Hell: Will God see?, Will we?

[Veritas]

All Californians are Americans, not all Americans are Californians. The only one here that considers all 12 tribed as Jews would be you.

All Jews are Israelites, not all Israelites are Jews.

It is true that the Kingdom of Judah does include only part of the original Nation of Israel,

However, according to the censuses in the Bible, the Kingdom of Judah was similar in size to the Kingdom of Israel, and included more than just the tribe of Judah, so the claim that "Jews" refers to just 1/12 of the original Nation of Israel is inaccurate.

And, the Kingdom of Israel was disbursed, and maintained no connection to their original identity. Therefore the Jews constitute the only group that considers themselves to be part of the original convenant between God and the Nation of Israel, and bound by that covenant.

Also, consider what is said in Esther:

Now there was in the citadel of Susa a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, named Mordecai son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, Esther 2:5

 

[RND]

It is true that the Kingdom of Judah does include only part of the original Nation of Israel,

No, that would be incorrect. It would be more accurate and considerably more trithful to say, "It is true that the Kingdom of Israel does include all parts of the original Nation of Israel."

However, according to the censuses in the Bible, the Kingdom of Judah was similar in size to the Kingdom of Israel,

Regarding population or territory?

and included more than just the tribe of Judah,

Benjamin.

so the claim that "Jews" refers to just 1/12 of the original Nation of Israel is inaccurate.

No it's not. Dan was one of the smallest tribes population wise, does that mean they were any less members of the nation of Israel?

And, the Kingdom of Israel was disbursed, and maintained no connection to their original identity.

Um, that's completely untrue. 1,000 years after Israel was taken away by it's neighbors the Canaanites and Samaraitans still considered themselves part of Israel. Witness the woman at the well's attitude.

Therefore the Jews constitute the only group that considers themselves to be part of the original convenant between God and the Nation of Israel, and bound by that covenant.

And they are free to think such foolishness.

The scriptures are clear. The "kingdom" was taken from them, and given to another.

 

[Veritas]

RND, Regardless of this lastest sidetrack we are on, Jesus does not say "this is what the five brothers represent" and go on and explain that.

If, as you agree, there is a connection, what would your opinion be regarding that connection?

As for the connection between Luke 16:19-31 and the two parables you mentioned (Luke 12:16-21, and Luke 16:1-13), I would say the words "rich man" is the extent of the connection, nothing more. Just like there is a connection between the verses because the word "the" is used in all of them.

No question. That's why it would be wise to investigate this connection between these three parables before concluding on way or the other.

I already did investigate it:

IF Luke 16:19-31 is a parable...

1.) It is the only parable that is NOT an earthly story with a heavenly or spiritual significance (rather it is a story that significantly transcends the realm of the earthly)

2. It would be the only parable in the Bible that uses a proper name (Lazarus).

3. It would be the only parable in the Bible that makes mention repeatedly of a historical person--Abraham. Moreover, this historical person carries on a dialogue with the rich man. Mention is also made of Moses, another historical character.

4. It would be the only parable in the Bible that describes the places where the dead go (Hades, Abraham's bosom, a place of torment).


5. It would be the only parable in the Bible that makes mention of angels. (In Matthew 13 verses 24-30, 36-43, 47-49 angels are mentioned in the explanation of the parable but not in the parable itself.)

I'm convinced it is literal.

 

[RND]

RND, Regardless of this lastest sidetrack we are on, Jesus does not say "this is what the five brothers represent" and go on and explain that.

Indeed, he spoke like that to stretch your "spiritual" thinking. If we just eat the twinkies and donuts of scripture without occaisional exercise, we'll become fat and happy Christians, with only a short life span to look forward too.

Besides, Jesus said He spoke in parables because, "...because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

As for the connection between Luke 16:19-31 and the two parables you mentioned (Luke 12:16-21, and Luke 16:1-13), I would say the words "rich man" is the extent of the connection, nothing more. Just like there is a connection between the verses because the word "the" is used in all of them.

So in your mind, there is no deeper meaning in the character or object as to what "the certain rich man" represents? Can we infer then any special or deeper (i.e. spiritual) meanings to any of the other character's or objects in any of Jesus' parables?

For example, is there a deeper meaning as to who the father represents in the Prodigal Son? How about the man that owned a vineyard and hired workers for a day? Or the man that had a wedding that everyone was invited too, but chose not to show?

All these character's and objects represent some aspect of God's kingdom and relationship to it. I suspect "a certain rich man" is no different.

1.) It is the only parable that is NOT an earthly story with a heavenly or spiritual significance (rather it is a story that significantly transcends the realm of the earthly)

I disagree. The spiritual significance is the relationship to what the Pharisees thought were entiled to by birthright and their actual relationship to Gods kingdom.

Matthew 8:11
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

BTW, Lazarus in the Hebrew language is Eleazar, which means “God has helped.â€Â

2. It would be the only parable in the Bible that uses a proper name (Lazarus).

Does that mean it can't be a parable because of that? Allegorical story's can have fictional or non-fictional names. And besides, it's factually untrue that this parable only has one proper name in it. The other proper name in the parable is Abraham, who was the object of the of the "rich man"s" pleas and cry for help.

Matthew 3:9
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

3. It would be the only parable in the Bible that makes mention repeatedly of a historical person--Abraham. Moreover, this historical person carries on a dialogue with the rich man. Mention is also made of Moses, another historical character.

So. Again, The parable of the lost coin is the only parable to mention a lost coin so what's that prove/ That there can't be real lost coins? Or that lost coins are fake?

The fact that father Abraham is carring on a conversation with a supposedly dead guy is fasinating simply because that would mean Abraham is in hell!

4. It would be the only parable in the Bible that describes the places where the dead go (Hades, Abraham's bosom, a place of torment).

But it is not the only parable that describes something being kicked out of a territory or possession.

5. It would be the only parable in the Bible that makes mention of angels. (In Matthew 13 verses 24-30, 36-43, 47-49 angels are mentioned in the explanation of the parable but not in the parable itself.)

There are -zero- angels mentioned in Luke 16:19-31.

 

[Veritas]

Indeed, he spoke like that to stretch your "spiritual" thinking. If we just eat the twinkies and donuts of scripture without occaisional exercise, we'll become fat and happy Christians, with only a short life span to look forward too.

Besides, Jesus said He spoke in parables because, "...because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything. Mark 4:34

We have what the disciples wrote. This stuff is supposed to be simple. I think you're reading way too much into what Jesus said. Consider:

At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Matthew 11:25

Yes, people didn't get parables, as you've mentioned above with the verse in Luke 8:10, but look at what Jesus says right after that:

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. Luke 8:17

again, Jesus mentions this in Mark...

For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear. Mark 4:22-23

The point of Luke 8:10 is: "Do they really have ears?"

I think the verse you gave still addresses unbelievers today. They don't get it simply because they are being dumb on purpose when it comes to Jesus and God:

They will say, Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heaven's existed and the earth was formed... 2 Peter 3:4-5

So in your mind, there is no deeper meaning in the character or object as to what "the certain rich man" represents?

He represents exactly what he is, an unbeliever that went to Hell.

Can we infer then any special or deeper (i.e. spiritual) meanings to any of the other character's or objects in any of Jesus' parables?

Yes, when it is a parable. What we are talking about is not a parable.

For example, is there a deeper meaning as to who the father represents in the Prodigal Son? How about the man that owned a vineyard and hired workers for a day? Or the man that had a wedding that everyone was invited too, but chose not to show?

All these character's and objects represent some aspect of God's kingdom and relationship to it. I suspect "a certain rich man" is no different.

A Parable is a placing of one thing beside another with a view to comparison.

When Jesus tells of Lazarus, the rich man, Abraham, and Moses He is clearly foregoing the placement of one thing beside another and just presenting it like it is.

Moses is Moses. Abraham is Abraham. Lazarus is Lazarus. They are who they are.

1.) It is the only parable that is NOT an earthly story with a heavenly or spiritual significance (rather it is a story that significantly transcends the realm of the earthly)

I disagree. The spiritual significance is the relationship to what the Pharisees thought were entiled to by birthright and their actual relationship to Gods kingdom.

That has less spiritual significance than what Jesus said in the first place.

2. It would be the only parable in the Bible that uses a proper name (Lazarus).

Does that mean it can't be a parable because of that?

Allegorical story's can have fictional or non-fictional names. And besides, it's factually untrue that this parable only has one proper name in it. The other proper name in the parable is Abraham, who was the object of the of the "rich man"s" pleas and cry for help.

Real names and real people talking is just part of my list of reasons (of which I've given twice). Don't forget Moses.

3. It would be the only parable in the Bible that makes mention repeatedly of a historical person--Abraham. Moreover, this historical person carries on a dialogue with the rich man. Mention is also made of Moses, another historical character.

So. Again, The parable of the lost coin is the only parable to mention a lost coin so what's that prove/ That there can't be real lost coins? Or that lost coins are fake?

Do coins have as much spiritual significance as Abraham, or Moses, or angels (which are in there by the way -see below), or Hell, or Prophets? I don't think they do. There's no point to pretend this is a parable.

The fact that father Abraham is carring on a conversation with a supposedly dead guy is fasinating simply because that would mean Abraham is in hell!

That's not what the verse says so that conclusion is not an option.

The verse specifies exactly where Abraham is - in Abrahams bosom. Abraham could see (well, technically hear) what was going on in Hell.

I'm just reading what is there.

There are -zero- angels mentioned in Luke 16:19-31.

The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. Luke 16:22