S
SputnikBoy
Guest
solo said:
Gabbylittleangel said:
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. The first comment distorts the REAL picture. The other comment gives an empty 'Amen'. What IS the use?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
The Root of It
- Thread starter lovely
- Start date
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. The first comment distorts the REAL picture. The other comment gives an empty 'Amen'. What IS the use?
Gabbylittleangel
Member
SputnikBoy said:
SputnikBoy
The only thing that I have ever posted that you did not attack was a stupid joke about a dead horse.
You continue to attack me in every forum I post in. Even in the simple word "Amen". You have even felt led to answer comments that have been directed at other members of the forum and speak for them.
I have asked you that if you have a personal problem or comment, that you put in in a pm. You seem to be able to stay on topic when others post. You seem to be able to respond in a civil manner with others. I am hoping that the mods will take note, and go through a bit of your responses to me. Not long ago I saw where you complained about someone being rude.
Therefore, I am asking you in a public forum to explain your continued belligerence. Why the non-stop attack against me personally?????????
:-?
S
SputnikBoy
Guest
Solo said:
According to the PARABLE that Jesus told, you mean? What happens to 'the souls' of both people are not what the parable is about, solo. We already know that the righteous will live and the unrighteous will die. As much as you don't want to hear this, Abraham's Bosom was a Jewish fable of the day. Jesus used that fable to illustrate the REAL intent of the parable. It wasn't a lie, solo, and NO ONE is even implying that Jesus lied. So please stop using this 'fib' to denegrade others and to bolster your own position on this issue. Jesus merely intertwined a fable with the truth and did so for a specific audience. It wasn't intended for us to make some erroneous doctrine out of it. Do some research on this parable and it will all become clear to you.
Solo said:
Until you have an understanding of this parable, its intent, and its audience we can't discuss the state of the souls of the rich man and Lazarus. It's a story, solo. The CONSISTENT biblical truth is that the saved (soul) receives eternal life, the lost (soul) receives eternal death.
S
Solo
Guest
SputnikBoy said:
SputnikBoy said:
Explain the story Sput, I am waiting. Give it to me real clear because Jesus specifically taught that the rich man and Lazarus died and were buried, and then one was conscious in Abraham's bosom, and the other was in hell in torment and flame.
S
SputnikBoy
Guest
Gabbylittleangel said:
What?! ...how remiss of me ...!
: Where is that post ...?Gabbylittleangel said:
As much as it may seem to be a personal attack on you - and I know that it might look that way to you - my responses are usually (?) aimed at some specific remark you may have made. In regard to the 'Amen' in this particular instance you are adding your support to a remark made by solo (that others have implied that Jesus 'lied' in a parable) which is simply no more than a fabrication by solo. Hence the 'empty Amen' that I criticized.
All I can say is that I now recognize that you DO feel that I'm picking on you and if I appear to be then I apologize. I WILL try to be more mindful of this in the future, Gabby, but by all means kick me in the butt if you think I deserve it.
S
SputnikBoy
Guest
Okay, solo, here we go again. As you said in one of your posts, there is no point reinventing the wheel, so I'm reproducing - yet again - the literature I presented on the 'Hell' thread. It was ignored then - nary a response - so I see no reason that it will be any more than ignored now.
It IS rather lengthy (as it would be) so grab a cup of coffee or whatever, make yourself comfortable, CLEAR THE MIND OF ANY PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS (oh dear), and read on.
Source: http://www.tidings.org/studies/fables200007.htm
Not Giving Heed to Jewish Fables (2)
Abraham in the Underworld
(Bible Study - July 2000)
"Some take exception to Jesus using a false idea of the Pharisees as the basis for his teaching. But it should be noted that the truth or falsity of the story in a parable is immaterial. The lesson conveyed through the story is the intended point" (R. Abel, Wrested Scriptures, pg. 107).
Bro. Ron Abel’s treatment of Luke 16:19-31 is in many ways the starting point for this series of articles. In evidence of the above, Wrested Scriptures pp.107-108 footnotes a passage from Whiston’s edition of Josephus, A Discourse to Greeks Concerning Hades, which bears an uncanny resemblance to Luke 16. Unfortunately, the resemblance is so uncanny because the passage is based on Luke 16. The author is not Josephus but the 4th Century Bishop Hippolytus. At some point, a copying error confused the names and the mistake was not discovered until recently.
In any case, although attribution of the Discourse turns out to be wrong, Bro. Ron Abel’s instinct about the Jewish myth origins of Luke 16 turns out to be right.
Source evidence
Evidence from surviving Jewish texts of the period show that what is described in Luke 16:19-30 is drawn from popular first century teachings concerning a division in the underworld between the fires of Hades and the paradise where Abraham and other patriarchs dwelt:
1. While the NIV has "to Abraham’s side," the literal AV rendering "to the bosom of Abraham" is better. The "Bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (papyrus Preisigke Sb2034:11), was a specific concept in contemporary popular belief.
2. Jewish martyrs believed that: "After our death in this fashion Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will receive us and all our forefathers will praise us" (4 Maccabees 13:17 in J.H. Charlesworth, The OT Pseudepigrapha, Doubleday 1983).
3. Other early Jewish works describe paradise as being separated from the fires by a river (not substantially different from the chasm of Luke 16). In one apocryphal work this river could be crossed only in an angelic boat: "You have escaped from the abyss and Hades, you will now cross over the crossing place... then he ran to all the righteous ones, namely Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Enoch, Elijah and David" (Apocalypse of Zephaniah 9:2. Charlesworth op.cit.).
4. The same first century Jewish work also shows the popular belief concerning the role of Abraham as intercessor for those in torment in the fiery part of Hades: "As they looked at all the torments they called out, praying before the Lord Almighty saying, ‘We pray you on behalf of those who are in all these torments so you might have mercy on all of them.’ And when I saw them, I said to the angel who spoke with me, ‘Who are they?’ He said ‘Those who beseech the Lord are Abraham and Isaac and Jacob’" (Apoc. Zeph. 11:1-2).
5. In another work, Abraham causes some of the dead to return from Hades to life "Then Abraham arose and fell upon the earth, and [the Angel of] Death with him, and God sent a spirit of life into the dead and they were made alive again" (Testament of Abraham ‘A’ 18:11).
From the above it should be clear that the picture of the Underworld given by Christ is not Christ’s own picture, nor drawn from the Old Testament, but from popular Jewish beliefs.
As Ron Abel comments above, when dealing with Luke 16 as "wrested scripture" the truth or falsity of the story in a parable is immaterial. Furthermore, there are other arguments presented in Wrested Scriptures which should show an unbiased inquirer that the story was never meant to be taken as a factual description of the underworld.
But is Luke 16 a parody of the myth? Does it just refer to the myth or does it show the myth to be wrong?
Myth shown to be wrong
For our purpose in this series, which is concerned with the attitude of the New Testament to Jewish myths, the falsity of the story is highly material. The above texts prove that Christ used popular ideas, but we have not yet proved that the Lord’s parable is in any way critical of these beliefs. Many people, even when provided with the historical context, would simply assume that Christ shared the beliefs found in the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, and so on, and was supporting the teaching. It is not enough to show a connection with Jewish myth, we must also be able to demonstrate that the attitude to these myths was negative.
This we can do. There are several signs in the text that a vein of irony runs through the parable:
1. The previous parable, the dishonest steward, is probably best read as an attack on the writing of divorce notes for financial or social gain (compare 16:6-7 with 17-18). The Pharisees missed the irony and smirked at how the master "commended" his dishonest steward, but Christ rounded on them and made it clear that the parable was about themselves (16:15). If the preceding parable in this sequence of seven parables (Luke ch.14-16) is an ironic attack on Pharisee beliefs and practices, we should not be surprised if the following parable has the same tone or target.
2. The "everlasting habitations" where the steward’s new friends wait for him in 16:9 provide a link to the everlasting habitation which receives the rich man in 16:23. Again the point for us is that there is a heavy negative spin on the afterlife expectations of both the steward and the Pharisees. The stage is being set for the next parable.
3. When Christ puts the word "father" for Abraham in the mouth of the rich man (v. 27), it is despite his own command to call no man "father" and the warning of John the Baptist about Jewish reliance on their ancestry in Luke 3:8. If we consider Jesus’ dialogue with the scribes and Pharisees in John 8:31-59, we can see that Christ is being critical of the rich man’s beliefs to rely on his ancestry for favored treatment. Popular Jewish beliefs contain this same element -- "Our father Abraham" is a common phrase in the Mishnah (e.g. Aboth 3:12, 5:2,3,6,19, 6:10 Taanith 2:4,5 etc.).
4. The purple and fine linen worn by the rich man is a clear reference to priestly garments (Ex. 39:2,24,29) which would suggest a personification of the priesthood. In addition, the mention of "my father’s house" by the rich man (16:27) and "five brethren" (16:28) would make it clear to any first century listener that the target of this parable is none other than the high priest himself. The rich man is Caiaphas, and the rich man’s five brethren are his five brothers-in-law: Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and the younger Annas. Josephus records, "Now the report goes, that this elder Annas (Caiaphas’ father- in-law) proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons, who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and he had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests..." (Antiquities, book XX, ch.9, section i, p. 423). While singling out powerful individuals like this is not uncommon in the Old Testament prophets, Christ’s placing of Caiaphas into this parable is unique in the New Testament. While modern sensibilities are squeamish about the idea that Christ could use parody, irony, even sarcasm, the fact is that the Old Testament prophets did so freely. Therefore, this is an acceptable form of rebuke in the Bible. Familiarity with the style of the Old Testament prophets should lead us to accept the use of irony in rebuke (cp. Isa. 14:13 and Ezk. 28:2 with Matt. 11:23).
5. The fact that Caiaphas and the five sons of Annas appear in the parable suggests strongly that the Lazarus named is also a historical figure, namely Lazarus of Bethany. This suggestion is confirmed when we recognize that Luke 16:31 contains a prophecy fulfilled by Annas and his five sons in John 12:10. If this parable is personal to the level of making a prophecy about eight specific individuals, all known to the hearers, it becomes more probable that the beliefs described in the parable have a personal relationship to the Pharisee audience too.
6. Most importantly; the fate of the rich man after death, despite his priestly robes and high religious position, does more than invalidate the rich man’s (and the Pharisees’) contempt for the common people (John
7:49). Having the unclean beggar take the priest’s place in Abraham’s bosom invalidates the whole structure of the religious establishment’s belief.
7. Caiaphas was a Sadducee and we do not know enough about the beliefs of the Sadducees to be sure to what extent they shared the popular view of Abraham in the underworld. One could argue that this is not relevant as the audience was composed of Pharisees, but the NT shows such keen awareness of the differences between the two groups (Matt. 22:23; Acts 23:8) that we should be aware of this aspect. If a distinction is drawn between Pharisee and Sadducee belief in the parable it may be in the mention of angels, 16:22, and the predisposition of Annas and his family to deny the resurrection in 16:31 (not just of the Lazarus in the parable and the historical Lazarus, and ultimately of Christ too). As such the Lord is using Pharisee belief to reprove Sadducee belief. Yet we hardly see any sign of this having been done to please the Pharisees. In fact, the shocking start of the parable with a beggar whose sores are licked by the dogs being taken to the lap of Father Abraham -- thereby making Abraham himself unclean -- would be most offensive to the sensibilities of the Pharisees (cf. G. Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus 1995 pp 75-82). And there is no evidence that when it came to the reality of resurrection (either of Lazarus or Christ) the Pharisees were any more disposed to accept the consequences of their doctrine than the Sadducees. The bottom line then is that the parable contains criticism of the characteristic beliefs of both groups which included the description of the journey of two souls to a divided underworld.
8. Note also how Luke16:26, "neither can they pass," contradicts Apocalypse of Zephaniah 9:2 quoted above. This direct contradiction with the NT text is one evidence that Apoc. Zeph., unlike Hippolytus’ "Discourse concerning Hades," is independent of Luke 16. It is also further evidence that Luke 16 does not condone popular beliefs regarding the bosom of Abraham.
Lessons for us
So what can we say in conclusion?
First, that the story of Abraham in the underworld is drawn on Jewish mythology. Second, that the parable shows signs of parody by which the popular belief is brought into disrepute. A third conclusion might be that the reason Christ couched the parable in this way was because it was so effective in exposing the falseness of "the doctrine of Pharisees and Sadducees."
Now take a step back.
It is hoped that the above historical background was interesting. It may even be helpful. But before losing sight of the forest for the trees, we need to remember that the parable is not just a political cartoon attacking a Jewish high priest. The story of the rich man and Lazarus is first and foremost a lesson that can be understood by anyone from Sunday School onwards. The real fable being debunked is the ancient myth that religious respectability is any kind of guarantee of favor with God. The truly disturbing thing about Luke 16:19-31 is not the traces of Jewish myth, nor the difficulty that the parable presents for us in study and preaching, but that these parables were preserved for our spiritual benefit, to warn us as individuals. There is a danger that if we solely concern ourselves with the application of Christ’s parables to others (either others in the first century or others today) the day might come when the Lord turns to us and repeats his rebuke:
And he said unto them "YE ARE THEY which justify yourselves before men..." (16:15).
Certainly the first century application to Jewish teachers and their myths is important, but what is the twenty first century application? Hopefully not to ourselves.
It IS rather lengthy (as it would be) so grab a cup of coffee or whatever, make yourself comfortable, CLEAR THE MIND OF ANY PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS (oh dear), and read on.
Source: http://www.tidings.org/studies/fables200007.htm
Not Giving Heed to Jewish Fables (2)
Abraham in the Underworld
(Bible Study - July 2000)
"Some take exception to Jesus using a false idea of the Pharisees as the basis for his teaching. But it should be noted that the truth or falsity of the story in a parable is immaterial. The lesson conveyed through the story is the intended point" (R. Abel, Wrested Scriptures, pg. 107).
Bro. Ron Abel’s treatment of Luke 16:19-31 is in many ways the starting point for this series of articles. In evidence of the above, Wrested Scriptures pp.107-108 footnotes a passage from Whiston’s edition of Josephus, A Discourse to Greeks Concerning Hades, which bears an uncanny resemblance to Luke 16. Unfortunately, the resemblance is so uncanny because the passage is based on Luke 16. The author is not Josephus but the 4th Century Bishop Hippolytus. At some point, a copying error confused the names and the mistake was not discovered until recently.
In any case, although attribution of the Discourse turns out to be wrong, Bro. Ron Abel’s instinct about the Jewish myth origins of Luke 16 turns out to be right.
Source evidence
Evidence from surviving Jewish texts of the period show that what is described in Luke 16:19-30 is drawn from popular first century teachings concerning a division in the underworld between the fires of Hades and the paradise where Abraham and other patriarchs dwelt:
1. While the NIV has "to Abraham’s side," the literal AV rendering "to the bosom of Abraham" is better. The "Bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (papyrus Preisigke Sb2034:11), was a specific concept in contemporary popular belief.
2. Jewish martyrs believed that: "After our death in this fashion Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will receive us and all our forefathers will praise us" (4 Maccabees 13:17 in J.H. Charlesworth, The OT Pseudepigrapha, Doubleday 1983).
3. Other early Jewish works describe paradise as being separated from the fires by a river (not substantially different from the chasm of Luke 16). In one apocryphal work this river could be crossed only in an angelic boat: "You have escaped from the abyss and Hades, you will now cross over the crossing place... then he ran to all the righteous ones, namely Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Enoch, Elijah and David" (Apocalypse of Zephaniah 9:2. Charlesworth op.cit.).
4. The same first century Jewish work also shows the popular belief concerning the role of Abraham as intercessor for those in torment in the fiery part of Hades: "As they looked at all the torments they called out, praying before the Lord Almighty saying, ‘We pray you on behalf of those who are in all these torments so you might have mercy on all of them.’ And when I saw them, I said to the angel who spoke with me, ‘Who are they?’ He said ‘Those who beseech the Lord are Abraham and Isaac and Jacob’" (Apoc. Zeph. 11:1-2).
5. In another work, Abraham causes some of the dead to return from Hades to life "Then Abraham arose and fell upon the earth, and [the Angel of] Death with him, and God sent a spirit of life into the dead and they were made alive again" (Testament of Abraham ‘A’ 18:11).
From the above it should be clear that the picture of the Underworld given by Christ is not Christ’s own picture, nor drawn from the Old Testament, but from popular Jewish beliefs.
As Ron Abel comments above, when dealing with Luke 16 as "wrested scripture" the truth or falsity of the story in a parable is immaterial. Furthermore, there are other arguments presented in Wrested Scriptures which should show an unbiased inquirer that the story was never meant to be taken as a factual description of the underworld.
But is Luke 16 a parody of the myth? Does it just refer to the myth or does it show the myth to be wrong?
Myth shown to be wrong
For our purpose in this series, which is concerned with the attitude of the New Testament to Jewish myths, the falsity of the story is highly material. The above texts prove that Christ used popular ideas, but we have not yet proved that the Lord’s parable is in any way critical of these beliefs. Many people, even when provided with the historical context, would simply assume that Christ shared the beliefs found in the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, and so on, and was supporting the teaching. It is not enough to show a connection with Jewish myth, we must also be able to demonstrate that the attitude to these myths was negative.
This we can do. There are several signs in the text that a vein of irony runs through the parable:
1. The previous parable, the dishonest steward, is probably best read as an attack on the writing of divorce notes for financial or social gain (compare 16:6-7 with 17-18). The Pharisees missed the irony and smirked at how the master "commended" his dishonest steward, but Christ rounded on them and made it clear that the parable was about themselves (16:15). If the preceding parable in this sequence of seven parables (Luke ch.14-16) is an ironic attack on Pharisee beliefs and practices, we should not be surprised if the following parable has the same tone or target.
2. The "everlasting habitations" where the steward’s new friends wait for him in 16:9 provide a link to the everlasting habitation which receives the rich man in 16:23. Again the point for us is that there is a heavy negative spin on the afterlife expectations of both the steward and the Pharisees. The stage is being set for the next parable.
3. When Christ puts the word "father" for Abraham in the mouth of the rich man (v. 27), it is despite his own command to call no man "father" and the warning of John the Baptist about Jewish reliance on their ancestry in Luke 3:8. If we consider Jesus’ dialogue with the scribes and Pharisees in John 8:31-59, we can see that Christ is being critical of the rich man’s beliefs to rely on his ancestry for favored treatment. Popular Jewish beliefs contain this same element -- "Our father Abraham" is a common phrase in the Mishnah (e.g. Aboth 3:12, 5:2,3,6,19, 6:10 Taanith 2:4,5 etc.).
4. The purple and fine linen worn by the rich man is a clear reference to priestly garments (Ex. 39:2,24,29) which would suggest a personification of the priesthood. In addition, the mention of "my father’s house" by the rich man (16:27) and "five brethren" (16:28) would make it clear to any first century listener that the target of this parable is none other than the high priest himself. The rich man is Caiaphas, and the rich man’s five brethren are his five brothers-in-law: Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and the younger Annas. Josephus records, "Now the report goes, that this elder Annas (Caiaphas’ father- in-law) proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons, who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and he had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests..." (Antiquities, book XX, ch.9, section i, p. 423). While singling out powerful individuals like this is not uncommon in the Old Testament prophets, Christ’s placing of Caiaphas into this parable is unique in the New Testament. While modern sensibilities are squeamish about the idea that Christ could use parody, irony, even sarcasm, the fact is that the Old Testament prophets did so freely. Therefore, this is an acceptable form of rebuke in the Bible. Familiarity with the style of the Old Testament prophets should lead us to accept the use of irony in rebuke (cp. Isa. 14:13 and Ezk. 28:2 with Matt. 11:23).
5. The fact that Caiaphas and the five sons of Annas appear in the parable suggests strongly that the Lazarus named is also a historical figure, namely Lazarus of Bethany. This suggestion is confirmed when we recognize that Luke 16:31 contains a prophecy fulfilled by Annas and his five sons in John 12:10. If this parable is personal to the level of making a prophecy about eight specific individuals, all known to the hearers, it becomes more probable that the beliefs described in the parable have a personal relationship to the Pharisee audience too.
6. Most importantly; the fate of the rich man after death, despite his priestly robes and high religious position, does more than invalidate the rich man’s (and the Pharisees’) contempt for the common people (John
7:49). Having the unclean beggar take the priest’s place in Abraham’s bosom invalidates the whole structure of the religious establishment’s belief.
7. Caiaphas was a Sadducee and we do not know enough about the beliefs of the Sadducees to be sure to what extent they shared the popular view of Abraham in the underworld. One could argue that this is not relevant as the audience was composed of Pharisees, but the NT shows such keen awareness of the differences between the two groups (Matt. 22:23; Acts 23:8) that we should be aware of this aspect. If a distinction is drawn between Pharisee and Sadducee belief in the parable it may be in the mention of angels, 16:22, and the predisposition of Annas and his family to deny the resurrection in 16:31 (not just of the Lazarus in the parable and the historical Lazarus, and ultimately of Christ too). As such the Lord is using Pharisee belief to reprove Sadducee belief. Yet we hardly see any sign of this having been done to please the Pharisees. In fact, the shocking start of the parable with a beggar whose sores are licked by the dogs being taken to the lap of Father Abraham -- thereby making Abraham himself unclean -- would be most offensive to the sensibilities of the Pharisees (cf. G. Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus 1995 pp 75-82). And there is no evidence that when it came to the reality of resurrection (either of Lazarus or Christ) the Pharisees were any more disposed to accept the consequences of their doctrine than the Sadducees. The bottom line then is that the parable contains criticism of the characteristic beliefs of both groups which included the description of the journey of two souls to a divided underworld.
8. Note also how Luke16:26, "neither can they pass," contradicts Apocalypse of Zephaniah 9:2 quoted above. This direct contradiction with the NT text is one evidence that Apoc. Zeph., unlike Hippolytus’ "Discourse concerning Hades," is independent of Luke 16. It is also further evidence that Luke 16 does not condone popular beliefs regarding the bosom of Abraham.
Lessons for us
So what can we say in conclusion?
First, that the story of Abraham in the underworld is drawn on Jewish mythology. Second, that the parable shows signs of parody by which the popular belief is brought into disrepute. A third conclusion might be that the reason Christ couched the parable in this way was because it was so effective in exposing the falseness of "the doctrine of Pharisees and Sadducees."
Now take a step back.
It is hoped that the above historical background was interesting. It may even be helpful. But before losing sight of the forest for the trees, we need to remember that the parable is not just a political cartoon attacking a Jewish high priest. The story of the rich man and Lazarus is first and foremost a lesson that can be understood by anyone from Sunday School onwards. The real fable being debunked is the ancient myth that religious respectability is any kind of guarantee of favor with God. The truly disturbing thing about Luke 16:19-31 is not the traces of Jewish myth, nor the difficulty that the parable presents for us in study and preaching, but that these parables were preserved for our spiritual benefit, to warn us as individuals. There is a danger that if we solely concern ourselves with the application of Christ’s parables to others (either others in the first century or others today) the day might come when the Lord turns to us and repeats his rebuke:
And he said unto them "YE ARE THEY which justify yourselves before men..." (16:15).
Certainly the first century application to Jewish teachers and their myths is important, but what is the twenty first century application? Hopefully not to ourselves.
S
Solo
Guest
SputnikBoy said:
Well, Sput, you can believe that whimsical explanation if you must, but it smells of an odorous aroma from the middle of the barnyard to me. I will take the words of Jesus just exactly how he meant them, as they correspond with the rest of the scripture. Oh and by the way, the belief of hell being a literal place is not believed by the cults, such as mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Herbert Armstrongs, etc. etc. etc. :roll:
Gabbylittleangel
Member
lovely said:
lovely,
Here are some follow up questions to yours.
If it were somehow proven that hell does not exist, is not eternal, or just somehow not as bad as we think it is....would we feel the urgency in our soul to preach the gospel? Would it seem to matter as much for us to reach strangers and bring them into the Kingdom of God?
S
SputnikBoy
Guest
Solo said:
That's just the point, solo ...the above DOES correspond with the rest of the scripture. The righteous will LIVE forever, the unrighteous will DIE forever. How can this be made any clearer?
Solo said:
Who determines which denomination is a cult, solo ...you ...? The biggest cult thinking that has ever been perpetrated on human-kind is the one that would have a loving God to worship on the one hand and a cruel, tyrant God on the other. I, personally, don't hold to the latter version and I'm in utter disbelief that any Christian can even entertain this ideology for one second. I guess this 'sensitiveness' as well as scriptural savvy on this issue therefore lumps me in with the wicked according to mainstream Christinity thinking ...?
And people call moslem terrorists (rightly so) crazy ...!
S
SputnikBoy
Guest
Gabbylittleangel said:
Hey Gabby, I know I'm not lovely (huh? what?) but I'll respond to your question if I may ...?
No one is saying that eternal destruction will be a walk in the park. We really don't know EXACTLY what it will entail. However, if one could opt for eternal life or eternal death (as they can) I know which one I would opt for. Of course there is as much urgency to preach the gospel of eternal life to people whether it involves annihilation or eternal torment. The teaching of the 'threat' of eternal torment will NEVER result in a true convert anyway. Nor, for that matter, will the preaching of annihilation. Both are based on fear tactics when it comes down to the nitty gritty. One's true 'conversion' will never be dependent on or based solely on either concept.
S
Solo
Guest
There are four views of Luke 16. The four views are:
- The Bible Truth Click Here: Word Picture, pre-resurrection, view. The "Anti-Neo-Sadduceeian" position.
[/*:m:74487] - Literal, pre-resurrection, view Click Here: Many churches that are "Anti-Neo-Sadduceeian".
[/*:m:74487] - The Fable View Click Here: Most Arians: Jehovah Witness, Christadelphian, Seventh-day Adventist.
[/*:m:74487] - Literal, post resurrection, view Click Here: Neo-Sadduceeian: Herbert W. Armstrong and most modern splinter groups
What is a Neo-Sadduceeian?[/*:m:74487]
Drew
Member
This does not clear things up at all.lovely said:
The very fact that something is a parable (if one agrees that it is) means that at least some of its content is not intended to represent things "as they really are".
Let's consider the story of Little Red Riding Hood. Parable? Obviously.
If someone were to apply your reasoning, they would say that one cannot deny "the picture of wolves that it is painted". This would lead to the conclusion that wolves eat little old ladies and impersonate them in their beds.
Obviously not true.
Most of the people who believe in an eternal soul come to this conclusion from a reverse engineering point of view. Men have souls, souls go to heaven or hell, heaven and hell are for eternity, hence souls are eternal.
But I haven't seen any scripture put forth that directly infers to a man having eternal soul.
And lovely most of the scripture you have quoted talks about soul/life/spirit, but not the duration of its existence, if any, it shows strongly that it can be destroyed by God in hell, which does not suggest that it is eternal. Why would Jesus make such a statement anway, that God can destroy soul in hell, if it didnt have an ounce of truth in it?
People who do not believe in an eternal soul, believe that soul is not a separate entity that enjoys its existence apart from the life of man, but a living soul = breath of life + body. Now this can be concluded without reverse engineering from the creation account in Genesis.
We were kicked out of the garden of eden before we ate from the tree of life. Now let's consider Adams death. Where did he go after death? Heaven or Hell? If he had an eternal soul, lets say his disobedience sent him to hell. Now he was expecting to be dead, but he finds himself in torments in buring hell. But God never warned him about this, would this be a righteous judgment? If he went to heaven, eating the fruit in disobedience wasn't that bad after all, he is enjoying heaven and doesn't have to tend to the animals and the garden anymore.
Now we all agree that the dead are awaiting judgment. Now if one goes immidiately to heaven or hell they are already judged. For not even God can send them to heaven or hell without judging them. So howcome we believe that everyone is "waiting" on judgment while one is already being rewarded with heavenly pleasures or hellish pain immidiately after death?
Coming to the parable of lazarus and rich man. Now if it was indeed based on literal truth, let's consider the parable of the sower. Is the seed literal seed? Are the fowls literal fowls that devour? Are the rocks literal rocks? Are the thistles literal thistles? Is the good ground literal good ground? Is the sower a literal farmer? No, you will parallel each with the Messiah, the word, the growth, the hearts, the evil one and what not. Now when it comes to lazarus and rich man, why should hell be hell, abraham's bosom be bosom, fire be fire, finger dipped in water be a literal finger? Unless one can figure what each of what these represent the whole meaning of the parable is lost and we end up with a wrong conclusion.
S
Solo
Guest
Little Red Riding Hood is not a parable, it is a fairy tale or children's story. It does not teach a spiritual truth. Jesus is teaching a spiritual truth in Luke 16 which may be a parable, or may be a true rendition of a factual occurance. Jesus is teaching about hell and torment after being judged by the works one does on this earth in the physical body. After the physical body is dead and buried, Jesus is teaching that it doesn't end there. Simple.Drew said:
Perhaps you can quote the works that could have been judged in the parable?Solo said:
Rich man was rich, beggar was poor. Nothing about faith in Jesus was mentioned. So the moral of the story would be live life in pleasure - burn in hell, live in misery - go to heaven.
And why was Jesus preaching about judgment of works that send you to heaven or hell? Isn't it faith and not works that You say sends one to hell or heaven? And Jesus didnt even touch about faith in that ever so important parable about heaven and hell, why would that be?
S
Solo
Guest
Jesus was teaching about who you serve while on this earth. He teaches that you cannot serve money and God; for if you serve the one, you will hate the other. It is God whom one is to serve, and in that to be a good steward. Read the entire chapter of Luke 16, and then read Matthew 25. Jesus teaches in Matthew 25 that those who are not good stewards of what God gives them will be separated to an everlasting fire and everlasting punishment, while those that fed and clothed and gave drink to the least, as was Lazarus, will gain eternal life.TanNinety said:
Drew
Member
I suspected that someone would try to make this argument.Solo said:
The issue, of course, is not whether Little Red Riding Hood is technically a parable, but whether, like a parable, it attempts to communicate a fundamental truth through allegory.
Maybe Little Red Riding Hood is not a good example, since there may not be an obvious "moral". So let's go with Jack and the Beanstalk instead.
S
Solo
Guest
That is a good one. Let me explain it to you. After you climb to heaven by your own works, you will find that you are in amongst giants and do not fit there because of your persevering towards wealth instead of being content with the provision of God, therefore your serving mammon over God has constituted your position in hell until you repent from your worldly goals.Drew said:
lovely
Member
Hi everyone,
A lot is going on in this thread since I left.
Drew,
Hi, my point was that I am not debating if the parable actually portrays actual historical events at all. BUT, I believe you are absolutely wrong in saying that we can not assume that the meaning of the parable is false, or that the events depicted are misrepresentative of their obvious meanings in the least. I will not use Little Red Riding Hood in a comparative manner, and I think if you reconsider that suggestion you may see the flaw in that kind of comparison. I KNOW that I would not get by with it from anyone if I used it to defend an eternal wrath view against some parable that may portray annihilation.
So, if we look at the parables of Christ, I think there is a positive pattern that the details always mean something, or stand for something. In The Rich Man, and Lazarus...no matter what people think the gist of it is...the eternal life, of Lazarus is represented correctly right? And, we know through other parts of Scripture that this is an accurate representation. So, in light of that, why should we believe that the picture of the rich man being tormented in Hell is a misrepresentation, or something that is a symbol of nothing? I think it is an accurate representation of Hell, what we will be saved from, if we serve God. AND, I think other verses in Scripture strongly support that depiction.
Gabby,
I want to answer your questions to me as well.
Gabby wrote:
If none of these are true, (Matthew 25:34-41, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9, and Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.) then the whole Word is suspect.
If Hell is not true, or accurate, then there would be no need to preach the Gospel, because it would be a lie. What did Christ come to save me from, if not eternal torment due to my sin? If there is not penalty for sin, then I do not need saving from anything, and I may as well sin all I desire to right here until I no longer exist. If there is no Hell, then there is no need for redemption, and John 3:16 isn't needed, or true.
I will praise God till the day I die for saving me from my sin, and redeeming me with the blood of the Lamb. I will spend all eternity doing that very same at the Master's feet if, He allows this dog to partake of the crumbs of His table. Until that day, I will do my best to serve Him here, and I will enlist my children to do the same, and I will not distort the Gospel by the grace of God. The Lord bless you.
A lot is going on in this thread since I left.
Drew,
Hi, my point was that I am not debating if the parable actually portrays actual historical events at all. BUT, I believe you are absolutely wrong in saying that we can not assume that the meaning of the parable is false, or that the events depicted are misrepresentative of their obvious meanings in the least. I will not use Little Red Riding Hood in a comparative manner, and I think if you reconsider that suggestion you may see the flaw in that kind of comparison. I KNOW that I would not get by with it from anyone if I used it to defend an eternal wrath view against some parable that may portray annihilation.
So, if we look at the parables of Christ, I think there is a positive pattern that the details always mean something, or stand for something. In The Rich Man, and Lazarus...no matter what people think the gist of it is...the eternal life, of Lazarus is represented correctly right? And, we know through other parts of Scripture that this is an accurate representation. So, in light of that, why should we believe that the picture of the rich man being tormented in Hell is a misrepresentation, or something that is a symbol of nothing? I think it is an accurate representation of Hell, what we will be saved from, if we serve God. AND, I think other verses in Scripture strongly support that depiction.
Gabby,
I want to answer your questions to me as well.
Gabby wrote:
If none of these are true, (Matthew 25:34-41, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9, and Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.) then the whole Word is suspect.
If Hell is not true, or accurate, then there would be no need to preach the Gospel, because it would be a lie. What did Christ come to save me from, if not eternal torment due to my sin? If there is not penalty for sin, then I do not need saving from anything, and I may as well sin all I desire to right here until I no longer exist. If there is no Hell, then there is no need for redemption, and John 3:16 isn't needed, or true.
I will praise God till the day I die for saving me from my sin, and redeeming me with the blood of the Lamb. I will spend all eternity doing that very same at the Master's feet if, He allows this dog to partake of the crumbs of His table. Until that day, I will do my best to serve Him here, and I will enlist my children to do the same, and I will not distort the Gospel by the grace of God. The Lord bless you.