Hell Fire

[RND]

Hmmm....this makes me ponder.....because I know there are passages in the Bible that can be a bit cryptic and take some time to understand. Not that I am saying there are not people out there that argue against the very word of the Bible and call themselves Christians....but....still.....

Are you suggesting that one "can not" be Christian unless they believe as you do?

Are you suggesting that one "can not" be Christian unless they believe that God tortures the lost by roasting them with fire?

Now that I have said that.....I am going to venture back on topic.

That would be nice.

 

[LostSoul]

Are you suggesting that one "can not" be Christian unless they believe as you do?

Are you suggesting that one "can not" be Christian unless they believe that God tortures the lost by roasting them with fire?

No, I never once said that. The only thing I meant to imply is that certain passages can be understood in more than one way. That was all.

Sorry but it rather disheartens me that my own words are twisted and taken out of context. With that being said...and my views on this topic having already been expressed, I am going to back out of this thread.

Happy discussing to those who linger.

 

[RND]

No, I never once said that. The only thing I meant to imply is that certain passages can be understood in more than one way. That was all.

OK, that's fine. I had to ask because it seemed you were saying that there are some people out there that argue against the very word of the Bible and call themselves Christians.

Sorry but it rather disheartens me that my own words are twisted and taken out of context.

I sorry if you felt I was taking your quote out of context but you did seem to imply when you said this:

Hmmm....this makes me ponder.....because I know there are passages in the Bible that can be a bit cryptic and take some time to understand. Not that I am saying there are not people out there that argue against the very word of the Bible and call themselves Christians....but....still.....

that there are some people who take the word of God out of context and still call themselves Christians. In who's context would these so-called Christians be mistaken is all I'm asking.

With that being said...and my views on this topic having already been expressed, I am going to back out of this thread.

Happy discussing to those who linger.

See ya LL.

I'm just wondering if there is anyone willing to discuss the question raised in the OP.

 

[found in alaska]

It seems irrelevant to wonder what happens to those people who choose not to repent; who choose not accept GOD’s grace. I’d rather have my name in the Book of Life and know my sins are washed away; then be judged and found wanting… I’d rather have eternal life then eternal death.

 

[stovebolts]

Just a quick tutorial on how to quote somebody.

[quote=Members Name"]Take note of the =" " around Members Name[/quote]

[quote="Members Name]Take note of the =" " around Members Name[/quote]

Including the Members name when quoting them clarifies the discussion.

Thanks,

Including the Members name when quoting them clarifies the discussion.

Thanks,

Including the Members name when quoting them clarifies the discussion.

Thanks,

 

[RND]

It seems irrelevant to wonder what happens to those people who choose not to repent; who choose not accept GOD’s grace. I’d rather have my name in the Book of Life and know my sins are washed away; then be judged and found wanting… I’d rather have eternal life then eternal death.

Welcome to the board found in alaska and thanks for your input. Personally I don't find the discussion "irrelevant" in any way and in fact find it quite comforting that our God, who is full of grace and mercy and who has much concern for our well being has told us in advance what happens at death so we don't have to fret or worry about it when it comes.

Job 7:7 O remember that my life [is] wind: mine eye shall no more see good. 8 The eye of him that hath seen me shall see me no [more]: thine eyes [are] upon me, and I [am] not. 9 [As] the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no [more]. 10 He shall return no more to his house, neither shall his place know him any more.

In that we involved in a war between God and Satan and that our enemy employs tactics that even involve miracles it is vital in my mind to know exactly what the Bible states, what it claims to be true what it claims to be false.

It should come as no surprise then that on the heals of the belief that the soul is immortal outside of the power and presence of God there has been a proliferation of television shows and movies that highlight and glorify communication with the dead. Yet the Bible clearly describes and demonstrates through stories that necromancy is an abomination to the Lord.

I don't find this discussion "irrelevant" in any way and in fact I find it vital in understanding the goodness, mercy and grace that the Lord has for His children.

"Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome. The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience.

As spiritualism more closely imitates the nominal Christianity of the day, it has greater power to deceive and ensnare. Satan himself is converted, after the modern order of things. He will appear in the character of an angel of light. Through the agency of spiritualism, miracles will be wrought,the sick will be healed, and many undeniable wonders will be performed. And as the spirits will profess faith in the Bible, and manifest respect for the institutions of the church, their work will be accepted as a manifestation of divine power." - The Great Controversy, Ellen G. White, page 588.

 

[duval]

RND: I haven't weighed in on this thread much, you have asked for a passage that speaks of a continual punishment for the wicked. As a starter, I'll throw Rev.14:11 in. As I said to you in another thread, when you get to where you are going, I'll be there waiting for you.

One thing! I do not have the time nor opportunity to always make imeadiate reply, but will, the Lord willing.

 

[RND]

RND: I haven't weighed in on this thread much, you have asked for a passage that speaks of a continual punishment for the wicked. As a starter, I'll throw Rev.14:11 in. As I said to you in another thread, when you get to where you are going, I'll be there waiting for you.

duval if I'm not mistaken I asked for a verse that clearly shows continual "roasting and toasting" in flames forever and ever or as I said:

I am looking for verses that without a doubt say that "mortal" man lives forever in the continual torture of flames.

Also duval, do you just comment in threads or do you actually read any of the posts in them? If you had to would see that Rev 14:11 has been addressed by asking the question, "Is Jesus in hell?" Verse 10 in Revelation 14 can be interpreted to suggest that Jesus and the angels are in hell watching people burn.

Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Are Jesus and the angels in hell watching people get burned and roasted? Or could the verse really be saying that it is "torment" to be in the presence of One as Holy as the Lamb Jesus or the Holy Angels who dwell with the Lamb?

Also, what do you say about Isaiah 33 that clearly shows us that the only ones that can stand the flames of eternal burning are the righteous and not the wicked?

Isa 33:14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? 15 He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil; 16 He shall dwell on high: his place of defence [shall be] the munitions of rocks: bread shall be given him; his waters [shall be] sure.

One thing! I do not have the time nor opportunity to always make imeadiate reply, but will, the Lord willing.

I think one thing that would be helpful in that case is taking note as to where you left off and reading all the posts you missed while you were away. This way points are not belabored over and over again.

 

[duval]

RND: Thank you for your kind instructions. I prefer posts not nearly so long. I wonder how many read them? If one replys to every point in a long post one might be all day and night doing so, then who would read it. Sorry, I'll take point at a time, then you are more likely to get the point, pardon the pun. Talk to you later about Rev.14:10,11

 

[Rick W]

if I'm not mistaken I asked for a verse that clearly shows continual "roasting and toasting" in flames forever and ever or as I said:

With all due respect You really need get away from the physical fire idea. Would help quite a bit.

1Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

I don't believe that means they will be set on fire if they don't marry.

 

[dadof10]

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:

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?

The verses of Luke 16:14-18 are "cryptic" in a way and specifically point out what Jesus is trying to tell (convey) the Pharisees. Verse 18 specifically says to the Pharisees that they have been "adulterous" to the word of God. This is not different that other areas of scripture that call the Israelites adulterous to the word of God.

Do you disagree?

Irrelevant. Since you snipped out what I was responding to, let me try one more time. I was responding to this quote by you:

"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."

Will you stand by the above statement in the face of overwhelming evidence and Biblical quotes to the contrary? Did Jesus ONLY speak in parables to the Pharisees? Yes or no.

No, many times I have explained that there is "nothing" absolutely "nothing" in the OT (Torah and Tanahk) that would explain the theory of "eternally burning hell." There is nothing that could possible confirm that "angels" take dead people anywhere.

Do you honestly believe that all Truth must be contained within the OT? For you is it "sola-Torah"? That's what it seem like you are saying. There is nothing in the OT that teaches the Trinity, that the Messiah would have 12 apostles, that circumcision would become obsolete, etc. There are many things that Jesus and the Apostles taught that are not within the pages of the OT.

Surely you can clearly see that Judah only had "full blooded" relationship with five (5) others. All of Judahs other siblings were "half" brothers.

So what? WHERE ARE THE "FIVE BLOOD BROTHERS" SHOWN ANYWHERE IN SCRIPTURE TO REFER TO JUDAH, EITHER THE MAN OR THE KINGDOM? When I say that the name Lazarus is referring to the person in Scripture named Lazarus, you claim the NAME is symbolic for the "helpless", yet you see the five blood brothers as referring to Judah, when this parallel is NOWHERE in Scripture. I guess you'll only see what you want to see.

You are trying to draw a false parallel. What makes you think that the rich man is supposed to symbolize Judah?

Isn't it obvious?

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

LOL...Hardly obvious to me or anyone else, only you. And how does Rom 3:1 prove your point?

Why not Rueben, he was the first born?

Reuben defiled his father's bed.

So what? Remember we are talking about the rich man who is in Hades symbolizing someone with "five blood brothers". He is the villian in the parable. Don't you think Rueben would be a better candidate than Judah? Let's see just how convoluted this can get.

Again, if you have anything to offer regarding this that could possibly show a different connection I'd love to see it. Otherwise, if all you can offer is squibs of "Give me a break" I'll have to conclude you have no desire to explore this. Or you could just take your priest or pastor's word for it!

I don't really have any desire to explore your made-up fantasies, no. And I don't have to take anyone's word to see just how twisted your theology is.

You're kidding right? There isn't a word spoken of by Jesus and that was recorded by the disciples that doesn't have any meaning behind it. The fact that you can honestly suggest that "no need to try and find some hidden meaning in every detail of every parable" is theologically lazy.

Again, you have to actually read what we are writing. I'm not the only person complaining about this. You are twisting Lostlamb's words also. What I really said was: There is no HIDDEN meaning in every detail of every parable. To call someone lazy who holds this view is an act of desperation by someone who's position is crumbling.

There is clearly a reference to "five brothers" and I showed you where it was.

Where are the "five blood brothers" used to refer to Judah? Chapter and verse please.

The fact that you think that Pharisees wouldn't have known this things tells me you have put much thought in these things or have had these things revealed to you.

These things have been "revealed to you"? By who? EGW? Well, whoever revealed them to you needs to find it in the OT or admit error, as you do.

What is symbolized by the five yolk of oxen? Nothing.

Ox are beasts of burden. Five "yoke of oxen" would actually equal 10 oxes (two per yoke). How many tribes were taken away captive initially? 10.

Sheesh...This is beyond a reach. Who, in your opinion, is examining to the 10 captive tribes (as opposed to the 12 tribes)? Is Jesus telling us that this person/s examination of the 10 tribes is getting in the way of "joining the banquet", which is an obvious reference to the Kingdom of God? How so?

What does the field symbolize? Nothing.

The "field" always, always represents the "world."

Mat 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]

Always or just in Matt 13?

What about the wife? Nothing.

Who or what is Jesus betrothed to?

2Cr 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

OK, let's think this one through. The person who is going to the Bride of Christ, the Church, is NOT doing the will of God, who is symbolized in the master of the house? By going to the Bride (wife) he is making God angry? I think you need to rethink this, at the least.

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.

It's self-explanatory isn't it?

No, it is not. You need to explain why, in your opinion, people in Hades and angels carrying people to Abraham's bosom must be spelled out in the OT, but the five brothers can refer to Judah without EVER being symbolic of him ANYWHERE IN SCRIPTURE.

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.

Wow! You're finally coming to it! Remarkable! Praise the Lord! Read Matthew 15 and you'll see this connection as well.

Why does Judah alone have the Word? Is it a reference to the Southern Kingdom or the man himself? Why don't the "helpless" want more of "the Word" than just crumbs? Please keep going, give me more "symbolism", this is hilarious.

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.

The point is is that the "soul" goes "somewhere." The fact that most religions believe this is contrary to the Torah and Tanahk.

But not contrary to the NT, or Ecc. 12.

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

Spirit=breath. The "breath" returns to God.

Our actual breath returns to God? Why would God want our breath and how does it return to Him? More creative interpretation.

 

[RND]

Irrelevant. Since you snipped out what I was responding to, let me try one more time. I was responding to this quote by you:

Luke 16:14-18 is not "irrelevant" and is a tremendous set of verses that set up the instruction of the parables Jesus was giving.

That seems to be a common trait with you in your posts. Yell "irrelevant" as much as you can without actually addressing the point of the OP.

"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."

Will you stand by the above statement in the face of overwhelming evidence and Biblical quotes to the contrary? Did Jesus ONLY speak in parables to the Pharisees? Yes or no.

What does Jesus say?

Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I (Jesus) to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

What do the scriptures say?

Mar 4:2 And he (Jesus) taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,

Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Also, the word "spake" actually is the same word for "preach." So I think clearly the answer for me to your question is an emphatic "yes!"

Do you honestly believe that all Truth must be contained within the OT? For you is it "sola-Torah"? That's what it seem like you are saying. There is nothing in the OT that teaches the Trinity, that the Messiah would have 12 apostles, that circumcision would become obsolete, etc. There are many things that Jesus and the Apostles taught that are not within the pages of the OT.

I view both equally frankly and look at things this way. BTW, the "Godhead" (the Trinity) and the necessity of circumcision and it's purpose are clearly shown in the OT in many different ways, from direct language to sanctuary symbolism.

So what?

Well, as I mentioned Jesus mentioned these things to those who would know specifically what this meant.

WHERE ARE THE "FIVE BLOOD BROTHERS" SHOWN ANYWHERE IN SCRIPTURE TO REFER TO JUDAH, EITHER THE MAN OR THE KINGDOM?

Be serious. Draw the connection. If Judah had five blood brothers and it is clearly referenced in the scriptures that he did and there is no where else in scripture where a connection can be drawn then one has to say the two references are connected.

When I say that the name Lazarus is referring to the person in Scripture named Lazarus, you claim the NAME is symbolic for the "helpless",

That's correct. Now try to follow along......

I actually asked if it were possible that there were more than one person named "Lazarus" in the scriptures, in the time of Jesus' ministry. The Strong's says this is the name of 11 other Israelites (Elazar) in the Hebrew. In the Greek Lazarus is also the name of "two" Israelites, one being "imaginary."

So, is it possible that there were more than one "Lazarus" in Israel during Jesus' ministry? The point being of course that the word "Lazarus" is referring to those that were "helpless" without God. Hence another reason that this is a parable.

yet you see the five blood brothers as referring to Judah, when this parallel is NOWHERE in Scripture. I guess you'll only see what you want to see.

Correction. The parallel is certainly there. One just has to look for it. BTW, have you come up with any suitable ideas as to who those "five brothers" that Jesus was referring to could be or is that "irrelevant?"

LOL...Hardly obvious to me or anyone else, only you. And how does Rom 3:1 prove your point?

Who were the "oracles of God" given to? BTW, no need to state the obvious, I understand you don't want to see the truth.

So what? Remember we are talking about the rich man who is in Hades symbolizing someone with "five blood brothers". He is the villian in the parable. Don't you think Rueben would be a better candidate than Judah? Let's see just how convoluted this can get.

Did you not ask me why these things were given to Judah and nor Reuben?

Why not Rueben, he was the first born?

So when I explain to you why Reuben lost his birthright you say, "so what?" Look, if you don't want answers to your questions to ask them. If you don't like the answers given come up with proof texts that show I'm mistaken instead of "so what."

I'd expect such dialogue from a child frankly no a Dad of 10.

He is the villian in the parable

Really? What was his sin? What did the "rich man" do that was so villainous?

Don't you think Rueben would be a better candidate than Judah? Let's see just how convoluted this can get.

I explained how Reuben lost his birthright, and you said "so what!" Remember? This can only get "convoluted" when you reject sound instruction without offering anything in return.

If you think I'm wrong that's great, I've been wrong once or twice before. But do yourself a favor so you don't look completely lost, offer up something from scripture that counters what I'm saying instead of just saying "so what."

I don't really have any desire to explore your made-up fantasies, no. And I don't have to take anyone's word to see just how twisted your theology is.

"Made-up fantasies?" Look if I'm wrong show me where I'm wrong. When you use words like "made-up" or "twisted" without offering any correction (from scripture) then all you've resorted to is name calling.

Would you find it acceptable if your kids asked your priest a question about doctrine only to have the priest say their question was "made-up" or "twisted?" If you have a correction to offer be sure to use the Bible. If you just want to call names maybe you should refrain from answering any of my posts or threads.

Again, you have to actually read what we are writing. I'm not the only person complaining about this. You are twisting Lostlamb's words also. What I really said was: There is no HIDDEN meaning in every detail of every parable.

To which I responded:

There is deep meaning, sometimes many, many different meanings in every word spoken by Christ. That's the beauty of the word of God.

To call someone lazy who holds this view is an act of desperation by someone who's position is crumbling.

I only said this to a "prior" comment you made in the same post where you said:

There's no need to try and find some hidden meaning in every detail of every parable.

It appears to me that one may be the one that is purposely manipulating the threads and the order in which things have been said in order to paint a different picture. No biggie.

Where are the "five blood brothers" used to refer to Judah? Chapter and verse please.

Again, please see Genesis 35. You can't miss it.

These things have been "revealed to you"? By who? EGW? Well, whoever revealed them to you needs to find it in the OT or admit error, as you do.

All things are revealed by the Holy Spirit. The fcat you have to ask or ask in a deriding manner again says alot.

Sheesh...This is beyond a reach. Who, in your opinion, is examining to the 10 captive tribes (as opposed to the 12 tribes)? Is Jesus telling us that this person/s examination of the 10 tribes is getting in the way of "joining the banquet", which is an obvious reference to the Kingdom of God? How so?

Try to "think" of the people who Jesus was speaking to and what they would know. Who was Jesus speaking these parables to?

Always or just in Matt 13?

When referring to things prophetic? Always.

Luke 17:36 Two [men] shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

OK, let's think this one through. The person who is going to the Bride of Christ, the Church, is NOT doing the will of God, who is symbolized in the master of the house? By going to the Bride (wife) he is making God angry? I think you need to rethink this, at the least.

That's just it the parable of Luke 14:16-24 that you mentioned there is this verse:

Luke 14:20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.

The invitation to the feast was made by God but there were many making excuses as to why they could not come. One said he was married to a wife and could not come. A "wife" in many prophetic instances represents a bride. Christ is married to a bride. But this was before His death on the cross. So who is this "wife" and who is she married to? This "bride" spoken of here represents a "false" bride a "false" wife that prevents people from coming to the feast they were invited to.

[quote:rrmr2wae]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.

It's self-explanatory isn't it?

No, it is not. You need to explain why, in your opinion, people in Hades and angels carrying people to Abraham's bosom must be spelled out in the OT, but the five brothers can refer to Judah without EVER being symbolic of him ANYWHERE IN SCRIPTURE.[/quote:rrmr2wae]

How do you confuse the fact that Judah actually had "five blood brothers" by insisting I that I'm saying "Judah" is represented as "five brothers?"

Follow along: The "rich man" represents Judah. This fact is confirmed by Jesus' demonstration of the "five brothers" which ties the two symbols together.

I think sometimes you are perfectly obtuse for a reason.

Why does Judah alone have the Word?

It doesn't. It was given to "all" of Israel on the Mount. Judah was the only one left after captivity.

Is it a reference to the Southern Kingdom or the man himself?

Who was given the oracles of God? All of Israel or just Judah? Who was left with the oracles of God after the 10 tribes were taken out of the way?

Why don't the "helpless" want more of "the Word" than just crumbs?

Who said they didn't want more than crumbs? Read Matthew 15. They took what they could get although they desired more. Do you understand the notion of a "figure of speech?"

Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to dogs. 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

Please keep going, give me more "symbolism", this is hilarious.

Keep asking questions. The fact that you find things that you have admitted to that you have no knowledge of "hilarious" seems to indicate that you have no desire to learn or accept any other doctrine than what you are given or handed. What a shame.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

But not contrary to the NT, or Ecc. 12.

Sure it is. Ec. 12 nor anything in the New Testament suggest that the soul lives forever outside the presence of God. Nothing suggests that upon death the "soul" leaves the body and fly's away someplace.

Our actual breath returns to God?

It's not "our" breath. How do you claim ownership for something you didn't make, or invent?

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The "breath" belongs to the one who gave it, que no?

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Spirit = ruwach = breath. Simple stuff.

Why would God want our breath and how does it return to Him?

See above. Not "our" breath, His "breath."

Job 27:3 All the while my breath [is] in me, and the spirit of God [is] in my nostrils;

More creative interpretation.

Or simple misunderstanding. I vote for the latter!

 

[dadof10]

Luke 16:14-18 is not "irrelevant" and is a tremendous set of verses that set up the instruction of the parables Jesus was giving.

It's irrelevant to the point that Jesus spoke to the Pharisees ONLY IN PARABLES, as you claimed. There are numerous verses where Jesus speaks to them plainly and bluntly. See below.

That seems to be a common trait with you in your posts. Yell "irrelevant" as much as you can without actually addressing the point of the OP.

I only claim irrelevancy when someone says something outragous then tries to change the subject without addressing their ridiclous error. Like your claim above.

What does Jesus say?

Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I (Jesus) to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

IRRELEVANT. I never claimed Jesus never spoke to anyone in parables, only that He didn't speak to the Pharisees ONLY in parables.

What do the scriptures say?

Mar 4:2 And he (Jesus) taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,

IRRELEVANT!! See above.

Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

This verse doesn't even mention the Pharisees. He spoke to "the multitude", not the Pharisees specifically. So....IRRELEVANT!!

Also, the word "spake" actually is the same word for "preach." So I think clearly the answer for me to your question is an emphatic "yes!"

"The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?" 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." (John (RSV) 8)

Where's the Parable here?

The Pharisees then said to him, "You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true." 14 Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I have come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going.
15 You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one.
16 Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.
17 In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true;
18 I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me."
19 They said to him therefore, "Where is your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also."
20 These words he spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come. (John (RSV) 8)

Here?

The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed at him. 15 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.
16 "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. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void.
18 "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)

Here? I could go on, but Duval might not appreciate the length of my post . I think this proves my point that Jesus did speak to the Pharisees without using parables.

I view both equally frankly and look at things this way. BTW, the "Godhead" (the Trinity) and the necessity of circumcision and it's purpose are clearly shown in the OT in many different ways, from direct language to sanctuary symbolism.

AGAIN??? When did I say the OT did not show the "necessity of circumcision and it's purpose"? I said nowhere in the OT is there a reference to circumcision becoming obsolete. You have a pretty quick turn around on posting. When I post to you, I can be assured that if If I check within an hour you will have responded. Maybe you should take a little more time to read what people post so you can get it right.

Be serious. Draw the connection. If Judah had five blood brothers and it is clearly referenced in the scriptures that he did and there is no where else in scripture where a connection can be drawn then one has to say the two references are connected.

1) Where does the parable in question mention "blood brothers"? All it says is brothers.
2) Why does the "five brothers" comment have to refer to Judah? Why not Rueben or Simeon or Levi or Issachar or Zebulun? They all had five brothers too. Maybe because those guys don't fit your preconcieved dogma?
3) The "five blood brothers" are not referenced anywhere in Scripture to refer to ANYONE.

You are bringing your SDA theology into Scripture, then attempting to make Scripture fit, no matter how ludicrous it is. Another case in point....

That's correct. Now try to follow along......

I actually asked if it were possible that there were more than one person named "Lazarus" in the scriptures, in the time of Jesus' ministry. The Strong's says this is the name of 11 other Israelites (Elazar) in the Hebrew. In the Greek Lazarus is also the name of "two" Israelites, one being "imaginary."

Sheesh....

Correction. The parallel is certainly there. One just has to look for it. BTW, have you come up with any suitable ideas as to who those "five brothers" that Jesus was referring to could be or is that "irrelevant?"

As I said before, it has the secret meaning that....he had 5 brothers....EEEEkkk.

Who were the "oracles of God" given to? BTW, no need to state the obvious, I understand you don't want to see the truth.

I thought you said the rich man was Judah? Now he is symbolic for ALL of Israel? Make up your mind.

So when I explain to you why Reuben lost his birthright you say, "so what?" Look, if you don't want answers to your questions to ask them. If you don't like the answers given come up with proof texts that show I'm mistaken instead of "so what."

How on earth does the fact that Reuben lost his birthright automatically disqualify him for the person Jesus was talking about in the parable? Unless a person has an agenda and is searching for something (ANYTHING!!!) that will validate his a'priori view. A clinic in desperation.

Really? What was his sin? What did the "rich man" do that was so villainous?

He neglected the poor, Lazarus specifically.

"There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; (Luke (RSV) 16)

If you think I'm wrong that's great, I've been wrong once or twice before. But do yourself a favor so you don't look completely lost, offer up something from scripture that counters what I'm saying instead of just saying "so what."

First of all, do yourself a favor and admit you've been wrong more than twice so you don't look so arrogant. Secondly, I have offered Scripture and also debunked your foolish notions.

I don't really have any desire to explore your made-up fantasies, no. And I don't have to take anyone's word to see just how twisted your theology is.

"Made-up fantasies?" Look if I'm wrong show me where I'm wrong. When you use words like "made-up" or "twisted" without offering any correction (from scripture) then all you've resorted to is name calling.

I have not personally attacked you or called you a name. I am calling your views fantastic and made-up and am calling your exegesis twisted. I never called you or a name, like...say...a child?

I'd expect such dialogue from a child frankly no a Dad of 10.

It appears to me that one may be the one that is purposely manipulating the threads and the order in which things have been said in order to paint a different picture. No biggie.

No, not me...

These things have been "revealed to you"? By who? EGW? Well, whoever revealed them to you needs to find it in the OT or admit error, as you do.

All things are revealed by the Holy Spirit. The fcat you have to ask or ask in a deriding manner again says alot.

The Holy Spirit revealed to you that the rich man symbolized Judah? Okey dokey. The Holy Spirit revealed to me that it is an irrelevant detail and there is eternal torment. Game over, right? If I knew it was that easy I would have simply said this in the beginning and we could have avoided all this. C'mon, this is NOT how He works.

Sheesh...This is beyond a reach. Who, in your opinion, is examining to the 10 captive tribes (as opposed to the 12 tribes)? Is Jesus telling us that this person/s examination of the 10 tribes is getting in the way of "joining the banquet", which is an obvious reference to the Kingdom of God? How so?

Try to "think" of the people who Jesus was speaking to and what they would know. Who was Jesus speaking these parables to?

Again, you have not answered the question, and are sounding arrogant.

Always or just in Matt 13?

When referring to things prophetic? Always.

Luke 17:36 Two [men] shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

OK.

OK, let's think this one through. The person who is going to the Bride of Christ, the Church, is NOT doing the will of God, who is symbolized in the master of the house? By going to the Bride (wife) he is making God angry? I think you need to rethink this, at the least.

That's just it the parable of Luke 14:16-24 that you mentioned there is this verse:

Luke 14:20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.

The invitation to the feast was made by God but there were many making excuses as to why they could not come. One said he was married to a wife and could not come. A "wife" in many prophetic instances represents a bride. Christ is married to a bride. But this was before His death on the cross. So who is this "wife" and who is she married to? This "bride" spoken of here represents a "false" bride a "false" wife that prevents people from coming to the feast they were invited to.

I've got to hand it to you. You are certainly creative.

Follow along: The "rich man" represents Judah. This fact is confirmed by Jesus' demonstration of the "five brothers" which ties the two symbols together.

Or Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun, or any others who might have had five brothers, whether "blood brothers" or not.

I think sometimes you are perfectly obtuse for a reason.

Great, more name calling.

Why does Judah alone have the Word?

It doesn't. It was given to "all" of Israel on the Mount. Judah was the only one left after captivity.

Is it a reference to the Southern Kingdom or the man himself?

Who was given the oracles of God? All of Israel or just Judah? Who was left with the oracles of God after the 10 tribes were taken out of the way?

So the rich man with five brothers is ALL OF ISRAEL? More creativity, to put it politely.

Why don't the "helpless" want more of "the Word" than just crumbs?

Who said they didn't want more than crumbs? Read Matthew 15. They took what they could get although they desired more. Do you understand the notion of a "figure of speech?"

The words are "And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; (Luke (RSV) 16)

Please keep going, give me more "symbolism", this is hilarious.

[quote:3upxk8on]Keep asking questions. The fact that you find things that you have admitted to that you have no knowledge of "hilarious" seems to indicate that you have no desire to learn or accept any other doctrine than what you are given or handed. What a shame.

[/quote:3upxk8on]

I'm leaning more than you could possibly know. Could you please elaborate on the symbolism for the words "purple and fine linen", "the dogs who licked his sores", "the Angels" and anything else you care to.

 

[duval]

RND all I need is simply one passage to show the falsity of your doctrine. I need not read long posts. I need not make long posts. I gave you Rev.14:11, I'll enlarge on it later. But for now I shall note the passage you submitted from Isa.33.

Simply speaking you are confused. The passage is not of the righteous asking "Who among us shall dwell with everlasting brnings?" Its the wicked asking. Please notice RND vss 15-16 relates to the righteous: ''HE WHO WALKS RIGHTEOUSLY AND SPEAKS UPRIGHTLY, HE WHO DESPISES THE GAIN OF OPPRESSIONS, WHO GESTURES WITH HIS HANDS, REFUSING BRIBES, WHO STOPS HIS EARS FROM HEARING OF BLOODSHED, AND SHUTS HIS EYES FROM SEEING EVIL: HE WILL DEWLL ON HIGH; HIS PLACE OF DEFENSE WILL VBE THE FORTRESS OF ROCKS----" its the righteous who will dwell on high, and not be as the wicked described in the preceeding context as DWELLING 'WITH EVERLASTING BURNINGS."

RND, I'm sure that even you would not believe the righteous will dwell in "everlasting burnings." You have unwittingly proved at least one thing for us: There is a place of EVERLASTING BURNINGS."

I'll meet you later on the battleground of Rev.14:11.

 

[RND]

RND all I need is simply one passage to show the falsity of your doctrine. I need not read long posts. I need not make long posts. I gave you Rev.14:11, I'll enlarge on it later.

I would hope duval that you'd be willing to build your beliefs from more than just 1 verse. Remember what Paul cautions Timothy about in 2 Timothy 3:16.

But for now I shall note the passage you submitted from Isa.33.

Simply speaking you are confused. The passage is not of the righteous asking "Who among us shall dwell with everlasting brnings?" Its the wicked asking.

duval that doesn't change the fact the the verse says that it is the "righteous" that will dwell in "everlasting burnings" does it?

its the righteous who will dwell on high,

Correct!

and not be as the wicked described in the preceeding context as DWELLING 'WITH EVERLASTING BURNINGS."

Clearly duval the verse doesn't say that. In fact, let's take a look at other translations to confirm that it is the "righteous" that dwell with "everlasting burnings."

NIV - Isa 33:14 The sinners in Zion are terrified; trembling grips the godless: "Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?" 15 He who walks righteously and speaks what is right, who rejects gain from extortion and keeps his hand from accepting bribes, who stops his ears against plots of murder and shuts his eyes against contemplating evil-- 16 this is the man who will dwell on the heights, whose refuge will be the mountain fortress. His bread will be supplied, and water will not fail him.

RSV - Isa 33:14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless: "Who among us can dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?"
15 He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, who despises the gain of oppressions, who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe, who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil, 16 he will dwell on the heights; his place of defense will be the fortresses of rocks; his bread will be given him, his water will be sure.

Isa 33:14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling hath seized the godless ones: Who among us can dwell with the devouring fire? who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings? 15 He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from taking a bribe, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from looking upon evil: 16 He shall dwell on high; his place of defence shall be the munitions of rocks; his bread shall be given [him]; his waters shall be sure.

duval, it is the "wicked" that are asking, "Who among us can dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?" You certainly were correct to note that!

But that doesn't change the answer. It is those that walk righteously and speaks uprightly. Those who despise the gain of oppressions. Those who refuse to take and hold a bribe. Those who stop their ears from hearing of bloodshed. Those who shut their eyes from looking at what is evil.

The clarity of this verse is no different duval from the picture drawn of God on the mount when He gave his law and appeared as a flame of fire to the Children of Israel.

Deu 5:24 and ye said, Behold, Jehovah our God hath showed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth speak with man, and he liveth. 25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of Jehovah our God any more, then we shall die. 26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?

RND, I'm sure that even you would not believe the righteous will dwell in "everlasting burnings."

When you consider that God the Father is always compared to a fire and has always appeared as a fire then I am quite confident that it is indeed only the righteous that will be able to stand in that bight light.

Psa 119:105 NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, And light unto my path.

It is those that "walk in darkness" and not in the "light" that are afraid of the Lord.

Isa 50:10 Who is among you that feareth Jehovah, that obeyeth the voice of his servant? he that walketh in darkness, and hath no light, let him trust in the name of Jehovah, and rely upon his God.

We are drawn to the "light."

Isa 9:2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for [God's] own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

God is light.

1 Jo 1:5 And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

You have unwittingly proved at least one thing for us: There is a place of EVERLASTING BURNINGS."

duval in your glory of thinking I have "unwittingly proved" your point I would simply ask you to consider this, What makes light? Does a "flame" make light? Is God not constantly and consistently shown as being "light?"

I'll meet you later on the battleground of Rev.14:11.

Bring a lunch and hopefully more than one verse!

But, as the old saying goes, "A man convinced his will is of the same opinion still!" Hopefully duval you'll open your mind to the possibility that God is not the vindictive oger Satan has made Him out to be.

 

[duval]

RND WROTE: 'I WOULD HOPE DUVAL THAT YOU'D BE WILLING TO BUILD YOUR BELIEFS FROM MORE THAN 1 verse." I assure you RND my faith is composed of all scripture. Your quote to me that "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still", is dispelled by the fact that I am convinced only by what scripture teaches. As I said, I need only one verse to disprove error. I cited Rev.14:11.
RND SAID OF Isa.33 WHICH HE GAVE: 'duval that doesn't change the fact that it is the 'righteous] that will dwell in 'everlasting burnings' does it?" RND Isa.33 does not so teach of the righteous. All the context of that chapter is of the wicked and finally it is said in vs.14: "the sinners in zion are afraid; Fearfulness has seized the hypocrites; Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" It is the sinner of Zion, the hypocrites who so ask, not the righteous. Vs. 15 then identifies who will dwell on high, the righteous. In order to prop up your doctrine you resort to fire as being the brightness of God's glory. True, in numerous places the glory of God is represented as light, fire, but not here. The contrast is between the abode of the sinner and the righteous.

 

[duval]

RND cited Rev.14:10 after I had cited Rev.14:11, so lets read vs. 10: 'THE SAME SHALL DRINK OF THE WINE OF THE WRATH OF GOD, WHICH IS POURED OUT WITHOUT MIXTURE INTO THE CUP OF HIS INDIGNATION; AND HE SHALL BE TORMENTED WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY ANGELS, AND IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LAMB.'' I don't know why you introduced this verse unless you think it being done in the presence of the Lamb means that somehow the Lamb (Jesus) takes pleasure in such torment. It thats the reason please be reminded of Ezek.33:11: 'AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD GOD, I HAVE NO PLEASURE IN THE DEATH OF THE WICKED---" Furthermore, of the "presence" of the Lord please note Ps.139: 'WHERE CAN I GO FROM YOUR SPIRIT? OR WHERE CAN I FLEE FROM YOUR PRESENCE? ( NOTE THAT WORD PRESENCE, AS IN REV.14:10 emp. mine duval) IF I ASCEND INTO HEAVEN YOU ARE THERE; IF I MAKE MY BED IN HELL, BEHOLD, YOU ARE THERE. IF I TAKE THE WINGS OF THE MORNING, AND DWELL IN THE UTTERMOST PARTS OF THE SEA, EVEN THERE YOUR HAND SHALL LEAD ME-----"

 

[RND]

RND Isa.33 does not so teach of the righteous. All the context of that chapter is of the wicked and finally it is said in vs.14: "the sinners in zion are afraid; Fearfulness has seized the hypocrites; Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire?

Who among us (The sinners in Zion) shall dwell with the devouring fire?

Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?"

Who among us (The sinners in Zion) shall dwell with everlasting burnings?

It is the sinner of Zion, the hypocrites who so ask, not the righteous.

Correct, the sinners/wicked are asking the questions. Does that change the answer?

Vs. 15 then identifies who will dwell on high, the righteous.

And what does it say that these righteous do in order to dwell on high duval? They dwell with the devouring fire and with everlasting burnings.

In order to prop up your doctrine you resort to fire as being the brightness of God's glory. True, in numerous places the glory of God is represented as light, fire, but not here.

Clearly here. It can't be any more clear. But then again, "A man convinced his will is of the same opinion still!"

The contrast is between the abode of the sinner and the righteous.

The contrast regarding where the sinner is as opposed to where the righteous are show that it is the righteous that dwell with the devouring fire and with everlasting burnings.

"A man convinced his will is of the same opinion still!"

 

[RND]

RND cited Rev.14:10 after I had cited Rev.14:11, so lets read vs. 10: 'THE SAME SHALL DRINK OF THE WINE OF THE WRATH OF GOD, WHICH IS POURED OUT WITHOUT MIXTURE INTO THE CUP OF HIS INDIGNATION; AND HE SHALL BE TORMENTED WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY ANGELS, AND IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LAMB.'' I don't know why you introduced this verse unless you think it being done in the presence of the Lamb means that somehow the Lamb (Jesus) takes pleasure in such torment. It thats the reason please be reminded of Ezek.33:11: 'AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD GOD, I HAVE NO PLEASURE IN THE DEATH OF THE WICKED---" Furthermore, of the "presence" of the Lord please note Ps.139: 'WHERE CAN I GO FROM YOUR SPIRIT? OR WHERE CAN I FLEE FROM YOUR PRESENCE? ( NOTE THAT WORD PRESENCE, AS IN REV.14:10 emp. mine duval) IF I ASCEND INTO HEAVEN YOU ARE THERE; IF I MAKE MY BED IN HELL, BEHOLD, YOU ARE THERE. IF I TAKE THE WINGS OF THE MORNING, AND DWELL IN THE UTTERMOST PARTS OF THE SEA, EVEN THERE YOUR HAND SHALL LEAD ME-----"

I quoted Revelation 14:10 because to be consistent one would have to suggest that the torture of the wicked takes place in the presence of angels and the Lamb (Jesus). "HE SHALL BE TORMENTED WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY ANGELS, AND IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LAMB."

TORMENTED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY ANGELS,IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LAMB."

Is Jesus in hell watching people get tormented?

The question therefore that I asked remains unanswered and as I suspect duval you'll do just like every other Christian that attempts to answer this question by evading it. It is a simple yes or no answer.

Is Jesus in hell watching people get tormented? Yes or no? Answer that question honestly and compare it with scriptures that tell us exactly where Jesus is and you'll have your answer.


"A man convinced his will is of the same opinion still!"

 

[duval]

RND if you will but read Isa.33, the entire context you will understand its not the righteous dwelling in everlasting burning but the wicked. You have the righteous dwelling in everlasting burning and the fortress in a high place. The text speaks to the future of the sinner, that of everlasting burning and the future of the righteous, the fortress in a high place.

Regarding Rev.14:10 your question has been answered. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, Ezek.33 and God's presence is everywhere. Ps.139. Why not wrestle with those passages?