What do you think?

[TanNinety]

Luke 16 v19ff is not just about the 'need to obey the law and the prophets' . . . but to believe the warnings contained therein in relation to what happened to the rich man AFTER he DIED and was BURIED.

In a parable, a seed doesn’t mean a seed – it represents something else like “the gospelâ€Â. The stony ground isn’t stony ground – it represents an unbelieving heart. When we look at the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, death doesn’t mean physical death – it represents something else.

Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

Why was purple clothing specifically mentioned in verse 19? Do all rich men wear purple? When we discern that, we will understand what “crumbs†the beggar was eating and what “death†signifies in the parable.

You saying death is literal physical death in the parable robs the parable from the truth its pointing to like if you insist that the seed in the farmer parable is literal seed.

Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
The rich have moses and the prophets the beggar didn’t? If taken literally this wont make sense.

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Do you know of anyone that rose from the dead that you believe in and follow? Know of anyone else that doesn’t believe in this Person who rose from the dead that you believe in? Now do you get a clue who the rich man and the beggar full of sores signify?

It is not about physical death and consequences, that is robbing the parable of its truth. The parable is presenting a much larger picture, if only we allow a non-literal reading of it just like any other parable.

If we take the rest of the parable with your line of reasoning the gist that we gather from it is that - rich men die and burn in hell and all beggars go to heaven. Because absolutely NOTHING is mentioned about the rich man being wicked and the beggar being righteous. Tell me from the parable what the rich man did that deserved him hell and what the beggar did that deserved him Abraham's bosom.

 

[TanNinety]

A further clue into the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man had 5 brothers. Why 5? Who are these 5 that had the prophets and Moses to look to?

Hint: Genesis 35:23

Now when we understand who the rich man and the beggar are we know that they do not signify a "single" person. Then it will be clear that "death" is not talking about the event of physical death of a single person in the parable.

 

[Drew]

Forget the dog parable. . .

Luke 16 v19ff is not just about the 'need to obey the law and the prophets' . . . but to believe the warnings contained therein in relation to what happened to the rich man AFTER he DIED and was BURIED.

Even so, there is simply no logical problem with an annihilationist believing the following:

1. Luke 16 is a parable
2. The unredeemed "sleep" after death, are raised at some point in the future, judged, and then annihilated in hell-fire.

I thought that someone might raise the point that you have. But it ultimately does not create any problem for the position that I am defending.

Lets' all agree that the parable is indeed about "what happens to us after we die and are buried", if not also about other things.

Let's imagine that you are a person who wants to construct a parable to warn people that if you are not saved, you will be raised from the sleep of death at some point in the future and then annihilated in hell-fire. Because of the very nature of the message you wish to give, you decide to have a "lost person speak from beyond the grave", since such a first person account is the best way to drive home the warning. Who better to deliver a warning about punishment than one who has been given it?

So you use a literary device where you have the "dead" unredeemed person have this conversation with a "dead" redeemed person. All the while you, the parable writer, fully believe points 1 and 2 as per above. So you really believe that the dead are in a state of sleep in their graves and no such warning can really be issued.

Is there a problem of logic or inconsistency here? Not at all.

It is in the very nature of such literary devices to have such situations. In the case of wanting to warn people that an undesirable end may await them (such as sleep followed by annihilation by fire), one can effectively employ a literary device where the dead "talk", even though the intended lesson is that a fate awaits where such talking is not possible.

There is no problem here that I can see.

 

[Drew]

Having read Tan's posts, I am inclined to believe that the parable is not a teaching about what happens to individual human persons after they die.
However, even if it were a parable about death, I see no problem of coherence or logic created by holding an annihilationist position. The reasons are in my previous post.

 

[TanNinety]

Having read Tan's posts, I am inclined to believe that the parable is not a teaching about what happens to individual human persons after they die.

Drew, even if we do not consider the parable for what it is, your explanation stands logically consistent as is for the annihilationist. When God said to Cain "the blood of your brother cries out from the ground", we can see that God used a literary device to convey that He knew what Cain did and we do not conclude that blood somehow has the ability to audibly cry out. Similarly dead people can be made to talk to convey a truth without having to conclude that dead people are alive after they are dead.

 

[stranger]

TanNinety and Drew,

Thanks for your posts. The following two propositions can be used to test annihilationism:

1. First comes the natural then the spiritual.
2. If there is a natural body there is also a spiritual body.

I have used physical and natural interchangeably. Annihilationsm introduces a number of problems with these propositions - which are derived from 1 Cor 15.

eg1. First comes the natural and then no spiritual. Present to me the logic that somehow allows this proposition to fit the doctrine of man.


eg2. If there is a natural body there is no spiritual body. This is where the logic does not add up. A disjunction is introduced that finds no solution in annihilationism.


There is a third proposition 'sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body' that also presents a similar problem despite the TEMPORARY scenario to meet the scriptural requirements of resurrection, judgement and hell redefined after annihilationist thought. Temporary resurrection is no resurrection at all.

Now back to Lazarus. . .

 

[stranger]

TanNinety

In a parable, a seed doesn’t mean a seed – it represents something else like “the gospelâ€Â. The stony ground isn’t stony ground – it represents an unbelieving heart. When we look at the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, death doesn’t mean physical death – it represents something else.

In the parable of the sower Jesus later gives us the interpretation, but I would say that in the parable a seed is a seed - which is a metaphor for the word of God which is sown. 'The parable of Lazarus and the rich man' as you call it doesn't have such metaphors in it as a seed representing something. If you introduce your own metaphors I feel that we should be discussing interpreting scripture.

Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

Why was purple clothing specifically mentioned in verse 19? Do all rich men wear purple? When we discern that, we will understand what “crumbs†the beggar was eating and what “death†signifies in the parable.

Crumbs signify food for the beggar - or simply meagerness or want - but death is a more serious subject. That both died and and mention of the rich man's burial takes the account very much into every day harsh reality.

You saying death is literal physical death in the parable robs the parable from the truth its pointing to like if you insist that the seed in the farmer parable is literal seed.

I am not robbing the parable of anything. Both the rich man and Lazarus died - and the rich man was buried is conclusive.

Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
The rich have moses and the prophets the beggar didn’t? If taken literally this wont make sense.

The beggar had the law and the prophets where it counted. The Lord was speaking and he knows His own. It makes sense that the whole of the occupied nation of Israel had the law and the prophets.

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Do you know of anyone that rose from the dead that you believe in and follow? Know of anyone else that doesn’t believe in this Person who rose from the dead that you believe in? Now do you get a clue who the rich man and the beggar full of sores signify?

I know persons on both sides so far as I am able to. But here your path tracks back to a more orthodox application. . .

It is not about physical death and consequences, that is robbing the parable of its truth. The parable is presenting a much larger picture, if only we allow a non-literal reading of it just like any other parable.

It is about how we live and physical death and consequences. If it wasn't the 'parable' would have stopped short of the rich man and Lazarus both dying. I am a little surprised at what you are offering here!

If we take the rest of the parable with your line of reasoning the gist that we gather from it is that - rich men die and burn in hell and all beggars go to heaven. Because absolutely NOTHING is mentioned about the rich man being wicked and the beggar being righteous. Tell me from the parable what the rich man did that deserved him hell and what the beggar did that deserved him Abraham's bosom.

I don't conclude that nor do I believe that all beggars go to heaven and all rich men go to hell. Job was a rich man, as was Abraham, not to mention King David. How about lack of love - love your neighbour? No it is not stated but it is the Lord Jesus who is telling the parable and I guess he knows who is going where.

Reward is a more appropriate word than deserve in this instance. Abraham did not protest at what transpired but rather upheld the verdict.

The account of Lazarus and the rich man cannot be used to support the annihilationist argument but rather damages the cause.

 

[stranger]

A further clue into the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man had 5 brothers. Why 5? Who are these 5 that had the prophets and Moses to look to?

Hint: Genesis 35:23

Now when we understand who the rich man and the beggar are we know that they do not signify a "single" person. Then it will be clear that "death" is not talking about the event of physical death of a single person in the parable.

You have lost me in the allegorical interpretation of scripture, Genesis 35:23,24 lists Jocob's 12 sons.

Don't go down this path. . .please.

 

[stranger]

Drew wrote:
Even so, there is simply no logical problem with an annihilationist believing the following:

1. Luke 16 is a parable
2. The unredeemed "sleep" after death, are raised at some point in the future, judged, and then annihilated in hell-fire.

I thought that someone might raise the point that you have. But it ultimately does not create any problem for the position that I am defending.

The problem is that neither Lazarus nor the rich man slept after death and we are, are we not, discussing Luke 16:19ff? Another problem is that the rich man was in torment after death with no prospect of escape - it was called the 'chasm' . . . so there are problems.

Lets' all agree that the parable is indeed about "what happens to us after we die and are buried", if not also about other things.

Fair enough, but see the above 'problems' that you have not solved.

Let's imagine that you are a person who wants to construct a parable to warn people that if you are not saved, you will be raised from the sleep of death at some point in the future and then annihilated in hell-fire. Because of the very nature of the message you wish to give, you decide to have a "lost person speak from beyond the grave", since such a first person account is the best way to drive home the warning. Who better to deliver a warning about punishment than one who has been given it?

So you use a literary device where you have the "dead" unredeemed person have this conversation with a "dead" redeemed person. All the while you, the parable writer, fully believe points 1 and 2 as per above. So you really believe that the dead are in a state of sleep in their graves and no such warning can really be issued.

Is there a problem of logic or inconsistency here? Not at all.

Yes there is a problem -

the scenario you paint is not found

in the scriptures. Rather the opposite is found eg. Luke 16:19ff.

It is in the very nature of such literary devices to have such situations. In the case of wanting to warn people that an undesirable end may await them (such as sleep followed by annihilation by fire), one can effectively employ a literary device where the dead "talk", even though the intended lesson is that a fate awaits where such talking is not possible.

If ever there was a presupposition that determined the outcome of your interpretation of a passage, this is it...

There is no problem here that I can see.

Perhaps you haven't noticed any problem, but Luke 16:19ff has been a minefield for you and TanNinety.

 

[Free]

2. We therefore know that Jesus' statement to the thief could not have been meant to suggest that the thief would in "paradise" on the very day of the crucifixion. Paradise is only mentioned in 2 places outside of this brief reference in Luke: 2Cor 12 and Rev 2. We are told that Paradise is where the Tree of Life is -- and the Tree of Life is where the Throne of God is (In Rev 2 and in Rev 22). So if Jesus had not acended to the Father, he had not been to Paradise, because Paradise is where the Father is.

3. Since we know the thief died on the day he was crucified, we can be sure that he (the thief) did not go straight from the cross to a state of conscious existence in Paradise.

So that leaves only two possibilities: 1) Jesus lied, or 2) there is another meaning for paradise - perhaps "Abraham's bossom". If you believe that Jesus decended to Hades when he died, then this would make perfect sense.

How does a "destroyed" soul continue on in conscious torment? This is overly awkward.

Then I would suggest that you look up all the uses of "destroyed" in the NT. I'm sure you'll find what I found, albeit in passing, that there are different nuances which don't necessarily mean annihilated.

Not punishment? Being placed into a lake of fire and having the experience of being burned away to nothing is not exactly a picnic in the park.

No, it isn't punishment at all. Look at the warnings Jesus gave of how bad it would be to go to hell - better to cut out your eye than go to hell. All his warnings only have force if the punishment is eternal. If people merely get annihilated, that's just non-existence not punishment. The very idea of punishment is that of suffering but non-existence is just that, non-existence, there is no suffering. If the punishment is unknown to the punished, then there is no suffering, no actual punishment.

I don't understand why you think this is a problem.

The Luke 16 "parable" is about (for the sake of argument) the need to obey the prophets, not about the world of the dead;

The dog "parable" is about the need to obey the prophets, not about the world of the dead.

In the dog parable, something untrue about the nature of dogs (that they speak) is used as a literary device to communicate the important truth - to not ignore the prophets.

In the Luke 16 parable, something untrue about the nature of man (that he has conscious experience immediately after death) is used as a literary device to communicate the important truth - to not ignore the prophets.

Let's imagine that the following account appeared in the scriptures:

"Dog A dies and goes to dog Paradise for being obeying his master. Dog B dies and goes to dog Hades for disobeying his master. Dog B asks dog A to send a warning to Dog B's fellow dogs. Dog A says that they have their human masters to instruct them to be good"

Lets say we all agree that real dogs in the real world do not have an afterlife - they die phyically and cease to exist. Does this create some kind of logical problem with the dog account as a parable? No it does not. The lesson is clear - listen to your master. The fact that dogs do not have an afterlife does not make the parable incoherent. The fact that real dogs are annihilated does not mean that we cannot have this fact "suspended" as part of the literary mechanism to convery the real message - to obey the master.

What is this "dog" parable? I seem to have missed a lot. Is this that hypothetical account you gave a page or so back? If it is then your whole argument above has just fallen apart.

You are using a hypothetical, and admittedly impossible, situation as an analogy for the "parable" of Lazarus and the Rich Man. But this shows that you have already presumed that the "parable" of Lazarus is false based on your view that there is no such thing as a soul. You cannot use an impossible situation and turn that back onto Scripture to prove why that situation is impossible.

The main point I have made several times before (once in this thread) and for which I have never seen a satisfactory rebuttal, is that Jesus always used situations in his parables with which his hears could identify. There were always lost sheep, lost coins, lost sons, sowing seeds, etc. Not one thing was so out there that his hearers couldn't identify with the situation. So why should the "parable" of Lazarus be any different? Simply because you presume that there is no immediate afterlife?

if only we allow a non-literal reading of it just like any other parable

Non-literal meanings that used literal situations.

 

[Drew]

2. We therefore know that Jesus' statement to the thief could not have been meant to suggest that the thief would in "paradise" on the very day of the crucifixion. Paradise is only mentioned in 2 places outside of this brief reference in Luke: 2Cor 12 and Rev 2. We are told that Paradise is where the Tree of Life is -- and the Tree of Life is where the Throne of God is (In Rev 2 and in Rev 22). So if Jesus had not acended to the Father, he had not been to Paradise, because Paradise is where the Father is.

3. Since we know the thief died on the day he was crucified, we can be sure that he (the thief) did not go straight from the cross to a state of conscious existence in Paradise.

So that leaves only two possibilities: 1) Jesus lied, or 2) there is another meaning for paradise - perhaps "Abraham's bossom". If you believe that Jesus decended to Hades when he died, then this would make perfect sense.

There is a third possibility and this is that Jesus' statement: "Truly I say to you, today, you shall be with Me in Paradise" (NASB version of this statement) has been inaccurately rendered through the inclusion of the comma. I have been told that the original Greek had no comma. So, the argument goes, the statement could also read as "Truly I say to you today.....(pause)....you will be with me in Paradise".

There is a fourth possibility also, and I have stated it several times - Jesus may have been speaking phenomenologically - expressing the fact that, for the thief, the transition from bodily death to resurrection in the presence of Jesus will seem instantaneous in the same way that I fall asleep at midnight and wake up at 7 AM with no experience of the intervening 7 hours having any reality at all.

I certainly do not believe Jesus lied and possibility 2 violates the oft-repeated teaching that the dead, redeemed and unredeemed sleep after physical death. If the thief is asleep, he cannot really be said to be in "with Jesus" in any meaningful sense on Good Friday.

 

[Drew]

1. First comes the natural then the spiritual.
2. If there is a natural body there is also a spiritual body.

I have used physical and natural interchangeably. Annihilationsm introduces a number of problems with these propositions - which are derived from 1 Cor 15.

eg1. First comes the natural and then no spiritual. Present to me the logic that somehow allows this proposition to fit the doctrine of man.


eg2. If there is a natural body there is no spiritual body. This is where the logic does not add up. A disjunction is introduced that finds no solution in annihilationism.

There is a third proposition 'sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body' that also presents a similar problem despite the TEMPORARY scenario to meet the scriptural requirements of resurrection, judgement and hell redefined after annihilationist thought. Temporary resurrection is no resurrection at all.

I am not sure I understand your point here. Reading between the lines I discern that you believe that a "spiritual" body cannot be a "physical" body. I think it is, and that 1 Corinthians 15 is entirely consistent with such a view.

Paul writes: All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

To me, this strongly implies that the heavenly body, while different from the bodies we presently have, is indeed a "flesh" body. I believe that Paul is making the following point:

Just as birds and fish have different kinds of flesh, so will the heavenly body be a different kind of flesh than the physical body. But it will still be flesh. Same deal with the analogy to sun, moon, and stars. These are all different, but they are all "physical".

I think that Paul is pretty clear here - the resurrection body will be a physical body - a different kind of physical body, one that is, for the redeemed anyway, imperishable.

I have difficulty understanding what your objection is, but is it possible that you bring to the 1 Corinthians text a belief that a "spiritual" body cannot be a "physical" body.

I can agree with your proposition that "first comes the natural, then comes the spiritual". But I submit that one is assuming something if one concludes that "spiritual" = "non-physical".

Perhaps you also think that the 1 Corinthians 15 argues against annihilation because an imperishable body cannot be annihilated. I think context makes it clear that Paul is only addressing the fate of the redeemed when he makes this claim about imperishable bodies. I think this is driven home with his concluding remark:

Where, O death, is your sting?"[The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ

 

[Drew]

Not punishment? Being placed into a lake of fire and having the experience of being burned away to nothing is not exactly a picnic in the park.

No, it isn't punishment at all. Look at the warnings Jesus gave of how bad it would be to go to hell - better to cut out your eye than go to hell. All his warnings only have force if the punishment is eternal. If people merely get annihilated, that's just non-existence not punishment. The very idea of punishment is that of suffering but non-existence is just that, non-existence, there is no suffering. If the punishment is unknown to the punished, then there is no suffering, no actual punishment.

I do not understand your logic here. You seem to assume that punishment is not punishment if it is not eternal. Are children who are sent to their rooms for less than an eternity not being punished? And Jesus' warnings in no way demand a conclusion that punishment is eternal. Being cast into a lake of fire and experiencing being burned into non-existence can indeed be worse than cutting out one'e eye. I believe that the proces of being annihilated in hell-fire indeed causes conscious suffering.

Let's be clear: the concept of punishment, as a concept, does not demand eternal duration. This is obvious. So the only grounds for arguing that the conscious experience of punishment for the unredeemed is eternal is to make a Scriptural case for it. And I think that it has been shown that the case is weak and rather circular.

 

[Solo]

To me, this strongly implies that the heavenly body, while different from the bodies we presently have, is indeed a "flesh" body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1 Corinthians 15:45-50

 

[Drew]

Drew wrote:
Even so, there is simply no logical problem with an annihilationist believing the following:

1. Luke 16 is a parable
2. The unredeemed "sleep" after death, are raised at some point in the future, judged, and then annihilated in hell-fire.

I thought that someone might raise the point that you have. But it ultimately does not create any problem for the position that I am defending.

The problem is that neither Lazarus nor the rich man slept after death and we are, are we not, discussing Luke 16:19ff? Another problem is that the rich man was in torment after death with no prospect of escape - it was called the 'chasm' . . . so there are problems.

I think that the arguments for why there are no problems are clear, correct, and conclusive. I cannot think of how to address this issue further - I would just be repeating the same arguments in different words.

 

[Drew]

The words of Paul from 1 Cor 15:

35But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

The above seems definitive - the resurrection bodies are bodies. Note the clarity of comparison - just as there are differents kinds of flesh, there are different kinds of bodies (earthly and heavenly). But a body is a body.

Maybe I chose the wrong word (flesh) when I posted:

To me, this strongly implies that the heavenly body, while different from the bodies we presently have, is indeed a "flesh" body.

No matter: the redeemed get bodies, they are not free-floating "spirits".

 

[TanNinety]

I will try to take the points that I saw needed answering in the previous posts stranger so forgive if my response seems haphazard.

The following two propositions can be used to test annihilationism:

1. First comes the natural then the spiritual.
2. If there is a natural body there is also a spiritual body.

This does not pose any threat to the annihilationist because the spiritual body is only reserved for the justified. The spiritual body which is the incorruptible body is never referenced by Paul in the context of unredeemed non-believers. This is an assumption brought by the eternal torment proponent that the wicked also receive the second spiritual after the first natural. You should first make a case that “First comes the natural and then the spiritual†is valid both for the redeemed and the unredeemed. Then and only then will this cause a problem for the annihilationist.

Temporary resurrection is no resurrection at all.

There are two kinds of resurrections. One that is immune to second death and one that is not immune to second death. The resurrection of the wicked is not immune to second death. By saying there is no temporary resurrection of the wicked you have to reconcile how this non-temporary resurrection of the wicked is immune to second death while the scriptures say only the redeemed are immune to second death.

In the parable of the sower Jesus later gives us the interpretation

The sayings of Christ being a parable or not does not depend on if He gave an interpretation to them or not. If a parable is spoken it is a parable regardless of if the scriptures specify an interpretation. We need to understand that not all parables went over the top of the head of the disciples. Some did not need further interpretation from Christ because they understood them. In the current parable the purple and fine linen clothed rich man represents the royal priest hood.

EXODUS 19:6 And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak to the children of Israel.
Exodus 28:39 And thou shalt embroider the coat of fine linen, and thou shalt make the mitre [of] fine linen, and thou shalt make the girdle [of] needlework.
Exodus 39:1 For the priests, the craftsmen made beautiful garments of blue, purple, and scarlet cloth-clothing to be worn while ministering in the Holy Place. This same cloth was used for Aaron's sacred garments, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

The moment you see the rich man as a literal man of wealth you have started to strip the parable of its truth. The rich man represents the royal priesthood the house of Jews. The beggar Lazarus, Hebrew name Eleazer, when translated means "he whom God helps." We gentiles who are beggars literally became the ‘he’ whom God lifted up and helped. The five brothers of the rich man are the five houses of Israel that I have pointed out to in my previous posts. While now Israel has rejected the one who ‘rose from the dead’ as the parable aptly depicts, we who were once beggars are being comforted being elevated to Abraham’s bosom. That is a beautiful prophecy of the salvation being extended to the gentiles.

Death, now as you can see in the parable is the state of transition of Israel into torment because God has retreated from them for a while the gentiles have been elevated to the status off being comforted.

The moral of the parable is presented in LUKE 16:25 "But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented.

If you want to insist literal death and physical bodies, look at the reason given why the rich man was being tormented and lazarus is being comforted. Because the rich man received good things and the beggar evil things. Do you suggest that this is a legitimate reason? Do people who receive good things in their lifetime qualify for torture for eternity?

When you see Israel as the royal rich man and the beggar as the gentiles you will then see it is not a parable of two people but two genre of people. Under such illustration Israel’s death can be made figurative (since Israel is not really dead) and the rich man talk after his figurative death (as in demotion from God’s favor) without requiring a literal similarity of life after death.

 

[TanNinety]

I am not sure I understand your point here. Reading between the lines I discern that you believe that a "spiritual" body cannot be a "physical" body. I think it is

Yup.
Luke 24:39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

From Christ’s words alone we can see that the spiritual that is put on is not “ethereal†spirit floating around. It still has flesh and bones. And Solo’s opposition that “flesh and blood†cannot enter heaven needs further interpretation of what “flesh and blood†actually means. Scriptures often signify ‘flesh and blood’ to represent sin. Thus it is impossible for sin to enter heaven where as flesh and bones can.

 

[Drew]

A further clue into the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man had 5 brothers. Why 5? Who are these 5 that had the prophets and Moses to look to?

Hint: Genesis 35:23

Now when we understand who the rich man and the beggar are we know that they do not signify a "single" person. Then it will be clear that "death" is not talking about the event of physical death of a single person in the parable.

You have lost me in the allegorical interpretation of scripture, Genesis 35:23,24 lists Jocob's 12 sons.

But if we suppose the rich man represents Judah (and there may be other reasons to suppose that this is true, I do not presently know) then the significance of five brothers is telling. Judah had five direct brothers (not just step-brothers) as we are indeed told in Genesis 35:23.

Here is a quote I found on the web. Readers can decide whether there is any force here:

The fact that the rich man has five brothers is a vital clue to his true symbolic identity. Judah, the progenitor of the Jews, was the son of Jacob through Leah (Gen. 29:35). He had five full-blooded brothers: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, and Zebulun (Gen. 35:23).

While the significance of this seemingly pointless detail has been neglected by scholars throughout the centuries, you can be certain that it did not escape the notice of the Pharisees and scribes to which Christ was speaking. They thoroughly knew their history and were extremely proud of their heritage. Yeshua wanted those self-righteous Pharisees to know exactly who He was referring to with this parable. This detail cements the identity of the rich man as the house of Judah, the Jews!

I do not claim this in any way "proves" that the rich man in Luke 16 represents the Jewish nation. However, the reference to five brothers is a compelling item of evidence that supports such a reading.

 

[stranger]

The words of Paul from 1 Cor 15:

35But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

The above seems definitive - the resurrection bodies are bodies. Note the clarity of comparison - just as there are differents kinds of flesh, there are different kinds of bodies (earthly and heavenly). But a body is a body.

Maybe I chose the wrong word (flesh) when I posted:



No matter: the redeemed get bodies, they are not free-floating "spirits".

Flesh is indeed a loaded term. That aside - we are approaching a fork in the road. The resurrected get bodies - imperishable ones. If they are imperishable then they can survive. . . The spiritual body I refer to is not a free floating spirit - a body but not a physical body like we have - Whenever I use the term 'physical body' I am refer to our ageing bodies that are destined to return to dust.

Now the fork in the road is this. Correct me if I am wrong - you postulate that:

1. Both redeemed and unredeemed are resurrected.
2. The redeemed get resurrected imperishable bodies
3. The unredeemed get resurrected perishable bodies.

My framework is:

1. Both redeemed and unredeemed are resurrected.
2. The redeemed get resurrected spiritual bodies
3. The unredeemed get resurrected spiritual bodies.

Notice the VIOLATION to the principal of the resurrection. I see you as saying: 'the perishable (unredeemed) put on the perishable.'

This is not found in scripture.