Examining Lazurus and the rich man

[LaCrum]

16"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

18"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Jesus was affirming the validity of the law, when it is rightfully interpreted, to the Pharisees. He's telling them how it ought to be understood. Hence why the Sermon on the Mount which speaks of divorce as well is essentially speaking of observing the spirit of the law.

The reason why the marriage example is used is because the Pharisees were allowing people to divorce on the most trivial grounds.

Jesus is saying the law is inerrant, but only if followed properly, such as the example he gives with marriage. This also makes sense that he was saying this to the Pharisees because they prided themselves on following God's law to the letter, when in reality they weren't following the spirit of the law. This exchange reminds me also of Matthew 15 when he rails into the Pharisees regarding their interpretation of the Mosaic laws.

 

[handy]

What I don't agree with is that spiritual infidelity always means following after pagan beliefs.

Great! Show me where it means something else.

James 4:1-4 “What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source of your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. And you are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.
You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God?

Here, James is equating worldly Christians with spiritual infidelity. Back to this one later.

Colossians 3:5 “Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry."

Idolatry is spiritual infidelity and in the list Paul provides greed is what amounts to idolatry, not “pagan beliefsâ€.

In this case, spiritual infidelity can be placing the love of money above the love of God.

That's called coveting. I'll tell you what, if you can show me one other place in the Bible where the love of money is equated with adultery/harlotry I'd consider it. Get to digging cause you won't find it.

Well, I didn't find one place where coveting is equated with adultery/harlotry/spiritual infidelity, I found three.

Going back to James 4:1-4, “you lust and do not haveâ€... “you are envious and cannot obtainâ€... sounds like coveting to me, coveting that spurs James to call these Christians adulteresses.

1 Timothy 6:9-10 “But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang.

...some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith...spiritual infidelity.

Ephesians 5:5 "For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

...or covetous man, who is an idolater...

I most likely could dig up some more, but it's after 1:00 am and I've a long day tomorrow. We're having family and friends over to bring in the New Year. I may or may not look in on this thread in the morning.

 

[francisdesales]

And "man is body and soul" has nothing to do with a "monothetsitc vs pagan" belief, anyway...

If it does, then the Apostle Paul fell prey to the same pagan belief...

"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thess 5:23)

I agree. One cannot escape Platonic thought in the New Testament. Absolutely cannot, it is in every book of the New Testament... Thus, to equate philosophy with polytheism and calling it "pagan" misses the mark. We must remember that Romans tell us that men can come to know something about God. The Greek philosophers (who were called "atheists" because they did not believe in the panalopy of Greek gods) provided Christianity with a number of basic assumptions to build upon. Apparently, the Apostles writing inspired Scripture agreed with the Greek philosophers on some subjects...

Some Christian writers even called them "Christian" because they attributed their works to the Logos, the Son of God...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Uh, well, I tried to give you a wider lattitude, (Torah can refer to the entire Law) but you are reducing drastically the amount of Scriptures that refers to any afterlife.

The Torah refers to the first five books, the tanakh refers to all the OT scriptures.

Are you purposely trying to be argumentative? The Torah can mean a lot of things. I was trying to give you a wider leeway. Let it go, already...

It is quite limited to "the God of Abraham," etc, which says very little about the after life or the state of existence of Abraham et.al.

Furthermore, it is pretty clear that the Sadducees, who had access to the Torah, didn't quite interpret those passages in that manner, indicating that they saw precious little to back up the contention of life after death.

Tjhe Pharisees had access to the same documents. I wouldn't look to either group as a stellar example of understanding scripture.

Again, you miss the point. IF THE SCRIPTURES WERE SO CLEAR on life after death, then both parties would have AGREED. They agreed on a number of things that WERE clear in Scriptures. They agreed on sin, the Passover, who was Moses, the content of the Mosaic Law, that God was one, etc....

The REASON they disagreed was because it was NOT clear, ESP. in the Torah. I can think of only 2 verses in all of the Torah that support ANY sort of life after death, the one Jesus mentioned and the one about Enoch being taken away to be with God (although even that by itself can be interpreted to mean other things)

Merely denying it proves nothing...

I didn't denu anything Francis.

I stated that the Torah is very vague about life after death. You denied that statement by saying it was crystal clear. Is this another example of an argumentative response???

Merely making a statement without any evidence (just repeating, "it's crystal clear", is meaningless in a logical discussion) is worthless because you have no inherent authority to make such a statement where your "word" is enough to prove anything...

As Drew has stated earlier, Jesus was a master of cryptic teaching. The Sadducees did not see the "crystal clear" meaning. It is only so with our Lord's interpretation - of ONE passage... It is only reading in a particular tradition and paradigm that unlocks the OT that points to the New and Christ.

Um, I don't think understanding scripture hinges on "a particular tradition and paradigm" in my view.

Sure it does. Very few "reinvent the wheel". Your reading of the Bible is based upon SDA tradition and paradigm. You view this pericope with SDA glasses, as was brought up already. We all view Scriptures through a particular tradition and paradigm, whether we admit it or not. None of us reads the Bible in a vacuum, separate from a community.

Job is not "much of the OT Scriptures". Job was written rather late. Job is the result of Jewish tradition that begun to realize the shortcomings of Deuteronimistic theology (rewards/punishment in the here and now)

Job is said to be the oldest book in the whole Bible.

There are differing opinions on when it was written. The very same Wiki article also speaks of it being written during the POST-EXILIC era, didn't you read that part?

It does appear to have been written AFTER the Deuteronomistic writings, because it questions the basic theme - that God punishes/rewards men only in this life, so the later date seems much more likely.

Only through the eyes of LATE Jewish and Christian tradition. Not to the men on the ground.

No, I think men of Jesus' day and before could certainly understand the Bible had they wanted to. I see you working here and maneuvering for your particular "Christian tradition" but I can't accept it.

It is not a matter of "wanting to". We here at Christianforums.net "want to" understand the Bible. Yet, we have different opinions, some correct, some incorrect.

As to not accepting it, it doesn't matter to me what you "accept", since truth doesn't depend upon your acceptance (or mine)...

The New Testament is absolutely FULL of "pagan philosophy", as you would call it. You would be hard pressed to AVOID it in the New Testament, Platonism is found in practically every book...!

I see this as the will of God, since God could have revealed it in a much less cryptic manner that even the Sadducees could have seen.

What more could God have done?

God did what He desired to do. It is quite obvious that God gradually revealed to men what He wanted us to know, WHEN he wanted us to know it. The bible itself states this...

Where in the Lucan passage is Jesus chiding the Pharisees for pagan beliefs?

I'd say verses 14 to 18 establish the point.

Could you be more specific? Which is PAGAN. I am not asking about "Greek", I am asking about polytheism...

In WHOSE opinion are they "pagan", anyways? YOURS.

No, the Bibles.

Where does the bible make this statement?

You crack me up...

I bet. I don't stand on a narrow ledge.

[/quote]

Ok...

 

[francisdesales]

Ah, that makes sense, I would agree that it is a story to teach something rather than an historical account of the banter in the next life between two actual people!

Although I don't think this is an actual event, I do think it is a representation of the afterlife in addition to other lessons mentioned in this thread which can be drawn from the story.

My thought is: Why would Jesus use this as an example if such a place didn't exist? If there really isn't eternal fiery condemnation for those who turn away from God, why use it in a parable? There are other ways he could have conveyed this message, why then make up a fictitious hell like that? It just doesn't add up.

I agree. It appears the Jew already had a notion of life after death (at least the main-line Jews, not the Sadducees). This story seems to verify the notion. If Jesus is God, He would certainly know the truth behind this question, and it would seem clear that the story proves the concept of several things:

We are somehow alert and cognizant after death.
The evil and the good are already separated.
There is no communication between the two.
Somehow, men can intercede for the sake of the living (although the hard-hearted will refuse to hear).

Regards

 

[LaCrum]

I agree. It appears the Jew already had a notion of life after death (at least the main-line Jews, not the Sadducees). This story seems to verify the notion. If Jesus is God, He would certainly know the truth behind this question, and it would seem clear that the story proves the concept of several things:

We are somehow alert and cognizant after death.
The evil and the good are already separated.
There is no communication between the two.
Somehow, men can intercede for the sake of the living (although the hard-hearted will refuse to hear).

Regards

I'm not sure about that last part about the dead interceding for the living. My view of the story is that God doesn't allow it because it would be futile, ie:

27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'

On the other hand though, I do believe they are watching and "cheering us on" in a sense since we are "surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses".

The only person in Heaven from scripture who I know for sure intercedes for us is Jesus.

Romans 8:34

Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

 

[francisdesales]

I'm not sure about that last part about the dead interceding for the living. My view of the story is that God doesn't allow it because it would be futile, ie:

27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'

On the other hand though, I do believe they are watching and "cheering us on" in a sense since we are "surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses".

The only person in Heaven from scripture who I know for sure intercedes for us is Jesus.

If the saints are united with Christ, why wouldn't they continue to intercede for us? We have already established that they are cognizant and can DESIRE to pray for others... If they are able to CONSIDER praying, why wouldn't they desire to pray that we be saved, as we do here on earth???

As to the rich man not being able to intercede, I think it was more because the brothers wouldn't LISTEN, not that the prayers were impossible. That would be like me praying for a devout atheist. It is possible, but not likely to be effective, since they probably wouldn't listen to God's graces...

Regards

 

[LaCrum]

If the saints are united with Christ, why wouldn't they continue to intercede for us? We have already established that they are cognizant and can DESIRE to pray for others... If they are able to CONSIDER praying, why wouldn't they desire to pray that we be saved, as we do here on earth???

As to the rich man not being able to intercede, I think it was more because the brothers wouldn't LISTEN, not that the prayers were impossible. That would be like me praying for a devout atheist. It is possible, but not likely to be effective, since they probably wouldn't listen to God's graces...

Regards

Your theory sounds very plausible and makes a lot of sense, but I would just need some sort of scriptural backing for it before I could accept it.

 

[RND]

We are somehow alert and cognizant after death.

No we're not!

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is done under the sun.

The evil and the good are already separated.

From the living for the have all gone down to the pit.

There is no communication between the two.

Or anyone else for that matter. If the dead come back to the living in anyway it's a demon.

Somehow, men can intercede for the sake of the living (although the hard-hearted will refuse to hear).

Saints interceding for the dead? Really? Where does scripture ever say the dead can intercede for man? I always thought we had just one mediator and only one was necessary, the Lord Jesus Christ!

1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I thought there were rules in this forum for injecting paganism and the false theology of Catholicism on this board. Subtle attempts to inject this thinking should be discouraged.

 

[francisdesales]

If the saints are united with Christ, why wouldn't they continue to intercede for us? We have already established that they are cognizant and can DESIRE to pray for others... If they are able to CONSIDER praying, why wouldn't they desire to pray that we be saved, as we do here on earth???

As to the rich man not being able to intercede, I think it was more because the brothers wouldn't LISTEN, not that the prayers were impossible. That would be like me praying for a devout atheist. It is possible, but not likely to be effective, since they probably wouldn't listen to God's graces...

Regards

Your theory sounds very plausible and makes a lot of sense, but I would just need some sort of scriptural backing for it before I could accept it.

"Scriptural backing" of what goes on in heaven will be difficult to come by, since God has not revealed that to us in much detail yet. However, we do see some evidence that can strongly suggest a basic theory that the saints do keep us in their prayers to the Lord.

We see evidence of people in heaven in Revelation (before the Second Coming) who are alive and cognizant, worshiping God and aware of what is going on on earth. We already know about the parable of Lazarus. It seems common sense that a Christian who would pray for others HERE would be EVEN MORE INCLINED to pray for us to complete our walking in the Lord, wouldn't you think? If even death cannot separate us from Christ, the saints in heaven would also desire what God does - that we be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. The prayer of a righteous man is truly effective, I would think this includes those from heavenly righteous people.

I think it is clear that IF man is alert and cognizant in the next life BEFORE the Parousia, it would seem elementary and strongly implied that the saints WOULD pray for us, as they did on earth. You already agree that this "cloud of witnesses" cheer us on - I see no reason why they would NOT pray for us WHILE cheering us on!

It is quite a comforting idea, don't you think, that our relatives from the past are watching over us and waiting for the opportunity to unite with us in heaven...

Regards

 

[handy]

In WHOSE opinion are they "pagan", anyways? YOURS.

No, the Bibles.

Where does the bible make this statement?

Yes, I'd like to see where the bible teaches that this is a pagan belief as well.

And LaCrum (hi there )brings up an excellent point: If there is no hell, Jesus wouldn't just be being "mysterious" here, He would be out and out misleading those who believe His words considering the many times that He brought up the idea that there is a place of everlasting torment and punishment.

If the ideas of "body and soul" and "hell" are so pagan, then Jesus also purposely promoted these "false" beliefs to His very own disciples when He told them "And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt 10:28)

Solomon also seems to have bought into this "pagan" belief: "Furthermore, men are afraid of a high place and of terrors on the road; the almond tree blossoms, the grasshopper drags himself along, and the caperberry is ineffective. For man goes to his eternal home while mourners go about in the street. Remember Him before the silver cord is broken and the golden bowl is crushed, the pitcher by the well is shattered and the wheel at the cistern is crushed; then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it." (Eccl12:5-7)

RND, you've set yourself up here to somehow prove that the adultery of the Pharisees was the fact that they had a "pagan" belief in a body and soul and that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is a symbolic allegory having nothing to do with both the consciousness of man after death and an eternal and tormenting punishment.

You asked me for 1 scripture to prove that spiritual infidelity can be equated with covetousness. I've given several and established, from the Scriptures that spiritual infidelity, spiritual adultery, and spiritual idolatry (all three being one and the same) can be a number of things, not just adopting a pagan belief.

Pointing to scriptures that equate the nation Israel's embracing pagan gods with adultery isn't enough to prove that the Pharisees were being called adulterers because of believing in a body and soul. Especially since Paul and Our Lord Himself believed and taught the same concept. If you do have some compelling Scriptural evidence that makes the points you are trying to make, I am open to listening to them

And, you haven't even come close to explaining from the Scriptures why we should believe that the Lazarus story is wholly allegory and about the nation of Judea, rather than a cautionary tale on the dangers of loving money more than our God or our fellow man.

But, then again, you really haven't had the opportunity to do that. You've been taking it on all sides here and handing the objections with some patience, humor and a little razzing as opposed to the mud-slinging bickering that all too often passes for discourse in Apologetics and Theology, and I am thankful for that. It's refreshing to dig this deeply into a subject without the whole discussion becoming a donneybrook.

 

[RND]

If the saints are united with Christ, why wouldn't they continue to intercede for us?

Because they are dead.

We have already established that they are cognizant and can DESIRE to pray for others...

But not from using the Bible.

If they are able to CONSIDER praying, why wouldn't they desire to pray that we be saved, as we do here on earth???

Well, they can't consider praying because they are again, dead.

Ezek 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Psa 89:48 What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?

Psa 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

Psa 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. 4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

As to the rich man not being able to intercede, I think it was more because the brothers wouldn't LISTEN, not that the prayers were impossible.

The brothers represent something and were used by Jesus allegorically. Jacob and Leah had 6 boys.

That would be like me praying for a devout atheist.

Why wouldn't you pray for a devout atheist? Does the Bible not say we should pray for our enemies?

It is possible, but not likely to be effective, since they probably wouldn't listen to God's graces...

Your job as a Christian is to intercede for the living, pray for the lost and let God do the harvesting.

 

[francisdesales]

We are somehow alert and cognizant after death.

No we're not!

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is done under the sun.

I see. You have just contradicted the idea of Christ, (and your own contention) saying that God is a God of the Living, to include Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob... Now, you tell us the dead are dead and know nothing, having no reward, etc...

Eccl. 9 has to be looked at in other than a literal manner, otherwise, you have a clear contradiction within Sacred Scriptures - and your very recent stance on immortality.

The evil and the good are already separated.

From the living for the have all gone down to the pit.

The parable CLEARLY speaks of a CHASM that cannot be breached. Again, you are misinterpreting Eccl.

There is no communication between the two.

Or anyone else for that matter. If the dead come back to the living in anyway it's a demon.

Are you absolutely senseless?

Jesus Christ came back from the dead...

I can see, as usual, you post just to cause arguments without even considering what you are saying. First, your response contradicts your very own stance held a few hours ago regarding life after death "found in every book of the Old Testament". Secondly, I have no idea how you could have let "if the dead come back to the living in ANY WAY..." get by. I won't even bother finish reading such a poorly conceived post. :gah

 

[francisdesales]

If the saints are united with Christ, why wouldn't they continue to intercede for us?

Because they are dead.

That didn't stop the rich man from speaking and asking to pray for his brothers... did you read the parable?

We have already established that they are cognizant and can DESIRE to pray for others...

But not from using the Bible.

Dude, I'm thinking YOU are not cognizant here. Did you read the parable FOUND IN THE BIBLE??? :crazy

RND, it isn't April Fool's day... The rich man died and is SPEAKING, TALKING, THINKING.

Signs of cognizance in my book...

I think I'll cut short this response; at the rate you are going, I can see yours are just argumentative posts hurled at me I suppose because I enjoy eating bacon and worshiping God on Sunday... :gah

 

[handy]

We are somehow alert and cognizant after death.

No we're not!

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is done under the sun.

I don't believe that this means that we are not cognizant after death. If we dissect the text a bit, we see that the Preacher is saying many things that cannot be true:

The Preacher states that "It is the same for all. There is one fate for the righteous and for the wicked; for the good, for the clean and for the unclean; for the man who offers a sacrifice and for the one who does not sacrifice. As the good man is, so is the sinner; as the swearer is, so is the one who is afraid to swear. This is an evil in all that is done under the son, that there is one fate for all men." vs 2-3

Now, we know that this isn't true, if it is, we would have to rip out a large portion of the new testament and throw it away. There is indeed two separate fates for the righteous and for the wicked. Even if you believe in the annihilation of the wicked, you also believe in the resurrection and everlasting life of those who are saved, do you not? So, these words of Solomon, must be examined carefully to see why he is making this very false claim.

Now, why Solomon is going off on a nonfactual and depressing rant is interesting, but not the subject of this thread. Suffice it to say though, that although Solomon did rant and rave in Ecclesiastes, he still affirmed that after death the body returns to dust and the spirit returns to God.

If Eccl 9:5-6 were our only texts as to the ultimate fate of man, then I would be convinced that there is nothing for us but this life and this life alone, in which case, I wouldn't be a Christian. However, there are many, many texts which affirm that this is anything but true and that there is eternal reward for those who seek Him...and eternal punishment for those do not.

 

[LaCrum]

"Scriptural backing" of what goes on in heaven will be difficult to come by, since God has not revealed that to us in much detail yet. However, we do see some evidence that can strongly suggest a basic theory that the saints do keep us in their prayers to the Lord.

We see evidence of people in heaven in Revelation (before the Second Coming) who are alive and cognizant, worshiping God and aware of what is going on on earth. We already know about the parable of Lazarus. It seems common sense that a Christian who would pray for others HERE would be EVEN MORE INCLINED to pray for us to complete our walking in the Lord, wouldn't you think? If even death cannot separate us from Christ, the saints in heaven would also desire what God does - that we be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. The prayer of a righteous man is truly effective, I would think this includes those from heavenly righteous people.

I think it is clear that IF man is alert and cognizant in the next life BEFORE the Parousia, it would seem elementary and strongly implied that the saints WOULD pray for us, as they did on earth. You already agree that this "cloud of witnesses" cheer us on - I see no reason why they would NOT pray for us WHILE cheering us on!

It is quite a comforting idea, don't you think, that our relatives from the past are watching over us and waiting for the opportunity to unite with us in heaven...

Regards

That does remind me of Revlations where it speaks of the dead saints crying out to God for justice.

I will say it's probable but I'm not going to make a definitive decision either way yet. I am reding a very good book about Heaven, I'll have to go back to the part where it disucsses that and what verses it gives.

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is done under the sun.

Then what is Jesus referring to in Luke 23:43?

 

[RND]

Are you purposely trying to be argumentative? The Torah can mean a lot of things. I was trying to give you a wider leeway. Let it go, already...

Just looking for clarity and correctness. Ask any Jew what the Torah is.

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

Again, you miss the point. IF THE SCRIPTURES WERE SO CLEAR on life after death, then both parties would have AGREED. They agreed on a number of things that WERE clear in Scriptures. They agreed on sin, the Passover, who was Moses, the content of the Mosaic Law, that God was one, etc....

The REASON they disagreed was because it was NOT clear, ESP. in the Torah. I can think of only 2 verses in all of the Torah that support ANY sort of life after death, the one Jesus mentioned and the one about Enoch being taken away to be with God (although even that by itself can be interpreted to mean other things)

What's the other? The reason they disagreed is because they wont to commit idolatry and fornication with other nations and religions. It's a consistent and common theme through out the Tanakh!

I stated that the Torah is very vague about life after death. You denied that statement by saying it was crystal clear. Is this another example of an argumentative response???

No, it's an affirmative response that the Torah is quite clear as to what happens to man at death.

Merely making a statement without any evidence (just repeating, "it's crystal clear", is meaningless in a logical discussion) is worthless because you have no inherent authority to make such a statement where your "word" is enough to prove anything...

I have a tremendous amount of "inherent authority" because I am a child of the Living God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I need no man, especially one dressed in a funny looking fish hat, ala Dagon, to tell me anything about the Bible. I have my God given common sense and the Holy Spirit.

Sure it does. Very few "reinvent the wheel".

For you, maybe.

Your reading of the Bible is based upon SDA tradition and paradigm. You view this pericope with SDA glasses, as was brought up already. We all view Scriptures through a particular tradition and paradigm, whether we admit it or not. None of us reads the Bible in a vacuum, separate from a community.

Not at all. Truth is irrespective of denomination. The Catholic priest at one of the prisons I attend asks us questions all the time and agrees with us! His paradigm is shifting to the truth.

There are differing opinions on when it was written. The very same Wiki article also speaks of it being written during the POST-EXILIC era, didn't you read that part?

I did.

It does appear to have been written AFTER the Deuteronomistic writings, because it questions the basic theme - that God punishes/rewards men only in this life, so the later date seems much more likely.

Well, everyone has a different view.

It is not a matter of "wanting to". We here at Christianforums.net "want to" understand the Bible. Yet, we have different opinions, some correct, some incorrect.[/quote] Yes we do. Christianforums.net has stated it's position regarding your religious POV.

As to not accepting it, it doesn't matter to me what you "accept", since truth doesn't depend upon your acceptance (or mine)...

That right, the truth is the truth.

The New Testament is absolutely FULL of "pagan philosophy", as you would call it. You would be hard pressed to AVOID it in the New Testament, Platonism is found in practically every book...!

I would sincerely disagree.

God did what He desired to do.

Yes, but what more could He have done?

It is quite obvious that God gradually revealed to men what He wanted us to know, WHEN he wanted us to know it. The bible itself states this...

And God gave the men of Jesus' day all the information they needed to know the exact date their Messiah would appear and they rejected God's word. Yet the Babylonians from the east didn't and even came to worship God on earth. So again I ask, what more could God have done?

Could you be more specific?

Read the OP.

Which is PAGAN. I am not asking about "Greek", I am asking about polytheism...

I'm not. I'm referring specifically to the Greek philosophy adopted by the Pharisees of anthropomorphic dualism.

Where does the bible make this statement?

Be serious. The Bible is full of accounts where the COI followed after false gods and religious practices. It is always referred to as adultery and harlotry.

Ok...

What you believe is as dangerous as standing on the narrow ledge of a building.

 

[RND]

That didn't stop the rich man from speaking and asking to pray for his brothers... did you read the parable?

Yes I did and that's "why" it's a parable. Not real life.

Dude, I'm thinking YOU are not cognizant here. Did you read the parable FOUND IN THE BIBLE??? :crazy

Yes and the parable is not a description of life after death.

RND, it isn't April Fool's day... The rich man died and is SPEAKING, TALKING, THINKING.

In a parable.

Signs of cognizance in my book...

It's a parable.

I think I'll cut short this response; at the rate you are going, I can see yours are just argumentative posts hurled at me I suppose because I enjoy eating bacon and worshiping God on Sunday... :gah

Not at all. I could care less whether you eat filthy pigs and worship God on Rome's day.

 

[francisdesales]

"Scriptural backing" of what goes on in heaven will be difficult to come by, since God has not revealed that to us in much detail yet. However, we do see some evidence that can strongly suggest a basic theory that the saints do keep us in their prayers to the Lord.

We see evidence of people in heaven in Revelation (before the Second Coming) who are alive and cognizant, worshiping God and aware of what is going on on earth. We already know about the parable of Lazarus. It seems common sense that a Christian who would pray for others HERE would be EVEN MORE INCLINED to pray for us to complete our walking in the Lord, wouldn't you think? If even death cannot separate us from Christ, the saints in heaven would also desire what God does - that we be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. The prayer of a righteous man is truly effective, I would think this includes those from heavenly righteous people.

I think it is clear that IF man is alert and cognizant in the next life BEFORE the Parousia, it would seem elementary and strongly implied that the saints WOULD pray for us, as they did on earth. You already agree that this "cloud of witnesses" cheer us on - I see no reason why they would NOT pray for us WHILE cheering us on!

It is quite a comforting idea, don't you think, that our relatives from the past are watching over us and waiting for the opportunity to unite with us in heaven...

That does remind me of Revlations where it speaks of the dead saints crying out to God for justice.

I will say it's probable but I'm not going to make a definitive decision either way yet. I am reding a very good book about Heaven, I'll have to go back to the part where it disucsses that and what verses it gives.

On Revelations, yes, that was what i was refering to - saints aware and "alive", speaking to God.

Well, I appreciate your openess to my opinion on this. It does draw us closer to those members of the Body of Christ who have gone before us "marked with the sign of the faith". If I can ask you and Handy to pray for me, why can't I ask my dear saintly Grandmothers to pray for me.

Some here would prefer to blindly dismiss it without even thinking about it, though...

I also appreciate Handy's openess to the possibility...

Have a Happy New Year...

 

[RND]

I see. You have just contradicted the idea of Christ, (and your own contention) saying that God is a God of the Living, to include Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob... Now, you tell us the dead are dead and know nothing, having no reward, etc...

That's why Jesus was God because through His connection to the Father He defeated the grave.

Eccl. 9 has to be looked at in other than a literal manner, otherwise, you have a clear contradiction within Sacred Scriptures - and your very recent stance on immortality.

I don't have a stance on immortality. Man is not immortal without Christ. God is immortal. Christ was God. Simple stuff.

The parable CLEARLY speaks of a CHASM that cannot be breached. Again, you are misinterpreting Eccl.

And what does that "chasm" represent?

Are you absolutely senseless?

It's a parable. It's not literal.

Jesus Christ came back from the dead...

Yes He did. He is God. You and I aren't.

I can see, as usual, you post just to cause arguments without even considering what you are saying.

See the OP.

First, your response contradicts your very own stance held a few hours ago regarding life after death "found in every book of the Old Testament".

Nope, it afirms it. The Torah never says "when" eternal life is granted.

Secondly, I have no idea how you could have let "if the dead come back to the living in ANY WAY..." get by. I won't even bother finish reading such a poorly conceived post. :gah

Hey, when your hair is set on fire ya gotta put it out. I understand.