Hades is Sheol

[Webb]

It would seem this thread is going nowhere fast. Something must come of it soon.

It's going nowhere fast to you because you're not in the argument about Luke 16. Just a thought.

My point is the thread seemed to be stuck in a, "You're wrong...No I'm not...Yes you are...No I'm not..." Let's move along.

One way of moving on is to ask "how does the OT priesthood get into Luke 16?

 

[VirginShallConceive]

we'll continue here.. http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=51300

This was a good idea, Urk, because it does seem to be a major topic on its own.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

One way of moving on is to ask "how does the OT priesthood get into Luke 16?

Some observations that might help you:

1. The setting: At a leader of the Sanhedrin's house where he was hosting a feast, this man was a Pharisee and teacher of the law and was rich. Only the Levitical Priesthood could teach the law.
2. What was the Rich man wearing? Fine Linen.. What was the Levites clothing for the temple made out of? Fine Linen..
3. What was the color of the Rich man's clothes? Purple. What did purple signify? Royalty. The Levitical Priesthood was a ROYAL priesthood.
4. The root Hebrew name of Lazarus is Eleazar. Eleazar if you can remember was Aaron's son, who when he sinned against God, he was killed and his garments were taken off Aaron and put on his son Eleazar, showing the transference of authority.
5. How many full blooded brothers did Levi have? 5.
6. What happened to the Levitical Priesthood? The priesthood was destroyed with the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, never to return.
7. What was the last indictment God made in the OT? Malachi, God speaks against the Levitical priesthood for a few reasons.. their hypocrisy, not following or teaching what God wanted. Greed, they were not being rich towards God.. and DIVORCE.
8. What is the passage that comes directly before the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus? It's a passage about how divorcing a woman and then being joined to another woman is adultery, God said in Malachi 2 that he hates divorce.. speaking against the Levitical priesthood.

I could go on, but this is just some food for thought. Either these are some extreme coincidences with these observations.. or you'll have to admit I'm on to something.

 

[P31Woman]

Only the Levitical Priesthood could teach the law

Under the law this is true. Why would you think they were following this law by the time of Jesus?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Only the Levitical Priesthood could teach the law

Under the law this is true. Why would you think they were following this law by the time of Jesus?

What would make you think they weren't? Even Jesus recognized their authority to teach.

saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses. 3 Therefore do and observe everything that they tell you, but do not do as ⌊they do⌋, for they tell others to do something* and do not do it themselves. (Mt 23:2–3).

What on earth is Jesus saying here? That they ought to observe everything that the scribes an Pharisee's tell them to do? Jesus' as I said recognizes their authority to teach, but despises their hypocrisy. The Jews at this time were following the law outwardly rather well, but they were hypocrites in their hearts.

 

[P31Woman]

1. The setting: At a leader of the Sanhedrin's house where he was hosting a feast, this man was a Pharisee and teacher of the law and was rich. Only the Levitical Priesthood could teach the law.

My best guess is the rich man was a Sadducees who were the elitists of the day and yes I agree he could have very well been part of the Sanhedrine.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

1. The setting: At a leader of the Sanhedrin's house where he was hosting a feast, this man was a Pharisee and teacher of the law and was rich. Only the Levitical Priesthood could teach the law.

My best guess is the rich man was a Sadducees who were the elitists of the day and yes I agree he could have very well been part of the Sanhedrine.

Your guess is wrong, chapter 14 identifies this man as a Pharisee. Reading the context properly is important.

 

[P31Woman]

OK so you are talking about chapter 14 not 16 to begin with. I missed that.


Luke 14:1
One Sabbath, when He went to eat at the house of one of the leading Pharisees, they were watching Him closely.

1. The setting: At a leader of the Sanhedrin's house where he was hosting a feast, this man was a Pharisee and teacher of the law and was rich. Only the Levitical Priesthood could teach the law.

2. What was the Rich man wearing? Fine Linen.. What was the Levites clothing for the temple made out of? Fine Linen..

I don't see all that in the verse.

 

[Guest]

The pharisee rich man was unsaved, thus him going to Hades in torment in Luke 16

 

[Doulos Iesou]

OK so you are talking about chapter 14 not 16 to begin with. I missed that.


Luke 14:1
One Sabbath, when He went to eat at the house of one of the leading Pharisees, they were watching Him closely.

This is one scene, Chapter 14-16, all takes place at the same location.

I don't see all that in the verse.

What don't you see, this was a vague statement that I'm not sure which part do you not see. Thanks

 

[P31Woman]

Luke 14:1
One Sabbath, when He went to eat at the house of one of the leading Pharisees, they were watching Him closely.

I don't see that he was dressed in purple, I don't see that he was rich. I don't see that he was wearing fine linen. I do not see that he was one of the 70. I do not see this as a feast.

I don't believe most Pharisees came from the Priestly line. I "think"? they come from the scribes. Need a history refresher to be sure. I believe they "seat" in the Seat of Moses as in they took that position of teacher, it was not given to them by God. The Pharisees tended to be a very middle class working group of people. They were merchants and the like.

 

[P31Woman]

Philippians 3


— 4 although I once also had confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he has grounds for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised the eighth day; of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; regarding the law, a Pharisee; .



Sorry I cannot make the bold go away. This is Paul speaking above. Notice he was from the trible of Benjamin and was a Pharisee.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Philippians 3


— 4 although I once also had confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he has grounds for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised the eighth day; of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; regarding the law, a Pharisee; .



Sorry I cannot make the bold go away. This is Paul speaking above. Notice he was from the trible of Benjamin and was a Pharisee.

Please site where I said all Pharisee's are Levites? And please continue to read the context, in v.3 he says Pharisee's and lawyers.. Who were the lawyers? The Greek word is νομικός and here are some Lexicons opinions on the matter:

33.338 νομικόςa, οῦ m: one who is an expert in interpreting religious law (with a probable exception of Tt 3:13 (see 56.37), always in reference to the Jewish Law)—‘interpreter of the Law, expert in the Law.’ νομικός τις ἀνέστη ἐκπειράζων αὐτόν ‘an expert in the Law came up and tried to test him’ or ‘… trap him’ Lk 10:25.

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (426). New York: United Bible Societies.

νομικός (nomikos), οῦ (ou), ὁ (ho): n.masc. [served by 3788]; ≡ Str 3544—1. LN 33.338 interpreter of the Jewish Law (Mt 22:35; Lk 7:30; 10:25; 11:45, 46, 52; 14:3; Tit 3:13+; Lk 11:53 v.r. NA26); 2. LN 56.37 lawyer, a specialist in civil law (Tit 3:13+), for another interp, see prior

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
​

These were Pharisee's who were interpreters and experts in the Law, signifying that they were indeed Levites. This is demonstrated in the OT teaching (Malachi 2:1-9, Deuteronomy 17:8-11, Leviticus 10:11, Deuteronomy 33:10). Not to mention, that most of the rulers of the Israelites at the time were religious figures like the High Priest Caiaphas who was a Levite.

I recommend reading the book of Malachi and then reading this section, especially chapter 16, and see how it cognates.

 

[Webb]

Hi Doulous

In response to your post # 83 I'll take "extreme coincidences".

 

[P31Woman]

These were Pharisee's who were interpreters and experts in the Law, signifying
that they were indeed Levites.

Prove it.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Hi Doulous

In response to your post # 83 I'll take "extreme coincidences".

So if these are coincidences, what do you make of the issues of the literal interpretation.

1. Do you believe the wicked will have physical bodies in the intermediate state? If so what basis do you have for that?
2. Why is all of the actions in Hades represented by physical terms. The dead rich man has eyes, tongue, and experiences physical torment, as well as the poor man has a finger. Or the fact that this would be a wholly unique teaching on Hades or Sheol.

It's one thing for you to say, "I'll take extreme coincidence" and it's another to present a plausible counter interpretation for the passage. Are you able to do that, I'll put my views out for scrutiny.. Will you?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

These were Pharisee's who were interpreters and experts in the Law, signifying
that they were indeed Levites.

Prove it.

What do you mean prove? I believe I made a strong positive case for it as the Pharisees present were interpreters of the law. And they still relegated that responsibility to the Levitical Priesthood.

How educated are you on 1st Century Judaism? Enough to object off of any real basis? Or no matter what I say will you continue to disagree..

 

[VirginShallConceive]

One way of moving on is to ask "how does the OT priesthood get into Luke 16?

Some observations that might help you:

1. The setting: At a leader of the Sanhedrin's house where he was hosting a feast, this man was a Pharisee and teacher of the law and was rich. Only the Levitical Priesthood could teach the law.
2. What was the Rich man wearing? Fine Linen.. What was the Levites clothing for the temple made out of? Fine Linen..
3. What was the color of the Rich man's clothes? Purple. What did purple signify? Royalty. The Levitical Priesthood was a ROYAL priesthood.
4. The root Hebrew name of Lazarus is Eleazar. Eleazar if you can remember was Aaron's son, who when he sinned against God, he was killed and his garments were taken off Aaron and put on his son Eleazar, showing the transference of authority.
5. How many full blooded brothers did Levi have? 5.
6. What happened to the Levitical Priesthood? The priesthood was destroyed with the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, never to return.
7. What was the last indictment God made in the OT? Malachi, God speaks against the Levitical priesthood for a few reasons.. their hypocrisy, not following or teaching what God wanted. Greed, they were not being rich towards God.. and DIVORCE.
8. What is the passage that comes directly before the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus? It's a passage about how divorcing a woman and then being joined to another woman is adultery, God said in Malachi 2 that he hates divorce.. speaking against the Levitical priesthood.

I could go on, but this is just some food for thought. Either these are some extreme coincidences with these observations.. or you'll have to admit I'm on to something.

Doulos,

I found your post #83 to be very educational and very interesting. That is some excellent insight. I learned a lot. Thank you.

:nod

 

[P31Woman]

These were Pharisee's who were interpreters and experts in the Law, signifying
that they were indeed Levites.

Prove it.

What do you mean prove? I believe I made a strong positive case for it as the Pharisees present were interpreters of the law. And they still relegated that responsibility to the Levitical Priesthood.

How educated are you on 1st Century Judaism? Enough to object off of any real basis? Or no matter what I say will you continue to disagree..

1. The setting: At a leader of the Sanhedrin's house where he was hosting a
feast, this man was a Pharisee and teacher of the law and was rich. Only the
Levitical Priesthood could teach the law.
2. What was the Rich man wearing?
Fine Linen.. What was the Levites clothing for the temple made out of? Fine
Linen..

You claim "This Man" from Luke 14:1 was all those things you claim....now prove it. Can you prove what he was wearing? Can you prove that he was part of the 70? Can you prove he was part of the Levitical Priesthood?

Prove this to be true. So far you are guessing and not giving us any real proof. Give us the exact scripture to support this stuff.

You seem to think that just because the OT law said only those from the tribe of Levi were to be teachers of the law this group did not believe they were educated enough to side step that law and allow whom they deemed worthy to be teachers.

If you are telling the truth in your profile my Religious Education degree is older than you are. BTW, it does not take a formal education to see the problems I am spotting in your theory. A simple reading of scripture tells us you are taking huge leaps here.

One more thing....about the color purple and cloths made of linen.......

Proverbs 31:22 ESV
She makes bed coverings for herself; her clothing is fine linen and purple. ;)

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You claim "This Man" from Luke 14:1 was all those things you claim....now prove it. Can you prove what he was wearing? Can you prove that he was part of the 70? Can you prove he was part of the Levitical Priesthood?

I'm not necessarily making this claim about a specific person, I'm not saying the Rich man directly represents this member of the Sanhedrin, but I am saying that some of them present and likely he too were Levites, as they had the authority according to the Law to interpret the Law. I cited Lexical authorities to validate this claim, as well as OT Scriptures that proved the Levitical Priesthood were the only ones who had the right to interpret the Scripture.

If you'll notice they questioned Jesus' authority.. but not John the Baptists, that's because John the Baptist was the son of Zechariah a PRIEST! They still believed these things to be true and lived by them. You simply need to study up on 1st Century Jewish Culture and beliefs a bit more in this area.

Also, I am not claiming that they were presently wearing fine linen... I'm saying that the Levitical Priests Garments were made with fine linen.

And they made the tunics of fine linen, a weaver’s work, for Aaron and for his sons, 28 and the turban of fine linen and the headdresses of the headbands of fine linen and undergarments of the linen cloth, finely twisted, 29 and the sash of finely twisted linen and blue and purple and crimson yarns, the work of an embroiderer, as Yahweh had commanded Moses. (Ex 39:27–29).

This is describing the how the garments for the Levitical Priests were to be made.

Also my point about the Purple being in regards to royalty comes from other sources of course and common knowledge of the time, but it's also Biblical.

And they put a purple cloak on him, and after* weaving a crown of thorns they placed it* on him. 18 And they began to greet him, “Hail, king of the Jews!”(Mk 15:17–18).

Why did they put a thorn and a purple cloak on Jesus? Because they were mocking him, and dressing him up like a king. The priesthood was known to be a royal priesthood, as we now as believers are a royal priesthood. Also, the Levites were priest-kings after the Maccabean revolt.

You seem to think that just because the OT law said only those from the tribe of Levi were to be teachers of the law this group did not believe they were educated enough to side step that law and allow whom they deemed worthy to be teachers.

What basis do you have to believe they side stepped this? They were EXTREMELY religious about being precise with these things, they were Pharisee's who held to a scholarly interpretation of Scripture who affirmed not only the written but oral tradition, thus they were extra careful to have their practice in alignment with the Tanakh and Talmud.

There is no reason to believe this function of the Levitical Priesthood stopped as the Levitical Priesthood functioned as it should, up until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

If you are telling the truth in your profile my Religious Education degree is older than you are. BTW, it does not take a formal education to see the problems I am spotting in your theory. A simple reading of scripture tells us you are taking huge leaps here.

"Your Religious Education degree is older than I am"?? What does that mean?

1. I didn't ask about your formal education.
2. I asked what how educated you were on this particular subject.
3. You're misunderstanding what I am saying for the most part.

One more thing....about the color purple and cloths made of linen.......

Proverbs 31:22 ESV
She makes bed coverings for herself; her clothing is fine linen and purple.

Did you look these up in a concordance? What was the purpose of quoting this? Do you think Luke 16 was alluding back to Proverbs 31?