The Wages of Sin is ..... Eternal Life in Hell!

[Drew]

Then I hit you with the scriptures and you start :smt022
to a Mod. Why is this so. I will tell you why. It's because the scripture convicted you.

Let me begin by pointing by posting the material that I complained to the moderators over. In the interests of transparency, here is precisely what you said to Tan in the "The Root of It" thread. If you are not ashamed of this material then presumably you do not object to its being posted again:

Tan
I will answer your question in the same way that Jesus answered to those of your kind

42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."

I publically ask any of the posters who support the "eternal hell" view to express an opinion to the effect that this is acceptable behaviour. If you think this is an acceptable statement to make, please have the courage to publically declare so.

Secondly: How is that you know that the Scripture convicted me? To know this would require the ability to read minds. Do you have such an ability? It seems that you and Solo do. I. for one, do not and am forced to engage the actual content of what people post. This puts in the supreme disadvantage of actually having to present a case in terms of known facts. If only I had this gift of ESP.....

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Just out of curiosity, I did a word search on "death". Here is what I found.

Gen 25:11 And it came to pass after the death of Abraham...The term was used for Abraham. It is something that Abraham experienced.

Isaac spoke of his impending death:
Gen 27:1-2 And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old.... And he said, Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death:

As did Israel;
Gen 48:21 And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold, I die: but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers.


Mat 22:31-32 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

And then there is this:
Jhn 18:32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Death does not mean 'to cease to exist'.
The words for the death of a non-believer and for a believer are the same.

The word perish was argued in previous posts. Jesus spoke of His own death, using the word perish.
Luk 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the [day] following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

The point being ~ ~ ~ Semantics will not support a false doctrine.

 

[Drew]

Jesus never illustrated a teaching with a falsehood (are you calling Jesus a liar? It sure seems like this is what you are implying. Then again one of your possey does not believe that NOT accepting Jesus Christ is NOT a chrime). This being the case, we must conclude that in Luke 16 Jesus is giving a teaching based on a “real-life†situationâ€â€involving conscious existence after death. Certainly the verse is in perfect harmony with other verses that teach conscious existence in the afterlife (see Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59; 2 Cor. 5:6–8; Phil. 1:21–23; 1 Thess. 4:13–17; Rev. 6:9–10).

I am mystified that you think that this gets you off the hook. You stated that "Jesus never illustrated a teaching with a falsehood". What has to be the case for your statement to be held as correct? It has to be the case that Jesus never made factually untrue statements. Yet we know that he did in Matthew 23:33(a)

You snakes! You brood of vipers!

Was he talking to snakes? Obviously not. Therefore, Jesus is saying something factually untrue. Of course, this does not make him a liar - he is employing metaphor. It is you who made the "Jesus never illustrated a teaching with a falsehood" statement and used this to conclude that Luke 16 describes the world in a factaully correct manner. So don't try to argue that Jesus' words to the Pharisees are true in a metaphorical sense - you do not have the right to do this, since this is precisely what you are arguing against when you use the "Jesus never illustrated a teaching with a falsehood " in respect to Luke 16.

Are the Pharisees actually snakes? The only way you can wiggle out of this is to assert that they are. Good luck to you.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Ho-hum, jg, you continue to ignore posts that have been addressed to you and I can't help but wonder why. Then again ...I know why. ;-)

I see you're still going on and on about the Rich Man & Lazarus, totally oblivious (intentionally, of course) to the umpteen explanations that have previously been given to this PARABLE. You also keep saying - as if with authority - that Jesus NEVER used real names in a parable. How do you know Jesus made a point of not using real names in His parables? Could you point me to the scripture where you got this piece of information from? Anyway, you're most obviously wrong because Jesus certainly used a real name in 'our' parable. HOWEVER - as your Strong's Concordance will tell you if you look for it ...the 'Lazarus' in this parable is fictitious. So is 'Dives', the rich man. Please comment on this glaring reference instead of ignoring it. You will also notice that Luke contains one parable after another and the rich man is also referred to in the previous parable.

I can understand that it might be somewhat embarrassing for you to concede that you've lost the argument on at least this point since you - and others - are SO reliant on that story being factual. But, let's face it ...even without ALL OF THE FACTS that have previously been given about this parable, it's intent, it's audience, its message ...even your twins would realize that it even READS like 'a cartoon'. I mean, come on, jg, get real . . .!

The sad fact about this particular argument is that it's become an ego thing to you, jg. You become almost giddy with excitement whenever 'your side' appears to score a point as if you've personally notched up a victory. It also encourages sarcasm and a patronizing approach from you whenever you talk to the likes of Drew and guibox who - let's face it! - have 'whipped your butt' on this issue with their biblical know-how, their relatively calm demeanor and their all round general intelligence.

The tragedy of all of this is that your apparent glee revolves around an inconceivable concept that would have millions upon millions of people (the number COULD even include your twins) being tormented for all of eternity. You've already told me that I'm not a Christian, jg, Well, if eternal torment for the unsaved is the best 'your God' can come up with as a solution to 'even everything out' ...well, you can have him and also 'your' brand of Christianity ...! It's not for me.

 

[Drew]

Hello Sputnik:

Let me see if I understand you. We both know that jgredline has recently invoked Strong's concordance in defence of his point of view. I suspect we will agree that this is fair game.

Now I understand you as asserting that Strong's indicates that the Lazarus character in the Luke 16 is a fictional one. Am I right?

If so, then of course, jgredline could not legitimately invoke a Strong's opinion re one thing (e.g. the existence of an eternal hell and / or an immortal soul) and yet reject a Strong's opinion re another (whether or not the Lazarus character from Luke 16 is a real person) unless further information is provided.

 

[jgredline]

Drew
You must have missed my post. Here it is again

Drew
First of all let me start by saying good morning. Atleast its morning where I am at.
Now. Your possey have already taken Solo OUT OF CONTEXT and he has shown you your mistake..Now I will show you where you took me out of context. I will try and explain it to you at a first grade level. I will have my twins who are in first grade read this before I post it to make sure it is understandable.


Here is I wrote.
Scholars have noted that whenever Jesus taught, he provided examples from real-life situations. For example, he spoke of a treasure buried in a field, a wedding feast, a man working in a vineyard, a woman sweeping her house, a shepherd watching his sheep, and a son returning home after squandering money.

Jesus never illustrated a teaching with a falsehood. This being the case, we must conclude that in Luke 16 Jesus is giving a teaching based on a “real-life†situationâ€â€involving conscious existence after death. Certainly the verse is in perfect harmony with other verses that teach conscious existence in the afterlife (see Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59; 2 Cor. 5:6–8; Phil. 1:21–23; 1 Thess. 4:13–17; Rev. 6:9–10).

Jesus never calls this real story a “parable,†and unlike parables, which never use real names, Jesus used a real name (Lazarus) of a person.

Here is my explanation
Scholars have noted that whenever Jesus taught, he provided examples from real-life situations. (These are persons, place or things in other words a noun or nouns) For example, he spoke of a treasure buried in a field (this was very common practice back in those times. Its not like you could go to an ATM), a wedding feast (jewish weddings lasted an average of 3 days. This was common knowledge), a man working in a vineyard (Does this really need explanation? Well I will give you one. People where commonaly working in vineyards), a woman sweeping her house (guess what, women cleaned there houses and yes brooms were very common), a shepherd watching his sheep( This is what sheppards do. They protect them from wolves and thiefs), and a son returning home after squandering money (there were many prodigal sons. There are still prodigal sons today that squander there inheritance). So these examples where all things the average common folk would clearly understand.. They would not need a commentary or a chat forum to get it. Get it? OK, Lets move on.

Jesus never illustrated a teaching with a falsehood (are you calling Jesus a liar? It sure seems like this is what you are implying. Then again one of your possey does not believe that NOT accepting Jesus Christ is NOT a chrime). This being the case, we must conclude that in Luke 16 Jesus is giving a teaching based on a “real-life†situationâ€â€involving conscious existence after death. Certainly the verse is in perfect harmony with other verses that teach conscious existence in the afterlife (see Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59; 2 Cor. 5:6–8; Phil. 1:21–23; 1 Thess. 4:13–17; Rev. 6:9–10).

Did you read all the verses I posted?


Jesus never calls this real story a “parable,†and unlike parables, which never use real names, Jesus used a real name (Lazarus) of a person.

Drew
You do exactly what Satan did with the scriptures when he was quoting them to Jesus while he was tempting him. He took them out of context to fit his false theology which is where you theology comes from.
John 8:44
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.


Now
As far as the readers go. I have recieved PM'S from 13 differant people and 6 e mails all of encouragement to continue to battle these false teachers eg drew, guibox, cp, sput, soma, tan, etc.

The fact that you even have Lovely debating you says allot in itself. It's clear to anybody with the spirit of God that you are teaching falsely.
1 tim 4:1 1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,

Now lets look at your doctrine. You say that I avoid your questions.
When you start with your ''dualistic theology'' questions, I will not address your false doctrines as those are mearly you opinions.
When you have asked about the scriptures, I have indeed answerd them, atleast most of them and I have answered them in proper context.
Just because I don't fall for your trick questions that you conjure up not dought in my mind from inspiration of the evil one.

2 peter 2:1-2 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.

Then I hit you with the scriptures and you start
to a Mod. Why is this so. I will tell you why. It's because the scripture convicted you.

2 tim 4:1-4 1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at* His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

Drew
You have even called stories in the bible fables
The bible clearly warns of people like you.
2 tim 3: 1-7 1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[jgredline]

Sput'
You must have also missed my post to you.
Here it is

Sput
I saw your question and your post and sarcasm as well. I did not respond to you, because as has been told to you many times, you are good at offering OPINION that is worthless, because you very, very, seldom crack a bible and use scripture. Then you go and say a remark that says it is not a Crime NOT to accept Jesus. What makes you think that you will be able to understand anything spiritual? The ANSWER IS SIMPLE. HERE IT IS.

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

Sput
Can you see what you are missing?

Wait there is more.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You need to repent and take back those foolish words of yours and appologize to Jesus for what you said of him. You need to confess your sin publically since you made your statement publically. This is of course if you are a child of God. If not, then it's your soul that will for ever be doomed.

 

[CP_Mike]

Death does not mean 'to cease to exist'.
The words for the death of a non-believer and for a believer are the same.

Hi Gabby,
None of us believes when someone dies physically, they don't cease to exist. What we are saying is after judgemen at parousia, everyone who ever lived will be resurrected and will stand before the judgement throne of God. For us believers, we will vbe acquited and receive eternal life. For the people who are not wirtten in the Lamb's book of life, they will be sentenced; there will wailing and gnashing of teath and they will be destroyed in the lake of fire. God's judgement and punishment will be satisfied. How long the process of destruction will take? no one knows, but the language of destruction for us annhilationists is there that there will come a point that divine judgement will be complete. Never ending nonstop torment is reserved only for the beast, the false prophet and Satan himself.

 

[John the Baptist]

Christ does not lie! We are Blind, huh?

---------PARABLES OR NON/PARABLES?-- LUKE 16--------
(in part & with my emphasis)

jgredline, John here: You belive that Christ does not lie, me too! :fadein:
But what do we do with this PLAIN Truth? He tells us that Luke 16 is a parable.

First we need to ask ourselves, do we 'believe' Christ's Word? Really??
Case in point: "IF YE LOVE ME KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS".(all ten of them!!)

John states that.. "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." So do we 'Believe Him', REALLY?We call the Bible the Word of God and rightly so, mostly because of John 1:14! But do we 'really' believe the Word of God?

Perhaps some might best question their 'knowledge' by the Word of God by itself? Instead of leaning upon the 'arm of flesh' that have mans reams & reams of educated Ph D'ism stuff, that none seem to agree on except perhaps the two great errors that the Word of God cautions against? That of the 'd'evils first lie.. "Ye shall not surely die" and also a day set aside by man, (see Mark 7:7) for a 'professed' sacred use! Sunday keeping which is attempted to replace the "Day that God set aside for Holy use". (see Gen. 2:1-3)

OK: Lets just test our individual 'belief'?

-Parables- (hold on a mite now, ok? We will get to the Luke 16's "parable' of the 'rich man & Lazarus momentarily! :wink: )

Christ's Words:
"[All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude] in parables; and without a parable spake He [not unto them.][/u] That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; ... Then Jesus sent the [multitude away], and went into the house: and His disciples came unto Him, saying, [Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.]" OK. We can see so far that one had an explanation from Christ, while the other multitude did not. Do we believe this so far??

Now: In Mark 4:10-11 we see.. "And when He was alone, they that were about Him with the twelve asked of Him asked the parable. And He said unto them, [unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: (a short pause please? with all of these denominations teaching otherwise, can this statement of Christ's Word be documented?) but unto [them] that are [without] all these things are done in parables." Now then, are we still believers??

Again: Mark 4:33-34. "And with many [such] parables spake He the Word unto them, (who is them, Pharisees & Multitude??) as they were able to hear it.
(pay apt attention please!) But [[without]] a parable [[spake He not unto them]]: (do you believe Him??) and when they [were alone, He EXPOUNDED ALL THINGS TO HIS DISCIPLES]." Again, do you believe the Word of God??

Again: Luke 8:10 says.. "And He said, [Unto you] it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: (break time again! THINK!!) but to others in parables; (notice?!) that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." This parable might be a good study for some here, huh? See verses 11-15.

Why did the Lord use Parables?? These Parables my friends will bring real questions to a sincere seeker!
"And His disciples came, and said unto Him, Why [speaketh thou in parables?] He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto [you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but unto them, it is not given.] ... For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; least at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, AND SHOULD UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART, AND SHOULD BE CONVERTED, AND I SHOULD HEAL THEM." Matt. 13:10-15 in part.

Surely we of Heb. 6 can readily see what Christ has told [us] so far, right? We started out with Matt. 13:34 with Christ defining whom Parables were for, & that 'without' a parable He spake not unto them. THESE MULTITUDE included all unbelievers! (And the disciples were not these!)

In Luke 16 the only question that needs to be addressed, is to whom was Christ addressing? The Disciples or the Multitude? Remember that it is impossible for God to lie! Do you 'believe Him' is the question for us to answer to find out which group that we are in, a disciple, or just one of the 'Multitude'?? We often hear of Luke 16's rich man and Lazarus being an 'actual' stated Truth instead of a Parable!

Verse 14 is almost always left out of today's sermon? Notice what it says in closing!

"And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, [heard all these things:] and [they derided Him]." And this was the setting for this Luke 16's Parable! Christ was addressing the blind multitude! And again in the next Words, we see who Christ was addressing, His disciples! (chapter 17:1. And remember that the chapters numbers and the verse numbers etc., were added by man)

 

[Rick W]

One major differentiation between a parable and an actual event is the use of names. Naming names gives reality to what is being said for it points directly to a specific individual.
There are those that would have Genesis as a myth but names and places were given to solidify an actual historical event rather than just being an illustrative story which does not specify any particular person or individuals.
Scripture cannot bear false witness good or bad.

 

[CP_Mike]

Before the present day falling away from sound doctrine we have two commentaries from respected theologions pre-1900s.

Hi Solo,
It still does not fit the rest of scripture when you look at soul or 'nephesh' used in Leviticus 17:11 and Deuteronomy 12:23.. The 'nephesh' is (in) the blood'..

How does that fit in with an immortal soul theology since even Matt 10:28 states tat God can destoy souls? (compare with Ezekiel 18:4)


You will realise that soul has more than one meaning and never an immaterial substance in the bible.

Try looking through these google pages:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... uche&meta=

Matt 10:28 immortal soul nephesh psuche

There aren't very many websites to back up your claims!

try looking from the Hebrew perspective, afterall, they wrote down God's words.

 

[Judy]

Hello everyone! I am not going to point a finger at anyone all I am going to do is ask that we keep the personal insults out of our responses.

Thank you

 

[Drew]

The fact that you even have Lovely debating you says allot in itself. It's clear to anybody with the spirit of God that you are teaching falsely.
1 tim 4:1 1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons

The problem with such a statement (the stuff) in bold is that anyone can say this about anybody in the context of any debate about matters of doctrine. I have a difficult time believing that such a claim has any real value in establishing the correctness of your position or the incorrectness of mine.

 

[Drew]

One major differentiation between a parable and an actual event is the use of names. Naming names gives reality to what is being said for it points directly to a specific individual.
There are those that would have Genesis as a myth but names and places were given to solidify an actual historical event rather than just being an illustrative story which does not specify any particular person or individuals.
Scripture cannot bear false witness good or bad.

Hello Potluck:

Welcome to this thread. I do have a counterargument to present in respect to what you have written. Imagine that someone wanted to construct an elaborate parable with many characters in it. Such a writer would, for practical reasons alone, need to resort to "naming names" just to present a coherent story. Presumably he would not be forced to say "person 37" or the "guy who lived next door to the father of the aunt of person 12" just to make it clear that the story was a parable. So "naming names" seems like a rather questionable criteria for establishing that something is not a parable.

 

[Drew]

....when you look at soul or 'nephesh' used in Leviticus 17:11 and Deuteronomy 12:23.. The 'nephesh' is (in) the blood'..

I will assume that CP_Mike has correctly stated the facts about the use of the term "nephesh" in these passages. I would think it would be quite a challenge to argue for the "soul = an immaterial component to the human person", given these texts alone.

Instead, I would think these texts provide powerful support to conceive of the nephesh (soul) as a descriptive term that characterizes the vitality of the life that is in a creature. It seems almost impossible to argue for the immaterial soul position (in respect to these texts) because of the extremely clear linking of nephesh with something obviously physical - the nephesh is in the blood.

 

[jgredline]

Re: Christ does not lie! We are Blind, huh?

jgredline, John here: You belive that Christ does not lie, me too! :fadein:
But what do we do with this PLAIN Truth? He tells us that Luke 16 is a parable.

John
Please point to the verse where Jesus says specifically this is a parable. Provide the book, chapter and verse and I will repent of my belief that it is an actual event. If you can provide it I will address the rest of your post.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Hello Sputnik:

Let me see if I understand you. We both know that jgredline has recently invoked Strong's concordance in defence of his point of view. I suspect we will agree that this is fair game.

Now I understand you as asserting that Strong's indicates that the Lazarus character in the Luke 16 is a fictional one. Am I right?

If so, then of course, jgredline could not legitimately invoke a Strong's opinion re one thing (e.g. the existence of an eternal hell and / or an immortal soul) and yet reject a Strong's opinion re another (whether or not the Lazarus character from Luke 16 is a real person) unless further information is provided.

That's absolutely correct, Drew. He (jg) appears to stand on Strong's Concordance to back up whatever else he might have to say on an issue. On THIS particular issue (the Rich man & Lazarus), however, Strong's GOES AGAINST HIM. It states that 'Lazarus' (the poor man) and 'Dives' (the rich man) are fictitious characters from a parable told by Jesus. I have no idea HOW Strong's arrived at that particular conclusion but this is WHAT it has to say about it. The Strong's Concordance that anyone else might have in their possession will surely give the same definition. Solo acknowledged this same question way back in the thread but the issue just 'died a death' and was soon ignored by the rest of the 'eternal torment' proponents.

So ...I asked jg to give me his thoughts on the issue. Did you notice that he - AGAIN - ignored my question and instead let lose with some tirade of condemning scriptures that would have me fall to my knees and aplologize to Jesus for a previous comment i made ...? From having been 'a friend' of his from this forum, jg has now turned against me based on that previous comment ...plus, of course. I also happen to be on the opposing team re this topic. We (all we participants) are not only divided in opinion (?) on this issue but you will notice that some of the the 'eternal torment' proponents are those with the offensive and condemning tone toward those who don't agree with them. I wonder why . . .?

 

[jgredline]

One major differentiation between a parable and an actual event is the use of names. Naming names gives reality to what is being said for it points directly to a specific individual.
There are those that would have Genesis as a myth but names and places were given to solidify an actual historical event rather than just being an illustrative story which does not specify any particular person or individuals.
Scripture cannot bear false witness good or bad.

Potluck
First, welcome to the topic. I don't know how much of it you have read, but as you can see we have a few false teachers here.

God did provide names, numbers, dates, to add credibility to what he had the writers write. People often skip the genealogies, but one of the main reasons they are there is because they are non fiction events and people. When God sent his Angel to kill 185,000 people, he killed 185,000 people. Not 185,001 people. I could go and on and on about this. This is very basic bible hermeneutical principles.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Re: Christ does not lie! We are Blind, huh?

John
Please point to the verse where Jesus says specifically this is a parable. Provide the book, chapter and verse and I will repent of my belief that it is an actual event. If you can provide it I will address the rest of your post.

I'll jump in here if I might.

The Bible tells us that Jesus never spoke to his audience in anything BUT parables (Matthew 13:34; Mark 4:34; Luke 8:4). We are clearly and CONSISTENTLY told that parables were how Jesus communicated The Word to people.

Is that answer good enough to have you repent of your belief that the Rich man & Lazarus is a parable also, jg?

 

[jgredline]

Sput'
You must have also missed my post to you.
Here it is again.

Sput
I saw your question and your post and sarcasm as well. I did not respond to you, because as has been told to you many times, you are good at offering OPINION that is worthless, because you very, very, seldom crack a bible and use scripture. Then you go and say a remark that says it is not a Crime NOT to accept Jesus. What makes you think that you will be able to understand anything spiritual? The ANSWER IS SIMPLE. HERE IT IS.

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

Sput
Can you see what you are missing?

Wait there is more.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You need to repent and take back those foolish words of yours and appologize to Jesus for what you said of him. You need to confess your sin publically since you made your statement publically. This is of course if you are a child of God. If not, then it's your soul that will for ever be doomed.