean to die, but, with an eternal soul, to be "perishing" eternally, and that's all the hell anyone would need. So, are the pious Jews cut off from the presence of God? Well, I can't see that, if we reject general judgment and the idea that all such were simply asleep. Then again, at least one Psalm suggests that God is with us even in the depths of Hell...which could be "with" in the sense of "aware and in control" or "with" in the sense of "I am there," but, if the latter.... You see where this is going, I'm sure. Where is Duns when you need him?) I appreciate the change in wording. Geogre 16:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, not me. I'm confused enough by the debate by itself to be far too timid to state, much less revert, unless out of slapdash writing. I can't even make up my mind on universalism (the reconciliation of the damned at the end), much less general vs. particular judgment, and that has got to be a factor of ten easier than figuring out where stands on the issue of limbo(s). I won't even do the limbo dance. Geogre 03:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
AnnH and Dr. Zak might like to notice what I just saw: General judgment redirects to Last judgment. This makes me at least slightly uneasy. Further, the target article is somewhat Christian in its outlook, although it has stuff from the Koran in it. I.e. it states that the "evidence" (that's the word used) comes from the apocalyptic books of the NT. All I ever find are OT references to it, with a few NT references. What I'm getting at is this, though: the "last judgment" as eschatology (the rapture and then armageddon/last judgment) is quite different from "all the dead await judgment to the end of the world and then are judged with the tribes of Israel," and it's especially different when we realize that in Christian thought, in particular, there are sort of two judgments -- a particular judgment for each soul and then a last judgment for those unlucky persons alive at the end. I only have one fair reference for the doctrine -- the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church -- but this may be a big Need. Geogre 03:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The KJV is not the best translation to use for WP quotes. Is there a good reason for me not to switch to the NIV, which seems to be in common use on WP? Jonathan Tweet 15:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
For that matter, the title of the page would be better as "Lazarus and the Rich Man." The use of "Dives" is secondary. Do you mind if I change it? Jonathan Tweet 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no move. Recommend creating redirects as discussed below. JPG-GR ( talk) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been a year now since the above converation, but no-one else joined in. I don't know how many people know Vaughan Williams, but a lot of people would know this story only fromt he Bible, and would never have heard of "Dives". Hence, the title needs to be changed. I'm happy to follow Jonathan's suggestion of Lazarus and the Rich Man. StAnselm ( talk) 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
But why on earth is it "Lazarus and Dives" here when it is normally always "Dives and Lazarus"? This is a very common subject in medieval art, and always referred to as "D & L" - Geogre is certainly wrong above. Johnbod ( talk) 04:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I know that the Jesus Seminar really makes people angry, but it represents a significant, current outlook in an understanding of things that Jesus might or might not have done and said. It's a minority view, but WP covers minority views all the time. Sure, it's a minority view, but it's a significant, current, well-documented, academic minority view. According to WP:Revert, you should try to work with a good faith edit, even if you disagree with it, and not just revert it. Jonathan Tweet 05:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Everybody hates the JS, and I don't blame you. Instead of labeling the section secular, we could label it historical. But "secular" means "worldly" and "temporal" (as opposed to eternal), and all these scholars, even the believers, analyze the gospels as being products of their world and their times. Look, if the JS is a load of bunk, please do us all a favor and go right now to thwe JS page and demonstrate that it's a load of bunk. If you think the JS is not worthy of inclusion in WP, then go to the JS page, click on "what links here," and see how many pages link to it. If there are very few, then apparently it's not notable. If there are lots, then apparently other editors think it's worth mentioning. In your list of scholars, you forgot Harris, the guy who wrote the best-selling nonsectarian guide to the Bible, used in colleges and universities across the States, in print for over 20 years. That's not an extremely limited minority view. It's the view that's accepted as the standard for nonsectarian education. Jonathan Tweet 14:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to discuss this point with the two of you. If I may summarize your points, they are these: 1. the JS is balderdash, not historical, not academic, etc. 2. the JS is viewpoint "is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" and thus referencing it violates Undue Weight.
My responses are these: 1. It doesn't matter how many people think it's balderdash, it's WP policy not to evaluate viewpoints but to describe them. There are all sorts of viewpoints that people think are balderdash. 2. It's routine to cite individual scholars, and that's not undue weight. If I can cite an individual scholar, then I can cite a group of scholars, and it's not undue weight. They might be Satan's dupes, but that's got nothing to do with undue weight. That's the balderdash argument, which is not germane.
You don't like the JS's conclusions so you want to keep reference to them off the page, that's POV and it's against policy.
If you actually want to discuss the issue, then let's first agree on the basics: 1. You have no authority to revert another editor's addition unless it violates policy. 2. The only policy violation you've cited is undue weight. 3. The issue before us is simply this: is the JS viewpoint "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." Everything about them being stupid is beside the point.
If we can't agree with what's at issue, then there's no point in discussing it and I might as well take it to the next level. In the mean time, I'll replace my addition with something that doesn't mention the JS. Jonathan Tweet 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
This sentenced was added to the article but deleted for potential policy violation: "The Jesus Seminar was divided over whether the main part of this story could be traced back to Jesus, though they overwhelmingly rejected its conclusion (referring to one rising from the dead) as a later elaboration." Does this sentence violate WP policy? Jonathan Tweet 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a hard case to make for someone to say that the JS's position on this merits no mention at all. Regardles of what people think of it methodology or conclusions, JS is highly notable group. It seems fine to mention their opinion on the subject. As to the concerns about giving JS too strong a voice-- the solution is not to delete mention of JS's opinion, but instead to include a more comprehensive discussion on whether the parable is actually a saying of Jesus. -- Alecmconroy 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ritchy, would you support an expanded reference that explains how the people on opposite sides argued their cases? I could have written more, but even a few lines gets labelled undue weight, so I try to keep it short. Jonathan Tweet 01:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
"My guru likes cheese" is not of any import to the cheese. Similarly, "Jesus Seminar doesn't think this goes to Jesus" is not a propos to a particular parable. Given the fact that Jesus Seminar doesn't think anything in the Gospels is reliably from Jesus Christ, and that such is well explained in the article there, it's not exactly remarkable that they don't think that the parable of Lazarus goes to the historical Christ. If this is going to be inserted everywhere that the confederation of non-scholars in that "Seminar" has an opinion, then it amounts of priviledging that group's point of view far above all other points of view. Before we get to the level of particular contemporary (and web-noisy) group, shouldn't we delineate every single mainstream church? Then shouldn't we get every major theologian before we get to a collection of persons without credentials? Inserting this here is undue weight to a very, very, very unreliable source and amounts to an ongoing effort at cross-promotion of that group. Wikipedia is not a battlefield: it is not to be used to "win" ongoing philosophical debates. Wikipedia is also not a venue for negotiating religious truth. A nice little historical article is not intended to increase the page rankings of the Jesus Seminar on Google. Geogre 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Clearly some find the Jesus Seminar important and interesting, but that does not mean the position of the Jesus Seminar should be included in every article that is by any stretch tangentially related. I see it has not yet found its way into Seminar, but it seems to be turning up in a number of our articles. [1] No doubt it belongs in some of them. Tom Harrison Talk 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe this article will benefit from a section of that covers scholarly analysis, and Jesus Seminar falls within such a subtopic. My opinion is to leave it in for now and start building an analysis section. As the section expands, perhaps the Jesus Seminar material will become less significant, but for now, I feel strongly that it should remain in the article. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for inviting me to contribute. My feeling is the JS gets more attention than it deserves, but it is ok to mention their views briefly with a link to their page, but other wiser scholars deserve mention too. Andycjp 01:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
(reduce indent) In the context of the situation, his comments were actually of no value to this discussion. Namely, his tone and getting the facts 180degrees opposite from reality. JPotter 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"Did Jesus really say it?" Hard to think of a more basic historical fact about this story. If we don't ask the JS for the historical opinion, whom do we ask? Maybe there's some work out there that I don't know about that offers current, historical opinions on each parable. If there is, we could use that, instead. Or we could use them both. Jonathan Tweet 01:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
"Did Jesus really say it?" Hard to think of a more basic fact about this story as portrayed by historians understanding the story as a historical artifact rather than as a holy or inerrant one. If we don't ask the JS for the opinion of educated people who analyze the gospels historically, whom do we ask? Maybe there's some historical work out there that I don't know about that offers current, historical-analysis opinions on each parable. If there is, we could use that, instead. Or we could use them both. Jonathan Tweet 02:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The medieval folk tune cited is a child ballad published in the 19th century. Do we have evidence that it's really medieval? If so, the Dives and Lazarus (ballad) page needs that information. The spiritual cited was arranged by a 20th century man. I'm guessing it goes back to the 19th century, maybe 18th? If so, it doesn't belong under "medieval tradition." Do we have evidence as to the spiritual's origin? Jonathan Tweet 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. The text says that the song's medieval, but the source given is a 19th century version. Most such child ballads only go back to the 16th or 17th centuries. What you're saying is that there was a medieval song, but the song cited in the footnote originated later for all you know. Jonathan Tweet 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've done up a little summary of the major points of view. There's definitely room for improvment-- I'm always amazed at how little of the scholarly debates on this stuff is available online. Ideally, I'd like to be able to link people directly to articles for every major viewpoints that directly try to "make the case" for each viewpoint.
As far as the RFC that started the whole thing-- I myself didn't see any reason why it was particularly important to drag the JS into it-- so long as we summarize all major viewpoints on the subject, I think we've covered it. -- Alecmconroy 15:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority do regard it as a parable, but the question is whose parable. You cannot portray "its a parable" and "made up by Luke" as entirely different opinions.
I do think it should at least reference the Jesus Seminar - we are supposed to attribute content, after all. Clinkophonist ( talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Neat, Tom. I am fascinated by the "divers gerdon hadden they therby." ge- is a participle marker, and so it's sort of "did through" or "differently did they thereby" but that "hadden" makes it something like "differently had doings they thereby." "Rewards" is wholly adequate, but Chaucer's "gerdon hadden" is quite rich. Geogre 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, probably ge-werdon. Guerdon would be quite different. All night (well, not really), I've been trying to remember who it was who did the study of the ge- particle as a participle marker. I remember why I learned of it, but I can't remember who it was -- Lindemann? Greenlaw? Anyway, it's just one of the toys in the attic. Geogre 10:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Tom Harrison Talk 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a bias against the idea that this a metaphor and not a parable. Phrases like "minority viewpoint" and "Most Christians consider that this is a parable" which aren't neutral are used. I did change parable to metaphor in a few places initially, however this was changed back so I was careful to make sure my language neutral but apparently that's not good enough. Personally, I've only heard of anyone trying to claim this was parable by those who don't believe in the doctrine of hell (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) and I question that this viewpoint is the majority. I've certainly never heard of anyone trying to justify the doctrine of Limbo with this or any scripture. Suffice it to say that using the word "some" in both cases making it clear in the beginning of the article both sides of the issue would be a fair resolution.-- 75.6.179.40 ( talk) 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
After finding no trace of any "O. Sellers" or the text cited, placed a citation needed in January: "O. Sellers citation needed holds this account as a satirical parable which represents a masterful expose of the Pharisees. Through satire, Jesus effectively strips the Pharisees of any pretense of righteousness and thoroughly discredits their justification for ignoring the poor in Israel. The thought here is that when examining Luke 16:19-31 in the light of history, we note a rather suspicious resemblance between Jesus’ story of The Rich Man and Lazarus, and the traditional teachings of the Pharisees. Sellers' concludes that Jesus was not setting out to confirm Pharisaic beliefs about Bosom of Abraham. [1] True, he told their story; the same story they had told a thousand times before, but with one important difference; a rather ironic twist you might say, that sees the Rich Man waking up in torment in Hades and being denied the slightest assistance by application of the same logic whereby he had regularly denied the poor and destitute while on earth. It would not take much imagination to visualize the headlines in the Jerusalem Gazette the morning after Jesus told His version of their story, humorously conveying how the Lord had turned the tables on the Pharisees in the afterlife." This section now deleted and replaced with sourced material and quotes by Luther, Lightfoot, Bullinger. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Despite the conclusion of the earlier proposal, since bots make renames and broken links fairly straightforward, it would make sense per Googlebooks hits to move this page to the most common reference, as follows:
In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Googlebooks is not the ultimate oracle, of course. The real test is what the MOST reliable books call it, e.g. please pick 7 books on Parables, then see what the majority say. I am not sure what the answer is. It may be the same anyway. History2007 ( talk) 04:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Coming back to this, I looked for (a) formal section headings in (b) books on parables (c) for adults (d) after 1950:
was surprised not to find even one t p o L a t r m as a section heading. So on that basis, am going to move the page to rich man and Lazarus and check redirects. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
So much irrelevant and poorly sourced and chaotic text has been dropped in here (even today) that a serious trim would be a good idea. This article needs a 50% rewrite probably. History2007 ( talk) 17:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Most of the previous lack of citation problems have been cleared, but I added some more CN tags where it is beyond my knowledge where to find a reference, especially concerning Christadelphian views. Anyone? Thanks. 172.163.76.28 ( talk) 16:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC) ...
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Meister des Codex Aureus Epternacensis 001.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |
I am proposing switching the template used on this page to be {{bibleref2}} instead of {{rsv|Book|Chapter|Startverse|Endverse}}
I am proposing this for three primary reasons
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 April 2012
Re this edit I have a fairly low tolerance for trivia in (primarily) Bible subject articles myself, so in principle I agree with this edit. But it would benefit from some note on talk page. This article isn't a topic than will accrue the level of video game/anime nonsense as something like Leviathan which has to have a WP:FORK to Leviathan in popular culture, and many similar articles, so how does the "lowbrow" end of reference to this topic get captured cleanly? In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rich man and Lazarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, a German Catholic nun who's constant visions concerning Judeo-Christian history (at least one of which, the location of the home of Mary the Mother of Jesus in Ephesus, has since been validated) were recorded by the German poet Clemens Brentano, states that the rich man and Lazarus were real people. The rich man was a Pharisee (though not living in Jerusalem), and his history, annoyance with the beggar Lazarus, and later terrible death were common knowledge to the Pharisees who were confronting Jesus, as well as to most Jewish people around Jerusalem at the time. The Pharisees were enraged because Jesus, in relating the rich man's eternal destination, was suggesting their own similar attitudes would lead to a similar fate. I think this is worthy of mention in the article, but since others may or may not, I'm mentioning it here. Here is a link with the pertinent text as written by Clemens Brentano. http://tandfspi.org/ACE_vol_03/ACE_3_0271_out.html#ACE_3_0000192
Incidentally I'm very impressed with the article gatekeepers' determination to resist giving undue weight to the Jesus Seminar. It's probably clear I'm a convert, but had a prior degree in history while an atheist and am in full agreement that their historical methods and any conclusions derived from them more than deserve the rejection they've received from the educated historical community. 172.10.237.153 ( talk) 06:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
There is evidence in the Bible for both a general judgment (the judgment of nations and of Judgment Day) and for particular judgment (judging the souls of the dead individually upon their mortal deaths). This debate has many branches. Only one of these is the subject of what happens to the soul awaiting general judgment. That breaks down into a limbo and a "sleep" argument, as well as some who even argue for a universalist reconciliation. Most Christian churches are a bit torn on the subject, as there is plenty of evidence for both the judgment of nations and cities and the whole world and for an individual reward or punishment, so it's not quite right to say that all churches but two are against the idea of the sleep or that this parable should be viewed primarily in that context. After all, when Jesus tells the good thief ( Dismas) that he will dine in heaven with Christ that very day, that would be much more compelling argumentatively, as there is no allegory involved. That's why I reverted the over-linking to soul sleep. The parable is part of the general argument about particular and general judgment, indeed, but that's just one use, and a very specialized one. Geogre 14:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, to me, that's Paul in his Stoic mode, trying to offer a proof, so I have some trouble with it altogether, as Paul frequently writes ex cathedra, as the Roman Catholic church would say, and frequently in personis, as just a guy trying to explain things, so I always have trouble with Paul in his proving mode, because that's where he most often mixes. (I'm not saying that I think it's a good proof or disproof of limbo, only that it requires more careful reading than the usual words.) The arguments for limbo are weak, I think, but they're not non-existent. I don't find them compelling, but, on the other hand, C. S. Lewis made a sort of interesting argument about purgatory that would apply to limbo, too. If the soul after death is alive, just as it is before, then it is living, moving, improving and remaining static. If God's presence is infinite, then there is such a thing as being farther and nearer to God's essence in heaven, and those far from the essence of God would be, inasmuch as they were in the divine presence and therefore unable to sin, constantly improving, constantly purifying, constantly moving toward God, and there is little functional difference between this movement and "purgatory." Similarly, would it not be possible to be pending judgment, be in the divine presence, and yet be not dispensed? If so, isn't that the same as limbo? Again, I'm an Anglican, so I don't embrace the concept of limbo at all, but it is a valid topic in scholasticism, and some neo-scholastics keep it alive, so I felt like saying, as I did above, that some churches still enunciate it. Geogre 15:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right, of course. It was sloppy writing on my part. Whether limbo is heaven or hell is.... Well, heaven is only for the redeemed, so it's hell, but it's hell in a way that isn't hellish. Yes, Anglicans do believe in the limbo of the fathers. All of the just who died before Christ were in limbo, by doctrine. Again, very bad wording on my part. (On an original research note, I have trouble with limbo being hell, as I understand hell to be "the absence of the presence of God." As God is the source of life, happiness, and love, to be cut off from God would mean to die, but, with an eternal soul, to be "perishing" eternally, and that's all the hell anyone would need. So, are the pious Jews cut off from the presence of God? Well, I can't see that, if we reject general judgment and the idea that all such were simply asleep. Then again, at least one Psalm suggests that God is with us even in the depths of Hell...which could be "with" in the sense of "aware and in control" or "with" in the sense of "I am there," but, if the latter.... You see where this is going, I'm sure. Where is Duns when you need him?) I appreciate the change in wording. Geogre 16:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, not me. I'm confused enough by the debate by itself to be far too timid to state, much less revert, unless out of slapdash writing. I can't even make up my mind on universalism (the reconciliation of the damned at the end), much less general vs. particular judgment, and that has got to be a factor of ten easier than figuring out where stands on the issue of limbo(s). I won't even do the limbo dance. Geogre 03:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
AnnH and Dr. Zak might like to notice what I just saw: General judgment redirects to Last judgment. This makes me at least slightly uneasy. Further, the target article is somewhat Christian in its outlook, although it has stuff from the Koran in it. I.e. it states that the "evidence" (that's the word used) comes from the apocalyptic books of the NT. All I ever find are OT references to it, with a few NT references. What I'm getting at is this, though: the "last judgment" as eschatology (the rapture and then armageddon/last judgment) is quite different from "all the dead await judgment to the end of the world and then are judged with the tribes of Israel," and it's especially different when we realize that in Christian thought, in particular, there are sort of two judgments -- a particular judgment for each soul and then a last judgment for those unlucky persons alive at the end. I only have one fair reference for the doctrine -- the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church -- but this may be a big Need. Geogre 03:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The KJV is not the best translation to use for WP quotes. Is there a good reason for me not to switch to the NIV, which seems to be in common use on WP? Jonathan Tweet 15:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
For that matter, the title of the page would be better as "Lazarus and the Rich Man." The use of "Dives" is secondary. Do you mind if I change it? Jonathan Tweet 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no move. Recommend creating redirects as discussed below. JPG-GR ( talk) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been a year now since the above converation, but no-one else joined in. I don't know how many people know Vaughan Williams, but a lot of people would know this story only fromt he Bible, and would never have heard of "Dives". Hence, the title needs to be changed. I'm happy to follow Jonathan's suggestion of Lazarus and the Rich Man. StAnselm ( talk) 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
But why on earth is it "Lazarus and Dives" here when it is normally always "Dives and Lazarus"? This is a very common subject in medieval art, and always referred to as "D & L" - Geogre is certainly wrong above. Johnbod ( talk) 04:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I know that the Jesus Seminar really makes people angry, but it represents a significant, current outlook in an understanding of things that Jesus might or might not have done and said. It's a minority view, but WP covers minority views all the time. Sure, it's a minority view, but it's a significant, current, well-documented, academic minority view. According to WP:Revert, you should try to work with a good faith edit, even if you disagree with it, and not just revert it. Jonathan Tweet 05:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Everybody hates the JS, and I don't blame you. Instead of labeling the section secular, we could label it historical. But "secular" means "worldly" and "temporal" (as opposed to eternal), and all these scholars, even the believers, analyze the gospels as being products of their world and their times. Look, if the JS is a load of bunk, please do us all a favor and go right now to thwe JS page and demonstrate that it's a load of bunk. If you think the JS is not worthy of inclusion in WP, then go to the JS page, click on "what links here," and see how many pages link to it. If there are very few, then apparently it's not notable. If there are lots, then apparently other editors think it's worth mentioning. In your list of scholars, you forgot Harris, the guy who wrote the best-selling nonsectarian guide to the Bible, used in colleges and universities across the States, in print for over 20 years. That's not an extremely limited minority view. It's the view that's accepted as the standard for nonsectarian education. Jonathan Tweet 14:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to discuss this point with the two of you. If I may summarize your points, they are these: 1. the JS is balderdash, not historical, not academic, etc. 2. the JS is viewpoint "is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" and thus referencing it violates Undue Weight.
My responses are these: 1. It doesn't matter how many people think it's balderdash, it's WP policy not to evaluate viewpoints but to describe them. There are all sorts of viewpoints that people think are balderdash. 2. It's routine to cite individual scholars, and that's not undue weight. If I can cite an individual scholar, then I can cite a group of scholars, and it's not undue weight. They might be Satan's dupes, but that's got nothing to do with undue weight. That's the balderdash argument, which is not germane.
You don't like the JS's conclusions so you want to keep reference to them off the page, that's POV and it's against policy.
If you actually want to discuss the issue, then let's first agree on the basics: 1. You have no authority to revert another editor's addition unless it violates policy. 2. The only policy violation you've cited is undue weight. 3. The issue before us is simply this: is the JS viewpoint "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." Everything about them being stupid is beside the point.
If we can't agree with what's at issue, then there's no point in discussing it and I might as well take it to the next level. In the mean time, I'll replace my addition with something that doesn't mention the JS. Jonathan Tweet 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
This sentenced was added to the article but deleted for potential policy violation: "The Jesus Seminar was divided over whether the main part of this story could be traced back to Jesus, though they overwhelmingly rejected its conclusion (referring to one rising from the dead) as a later elaboration." Does this sentence violate WP policy? Jonathan Tweet 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a hard case to make for someone to say that the JS's position on this merits no mention at all. Regardles of what people think of it methodology or conclusions, JS is highly notable group. It seems fine to mention their opinion on the subject. As to the concerns about giving JS too strong a voice-- the solution is not to delete mention of JS's opinion, but instead to include a more comprehensive discussion on whether the parable is actually a saying of Jesus. -- Alecmconroy 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ritchy, would you support an expanded reference that explains how the people on opposite sides argued their cases? I could have written more, but even a few lines gets labelled undue weight, so I try to keep it short. Jonathan Tweet 01:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
"My guru likes cheese" is not of any import to the cheese. Similarly, "Jesus Seminar doesn't think this goes to Jesus" is not a propos to a particular parable. Given the fact that Jesus Seminar doesn't think anything in the Gospels is reliably from Jesus Christ, and that such is well explained in the article there, it's not exactly remarkable that they don't think that the parable of Lazarus goes to the historical Christ. If this is going to be inserted everywhere that the confederation of non-scholars in that "Seminar" has an opinion, then it amounts of priviledging that group's point of view far above all other points of view. Before we get to the level of particular contemporary (and web-noisy) group, shouldn't we delineate every single mainstream church? Then shouldn't we get every major theologian before we get to a collection of persons without credentials? Inserting this here is undue weight to a very, very, very unreliable source and amounts to an ongoing effort at cross-promotion of that group. Wikipedia is not a battlefield: it is not to be used to "win" ongoing philosophical debates. Wikipedia is also not a venue for negotiating religious truth. A nice little historical article is not intended to increase the page rankings of the Jesus Seminar on Google. Geogre 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Clearly some find the Jesus Seminar important and interesting, but that does not mean the position of the Jesus Seminar should be included in every article that is by any stretch tangentially related. I see it has not yet found its way into Seminar, but it seems to be turning up in a number of our articles. [1] No doubt it belongs in some of them. Tom Harrison Talk 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe this article will benefit from a section of that covers scholarly analysis, and Jesus Seminar falls within such a subtopic. My opinion is to leave it in for now and start building an analysis section. As the section expands, perhaps the Jesus Seminar material will become less significant, but for now, I feel strongly that it should remain in the article. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for inviting me to contribute. My feeling is the JS gets more attention than it deserves, but it is ok to mention their views briefly with a link to their page, but other wiser scholars deserve mention too. Andycjp 01:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
(reduce indent) In the context of the situation, his comments were actually of no value to this discussion. Namely, his tone and getting the facts 180degrees opposite from reality. JPotter 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"Did Jesus really say it?" Hard to think of a more basic historical fact about this story. If we don't ask the JS for the historical opinion, whom do we ask? Maybe there's some work out there that I don't know about that offers current, historical opinions on each parable. If there is, we could use that, instead. Or we could use them both. Jonathan Tweet 01:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
"Did Jesus really say it?" Hard to think of a more basic fact about this story as portrayed by historians understanding the story as a historical artifact rather than as a holy or inerrant one. If we don't ask the JS for the opinion of educated people who analyze the gospels historically, whom do we ask? Maybe there's some historical work out there that I don't know about that offers current, historical-analysis opinions on each parable. If there is, we could use that, instead. Or we could use them both. Jonathan Tweet 02:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The medieval folk tune cited is a child ballad published in the 19th century. Do we have evidence that it's really medieval? If so, the Dives and Lazarus (ballad) page needs that information. The spiritual cited was arranged by a 20th century man. I'm guessing it goes back to the 19th century, maybe 18th? If so, it doesn't belong under "medieval tradition." Do we have evidence as to the spiritual's origin? Jonathan Tweet 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. The text says that the song's medieval, but the source given is a 19th century version. Most such child ballads only go back to the 16th or 17th centuries. What you're saying is that there was a medieval song, but the song cited in the footnote originated later for all you know. Jonathan Tweet 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've done up a little summary of the major points of view. There's definitely room for improvment-- I'm always amazed at how little of the scholarly debates on this stuff is available online. Ideally, I'd like to be able to link people directly to articles for every major viewpoints that directly try to "make the case" for each viewpoint.
As far as the RFC that started the whole thing-- I myself didn't see any reason why it was particularly important to drag the JS into it-- so long as we summarize all major viewpoints on the subject, I think we've covered it. -- Alecmconroy 15:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority do regard it as a parable, but the question is whose parable. You cannot portray "its a parable" and "made up by Luke" as entirely different opinions.
I do think it should at least reference the Jesus Seminar - we are supposed to attribute content, after all. Clinkophonist ( talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Neat, Tom. I am fascinated by the "divers gerdon hadden they therby." ge- is a participle marker, and so it's sort of "did through" or "differently did they thereby" but that "hadden" makes it something like "differently had doings they thereby." "Rewards" is wholly adequate, but Chaucer's "gerdon hadden" is quite rich. Geogre 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, probably ge-werdon. Guerdon would be quite different. All night (well, not really), I've been trying to remember who it was who did the study of the ge- particle as a participle marker. I remember why I learned of it, but I can't remember who it was -- Lindemann? Greenlaw? Anyway, it's just one of the toys in the attic. Geogre 10:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Tom Harrison Talk 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a bias against the idea that this a metaphor and not a parable. Phrases like "minority viewpoint" and "Most Christians consider that this is a parable" which aren't neutral are used. I did change parable to metaphor in a few places initially, however this was changed back so I was careful to make sure my language neutral but apparently that's not good enough. Personally, I've only heard of anyone trying to claim this was parable by those who don't believe in the doctrine of hell (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) and I question that this viewpoint is the majority. I've certainly never heard of anyone trying to justify the doctrine of Limbo with this or any scripture. Suffice it to say that using the word "some" in both cases making it clear in the beginning of the article both sides of the issue would be a fair resolution.-- 75.6.179.40 ( talk) 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
After finding no trace of any "O. Sellers" or the text cited, placed a citation needed in January: "O. Sellers citation needed holds this account as a satirical parable which represents a masterful expose of the Pharisees. Through satire, Jesus effectively strips the Pharisees of any pretense of righteousness and thoroughly discredits their justification for ignoring the poor in Israel. The thought here is that when examining Luke 16:19-31 in the light of history, we note a rather suspicious resemblance between Jesus’ story of The Rich Man and Lazarus, and the traditional teachings of the Pharisees. Sellers' concludes that Jesus was not setting out to confirm Pharisaic beliefs about Bosom of Abraham. [1] True, he told their story; the same story they had told a thousand times before, but with one important difference; a rather ironic twist you might say, that sees the Rich Man waking up in torment in Hades and being denied the slightest assistance by application of the same logic whereby he had regularly denied the poor and destitute while on earth. It would not take much imagination to visualize the headlines in the Jerusalem Gazette the morning after Jesus told His version of their story, humorously conveying how the Lord had turned the tables on the Pharisees in the afterlife." This section now deleted and replaced with sourced material and quotes by Luther, Lightfoot, Bullinger. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Despite the conclusion of the earlier proposal, since bots make renames and broken links fairly straightforward, it would make sense per Googlebooks hits to move this page to the most common reference, as follows:
In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Googlebooks is not the ultimate oracle, of course. The real test is what the MOST reliable books call it, e.g. please pick 7 books on Parables, then see what the majority say. I am not sure what the answer is. It may be the same anyway. History2007 ( talk) 04:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Coming back to this, I looked for (a) formal section headings in (b) books on parables (c) for adults (d) after 1950:
was surprised not to find even one t p o L a t r m as a section heading. So on that basis, am going to move the page to rich man and Lazarus and check redirects. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
So much irrelevant and poorly sourced and chaotic text has been dropped in here (even today) that a serious trim would be a good idea. This article needs a 50% rewrite probably. History2007 ( talk) 17:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Most of the previous lack of citation problems have been cleared, but I added some more CN tags where it is beyond my knowledge where to find a reference, especially concerning Christadelphian views. Anyone? Thanks. 172.163.76.28 ( talk) 16:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC) ...
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Meister des Codex Aureus Epternacensis 001.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |
I am proposing switching the template used on this page to be {{bibleref2}} instead of {{rsv|Book|Chapter|Startverse|Endverse}}
I am proposing this for three primary reasons
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 April 2012
Re this edit I have a fairly low tolerance for trivia in (primarily) Bible subject articles myself, so in principle I agree with this edit. But it would benefit from some note on talk page. This article isn't a topic than will accrue the level of video game/anime nonsense as something like Leviathan which has to have a WP:FORK to Leviathan in popular culture, and many similar articles, so how does the "lowbrow" end of reference to this topic get captured cleanly? In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rich man and Lazarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |