Hell Fire

[RND]

No, it is just inconsistant with EVERY OTHER PARABLE in Scripture, which is why many theologians are questioning whether it is a parable or not.

Is there a lesson to be learned in understanding that Jesus had an actual friend named Lazarus that died and was resurrected? Is there a lesson to be learned about the FACT that no other parables use any names?

The fact of the matter is a number of parables refer to someone or something. Mark 4:15 - Mentions Satan. Matt. 13:37 - Mentions The Son of man. Matt. 13:39 - Mentions The devil. Matt. 15:13 - Mentions God the Father. II Sam. 12:7 - Is said to be King David. There are many, many others.

The test of a parable isn't the context, or names, or lack of names. The test of a parable is who is the parable being spoken to. Jesus only spoke to the Pharisees in parables. To suggest this discussion is not a parable when we are told Jesus only spoke to the Pharisees in parables makes little sense and is inconsistent with scripture and what is obvious.

Are there any that show God as, say an angel? Any that show God doing something un-Godlike? This is the point you are trying to make, that Jesus, in Luke 16, is showing God doing something HE WOULDN'T DO (in your opinion), namely put someone in Hades and torment them, in order to make a point.

What conversation are you apart of? I have made no such attempt to compare the angels to God or that "God" is doing something HE WOULDN'T DO. Clearly, more than once in fact, I have said that Jesus is using the "false beliefs" of the Pharisees against to prove a point. I think I've been fairly consistent in saying that what the Pharisees was not from God but from paganism. Jesus knew this and openly uses these false beliefs to make a point.

I'm not arguing there are no parables that use real people, I thought you were when you said "Word pictures that include subjects that are obviously not real with respect to the subject matter being "compared to" could be considered "false" in that sense."

The point I was making is your assumption that parables can't use the false doctrine of others to make a point.

Can you show me another one of Jesus' parables that uses examples of false doctrine to teach Truth?

Can I show you other examples of Jesus using "fictional characters" and "fictional situations" to get His point across? Sure you bet.

So can I, but I'm not arguing this point at all. Straw-man. Can you give me any examples of parables that use false doctrine to teach Truth?

I can't give other example of a woman that lost a coin that teaches truth, nor can I give another example of a son that once left home and return that teaches truth. The insistence that there must be another parable that uses the "false doctrine of others against them" to teach truth is insignificant.

Not without CORRECTING THESE FALSE BELIEFS. There is no correction. Jesus didn't say anything about how the beliefs were false. If you see a correction of the "false doctrine" of torment in the afterlife in this "parable", please point it out.

That's just the thing...there is a correction at the end of the parable.

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

Who is the "one" that eventually rose from the dead?

I don't know what the "5 brothers" refers to.

No? Fascinating. How many actual "blood brothers" did "Judah" have? See Genesis 29-31.

BTW, have you thought much about the other symbols in the parable? What the "dogs" are? The table? The "crumbs?"

[quote:2ikmd092]There were times when Jesus spoke in parables that the Pharisees perceived He was referring to them. Luke 16:19-31 is no different to me.

That's not the point.

[/quote:2ikmd092]

That exactly the point! The Pharisees were again being spoken to by Jesus and perceived He was speaking against them so the derided Him just as they did whenever they perceived He was speaking against them.

Luk 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

How so? How would this parable get them to "refocus" on a "Scriptural Truth", by using as an example the doctrine that He was trying to get them to turn from, then NOT correcting it?

Because there is no where in the Torah or the Tanahk that teaches man is immortal without God. Nowhere.

[quote:2ikmd092]Which is what I said. Read my quote again:

Do you mean the Sadducees? They were the ones that held Hellinistic views and denied the resurrection, not the Pharisees.

If the Saducees didn't believe in resurrection why would Jesus use a parable that spoken of the misguided view of "resurrection?"

That was my point.

Again, how does Jesus straighten out this "pagan notion" with the parable in Luke 16? He just assumes the bad people go to "Hades". He doesn't even argue the point!!!

Sure He does! He points out how ridiculous the notion of eternally burning hell is by using an obviously cartoonist notion of what the Pharisees believed. There are no examples, no stories and no verses in the Torah or Tanahk that teach "angels" carry the dead anywhere or that men roast in a compartment of flames.

I'm not following. He is using the eternal torment "part of the Pharisees beliefs" to get them to refocus on the truth of soul sleep? Could you elaborate?

[/quote:2ikmd092]

There is nothing in the scriptures that these Pharisees knew so well that they could recite scripture through song that teaches men are immortal by nature or that they float away with the help of angels or go to roast for eternity. Jesus was using the false notions of the afterlife that the Pharisees adopted from paganism to illustrate how these false ideas were inconsistent with the scriptures. He finally sums up the entirety of all the parables He told from chapter 15 onward by saying, And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

If they won't listen to Moses (the law, the Torah) or the prophets (the Tanahk) sure then they won't be persuaded by the "one" that would rise from the dead, Jesus.

 

[RND]

Didn't Origen also teach that Christ was subordinate to the Father?

Christ was completely subordinate to the Father while on earth.

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].

Luke 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

 

[francisdesales]

Didn't Origen also teach that Christ was subordinate to the Father? So he got two doctrines wrong.

Not sure about that one, but Origen also taught the pre-existence of the soul before being joined to the body at conception (rather than God creating one at conception).

Regards

 

[duval]

Thr record of Luke 16 of Lazarus and the rich man is not a parable. It begans in vs.1:'THERE WAS A CERTAIN RICH MAN---" Note the words "was" and "certain." No parable, Jesus said "certain."

 

[LostSoul]

I've been fairly consistent in saying that what the Pharisees was not from God but from paganism.

Forgive me...but where did you get this idea? I do not mean to be rude, but from studies I have done the Pharisees and Sadducees were both Jewish of which sought to uphold the teachings of the Torah, or Old Testament in a very much Roman world. Seeing as at the time in which Jesus walked much of the Jewish lands belonged to the Roman Empire.

 

[dadof10]

Dennis Crews wrote:
The Rich Man and Lazarus

Much argument has taken place over whether the words of Jesus in Luke 16:19-31 were intended to be understood literally or as a parable. Some Christians feel that in this story, Jesus was offering His hearers a glimpse of what existence in the afterlife is like. Others, citing numerous passages of Scripture that seem to contradict the portrayal of heaven and hell contained in this passage, feel that Jesus was teaching an altogether different kind of lesson. Unfortunately, many modern religious teachers have isolated the story from its original context and used it as a device for scaring people. Religious “conversions†resulting from a fear of hell as it is depicted in this passage have indeed occurred, but are based on a foundation sorely in need of the strength that comes only from a genuine appreciation of God’s character and a proper understanding of Scripture.
To begin this study, we’ll take a closer look at just what a parable really is, and then examine the setting in which Jesus told this story. Perhaps then we will better understand what lessons there are for us in the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

The Random House College Dictionary describes a parable as “a short, allegorical story designed to convey a truth or moral lesson.†Cruden’s Complete Concordance further expands this concept, saying that parables in the Bible were used “more generally than elsewhere.†We know that the Bible writers used situations both imaginaryâ€â€as in the trees asking the bramble to be king over them (Judges 9:8-15)â€â€and realistic in parables. Whatever form the parable took, it was only a vehicle for the moral lesson being taught.

Jesus recognized the value of parables in teaching the people. He desired to stimulate their deepest thought and contemplation, and He knew that if He spoke too literally, certain of His hearers would quickly forget His words. Not only that, but others, for whom certain of His parables contained stern rebuke, would be so angered by straight speaking that they would attempt to silence Him by violence. Wise as a serpent but harmless as a dove, Jesus recalled the words of Isaiah 6:9 and told His disciples, “Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.†Luke 8:10. Cruden’s Concordance explains: “Our Saviour in the gospels often speaks to the people in parables. He made use of them to veil the truth from those who were not willing to see it. Those who really desired to know would not rest till they had found out the meaning.â€Â

It is appropriate here to ask to whom Jesus was speaking in Luke 16:19-31. Which category of people was He dealing with? The last verse before Jesus’ voice begins in this passage tells us. Verse 14 says, “And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.†Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, a class of men who were notorious all through the Gospels for their refusal to deal honestly with Him and the truths He taught.

We can be sure that of all the people Jesus taught, none were handled more guardedly than the wily Pharisees. They dealt in deception and subterfuge, but Jesus dealt with them wisely and truthfully. The safest way for Him to do this was by parable and allegory. Evidence that they did not understand many of His teachings can be found in Jesus’ prayer in Luke 10:21, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hath revealed them unto babes.†Mark 4:33, 34 clearly shows that Jesus’ lessons were almost invariably couched in parables: “And with many such parables spake he the word unto them: as they were able to hear it. But without a parable spake he not unto them; and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.â€Â

The Rich Man and Lazarus
http://www.amazingfacts.org/FreeStu.../7/The-Rich-Man-and-Lazarus/SC/R/Default.aspx

It could be a parable or an actual event, I don't know. What I do know is that it is blatantly obvious that Jesus believed there is a Hades and bad people go there AS SOON AS THEY DIE and are in torment. That is clear from the parable.

What do you think?

 

[dadof10]

Didn't Origen also teach that Christ was subordinate to the Father? So he got two doctrines wrong.

Not sure about that one, but Origen also taught the pre-existence of the soul before being joined to the body at conception (rather than God creating one at conception).

Regards

Did I get Origen mixed up with someone else? I posted from memory. I'll look it up when I get time and get back to you.

 

[RND]

Thr record of Luke 16 of Lazarus and the rich man is not a parable. It begans in vs.1:'THERE WAS A CERTAIN RICH MAN---" Note the words "was" and "certain." No parable, Jesus said "certain."

Luk 12:16 And he (Jesus) spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:

Luk 16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

duval the fact that Jesus used the term a certain rich man in other parables should in fact be evidence that Jesus was speaking in parable in Luke 16:19-31 as well.

 

[RND]

Forgive me...but where did you get this idea?

General knowledge from history and historic fact.

I do not mean to be rude, but from studies I have done the Pharisees and Sadducees were both Jewish of which sought to uphold the teachings of the Torah, or Old Testament in a very much Roman world. Seeing as at the time in which Jesus walked much of the Jewish lands belonged to the Roman Empire.

If this was truly the case there would have been no need for Jesus to come. That fact that both the Pharisees and Sadducees put heavy burdens on people based on their restrictive outlook and knowledge of the Law and prophets is one of the main reasons Jesus needed to come.

The fact that these people that considered it "law breaking" to heal a crippled man on the sabbath should tell you something about their outlook and beliefs.

Luke 14:3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?

Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, [ye] lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

 

[dadof10]

The fact of the matter is a number of parables refer to someone or something. Mark 4:15 - Mentions Satan. Matt. 13:37 - Mentions The Son of man. Matt. 13:39 - Mentions The devil. Matt. 15:13 - Mentions God the Father. II Sam. 12:7 - Is said to be King David. There are many, many others.

I would venture to say about....ohh...about...100 percent of parables refer to "someone or something", that's not the point. Jesus uses the NAME of someone who is alive and is His friend. That's what makes many theologians think it might not be a parable.

We seem to be getting bogged down here and talking by each other. I'm really not sure if Luke 16 is a parable or an actual event, there are good arguments for both sides and it really doesn't matter. What matters is what it teaches, and it obviuosly teaches there is a place where bad people go immediately after death and are in torment. For the sake of argument I'll treat Luke 16 as a parable.

Jesus only spoke to the Pharisees in parables. To suggest this discussion is not a parable when we are told Jesus only spoke to the Pharisees in parables makes little sense and is inconsistent with scripture and what is obvious.

You're kidding, right? In the verses directly before the Rich Man and Lazarus (LK 16: 14-18) Jesus says this DIRECTLY to the Pharisees:

"The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed at him. But he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
"The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void.
"Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Luke (RSV) 16)

This is not a parable and there are many more times in Scripture where Jesus speaks directly to the Pharisees without using parables, the "woes" come to mind.

What conversation are you apart of? I have made no such attempt to compare the angels to God or that "God" is doing something HE WOULDN'T DO.

Try to keep up. In the parable, Who sent the rich man to Hades? I'll assume your answer would be "God". If you believe God does not send people to Hades until after their "soul-sleep" then this parable can be nothing less than an example of God doing something He wouldn't do.

Proposition A- Jesus says that God sent the rich man to Hades before the resurrection.
Proposition B- God would not send anyone to Hades before the resurrection.

Therefore Jesus portrayed God as doing something non-Godlike.

Clearly, more than once in fact, I have said that Jesus is using the "false beliefs" of the Pharisees against to prove a point. I think I've been fairly consistent in saying that what the Pharisees was not from God but from paganism.

You still have not explaind how Jesus used these "beliefs" against them. Please elaborate.

Jesus knew this and openly uses these false beliefs to make a point.

The point of the parable is that even when Jesus rises from the dead there will be some who won't accept Him as Messiah. He didn't need to use false "beliefs against them".

I can't give other example of a woman that lost a coin that teaches truth, nor can I give another example of a son that once left home and return that teaches truth. The insistence that there must be another parable that uses the "false doctrine of others against them" to teach truth is insignificant.

These things are normal, natural things. Women can lose and find coins, sons can leave home and return. From your prospective, what God did to the rich man (and Lazarus, for that matter) was NOT normal and natural. According to SDA theology, that bad people don't enter into "soul-sleep" and are tormented in the afterlife are pagan customs. Jesus is condoning a pagan custom? Where else in Scripture does He do this? It seems pretty significant to me, unless He corrected it....

That's just the thing...there is a correction at the end of the parable.

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

Who is the "one" that eventually rose from the dead?

How on earth does He correct this pagan custom by claiming, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead"?

I don't know what the "5 brothers" refers to.

No? Fascinating. How many actual "blood brothers" did "Judah" have? See Genesis 29-31.

What's fascinating is how many backflips you have to do to deny the plain Truth of Scripture. BLOOD BROTHERS??? Is this what you honestly think Jesus was getting at? That the rich man symbolized Judah and the Pharisees would get it from the "five brothers" comment?? If He was trying to get them to think of the rich man as Israel, why didn't He say "11 brothers"? WOW. Show me ANYWHERE in Scripture where the "five blood brothers of Judah" are referenced. This is purely made up.

BTW, have you thought much about the other symbols in the parable? What the "dogs" are? The table? The "crumbs?"

Why don't we save time and you tell me what all the symbols mean in this parable instead of asking condescending questions.

How so? How would this parable get them to "refocus" on a "Scriptural Truth", by using as an example the doctrine that He was trying to get them to turn from, then NOT correcting it?

Because there is no where in the Torah or the Tanahk that teaches man is immortal without God. Nowhere.

There is nowhere in Catholic theology that teaches man is immortal without God, or in Protestant theology, and I don't think the Pharisees taught that either. I don't know of ANYONE who teaches it. Why would Jesus rail against a non-doctrine?

Again, how does Jesus straighten out this "pagan notion" with the parable in Luke 16? He just assumes the bad people go to "Hades". He doesn't even argue the point!!

Sure He does! He points out how ridiculous the notion of eternally burning hell is by using an obviously cartoonist notion of what the Pharisees believed. There are no examples, no stories and no verses in the Torah or Tanahk that teach "angels" carry the dead anywhere or that men roast in a compartment of flames.

This just keeps getting better. There is absolutely NO evidence that Jesus was being anything but straight-forward in this and all the other parables. This is your whole problem. You are bringing SDA theology into Scripture and trying to make it fit.

There is nothing in the scriptures that these Pharisees knew so well that they could recite scripture through song that teaches men are immortal by nature or that they float away with the help of angels or go to roast for eternity. Jesus was using the false notions of the afterlife that the Pharisees adopted from paganism to illustrate how these false ideas were inconsistent with the scriptures.

OK, again....HOW??? Explain it to me, if you can.

 

[Rick W]

False doctrine???
If that's a show of false doctrine then any parable Christ ever spoke can viewed as such making the Gospels untrustworthy and useless. I'm not going there.
I'd like to know how it's a display of false doctrine also.

 

[RND]

I would venture to say about....ohh...about...100 percent of parables refer to "someone or something", that's not the point. Jesus uses the NAME of someone who is alive and is His friend. That's what makes many theologians think it might not be a parable.

Surely you are not suggesting that there were no other men in all of Israel that were named Lazarus are you? What clue do you use to determine that Jesus was speaking of His friend?

We seem to be getting bogged down here and talking by each other. I'm really not sure if Luke 16 is a parable or an actual event, there are good arguments for both sides and it really doesn't matter. What matters is what it teaches, and it obviuosly teaches there is a place where bad people go immediately after death and are in torment. For the sake of argument I'll treat Luke 16 as a parable.

I don't think the parable teaches anything of the sort. I believe it teaches that if one won't believe in Moses or the prophets they surely won't believe in the one that rose from the dead.

You're kidding, right? In the verses directly before the Rich Man and Lazarus (LK 16: 14-18) Jesus says this DIRECTLY to the Pharisees:

This is not a parable and there are many more times in Scripture where Jesus speaks directly to the Pharisees without using parables, the "woes" come to mind.

No, actually I'm not kidding and verses 14-18 clearly point out what the series of parables Jesus was giving to them were meant to covey.

Try to keep up. In the parable, Who sent the rich man to Hades? I'll assume your answer would be "God".

The parable is silent on this point so in order to make such a statement one would have to "assume" such a point.

If you believe God does not send people to Hades until after their "soul-sleep" then this parable can be nothing less than an example of God doing something He wouldn't do.

Or it could be an illustration based on the "false doctrine" that the religious leaders of Jesus' day had adopted from sources not of God. In reading all of the Old Testament this seems most likely.

Proposition A- Jesus says that God sent the rich man to Hades before the resurrection.

That would be a "false" proposition. Nothing states how the rich man got to the oven.

Proposition B- God would not send anyone to Hades before the resurrection.

That would also be a false proposition. Nothing states how the rich man got to the oven.

Therefore Jesus portrayed God as doing something non-Godlike.

How? Jesus never stated how the rich man got to where the Pharisees would have believed him to be at.

You still have not explaind how Jesus used these "beliefs" against them. Please elaborate.

Sure I have.

The point of the parable is that even when Jesus rises from the dead there will be some who won't accept Him as Messiah. He didn't need to use false "beliefs against them".

The point of the parable is that if one will not listen to the law and prophets they won't listen to Jesus, the "one" who rose from the dead.

These things are normal, natural things. Women can lose and find coins, sons can leave home and return.

Is it not "normal" for the Children of Israel to be persuaded into believing the "false doctrine" of others and adopt those beliefs?

From your prospective, what God did to the rich man (and Lazarus, for that matter) was NOT normal and natural.

It is not according to the scriptures. There is nothing in the OT that indicates God burns folks for eternity. Nothing.

According to SDA theology, that bad people don't enter into "soul-sleep" and are tormented in the afterlife are pagan customs.

Where'd you get that? SDA's believe everyone who dies (good or bad) does just that....dies.

Jesus is condoning a pagan custom? Where else in Scripture does He do this? It seems pretty significant to me, unless He corrected it....

Jesus is not "condoning a pagan custom" He is specifically showing them openly that there beliefs are not in accordance with "the law and prophets."

How on earth does He correct this pagan custom by claiming, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead"?

Because neither Moses or the prophets discuss the false notion of "immortality outside of God" or "eternally burning hell."

What's fascinating is how many backflips you have to do to deny the plain Truth of Scripture. BLOOD BROTHERS???

Yes, Judah had 11 brothers and a sister. However how many actual "blood brothers" did Judah have? 5. Do you think for a minute that a Pharisees expert in the knowledge of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would know this fact? Seriously.

Is this what you honestly think Jesus was getting at?

Of course, it is so obvious it is amazing! No other place in the Bible make such a reference about 5 brothers. You yourself said you had no idea what the "5 brothers" represented and now you're going to knock what I'm telling you they mean? Incredible!

Do me a favor then. Find another reference (just one) to "5 brothers" in the Bible and relate who those "5 brothers" are and I'll listen.

That the rich man symbolized Judah and the Pharisees would get it from the "five brothers" comment??

Easily. Who do you think those figures represent? Any ideas you'd care to share?

If He was trying to get them to think of the rich man as Israel, why didn't He say "11 brothers"? WOW. Show me ANYWHERE in Scripture where the "five blood brothers of Judah" are referenced. This is purely made up.

Not at all "made up" (see Genesis 35). Judah's mother was Leah and she had Reuben, Levi, Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun. She also had a daughter, Dinah. Judah's half brothers, born of Rachel included Joseph and Benjamin. Bilhah had Dan and Naphtali. Zilpah had Gad and Asher.

Four mothers, one father, 12 boys. If you think for a second that these Pharisees would not have known this like the back of their hands you truly need to rethink what you believe.

[quote:2cdtjvc2]BTW, have you thought much about the other symbols in the parable? What the "dogs" are? The table? The "crumbs?"

Why don't we save time and you tell me what all the symbols mean in this parable instead of asking condescending questions.[/quote:2cdtjvc2]

You serious, you don't know these things? OK, I'll give you one. Where do "crumbs" generally come from? Bread right? Is not the "Word of God" consistently referred to as bread?

Deu 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.

There is nowhere in Catholic theology that teaches man is immortal without God, or in Protestant theology, and I don't think the Pharisees taught that either. I don't know of ANYONE who teaches it. Why would Jesus rail against a non-doctrine?

In fact virtually all religions today whether they be "Christian" or otherwise teach that man has a "soul" that goes someplace upon death. Christians and Muslims believe it goes either to heaven or hell, Hindu's believe Uncle Charlie indwells cows or rats or some other "living creature." Taoists believe Uncle Charlie inhabits another person or even inanimate objects. Only the Old Testament teaches that when men dies the soul waits in the dust of the ground until resurrection.

This just keeps getting better. There is absolutely NO evidence that Jesus was being anything but straight-forward in this and all the other parables.

Jesus is being very "straight forward" in showing the Pharisees that what they believe is no in harmony with the "law and prophets."

This is your whole problem. You are bringing SDA theology into Scripture and trying to make it fit.

Hardly. I'm bringing the truth of the Old Testament to light.

OK, again....HOW??? Explain it to me, if you can.

Can I use scripture?

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

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

Psa 33:18 Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy; 19 To deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine.

Psa 56:13 For thou hast delivered my soul from death: wilt not thou deliver my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the light of the living?

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

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

Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Care for more? See Job 14:10-15 fascinating stuff! Speaks directly of a "future" resurrection for those dead in the grave.

 

[RND]

False doctrine???

Yes, false doctrine. Tell me Rick where we can find anywhere in the Old Testament (which would have been the ONLY scriptures available to the Pharisees) where one can find the idea of "angels carrying away the dead to Abraham's bosom?

If that's a show of false doctrine then any parable Christ ever spoke can viewed as such making the Gospels untrustworthy and useless. I'm not going there.

Why not? If you can't find anywhere in the OT where angels come and P/U the dead" then I suggest you do some more research on the topic.

I'd like to know how it's a display of false doctrine also.

As I've mentioned before, no where in the OT does it teach man is immortal without God or that man has a soul that "floats away" at the time of death and goes somewhere. Nowhere.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Soul, die. Not "soul" float away.

 

[duval]

RND the passages you cited in response to my post have the word "parable" in them. Unfortunately for your position "parable" is not used by Jesus in Lk.16. Simplly says "certain." There is a difference.

Why do you people make such long posts?

 

[Rick W]

False doctrine???

Yes, false doctrine. Tell me Rick where we can find anywhere in the Old Testament (which would have been the ONLY scriptures available to the Pharisees) where one can find the idea of "angels carrying away the dead to Abraham's bosom?

You haven't explained how that parable is a demonstration of false doctrine aimed at what the Pharasees believed, right or wrong.
The parable is about a fellow named Lazuras in Hell. Regardless of who it is, a real person or not, the object lesson is taught by Christ. Did Christ believe Hell existed when He said this or not?

 

[RND]

RND the passages you cited in response to my post have the word "parable" in them. Unfortunately for your position "parable" is not used by Jesus in Lk.16. Simplly says "certain." There is a difference.

duval, there is no difference in that the subject matter, in this case a "certian rich man" is the same.

Why do you people make such long posts?

Personally, I like to address each point made if possible.

 

[RND]

You haven't explained how that parable is a demonstration of false doctrine aimed at what the Pharasees believed, right or wrong.

Yes I have, several time is fact.

The parable is about a fellow named Lazuras in Hell.

Well, at least you got the "parable" part right!

Regardless of who it is, a real person or not, the object lesson is taught by Christ.

Sure, no question. Jesus used the "false beliefs" of the Pharisees to make a point. A rather clear point.

Did Christ believe Hell existed when He said this or not?

Oh, I'm most certain He did. But then again He knew that the "grave" was hell. "Eternal torment" is never broached in the Old Testament. Not once.

Isa 38:18 For the grave cannot praise thee, death can [not] celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.

Eze 31:16 I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth.

Psa 116:3 The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow.

1 Cor 15:55 O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

 

[duval]

Again folks, RND has got to find the word "parable" in Luke 16. It is not there. Jesus said "certain" and I believe Him. And RND there is a difference in this matter.

 

[RND]

Again folks, RND has got to find the word "parable" in Luke 16. It is not there.

Correct duval the word "parable" is not in Luke 16:19-31. In the parable of the lost coin (one coin missing out of ten?! Hmmmmm!) or the prodigal son the word "parable" is not found either. Are these not parables then?

Jesus said "certain" and I believe Him. And RND there is a difference in this matter.

Sorry duval no difference. Lots of parables that don't have the word parable in them are truly parables and many of those parables discuss "certain" men of some type.

 

[dadof10]

Surely you are not suggesting that there were no other men in all of Israel that were named Lazarus are you? What clue do you use to determine that Jesus was speaking of His friend?

Who else could He be referring to, and why was this name the ONLY name Jesus used in a parable ever? What makes you think that He used the name to mean "helpless"?

You're kidding, right? In the verses directly before the Rich Man and Lazarus (LK 16: 14-18) Jesus says this DIRECTLY to the Pharisees:

This is not a parable and there are many more times in Scripture where Jesus speaks directly to the Pharisees without using parables, the "woes" come to mind.

No, actually I'm not kidding and verses 14-18 clearly point out what the series of parables Jesus was giving to them were meant to covey.

You need to actually start reading what people post. Here is the conversation we are having on this point and your response makes no sense:

RND: Jesus only spoke to the Pharisees in parables. To suggest this discussion is not a parable when we are told Jesus only spoke to the Pharisees in parables makes little sense and is inconsistent with scripture and what is obvious.

dadof10: You're kidding, right? In the verses directly before the Rich Man and Lazarus (LK 16: 14-18) Jesus says this DIRECTLY to the Pharisees:
This is not a parable and there are many more times in Scripture where Jesus speaks directly to the Pharisees without using parables, the "woes" come to mind.

RND: No, actually I'm not kidding and verses 14-18 clearly point out what the series of parables Jesus was giving to them were meant to covey.

Huh? I was responding to your ridiculous notion that Jesus ONLY spoke in parables to the Pharisees, not what was or was not being conveyed. This is getting frustrating. Could you please try to actually read what i write and respond to it?

Try to keep up. In the parable, Who sent the rich man to Hades? I'll assume your answer would be "God".

The parable is silent on this point so in order to make such a statement one would have to "assume" such a point.

LOL...Then in your opinion, who is Jesus assuming sent them there? Oden? Zeus? C'mon...

You still have not explaind how Jesus used these "beliefs" against them. Please elaborate.

Sure I have.

So, you are sticking with the "cartoonist notion" defense, with no further explanation of why this one parable is "cartoonist" and all the other parables are not? No explanation of why nowhere else in all of Scripture do we find any other "cartoonist" parables where "pagan notions" are used and not debunked. No explanation of this new method of Biblical criticism? I understand. I couldn't defend this silly position either. Better to just keep repeating "I already have".

According to SDA theology, that bad people don't enter into "soul-sleep" and are tormented in the afterlife are pagan customs.

Where'd you get that? SDA's believe everyone who dies (good or bad) does just that....dies.

Let me rephrase:

SDA: People die and enter into "soul-sleep". At the resurrection they are raised and judged. If they are damned, they are thrown into the "lake of fire" and are annihilated. They are not tormented for eternity, only until their annihilation is completed.

Parable: When people die they go to either Abraham's Bosom or Hades immediately. If they are damned they are tormented.

This is the contrast between SDA theology and the Truth. Of course you have to make the claim that this is cartoon-like, if you accept it as true your entire view of the afterlife goes up in smoke (pun intended).

Jesus is condoning a pagan custom? Where else in Scripture does He do this? It seems pretty significant to me, unless He corrected it....

Jesus is not "condoning a pagan custom" He is specifically showing them openly that there beliefs are not in accordance with "the law and prophets."

I don't actually expect to get an answer, but I'll ask anyway. How so?

What's fascinating is how many backflips you have to do to deny the plain Truth of Scripture. BLOOD BROTHERS??

Yes, Judah had 11 brothers and a sister. However how many actual "blood brothers" did Judah have? 5. Do you think for a minute that a Pharisees expert in the knowledge of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would know this fact? Seriously.

Where in the OT are the "five blood brothers of Judah" referenced? NOWHERE. You are trying to draw a false parallel. What makes you think that the rich man is supposed to symbolize Judah? Why not Rueben, he was the first born? The five blood brothers of Judah....Give me a break.

Is this what you honestly think Jesus was getting at?

Of course, it is so obvious it is amazing! No other place in the Bible make such a reference about 5 brothers. You yourself said you had no idea what the "5 brothers" represented and now you're going to knock what I'm telling you they mean? Incredible!

The reference means that the rich man had five brothers. There's no need to try and find some hidden meaning in every detail of every parable. There are many parables that use detail just to make the story more interesting.

Do me a favor then. Find another reference (just one) to "5 brothers" in the Bible and relate who those "5 brothers" are and I'll listen.

I can't, that's the point. There is no reference to any "five brothers" anywhere, which means either this was an actual person who died and the people who Jesus was speaking to knew who He was talking about, or it was a literary device to make the story more interesting. To try and stretch this to mean the rich man is supposed to symbolize Judah is futile.

That the rich man symbolized Judah and the Pharisees would get it from the "five brothers" comment??

Easily. Who do you think those figures represent? Any ideas you'd care to share?

Yes, it means the man had five brothers. There is no hidden meaning. Let me give you another parable from Luke to compare:

16 But he said to him, "A man once gave a great banquet, and invited many; 17 and at the time for the banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, `Come; for all is now ready.' 18 But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, `I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it; I pray you, have me excused.' 19 And another said, `I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to examine them; I pray you, have me excused.' 20 And another said, `I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.'
21 So the servant came and reported this to his master. Then the householder in anger said to his servant, `Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame.' 22 And the servant said, `Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.' 23 And the master said to the servant, `Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. 24 For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.' (Luke (RSV) 14)

What is symbolized by the five yolk of oxen? Nothing. What does the field symbolize? Nothing. What about the wife? Nothing. They are just there to give examples of people who are too bound up in the world to come to the banquet. There is no hidden meaning in all examples within a parable.

Not at all "made up" (see Genesis 35). Judah's mother was Leah and she had Reuben, Levi, Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun. She also had a daughter, Dinah. Judah's half brothers, born of Rachel included Joseph and Benjamin. Bilhah had Dan and Naphtali. Zilpah had Gad and Asher.

Four mothers, one father, 12 boys. If you think for a second that these Pharisees would not have known this like the back of their hands you truly need to rethink what you believe.

I didn't mean you made up the fact that Leah had five sons by Jacob and one of them was named Judah, I meant that you made up that the "five blood brothers" was EVER used in the OT to symbolize Judah, either the man or the Southern Kingdom.

BTW, have you thought much about the other symbols in the parable? What the "dogs" are? The table? The "crumbs?"

Why don't we save time and you tell me what all the symbols mean in this parable instead of asking condescending questions.

You serious, you don't know these things? OK, I'll give you one. Where do "crumbs" generally come from? Bread right? Is not the "Word of God" consistently referred to as bread?

So, let me get this straight. Judah has the "Word of God" and is only letting the "crumbs" get to the "helpless"? Is this the symbolism so far? Could you keep going, please? I'm curious as to how this fits in with the other things in the parable.

In fact virtually all religions today whether they be "Christian" or otherwise teach that man has a "soul" that goes someplace upon death.

It doesn't just go someplace by itself. All is done by the power of God. Stop mischaracterizing ALL religion in an attempt to support your own.

Christians and Muslims believe it goes either to heaven or hell, Hindu's believe Uncle Charlie indwells cows or rats or some other "living creature." Taoists believe Uncle Charlie inhabits another person or even inanimate objects. Only the Old Testament teaches that when men dies the soul waits in the dust of the ground until resurrection.

I notice you said "Only the Old Testament teaches...". The NT teaches Heaven or Hell, then? Certainly Jesus does in this parable.

*EDIT* There is also this OT reference to the spirit "returning to the God that gave it":

Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come, and the years draw nigh, when you will say, "I have no pleasure in them"; 2 before the sun and the light and the moon and the stars are darkened and the clouds return after the rain; 3 in the day when the keepers of the house tremble, and the strong men are bent, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look through the windows are dimmed, 4 and the doors on the street are shut; when the sound of the grinding is low, and one rises up at the voice of a bird, and all the daughters of song are brought low; 5 they are afraid also of what is high, and terrors are in the way; the almond tree blossoms, the grasshopper drags itself along and desire fails; because man goes to his eternal home, and the mourners go about the streets; 6 before the silver cord is snapped, or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher is broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern, 7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. (Ecclesiastes (RSV) 12)