Bible Study God is not the God of the Dead, but of the Living: Your Soul Lives on Forever.

[Tenchi]

Matthew 22:32
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

​

In our modern age false teachings abound. Such teachings have always plagued the Church, but it seems to me they have proliferated wildly in the last forty years or so. The internet hasn't helped stem the tide of these erroneous teachings, that's for sure. Among the many odd "winds of doctrine" blowing about the Church today and catching up the biblically-illiterate, spiritually-immature and those who have little or no hermeneutical system is the idea that when a person's body dies, their soul returns to God as an undifferentiated "animating energy" subsumed into Him until the Final Resurrection when the dead are reconstituted as persons. In my experience, until recently, this thinking was held pretty exclusively by adherents to the Jehovah's Witnesses cult. Unfortunately, a growing number of professing Christians are taking up this false doctrine, encouraging fellow believers to adopt it. Even on this subforum there are some confidently espousing this error. So, I'm going to offer the biblical facts of the matter and help counter the spread of this false teaching.

Why have the majority of Christians held to the notion of an immortal soul that continues on beyond the death of their physical body? Is there any good biblical grounds for this belief? Yes, there is.

Luke 16:22-25
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame."
25 But Abraham said, "Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and you are tormented."

In this story, Jesus plainly described the transport of the souls of two dead men, one to torment in hell, the other to "Abraham's Bosom" where he was "comforted." Is there anything about Jesus' story that would require that it be read in a figurative way? No. Instead, Jesus' description of the destinations of both men is remarkably detailed but unadorned. His story has a straightforward, matter-of-fact quality quite unlike, say, the apostle John's mystical Revelation, or the Psalmist's symbolic poetry.

Jesus gives the names of the two men in his account and even tells of one of them speaking to Abraham. These are strange elements of a story, if it is meant to be entirely symbolic. Why give specific names to figures who are merely symbols? What purpose could the conversation between the Rich Man and Abraham serve if it is entirely non-literal? As well, Jesus offered no explanation of the story, like he did for the Sower and the Seed parable, for example. Surely, if the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is totally symbolic, if the story is completely fictional and there is no experience after death of hell or paradise, the story warranted some explanation! But Jesus went on to speak of other things, giving no hint that what he had just described of the afterlife was controversial or confusing.

There are no other parables Jesus told in which he referred to entirely fictional things, or circumstances. He spoke in his parables only of real, mundane and familiar situations and objects - weddings, lost coins, sheep and shepherds, servants and masters, wineskins, and so on - never of fantastical ones. This was Christ's uniform practice in telling his stories and so it is perfectly reasonable to think that in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, he continued it. As has been pointed out already, the unadorned description of events in the tale has the character of a news report, not a fantastical, totally symbolic narrative.

Only if one has a pre-commitment to the false doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses, to the idea that the soul does not survive the death of the body, is one forced to impose a symbolic/fantastical construction upon Jesus' story; for if this is not done, this single story totally explodes the false belief of the JW's.

Mark 9:2-8
2 Six days later, Jesus *took with Him Peter and James and John, and *brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them;
3 and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them.
4 Elijah appeared to them along with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus.
5 Peter *said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah."
6 For he did not know what to answer; for they became terrified.
7 Then a cloud formed, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud, "This is My beloved Son, listen to Him!"
8 All at once they looked around and saw no one with them anymore, except Jesus alone.

The soul-subsumed-at-death bunch want to say that for this short time with Christ on the "high mountain," Elijah and Moses were reconstructed. I assume, according to this view, that they were then deconstructed again to be reformed a third time at the Final Resurrection. Of course, this must be read into the account, not drawn out of it. The principle of Occam's Razor, however, urges the thoughtful person not to multiply explanations unnecessarily and warns that doing so is a sign of faulty reasoning. So, then, the simpler (and thus more reasonable) understanding of the event above is that Elijah and Moses were already in existence, merely transported (as opposed to reconstituted and transported) to speak with Christ of his soon-coming departure (Luke 9:31), then returning to their former location in Paradise (a la, Lazarus in Christ's story), as God determined they should. Nothing in the account at all prevents such an understanding of it.

In considering what happens to the soul after death of the body, Elijah and Moses, then, demonstrate some important things: They were distinct, discernible entities, visible to the eye, who could speak and were (presumably) clothed; they could move from one location to another, appearing and disappearing instantly. This all accords well with Christ's story of Lazarus and the Rich Man and also with Revelation 6:9-11:

9 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained;
10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"
11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.

Here, martyrs of the faith cry out God for justice, urging Him to judge and avenge their murder. Are these martyrs mere symbols? Is this entire narrative fictional? This seems very unlikely for a number of reasons:

- Of what would the martyrs crying out be symbolic?

- Why so specific a description of the cause of their being killed (because of the word of God, and because of their testimony) if they are mere symbols?

- Why, if the martyrs are just symbolic of something else, are they told that others of "their fellow servants and their brethren" must also be killed? Of what would these others be symbolic? Why would making these other yet-be-martyred martyrs mere symbols be preferable to understanding them to be actual, literal martyrs of the faith?

- Why would making the passage entirely figurative be superior to a straightforward, literal understanding of it? Does the passage actually prevent such a reading? Not at all. Much of the Revelation of John is not symbolic. John himself, for example, is not a symbol, though he is involved in the events of the Revelation he described. God and Christ, too, in the Revelation are not figurative of other things. And so o on.

These and other questions seem to me to make the passage from Revelations 6 above very problematic if it is read symbolically. Instead, the passage has the "ring of the real," the flavor of actual beings, saying actual things, to an actual God. These beings, though separated from their physical bodies through being martyred, have not ceased to exist. They have not been subsumed into God as mere "life-energy" but have remained discrete, living entities, with voices and forms that are clothed in robes, able to desire justice, aware of others and the passage of time, and so on. John's description of these martyred brethren conforms very well to Jesus' story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, and to the account of the Transfiguration of Christ.

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

Further support for life after death appears in Stephen's words in the following verse:

Acts 7:59
59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

According to the soul-subsumed-into-God proponents, what Stephen said here would have happened without his request. Why, then, were these Stephen's all-important, final words? Surely, if he believed at death that he would disappear, his soul mere animating energy absorbed back into God, there was no point in committing his spirit to God.

This doesn't seem to be, though, what Stephen's words are communicating. He doesn't say "Lord Jesus, receive back your life-energy," but "receive my spirit." In this, he echoes Christ's own words at Calvary:

Luke 23:46
46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.

Was Jesus indicating here that he believed he would cease to exist, his spirit (soul) just absorbed into God the Father? Not if the apostle Peter has anything to say about it!

1 Peter 3:18-19
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,

Though Peter wrote here that Christ was "put to death in the flesh" as a sacrifice for sins, "once for all," Christ was "made alive in the spirit" and "made proclamation to the spirits now in prison." How was Christ, his body killed on the cross, "made alive in the spirit"? Doesn't one's spirit dissolve into God when one's body dies? Not according to Peter. And not only does Christ continue to live in spirit, but he makes "proclamation" to "spirits in prison." How can spirits, as such, exist anywhere but in God if "spirit" is just animating divine energy? How would "the spirits in prison" be so as divine energy in God? Is God a prison? Did Jesus, in spirit, go into God and make a proclamation to the divine energy in Him? Obviously, this is an extremely bizarre way to understand Peter!

A natural, straightforward reading of Peter's words above produces the understanding that, when Christ was put to death on the cross, his spirit remained alive, going to the disobedient of Noah's time who were "in prison" (not absorbed into God) and making a proclamation to them (about what, exactly, isn't stated by Peter). All of this confounds the idea that a person's soul/spirit, their distinct consciousness, ends at the decease of their physical body. Stephen's final words as an echo of Christ's, then, don't support a subsumed-into-God belief about the soul after the death of the body, but expressed a belief in, and an anticipation of, a conscious afterlife with - not in - God.

Scripture, then, gives good cause for the Christian person to understand that God really is the God of the living, not the dead. On this point, consider some final thoughts taken from Ron Rhodes' book "Reasoning From the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses":

"According to first-century historian Flavius Josephus, 'the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: that souls die with the bodies.' And in Luke 20:38, Jesus contradicts the view of the Sadducees. In effect, he is saying, 'Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though they died many years ago, are actually living today. For God, who calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is not the God of the dead but of the living.'....Notice the words at the end of Luke 20:38: 'For all live to Him.' What does this mean? Bible scholar Anthony Hoekma answers:

'Though the dead seem to us to be completely nonexistent, they are actually living as far as God is concerned. Note that the tense of the word for 'live' is not future (which might suggest only that these dead will live at the time of their resurrection) but present, teaching us that they are living now. This holds true not only for the patriarchs but for all who have died. To suggest, now, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are nonexistent between death and the resurrection violates the thrust of these words, and implies that God is, with respect to these patriarchs, for a long period of time the God of the dead rather than the God of the living.'"

In light of these things, beware those who would deceive you into thinking the soul disappears upon the death of the body. It doesn't. Instead, there ought to be in every born-again child of God a joyful hope of their soul going on at death, like the thief on the cross next to Christ, to conscious comfort and rest in Paradise:

Luke 23:42-43
42 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"
43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
Good well-reasoned Bible study Tenchi. I agree with the Lazarus account. It does not read as a parable. The facts are too specific, too descriptive. Plus it is also missing the tag line "Let him who has ear to hear . . . " that He applies to most of His parables. Parables are meant to convey a message to the people without angering the priests, Pharisees, or Sadducees. You have to wonder, what is that message in the Lazarus account? "Don't go to hell. It's a bad place." Jesus had been saying that out in the open all along. He didn't need to hide that message. It all adds up to a non-fictional account of a real experience.

Let me pile on with this timeless gem:

2 Corinthians 5:6-8 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
(For we walk by faith, not by sight
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

We, in our earthly bodies are absent from the Lord. But God knew us before we were born.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

So there was an existence, at least in the mind of God, prior to us being born. Speaking for myself, I have no memory of this.
(For we walk by faith, not by sight
This is a declaration of how we are to live in order to return to the Lord when we die. (Does everybody understand why I tag my posts with this now? Ya gotta keep walking.)
When we die, we will be present with the Lord. I said all of that to ask this?

Do you believe Abraham's bosom part of captivity still exists? See I believe that is where He went during His time in the grave. This is just my goofy opinion. Everybody got that? I cannot prove this conclusively. But if we take the 1 Peter 3:18-19 reference and pair it with a reference from Ephesians 4:8, it seems like Peter and Paul are writing about the same place.

1 Peter 3:18-19 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

This is why I am getting this idea. Again guys, not a fact; just my personal thought. I think that when the veil in the temple was wrent (torn in two) from the top down, it was Jesus communicating that the barrier was no longer necessary. This is also a part of why I believe Abraham's bosom part of hell may no longer necessary. These were the saints Jesus preached to in prison. (Old Testament, and those during Jesus' lifetime that believed in the Messiah to come.) These were the captivity Jesus led captive when He ascended.

For the third time, this is just my opinion when I put these passages together. I could be way out in left field. Just stuff I think about.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[Tenchi]

Let me pile on with this timeless gem:

2 Corinthians 5:6-8 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
(For we walk by faith, not by sight
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Inasmuch as God - who is Christ - is omnipresent, that is, in all places at all times, He is never absent from us in a literal sense. But we are not in Christ our Lord's presence insofar as we can see him and interact directly with him as the Incarnation. This must wait until his Second Coming. Until then, we have the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, as our Helper and Comforter, and Teacher (Romans 8:9; John 14:16-17, 26; John 16:13). So, we are "absent from the Lord" only in that we can't see him, touch him, hear him, and so on. When, then, Paul speaks of being "present with the Lord," he doesn't mean we are absorbed into his divine essence and disappear as a distinct entity but that we can finally interact with our Lord in the manner we do with one another. If such absorption was what Paul had meant to convey, he would have, I think, written "present IN the Lord." Anyway, this is a good example of why mainstream Christian orthodox doctrine has always held to the soul of a person, their consciousness, surviving the decease of their body and going on to a heavenly, supernatural existence (or to torment). Thanks for pointing it out!

Do you believe Abraham's bosom part of captivity still exists?

I don't think Abraham's Bosom (aka - paradise) was the place of the Rich Man's torment. As Abraham explained in Jesus's story, the Rich Man was separated from paradise by a great gulf.

But if we take the 1 Peter 3:18-19 reference and pair it with a reference from Ephesians 4:8, it seems like Peter and Paul are writing about the same place.

Right. This is a fairly common view.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Tenchi and Josef,

Among the many odd "winds of doctrine" blowing about the Church today and catching up the biblically-illiterate, spiritually-immature and those who have little or no hermeneutical system is the idea that when a person's body dies, their soul returns to God as an undifferentiated "animating energy" subsumed into Him until the Final Resurrection when the dead are reconstituted as persons. In my experience, until recently, this thinking was held pretty exclusively by adherents to the Jehovah's Witnesses cult.

I possibly do not want to get involved in every aspect of this subject, including every verse that you raise. Most of my comments initially will be brief.

In the above, you mention that part of their wrong doctrine represents that they believe that "their soul returns to God ....". I do not agree with this, and I will not be defending this. You attribute the wrong doctrine "until recently, this thinking was held exclusively by adherents to the Jehovah's Witnesses cult." I am not sure if this correctly represents the JW teaching. I am conscious of a few other denominations that hold onto the belief of the mortality of man, and that man does not have an immortal soul. The SDAs are in this category, and they were established about 1865, and also the Christadelphians, established about 1847. Many from both of these groups would have individually believed in the mortality of man before these dates. The JWs came later, but may be better known because of their strong dedication to preaching..

Matthew 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Your Soul Lives on Forever.​

I have added "Your Soul Lives on Forever" when you quote Matthew 22:32 and this indicates that you consider Jesus is teaching the immortality of the soul here. I suggest that Jesus is speaking about the future resurrection of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

In this story, Jesus plainly described the transport of the souls of two dead men, one to torment in hell, the other to "Abraham's Bosom" where he was "comforted."

I consider that "The Rich Man and Lazarus" is a parable based upon the false teaching of the Pharisees. The use of Lazarus and mention of resurrection is significant, because some time after this Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.

The soul-subsumed-at-death bunch want to say that for this short time with Christ on the "high mountain," Elijah and Moses were reconstructed.

I consider that Moses and Elijah were literally there in body, not as immortal souls. It was also a vision of the future Kingdom. When Moses and Elijah are resurrected they will remember this occasion and the advice that they gave Jesus concerning his impending "Exodus".

Here, martyrs of the faith cry out God for justice, urging Him to judge and avenge their murder. Are these martyrs mere symbols?

The martyrs were real, and their blood had been spilled and in effect cried out for justice, similar to Abel's blood. It is not talking about immortal souls, or a literal altar.

there ought to be in every born-again child of God a joyful hope of their soul going on at death, like the thief on the cross next to Christ, to conscious comfort and rest in Paradise:
Luke 23:42-43 42 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"
43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

I consider that Jesus is reassuring the Thief that he would be accepted when Jesus returns to establish His Kingdom. Another rendition is a shift of the comma: "Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise".

Let me pile on with this timeless gem:
2 Corinthians 5:6-8 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
(For we walk by faith, not by sight, We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. .... When we die, we will be present with the Lord.

Yes, when we die the next thing is that we will be present with the Lord. Paul speaks about his impending "departure" in 2 Timothy 4:1,6-8 and he speaks as if his next conscious moment would be at the judgement seat when Jesus returns to establish His Kingdom of the earth.

To conclude this Post, I will add one reference:
Genesis 3:17–19 (KJV): 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
This does not suggest that their body would now be mortal, and their soul immortal. It states that Adam, the real man, the whole man, Adam would return to the dust.

Kind regards
Trevor
.

 

[Tenchi]

In the above, you mention that part of their wrong doctrine represents that they believe that "their soul returns to God ....". I do not agree with this, and I will not be defending this.

Uh huh.

You attribute the wrong doctrine "until recently, this thinking was held exclusively by adherents to the Jehovah's Witnesses cult." I am not sure if this correctly represents the JW teaching.

Well, I was careful to say that I was speaking from my experience with JWs. As is often the case with Roman Catholics, what is formal, official doctrine of the JWs gets...adjusted by the average layperson. So, there may be a divergence of thought between the official doctrine of the soul by the JW cult and what those JWs I've talked with believe.

I am conscious of a few other denominations that hold onto the belief of the mortality of man, and that man does not have an immortal soul. The SDAs are in this category, and they were established about 1865, and also the Christadelphians, established about 1847. Many from both of these groups would have individually believed in the mortality of man before these dates. The JWs came later, but may be better known because of their strong dedication to preaching..

Uh huh. Not sure what any of this has to do with the substance of my OP. It's kinda "straining out a gnat."

I have added "Your Soul Lives on Forever" when you quote Matthew 22:32 and this indicates that you consider Jesus is teaching the immortality of the soul here. I suggest that Jesus is speaking about the future resurrection of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Okay. It's a free internet (so far); you can hold whatever view you like. I don't think it's a valid or correct one, obviously. See my OP. And your suggestion here doesn't really do anything to secure your view or defeat mine...

I consider that "The Rich Man and Lazarus" is a parable based upon the false teaching of the Pharisees. The use of Lazarus and mention of resurrection is significant, because some time after this Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.

Well, again, nothing you propose here properly supports your view or counters mine. Just throwing out unfounded notions does not an argument make - especially when there's a thoughtful, biblically-careful alternative available (See my OP).

Also, how do you know the Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead is the same Lazarus in his story in Luke 16? What about the poor beggar in the story coincides with the brother of Mary and Martha except the name? You're aware, I hope, that like today, a name could be shared by many people in NT times.

I consider that Moses and Elijah were literally there in body, not as immortal souls. It was also a vision of the future Kingdom. When Moses and Elijah are resurrected they will remember this occasion and the advice that they gave Jesus concerning his impending "Exodus".

Here, too, you just assert a thing is so. Mere assertions don't constitute a good defense, or justification, for a view, however.

We know from Scripture that Elijah and Moses had died physically, their bodies turned to dust long ago. We know from Scripture that they appeared and disappeared suddenly, which is something not possible for you and I to do in our flesh-bound condition. We know from Scripture, though, that supernatural, spirit beings such as angels can appear and disappear at will. And we know also that the account of Christ's transfiguration doesn't say that Elijah and Moses were present on the mountain in physical form. In light of these things, it seems to me very natural to think that Elijah and Moses were not on the mountain in physical bodies but were manifested to those on the mountain in spirit-form, the observable, interactive form in which the Rich Man and Lazarus existed in Jesus' story.

The martyrs were real, and their blood had been spilled and in effect cried out for justice, similar to Abel's blood. It is not talking about immortal souls, or a literal altar.

The martyrs' physical bodies were dead, mouldering somewhere on earth. But, in heaven, the martyrs cry out to God for justice nonetheless, asking Him to judge and avenge their blood spilled for the sake of Christ. The passage in Revelation 6 doesn't say that the martyr's blood cried out for justice, as you propose, though. John wrote in the passage concerning the martyrs that "the Lamb broke the seal" and there appeared an altar under which the martyrs of the faith were gathered and from which they cried out.

Was the Lamb a symbolic figment? Was the seal he broke totally figurative? What of all the other seals broken in the series in Revelation 6? Are they all mere symbols? For what? The seals "released" the conquering Christ (Revelations 19:11-12), violence and bloodshed (war), famine and pestilence, and earthly portents (earthquake, darkened sun, meteors). These are all plainly stated, literal things poured out in manifestation of God's wrath upon the earth. If they are all symbolic of other things, what things, exactly? Why can't famine and earthquakes and violence be exactly what they are? And why can't martyrs crying out for justice be exactly what they are, too?

Nothing in the Revelation 6 passage concerning the martyrs demands a figurative reading of the sort you're proposing. It seems your imposing a figurative reading on the passage purely for the convenience of your no-soul-surviving-death view.

I consider that Jesus is reassuring the Thief that he would be accepted when Jesus returns to establish His Kingdom. Another rendition is a shift of the comma: "Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise".

Yikes. This so badly misreads the passage it's not necessary to say anything else about your view here. Anyone reading Christ's exchange with the thief on the cross without your view of soul-and-body-as-one would never adopt such an understanding of Christ's promise to the thief.

Yes, when we die the next thing is that we will be present with the Lord. Paul speaks about his impending "departure" in 2 Timothy 4:1,6-8 and he speaks as if his next conscious moment would be at the judgement seat when Jesus returns to establish His Kingdom of the earth.

Just more eisegesis. Nothing else to say here...

Genesis 3:17–19 (KJV): 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
This does not suggest that their body would now be mortal, and their soul immortal. It states that Adam, the real man, the whole man, Adam would return to the dust.

The Bible in its entirety offers to us a proper conception of the soul. The passage here is to be qualified, clarified and modified by all that Scripture offers on the subject of the human soul/spirit. When this is done, it is clear that God was speaking of the physical bodies of Adam and Eve, not their souls. See above.

Anyway, thanks for your response. It's always...interesting to engage with these heterodox ideas about the soul.

 

[jasonc]

As a former jw ,yes they believe in soul sleep and still do .

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
"I consider that Jesus is reassuring the Thief that he would be accepted when Jesus returns to establish His Kingdom. Another rendition is a shift of the comma: "Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise"." Quote from TrevorL

The fact that you are trying to manipulate the words by placement of a comma tells me all I need to know. One needs to be taught before one can teach. Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Tenchi and Greetings jasonc,

Well, I was careful to say that I was speaking from my experience with JWs.

I thought your explanation of the JW view was a bit obscure. The Wiki article on the Jehovah Witnesses states the following about their major pioneer in 1870:
“In 1870, Charles Taze Russell and others formed a group in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, to study the Bible. During his ministry, Russell disputed many of mainstream Christianity's tenets, including immortality of the soul, hellfire, predestination, the fleshly return of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, and the burning up of the world”

Perhaps the following clarifies to some extent.

As a former jw ,yes they believe in soul sleep and still do .

I can understand this expression “soul sleep”, but it almost infers that the soul is a separate entity to the body, and it is only this entity which is asleep. I believe that man is a living soul and when he dies he is a dead soul, and he returns to the dust awaiting the resurrection. The concept of “sleep” is figurative. Jesus uses this language in the following, not to describe “soul sleep” but death, but nevertheless with many that die there is the prospect of the resurrection of the body. It is the body, the whole being that needs to be awakened, restored, resurrected.
John 11:1,4,11–14 (KJV): 1 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. 4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. 11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

Uh huh. Not sure what any of this has to do with the substance of my OP. It's kinda "straining out a gnat."

But you said that your assessment is that the mortality of man concept "In my experience, until recently, this thinking was held pretty exclusively by adherents to the Jehovah's Witnesses cult." I was pointing out that other denominations believe in the mortality of man and they preceded the JWs and as such this teaching is not a recent development. I was giving you two more denominations that hold to the mortality of man, awaiting the resurrection. The JW teaching may be more influential, but they have not been preaching openly or door knocking much since the start of covid.

Also, how do you know the Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead is the same Lazarus in his story in Luke 16? What about the poor beggar in the story coincides with the brother of Mary and Martha except the name? You're aware, I hope, that like today, a name could be shared by many people in NT times.

I consider that Lazarus typifies the poor, suffering faithful and the Rich Man typifies the Pharisees and Sadducees who were rich and covetous. As such it is a parable, and the details are not literal, and it is based upon the false teachings of the Pharisees, almost in the form of a parody. But I do see a strong connection between what Jesus stated about the resurrection and the failure of the Rich Man’s brothers to repent and what actually happened as a result of the resurrection of Lazarus. Jesus knew that Lazarus would die, and he would resurrect him, and for this reason Jesus named the poor man as Lazarus.
Luke 16:27–31 (KJV): 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

John 11:46–50 (KJV): 46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. 47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. 49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

John 12:10 (KJV): But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;

Okay. It's a free internet (so far); you can hold whatever view you like. I don't think it's a valid or correct one, obviously. See my OP. And your suggestion here doesn't really do anything to secure your view or defeat mine..

The subject that Jesus is discussing with the Saduccees is the resurrection, not immortal soul:
Matthew 22:23,28–33 (KJV): 23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. 33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
Jesus quotes Exodus 3:6 to prove that God must raise Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from the dead.

But, in heaven, the martyrs cry out to God for justice nonetheless, asking Him to judge and avenge their blood spilled for the sake of Christ. The passage in Revelation 6 doesn't say that the martyr's blood cried out for justice, as you propose, though.

The figure is based upon the Altar of Burnt Offering, and the animals were slain and the blood poured out at the base of the Altar. Is there a literal Altar in Heaven and are the martyr's immortal souls residing at the base of this Heavenly Altar?
Revelation 6:9 (KJV): And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

I consider that Jesus is reassuring the Thief that he would be accepted when Jesus returns to establish His Kingdom. Another rendition is a shift of the comma: "Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise".

The fact that you are trying to manipulate the words by placement of a comma tells me all I need to know. One needs to be taught before one can teach. Keep walking everybody.

I found it interesting that I read this morning from another forum whose Owner and Administrator added a new thread and stated:
"Jesus did not say that he would be paradise on that day. At Jesus' return in His kingdom (Luke 19:11-12), His reward is with Him (Revelation 22:12), and "all that are in the tombs will hear his voice, and will come forth," either "to the resurrection of life," or "to the resurrection of judgment" -- for "there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." -- John 5:28,29, Acts 24:15.
The above was written by a "Bible Student" who more or less follows Charles Taze Russell, but is in a different fellowship than the JWs. He has written many articles against the JW teachings.

Concerning the comma, my rendition is the same as Ethelbert W Bullinger gives and explains in his Companion Bible. The subject of the thief's request was to be remembered when Jesus was to return and come in his Kingdom. Jesus is speaking about Paradise, the restored Garden of Eden, not heaven or Abraham's bosom. Where were the thief and Jesus on the day of their death - in heaven or Abraham's bosom?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[jasonc]

Greetings again Tenchi and Greetings jasonc,

I thought your explanation of the JW view was a bit obscure. The Wiki article on the Jehovah Witnesses states the following about their major pioneer in 1870:
“In 1870, Charles Taze Russell and others formed a group in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, to study the Bible. During his ministry, Russell disputed many of mainstream Christianity's tenets, including immortality of the soul, hellfire, predestination, the fleshly return of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, and the burning up of the world”

Perhaps the following clarifies to some extent.

I can understand this expression “soul sleep”, but it almost infers that the soul is a separate entity to the body, and it is only this entity which is asleep. I believe that man is a living soul and when he dies he is a dead soul, and he returns to the dust awaiting the resurrection. The concept of “sleep” is figurative. Jesus uses this language in the following, not to describe “soul sleep” but death, but nevertheless with many that die there is the prospect of the resurrection of the body. It is the body, the whole being that needs to be awakened, restored, resurrected.
John 11:1,4,11–14 (KJV): 1 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. 4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. 11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

But you said that your assessment is that the mortality of man concept "In my experience, until recently, this thinking was held pretty exclusively by adherents to the Jehovah's Witnesses cult." I was pointing out that other denominations believe in the mortality of man and they preceded the JWs and as such this teaching is not a recent development. I was giving you two more denominations that hold to the mortality of man, awaiting the resurrection. The JW teaching may be more influential, but they have not been preaching openly or door knocking much since the start of covid.

I consider that Lazarus typifies the poor, suffering faithful and the Rich Man typifies the Pharisees and Sadducees who were rich and covetous. As such it is a parable, and the details are not literal, and it is based upon the false teachings of the Pharisees, almost in the form of a parody. But I do see a strong connection between what Jesus stated about the resurrection and the failure of the Rich Man’s brothers to repent and what actually happened as a result of the resurrection of Lazarus. Jesus knew that Lazarus would die, and he would resurrect him, and for this reason Jesus named the poor man as Lazarus.
Luke 16:27–31 (KJV): 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

John 11:46–50 (KJV): 46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. 47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. 49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

John 12:10 (KJV): But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;

The subject that Jesus is discussing with the Saduccees is the resurrection, not immortal soul:
Matthew 22:23,28–33 (KJV): 23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. 33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
Jesus quotes Exodus 3:6 to prove that God must raise Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from the dead.

The figure is based upon the Altar of Burnt Offering, and the animals were slain and the blood poured out at the base of the Altar. Is there a literal Altar in Heaven and are the martyr's immortal souls residing at the base of this Heavenly Altar?
Revelation 6:9 (KJV): And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:



I found it interesting that I read this morning from another forum whose Owner and Administrator added a new thread and stated:
"Jesus did not say that he would be paradise on that day. At Jesus' return in His kingdom (Luke 19:11-12), His reward is with Him (Revelation 22:12), and "all that are in the tombs will hear his voice, and will come forth," either "to the resurrection of life," or "to the resurrection of judgment" -- for "there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." -- John 5:28,29, Acts 24:15.
The above was written by a "Bible Student" who more or less follows Charles Taze Russell, but is in a different fellowship than the JWs. He has written many articles against the JW teachings.

Concerning the comma, my rendition is the same as Ethelbert W Bullinger gives and explains in his Companion Bible. The subject of the thief's request was to be remembered when Jesus was to return and come in his Kingdom. Jesus is speaking about Paradise, the restored Garden of Eden, not heaven or Abraham's bosom. Where were the thief and Jesus on the day of their death - in heaven or Abraham's bosom?

Kind regards
Trevor

Russel doesn't make their doctrine .the Tract society .

The view they have is that at death you sleep " a euphemism for cease to exist and then are revived at the judgement .

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201512/the-soul/

Their own words..look I was a jw in my young age of three to to about 18.i was devout at times and my sister still is . I was reading the Bible in the hall out loud under some program I can't remember.

 

[Mr. G Lee]

Luke 16:22-25
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame."
25 But Abraham said, "Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and you are tormented."

In this story, Jesus plainly described the transport of the souls of two dead men, one to torment in hell, the other to "Abraham's Bosom" where he was "comforted." Is there anything about Jesus' story that would require that it be read in a figurative way? No. Instead, Jesus' description of the destinations of both men is remarkably detailed but unadorned. His story has a straightforward, matter-of-fact quality quite unlike, say, the apostle John's mystical Revelation, or the Psalmist's symbolic poetry.

In that parable which you call story God uses the rich man to speak of the wisdom of this world after what the eyes see the temporal .The imagery person is praying to the god of this world God over and over informs us he does not work through necromancy seeking the dead for the living (patron saints) But does through all things writen in the law or Moses and the prophets the prophets the tesetiny God spoke

Three time in effect the Spirit of Truth said to the the "rich man $$$$$ false riches . . open my Bible the true riches and God the one good teacher master will teach and bring to your minds the previous thing he has taught us (John 14).warning us of the antichrists false apostles bringing false prophecy . . the oral tradition of "I heard it through the fathers and kings grape vine"

Making sola scriptura all thing writen in Moses (the law giver) and Elisa (the testimony of the law). . . the prophets.

The last time in that series of parable beginning the chapter before he revealed their future even though they did not believe in a God not seen when God would right before thier eyes show a demonstration the the whole word , They would remain faithless, clueless as those who do not see the things that are there seen but see the things that are not

Luke 16:29-31 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, (sola scriptura) neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
we are not saved by human faith we have none that could please Him He gives us little .His free gift to us . . Himself the gift that keeps on giving as it is written .

The word wine literally anything that as a lust intoxicates or invigorate to include the pride of the devil, the father of lies If we find little honey we can thank the father for elevator of his joy .Too much like Jonas vomit us out.
Lust of the eye lust of the flesh two building block of false pride .(1 John 2:16)

Not of our Father in heaven. he lays us yoked with him down in green pastures beside the stilled waters of his living word .

Proverbs 23:31-34 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his (Satan) colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast.

A wave of confusion .Now you see it (splash splash. . . . lol) now you do not. Winds as doctrines of faithless men.

 

[Tenchi]

In that parable which you call story God uses the rich man to speak of the wisdom of this world after what the eyes see the temporal .The imagery person is praying to the god of this world God over and over informs us he does not work through necromancy seeking the dead for the living (patron saints) But does through all things writen in the law or Moses and the prophets the prophets the tesetiny God spoke

I'm afraid I can't make much sense out of this... Lack of punctuation, and statements that don't follow a distinct line of reasoning leave me quite unable to discern what you're trying to say.

Three time in effect the Spirit of Truth said to the the "rich man $$$$$ false riches . . open my Bible the true riches and God the one good teacher master will teach and bring to your minds the previous thing he has taught us (John 14).warning us of the antichrists false apostles bringing false prophecy . . the oral tradition of "I heard it through the fathers and kings grape vine"

??? The Spirit speaks not at all to the Rich Man in the parable Jesus gave. It was only to this story that I offered my views, however, not to the general teaching of Scripture on the matter of material riches. I'm not sure, then, what point your remarks here are aimed at...

The last time in that series of parable beginning the chapter before he revealed their future even though they did not believe in a God not seen when God would right before thier eyes show a demonstration the the whole word , They would remain faithless, clueless as those who do not see the things that are there seen but see the things that are not

Uh huh.

The word wine literally anything that as a lust intoxicates or invigorate to include the pride of the devil, the father of lies If we find little honey we can thank the father for elevator of his joy .Too much like Jonas vomit us out.
Lust of the eye lust of the flesh two building block of false pride .(1 John 2:16)

*Shrugs* Okay...

A wave of confusion .Now you see it (splash splash. . . . lol) now you do not. Winds as doctrines of faithless men.

Are you talking about your own remarks? If so, you're exactly right here.

 

[Mr. G Lee]

I'm afraid I can't make much sense out of this... Lack of punctuation, and statements that don't follow a distinct line of reasoning leave me quite unable to discern what you're trying to say.

The line of reasoning is no man can serve to good teaching masters coming from one Lord mammon (worldly goods beginning with sheep in the first parable in the series of parables

The wisdom of this "world's riches''' pitted against "sola scriptura" the wisdom of God .( Moses and the Prophets or called the law and its testimony)

The temporal seen must be mixed with the eternal not seen things of God if we desire to find the spiritual understand hid from the lost . . that litealize the parables

Are you talking about your own remarks? If so, you're exactly right here

I am suggesting the faithless having no value in rightly dividing the parables

The subject matter (No servant can serve two mastersbeginning the previous chapter 15 using sheep to represent the wisdom of of the world then. The rich waiting father

Luke 16 13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.(riches of this world

Ask yourself can you serve two good teaching masters as coming from one Lord? The flesh seen and the born again spirit of God (not seen ?

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

 

[Tenchi]

The temporal seen must be mixed with the eternal not seen things of God if we desire to find the spiritual understand hid from the lost . . that litealize the parables

Are you saying that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus has to be viewed as entirely symbolic if it's to be understood in a proper, spiritual (eternal) way? As I've already explained, this isn't necessarily so. It's quite possible to understand the places and events of the story Jesus told as literal places and events and also extract a spiritual (and eternal) application/truth from the story. The latter doesn't require a making figurative of the former.

Just as it's inappropriate to literalize everything in the Bible, it's also inappropriate to make everything in it symbolic, or figurative. Literary genre and context indicate when a verse or passage is symbolic or literal (or a mix of both). The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is both real and literal in its description of events and places and spiritual in its application.

I am suggesting the faithless having no value in rightly dividing the parables

Okay... And the "faithless" are?

The subject matter (No servant can serve two mastersbeginning the previous chapter 15 using sheep to represent the wisdom of of the world then. The rich waiting father

Luke 16 13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.(riches of this world

While this certainly has a connection to the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, this fact doesn't mean that the events and places Jesus described in the story were a total fantasy, made up for symbolic purposes. And none of Jesus's other stories were like this.

Ask yourself can you serve two good teaching masters as coming from one Lord? The flesh seen and the born again spirit of God (not seen ?

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

I've no idea from what you've written why I should ask myself this question.

 

[Mr. G Lee]

Are you saying that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus has to be viewed as entirely symbolic if it's to be understood in a proper, spiritual (eternal) way? As I've already explained, this isn't necessarily so. It's quite possible to understand the places and events of the story Jesus told as literal places and events and also extract a spiritual (and eternal) application/truth from the story. The latter doesn't require a making figurative of the former.

Just as it's inappropriate to literalize everything in the Bible, it's also inappropriate to make everything in it symbolic, or figurative. Literary genre and context indicate when a verse or passage is symbolic or literal (or a mix of both). The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is both real and literal in its description of events and places and spiritual in its application.

Hi thanks for the reply.

To begin with we have the law not subject to change. Without parables the mysteries of God, Christ spoke not.

The rich man used in parables beginning in the previous chapter 15 continue using different things to represent the riches of this world momnon as a false teaching authority (communing with the dead called patron saints today (necromancy)

Those not communing with the unseen Holy Father .
Luke 15:1-6 King James Version1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.And he spake this parable unto them, sayingWhat man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

Then Jesus the Son of man moved by the father moved on the second parable same conclusion no one can serve two good teaching master as coming from one Lord

Luke 15: 8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?

Then again another parable with the same conclusion. The parable of the rich waiting Holy Father

Luke 15: 16-18 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,

Continuing to teach how how to walk by faith after the unseen eternal things of God. Chapter 16 continues coming to the conclusion of the parable "no man can serve two good teaches master as coming from one God .

Not the legion of gods called patron saints that oppose sola scriptura (all things written in the law and prophets ) The true riches of his wisdom .

Luke 16 :13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.. . . . . . . The wisdom inspired from earth (dirt)

The conclusion even if they hear the gospel (all things writen in the law (or Moses) and prophets they have no power to raise themselves even if the witnessed the miracle of God raising the dead They have no understanding of the parable the good teaching masters tool needed to rightly divide

Luke 16: 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets (sola scriptura) , neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[Tenchi]

Hi thanks for the reply.

To begin with we have the law not subject to change. Without parables the mysteries of God, Christ spoke not.

Well, the entire word of God comes from God who is Christ. All of Scripture, then, is from Christ, our Savior, God and Lord. Beyond the Gospels, we have many explanations of the "mysteries of God." So, Christ is not, and has not been, limited to just parables in teaching "the mysteries of God."

The rich man used in parables beginning in the previous chapter 15 continue using different things to represent the riches of this world momnon as a false teaching authority (communing with the dead called patron saints today (necromancy)

Not following you here... Jesus never said mammon was a "teaching authority" - especially of spiritual truth - but only that it could be a competing "god" in one's life that one could not serve while serving God also.

Those not communing with the unseen Holy Father .
Luke 15:1-6 King James Version1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.And he spake this parable unto them, sayingWhat man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

This story is actually more about the Shepherd than the sheep. It describes the Shepherd's determination to seek out his own sheep when they stray and return them to the sheepfold. And when the Shepherd finds his lost sheep and has returned it to the sheepfold, he rejoices. The Lost Sheep story, then, isn't about "teaching authorities" but about the faithfulness and love of the Good Shepherd and his rejoicing over the finding of his lost sheep.

Then Jesus the Son of man moved by the father moved on the second parable same conclusion no one can serve two good teaching master as coming from one Lord

Luke 15: 8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?

But, this isn't the point of the story. Like God seeking out the lost person, the woman in the parable searched diligently until she found her lost coin. And when she did, she rejoiced like the angels in heaven rejoice over a sinner coming to salvation. It is this rejoicing that Christ plainly emphasizes as the point of the parable:

Luke 15:9-10
9 And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’
10 Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

Then again another parable with the same conclusion. The parable of the rich waiting Holy Father

Luke 15: 16-18 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,

Again, the story has to do with the amazing love, and patience, and grace of the father who rejoices greatly at the return of his wayward son. There is nothing about mammon and teaching authorities in the story, only the goodness and joy of the father.

Luke 15:20-24
20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.
21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet.
23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate.
24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.

Not the legion of gods called patron saints that oppose sola scriptura (all things written in the law and prophets ) The true riches of his wisdom .

??? I've not suggested anything about idolatrous saint worship...

Luke 16 :13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.. . . . . . . The wisdom inspired from earth (dirt)

The conclusion even if they hear the gospel (all things writen in the law (or Moses) and prophets they have no power to raise themselves even if the witnessed the miracle of God raising the dead They have no understanding of the parable the good teaching masters tool needed to rightly divide

Luke 16: 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets (sola scriptura) , neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

"Mammon" is not a form of earthly wisdom, but is only described by Christ as a (false) "god" competing with the One, True God for a person's love, worship and service. "Mammon," then, is a wrong object of desire; it is not described by Christ as a source of (false) knowledge or truth. As a result, I don't see that Luke 16:13 links up with the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man in the way you think it does.

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
I have a few questions Mr. G Lee.

"To begin with we have the law not subject to change. Without parables the mysteries of God, Christ spoke not." Quote from Mr. G Lee

1. What are you trying to say here? Jesus did speak the parables according to the Gospel writers.

2. What is the significance of both parables?
The sheep and the silver were both found, and there was rejoicing. Both were lost while under the caretaker's care.

"Then again another parable with the same conclusion. The parable of the rich waiting Holy Father" Quote from Mr. G Lee

3. Are you saying that the prodigal son parable is the same as the lost sheep, and the lost lost piece of silver parables? I see significant differences.

"Not the legion of gods called patron saints that oppose sola scriptura (all things written in the law and prophets ) The true riches of his wisdom." Quote from Mr. G Lee

4. Are you saying that only the Old Testament is Sola Scriptura? Are you further saying that the apostles (patron saints) oppose sola Scriptura?
If so, what is your proof?

"The conclusion even if they hear the gospel (all things writen in the law (or Moses) and prophets they have no power to raise themselves even if the witnessed the miracle of God raising the dead They have no understanding of the parable the good teaching masters tool needed to rightly divide" Quote from Mr. G Lee

5. I have never heard the Law or Moses and the prophets referred to as the Gospel. Where are you getting this from? None of the previous parables deals with raising the dead. Neither does the parable that starts Luke 16. You seem to be trying to answer the question before it is asked.

Luke 16: 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets (sola scriptura) , neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

6. This is what I am getting at Mr. G Lee. You added (Sola Scriptura). Are you saying Moses and the prophets are Sola Scriptura? Or is it Luke? Or is it both?

Just stuff I think about.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[Mr. G Lee]

Well, the entire word of God comes from God who is Christ. All of Scripture, then, is from Christ, our Savior, God and Lord. Beyond the Gospels, we have many explanations of the "mysteries of God." So, Christ is not, and has not been, limited to just parables in teaching "the mysteries of God."

I am talking about the mysteries made known in the Bible they are not made known to any outside of Christ. A person cannot make up their own. But of what value to Christ our spiritual understanding is limited to sola scriptura all things written in the law and prophets (Bible)

Not following you here... Jesus never said mammon was a "teaching authority" - especially of spiritual truth - but only that it could be a competing "god" in one's life that one could not serve while serving God also.

Mammon worldly riches in four different parables with the same conclusion (sheep . woman losing silver, rich father in that series is compared to the Riches of the Bible all things written in Moses and the prophets on like other parables

This story is actually more about the Shepherd than the sheep. It describes the Shepherd's determination to seek out his own sheep when they stray and return them to the sheepfold. And when the Shepherd finds his lost sheep and has returned it to the sheepfold, he rejoices. The Lost Sheep story, then, isn't about "teaching authorities" but about the faithfulness and love of the Good Shepherd and his rejoicing over the finding of his lost sheep

It clearly about the riches of this world compared to the riches of Gods living word.

Again, the story has to do with the amazing love, and patience, and grace of the father who rejoices greatly at the return of his wayward son. There is nothing about mammon and teaching authorities in the story, only the goodness and joy of the father.

That could give us the literal understanding of the parable. Why would some avoid the spiritual connection of that parable? The Rich father is God the son is born again. The gospel understanding hid form those who literalize the spiritual understanding.

"Mammon" is not a form of earthly wisdom, but is only described by Christ as a (false) "god" competing with the One, True God for a person's love, worship and service. "Mammon," then, is a wrong object of desire; it is not described by Christ as a source of (false) knowledge or truth. As a result, I don't see that Luke 16:13 links up with the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man in the way you think it does.

Yes, false god in regard to his false wisdom (false apostle false prophets) . The wisdom ends saying if mankind will not believe the Bible is the one source of faith by which we enter fellowship. Then even if one would see one rise from the dead. God would not give them His power to believe.


.

 

[Mr. G Lee]

3. Are you saying that the prodigal son parable is the same as the lost sheep, and the lost lost piece of silver parables? I see significant differences.

Thanks for the reply.

I would agree significantly as whole series of parables leading toward one gospel understanding. The mystery is not the literal understanding.

Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

"Not the legion of gods called patron saints that oppose sola scriptura (all things written in the law and prophets ) The true riches of his wisdom." Quote from Mr. G Lee

Patron saint those who seek after the dead is one way, we can understand those who literalize the parables. Which again Christ spoke not without

5. I have never heard the Law or Moses and the prophets referred to as the Gospel. Where are you getting this from? None of the previous parables deals with raising the dead. Neither does the parable that starts Luke 16. You seem to be trying to answer the question before it is asked.

As law of faith believe God not seen. He warns of the wisdom of this world those who seek the dead like in Luke 16 (necromancy)

There Christ using the creative law of faith. "Let there be", and "it was good". To the law and to the testimonyBible) if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them

Seek (Hebrew Darash) is used both in seeking God and seeking after the dead. Necromancy the same division found in Luke 16 that opposed the Bible.

Isaiah 819 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: (Bible) if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them

It is used in the same way. To the law and to the testimony or law and prophets throughout the Bible.

Moses is used to represent the law. Elias to represent the Old Testament prophets, John the new used as a testimony to What God's law said comes to pass as testimony prophets .(sola scriptura)

Matthew 17:3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. . .

God communing with the Son

A vison or theophany

There Peter did not rightly divide the parable as prophecy. He looked at the literal interpretation not mixing it with faith the unseen things of God.

Luke 16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

The same two witnesses spoken of in Revelation like Peter. many today look to the literal and not search for the spiritual gospel understanding of the parables.

Revelation 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, (Bible) and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
Mr. G Lee, I believe your focus off base from what Jesus was was talking about in the parable of the lost sheep.

"It clearly about the riches of this world compared to the riches of Gods living word." Quote from Mr. G Lee

Mr. G Lee the parable is about the lost sheep. It is in the name. It isn't the parable of the 99 safe sheep. If it were about riches, logic would dictate the 99 were more valuable than the 1. The smartest choice would be to protect the 99 you have. Through time the herd will grow and the sheep would be replaced.

But the shepherd chose to pursue and find the one lost sheep, leaving behind the 99 in the wilderness. Why? The sheep was his. The shepherd does not quit being the shepherd because his sheep is lost. The shepherd looks till he finds the sheep. Then he carries the sheep back to the herd rejoicing. The shepherd further gathers his friends and neighbors for a party to share his rejoicing.

Then Jesus goes on to explain the parable.

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

There is no mystery about this parable. The joy of the shepherd (God) translates to the joy in heaven over a lost sheep (sinner) that is found.

"That could give us the literal understanding of the parable. Why would some avoid the spiritual connection of that parable? The Rich father is God the son is born again. The gospel understanding hid form those who literalize the spiritual understanding." Quote from Mr. G Lee

You have this right. The Father is God. The son is born again. But the son during his time of "riotous living " (ya gotta love how the King James version phrases things) was in a backslidden condition. That is different than the sheep that was outright lost. So they are clearly not communicating the same message. Jesus is telling us that a person who is in a backslidden condition is still saved. The son knows who his father is. You notice that the father does not persue the son the way the shepherd pursued the lost sheep. In the prodigal son parable the Father watches and waits for the son's return. The rejoicing is the same when the son returns.

For the rest of you, notice also that there is no judgement by the father, only rejoicing. It's his brother that does the judging. Picking up the parable where the brother was told why the party was being held:

Luke 15:28-32 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

The Father explained the situation to the brother. "Your brother was dead, and is alive again;" Important to note, a backslidden condition is a dead condition if you stay there. The son turned around (repented) and walked back home.

I don't believe you can combine parables for a deeper meaning. If you can do this, show us how.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz