Why wasn't Jesus eternally tormented?

[jasoncran]

nevermind on that from josephus.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html

 

[P31Woman]

that would be the jewish position but it would also include all souls in sheol.

Abraham's bosom isn't a real thought in jewish thinking. its a statement made by jesus. I have looked for it on chabad.org and barnes mentioned that it wasn't a literal place but a statement. that doesn't negate hell according to him.

Not necessarily. Sheol is a different place than where the disobedient angels of Genesis 6 were imprisoned. Yes i understand that Abraham's bosom is not an actual place...the whole story of the rich man and Lazarus is make-believe.... it is a parable.

Question: "Is Luke 16:19-31 a parable or an account of events that actually occurred?"​

Answer: Luke 16:19-31 has been the focus of much controversy. Some take the story of the rich man and Lazarus to be a true, historical account of events that actually occurred; others consider it a parable or allegory.​

Those who interpret this narrative as a true incident have several reasons for doing so. First, the story is never called a parable. Many other of Jesus' stories are designated as parables, such as the sower and the seed (Luke 8:4); the prosperous farmer (Luke 12:16); the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6); and the wedding feast (Luke 14:7). Second, the story of the rich man and Lazarus uses the actual name of a person. Such specificity would set it apart from ordinary parables, in which the characters are not named.​

Third, this particular story does not seem to fit the definition of a parable, which is a presentation of a spiritual truth using an earthly illustration. The story of the rich man and Lazarus presents spiritual truth directly, with no earthly metaphor. The setting for most of the story is the afterlife, as opposed to the parables, which unfold in earthly contexts.​

In contrast, others maintain that this story is a parable and not an actual incident that occurred. They point out that Jesus' standard practice was to use parables in His teaching. They do not consider the above arguments strong enough to warrant classifying the story as anything but a parable. Also, there are some aspects of the account that do not seem to agree with the rest of Scripture. For example, can people in hell and people in heaven see each other and speak to each other?​

The important thing is that whether the story is a true incident or a parable, the teaching behind it remains the same. Even if it is not a "real" story, it is realistic. Parable or not, Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the Gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied. In Luke 16:19-31, whether parable or literal account, Jesus clearly taught the existence of heaven and hell as well as the deceitfulness of riches to those who trust in material wealth.​

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Luke-16-19-31-parable.html#ixzz2P3H8QcOV​

What is your point?

You are making a "fact claim" about that passage that goes beyond scripture. You must admit it is possible you are incorrect and Jesus is giving an historical account. You must leave room for the possibility that you are in error.

 

[P31Woman]

]

Most Christians in the world today affirm the Penal Substitutionary Atonement position that Jesus took our punishment standing in our place at the Cross suffering the wrath of God so that we might be forgiven.

However, if the punishment for sin is eternal torment in the lake of fire... why wasn't Jesus tormented in hell for eternity? Wouldn't we say that Jesus only overcame an aspect of our punishment.. when in fact those were punished suffered a totally different punishment than the one Jesus endured.

You are trying to compare "The One and Only Perfect Spotless Holy" sacrifice with a sacrifice whose best works smells like filthy rags, is hated by God and is completely depraved.

Isaiah 64:6


Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"
Psalm 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates."

Lev. 20:23, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them."

Prov. 6:16-19, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."

Hosea 9:15, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."

How am I doing that exactly? My contention is simply that if Jesus is to be our substitute in undergoing the punishment of God. Why would he then receive an all-together different punishment then sinners will one day receive.

I'm not trying to elevate the sins of man, and bring down the worth of the Cross. Just asking a relevant question to the issue.

John MacArthur founder of Masters College on Penal Substitution:

"Christ died in our place and in our stead and He received the very same out pouring of divine wrath in all its fury that we deserved for our sin. It was a punishment so severe that a mortal could spend all eternity in the torments of hell, and still he would not have begun to exhaust the divine wrath that was heaped on Christ at the cross. This was the true measure of Christ’ssufferings on the cross. The physical pains of crucifixion – dreadful as they were – were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him."



Romans 3:26-25
24 They are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Him as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed

Hebrews 2:17

17 Therefore, He had to be like His brothers in every way, so that He could become a merciful and faithful highpriest in service to God, to make propitiation for the sins ofthe people


1 John 2:2
2 He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
10 Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

All scripture Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)


"Propitiation means the turning away of wrath by an offering. In relation to soteriology, propitiation means placating or satisfying the wrath of God by the atoning sacrifice of Christ." C.C. Ryrie

This is a good Easter read:
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
PENAL SUBSTITUTION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT[/FONT]William D. Barrick

Professor of Old Testament

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj20g.pdf











[/FONT]

 

[jasoncran]

thanks p31

 

[Grappler]

Question: "Is Luke 16:19-31 a parable or an account of events that actually occurred?"​

Answer: Luke 16:19-31 has been the focus of much controversy. Some take the story of the rich man and Lazarus to be a true, historical account of events that actually occurred; others consider it a parable or allegory.​

Those who interpret this narrative as a true incident have several reasons for doing so. First, the story is never called a parable. Many other of Jesus' stories are designated as parables, such as the sower and the seed (Luke 8:4); the prosperous farmer (Luke 12:16); the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6); and the wedding feast (Luke 14:7). Second, the story of the rich man and Lazarus uses the actual name of a person. Such specificity would set it apart from ordinary parables, in which the characters are not named.​

Third, this particular story does not seem to fit the definition of a parable, which is a presentation of a spiritual truth using an earthly illustration. The story of the rich man and Lazarus presents spiritual truth directly, with no earthly metaphor. The setting for most of the story is the afterlife, as opposed to the parables, which unfold in earthly contexts.​

In contrast, others maintain that this story is a parable and not an actual incident that occurred. They point out that Jesus' standard practice was to use parables in His teaching. They do not consider the above arguments strong enough to warrant classifying the story as anything but a parable. Also, there are some aspects of the account that do not seem to agree with the rest of Scripture. For example, can people in hell and people in heaven see each other and speak to each other?​

The important thing is that whether the story is a true incident or a parable, the teaching behind it remains the same. Even if it is not a "real" story, it is realistic. Parable or not, Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the Gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied. In Luke 16:19-31, whether parable or literal account, Jesus clearly taught the existence of heaven and hell as well as the deceitfulness of riches to those who trust in material wealth.​

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Luke-16-19-31-parable.html#ixzz2P3H8QcOV​

What is your point?

You are making a "fact claim" about that passage that goes beyond scripture. You must admit it is possible you are incorrect and Jesus is giving an historical account. You must leave room for the possibility that you are in error.

Oh one of those "gray" areas huh?lol So do you really believe Jesus was giving a historical account of an actual event?

 

[Grappler]

]

Most Christians in the world today affirm the Penal Substitutionary Atonement position that Jesus took our punishment standing in our place at the Cross suffering the wrath of God so that we might be forgiven.

However, if the punishment for sin is eternal torment in the lake of fire... why wasn't Jesus tormented in hell for eternity? Wouldn't we say that Jesus only overcame an aspect of our punishment.. when in fact those were punished suffered a totally different punishment than the one Jesus endured.

You are trying to compare "The One and Only Perfect Spotless Holy" sacrifice with a sacrifice whose best works smells like filthy rags, is hated by God and is completely depraved.

Isaiah 64:6


Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"
Psalm 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates."

Lev. 20:23, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them."

Prov. 6:16-19, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."

Hosea 9:15, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."

How am I doing that exactly? My contention is simply that if Jesus is to be our substitute in undergoing the punishment of God. Why would he then receive an all-together different punishment then sinners will one day receive.

I'm not trying to elevate the sins of man, and bring down the worth of the Cross. Just asking a relevant question to the issue.

John MacArthur founder of Masters College on Penal Substitution:

"Christ died in our place and in our stead and He received the very same out pouring of divine wrath in all its fury that we deserved for our sin. It was a punishment so severe that a mortal could spend all eternity in the torments of hell, and still he would not have begun to exhaust the divine wrath that was heaped on Christ at the cross. This was the true measure of Christ’ssufferings on the cross. The physical pains of crucifixion – dreadful as they were – were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him."



Romans 3:26-25
24 They are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Him as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed

Hebrews 2:17

17 Therefore, He had to be like His brothers in every way, so that He could become a merciful and faithful highpriest in service to God, to make propitiation for the sins ofthe people


1 John 2:2
2 He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
10 Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

All scripture Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)


"Propitiation means the turning away of wrath by an offering. In relation to soteriology, propitiation means placating or satisfying the wrath of God by the atoning sacrifice of Christ." C.C. Ryrie

This is a good Easter read:
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
PENAL SUBSTITUTION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT[/FONT]William D. Barrick

Professor of Old Testament

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj20g.pdf











[/FONT]

Wow...i find it very strange how people who are Christians and claim the love of Christ in their heart are so adamant that those who don't accept Jesus as their Saviour must suffer unbelievable agony not for a million years but they seem to demand for them to suffer forever and ever and ever. They will even go to the length of coming up with these illogical explainations like this MacArthur did. After i read that all i saw was his opinion. I didn't see any scripture that said what he said...it was just his opinion. It is the extreme of irrationality to think that a loving God who wants his children to forgive their enemies , then turns around and makes them suffer in perfect agony for eternity. That sounds like something Satan would do.

 

[P31Woman]

Question: "Is Luke 16:19-31 a parable or an account of events that actually occurred?"​

Answer: Luke 16:19-31 has been the focus of much controversy. Some take the story of the rich man and Lazarus to be a true, historical account of events that actually occurred; others consider it a parable or allegory.​

Those who interpret this narrative as a true incident have several reasons for doing so. First, the story is never called a parable. Many other of Jesus' stories are designated as parables, such as the sower and the seed (Luke 8:4); the prosperous farmer (Luke 12:16); the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6); and the wedding feast (Luke 14:7). Second, the story of the rich man and Lazarus uses the actual name of a person. Such specificity would set it apart from ordinary parables, in which the characters are not named.​

Third, this particular story does not seem to fit the definition of a parable, which is a presentation of a spiritual truth using an earthly illustration. The story of the rich man and Lazarus presents spiritual truth directly, with no earthly metaphor. The setting for most of the story is the afterlife, as opposed to the parables, which unfold in earthly contexts.​

In contrast, others maintain that this story is a parable and not an actual incident that occurred. They point out that Jesus' standard practice was to use parables in His teaching. They do not consider the above arguments strong enough to warrant classifying the story as anything but a parable. Also, there are some aspects of the account that do not seem to agree with the rest of Scripture. For example, can people in hell and people in heaven see each other and speak to each other?​

The important thing is that whether the story is a true incident or a parable, the teaching behind it remains the same. Even if it is not a "real" story, it is realistic. Parable or not, Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the Gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied. In Luke 16:19-31, whether parable or literal account, Jesus clearly taught the existence of heaven and hell as well as the deceitfulness of riches to those who trust in material wealth.​

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Luke-16-19-31-parable.html#ixzz2P3H8QcOV​

What is your point?

You are making a "fact claim" about that passage that goes beyond scripture. You must admit it is possible you are incorrect and Jesus is giving an historical account. You must leave room for the possibility that you are in error.

Oh one of those "gray" areas huh?lol So do you really believe Jesus was giving a historical account of an actual event?

I agree with the article said, " Parable or not, Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the Gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied."

 

[P31Woman]

]

How am I doing that exactly? My contention is simply that if Jesus is to be our substitute in undergoing the punishment of God. Why would he then receive an all-together different punishment then sinners will one day receive.

I'm not trying to elevate the sins of man, and bring down the worth of the Cross. Just asking a relevant question to the issue.

John MacArthur founder of Masters College on Penal Substitution:

"Christ died in our place and in our stead and He received the very same out pouring of divine wrath in all its fury that we deserved for our sin. It was a punishment so severe that a mortal could spend all eternity in the torments of hell, and still he would not have begun to exhaust the divine wrath that was heaped on Christ at the cross. This was the true measure of Christ’ssufferings on the cross. The physical pains of crucifixion – dreadful as they were – were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him."



Romans 3:26-25
24 They are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Him as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed

Hebrews 2:17

17 Therefore, He had to be like His brothers in every way, so that He could become a merciful and faithful highpriest in service to God, to make propitiation for the sins ofthe people


1 John 2:2
2 He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
10 Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

All scripture Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)


"Propitiation means the turning away of wrath by an offering. In relation to soteriology, propitiation means placating or satisfying the wrath of God by the atoning sacrifice of Christ." C.C. Ryrie

This is a good Easter read:

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]PENAL SUBSTITUTION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT[/FONT]



William D. Barrick

Professor of Old Testament











http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj20g.pdf
















[/FONT]

Wow...i find it very strange how people who are Christians and claim the love of Christ in their heart are so adamant that those who don't accept Jesus as their Saviour must suffer unbelievable agony not for a million years but they seem to demand for them to suffer forever and ever and ever. They will even go to the length of coming up with these illogical explainations like this MacArthur did. After i read that all i saw was his opinion. I didn't see any scripture that said what he said...it was just his opinion. It is the extreme of irrationality to think that a loving God who wants his children to forgive their enemies , then turns around and makes them suffer in perfect agony for eternity. That sounds like something Satan would do.

Tell me how your own life (body) being sacrificed is equal to that of God the Son with scripture to support your belief. (that is after all what my post, Mac Arthur and the OP is about. Why Jesus the Son of God being sacrificed is a better sacrifice than me or you)

Do you realized that you just called God Satan if your view of hell is incorrect. I believe someone in scripture did the same thing to Jesus. Jesus was not living up to their standards of how they believed the Messiah should act or what he would and would not do.

 

[Guest]

Grappler torture chamber paragraph copy and pasted from desktop.

 

[Grappler]

]

How am I doing that exactly? My contention is simply that if Jesus is to be our substitute in undergoing the punishment of God. Why would he then receive an all-together different punishment then sinners will one day receive.

I'm not trying to elevate the sins of man, and bring down the worth of the Cross. Just asking a relevant question to the issue.

John MacArthur founder of Masters College on Penal Substitution:

"Christ died in our place and in our stead and He received the very same out pouring of divine wrath in all its fury that we deserved for our sin. It was a punishment so severe that a mortal could spend all eternity in the torments of hell, and still he would not have begun to exhaust the divine wrath that was heaped on Christ at the cross. This was the true measure of Christ’ssufferings on the cross. The physical pains of crucifixion – dreadful as they were – were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him."



Romans 3:26-25
24 They are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Him as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed

Hebrews 2:17

17 Therefore, He had to be like His brothers in every way, so that He could become a merciful and faithful highpriest in service to God, to make propitiation for the sins ofthe people


1 John 2:2
2 He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
10 Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

All scripture Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)


"Propitiation means the turning away of wrath by an offering. In relation to soteriology, propitiation means placating or satisfying the wrath of God by the atoning sacrifice of Christ." C.C. Ryrie

This is a good Easter read:

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]PENAL SUBSTITUTION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT[/FONT]



William D. Barrick

Professor of Old Testament











http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj20g.pdf
















[/FONT]

Wow...i find it very strange how people who are Christians and claim the love of Christ in their heart are so adamant that those who don't accept Jesus as their Saviour must suffer unbelievable agony not for a million years but they seem to demand for them to suffer forever and ever and ever. They will even go to the length of coming up with these illogical explainations like this MacArthur did. After i read that all i saw was his opinion. I didn't see any scripture that said what he said...it was just his opinion. It is the extreme of irrationality to think that a loving God who wants his children to forgive their enemies , then turns around and makes them suffer in perfect agony for eternity. That sounds like something Satan would do.

Tell me how your own life (body) being sacrificed is equal to that of God the Son with scripture to support your belief. (that is after all what my post, Mac Arthur and the OP is about. Why Jesus the Son of God being sacrificed is a better sacrifice than me or you)

Do you realized that you just called God Satan if your view of hell is incorrect. I believe someone in scripture did the same thing to Jesus. Jesus was not living up to their standards of how they believed the Messiah should act or what he would and would not do.

Do you realize that you are believing a Satanic lie if your view of hell is incorrect?

 

[Guest]

Grappler what is your view of hell? i'm curious.

 

[jasoncran]

hardly.i believed these were satanic as they all came from the rcc as I was a jw

trinity
hell
Christmas
bdays
valentines
saint worship

etc.

 

[Guest]

hardly.i believe these were satanic as they all came from the rcc

do you believe in the great white throne judgement and the book of life?

 

[jasoncran]

I meant that those were things that I believed. sorry.

I do believe in the book of life and the great white thrown. in fact I will edit my post.

hardly.i believe these were satanic as they all came from the rcc

from this to what others will see

Hardly I believed these were satanic as they all came from the rcc as I was a jw

 

[Guest]

I do believe in the book of life and the great white thrown. in fact I will edit my post.

no worries, so when unbelievers are judged at the throne on judgement day, where do they go after their judged? the correct spelling is throne.

 

[jasoncran]

lol.sorry. that would be hell or really the lake of fire or gehenna.

 

[Grappler]

You are making a "fact claim" about that passage that goes beyond scripture. You must admit it is possible you are incorrect and Jesus is giving an historical account. You must leave room for the possibility that you are in error.

Oh one of those "gray" areas huh?lol So do you really believe Jesus was giving a historical account of an actual event?

I agree with the article said, " Parable or not, Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the Gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied."

Yes parable. Let me see if i agree with your statement...the unrighteous are eternally seperated from God-yes ; they remember their rejection of the Gospel-uhoh let me see i give it a yes for those who actually did reject the gospel and i give it a no for those who never heard of the gospel...you do realize that there were many many many people who never heard of the gospel don't you? ; they are in torment-yeah i am sure they are in agony as they burn up, this is called the second death; their condition cannot be remedied-yes their condition is permanent. So i guess we agree somewhat don't we? Now answer my question do you think Luke 16 is a parable or not?

 

[P31Woman]

You are making a "fact claim" about that passage that goes beyond scripture. You must admit it is possible you are incorrect and Jesus is giving an historical account. You must leave room for the possibility that you are in error.

Oh one of those "gray" areas huh?lol So do you really believe Jesus was giving a historical account of an actual event?

I agree with the article said, " Parable or not, Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the Gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied."

Yes parable. Let me see if i agree with your statement...the unrighteous are eternally seperated from God-yes ; they remember their rejection of the Gospel-uhoh let me see i give it a yes for those who actually did reject the gospel and i give it a no for those who never heard of the gospel...you do realize that there were many many many people who never heard of the gospel don't you? ; they are in torment-yeah i am sure they are in agony as they burn up, this is called the second death; their condition cannot be remedied-yes their condition is permanent. So i guess we agree somewhat don't we? Now answer my question do you think Luke 16 is a parable or not?

I believe Jesus

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will notbe convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’â€

 

[Grappler]

I agree with the article said, " Parable or not, Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the Gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied."

Yes parable. Let me see if i agree with your statement...the unrighteous are eternally seperated from God-yes ; they remember their rejection of the Gospel-uhoh let me see i give it a yes for those who actually did reject the gospel and i give it a no for those who never heard of the gospel...you do realize that there were many many many people who never heard of the gospel don't you? ; they are in torment-yeah i am sure they are in agony as they burn up, this is called the second death; their condition cannot be remedied-yes their condition is permanent. So i guess we agree somewhat don't we? Now answer my question do you think Luke 16 is a parable or not?

I believe Jesus

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

I don't think you understand the question. I believe that Jesus really told a parable some 2000 years ago. Do you know what a parable is? If you do then you should be able to understand what i am asking. If you don't know for sure it's ok to admit that....

 

[Sparkey]

Sounds to me like what is being said is "I believe Jesus."
Here's a part of the article repeated here for further consideration.

The important thing is that whether the story is a true incident or a parable, the teaching behind it remains the same. Even if it is not a "real" story, it is realistic. Parable or not, Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the Gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied. In Luke 16:19-31, whether parable or literal account, Jesus clearly taught the existence of heaven and hell as well as the deceitfulness of riches to those who trust in material wealth.

(emphasis mine, states Sparrowhawke)

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Luke-16-19-31-parable.html#ixzz2P3H8QcOV​

Moderator: This question about the nature of parables is no longer germane to the larger subject of "Why wasn't Jesus eternally tormented?" and is hereby tabled as having been "asked and answered". The reason cited within the article is the very reason that it is no longer germane to this discussion where "badgering" (if it has happened) will not be continued. Such reasoning is, "The important thing is that whether the story is a true incident or a parable, the teaching behind it remains the same." Said reason has already been quoted HERE, and this, (Staff) admonishment in thread, shall be heeded.

Please note that my quoting of the article does not necessarily reflect my opinion on the topic under discussion as we resume our conversation here. I'm just saying that there a line between asking a question in normal conversation and demanding an answer and that the issue about "parable or not" has been noticed by at least one member of your Staff her. If you are interested in my opinion (not saying you need to be) on the subject, it may be found in Post 285. That expression of my opinion is unquestionably an allegory.

The discussion does not center on "the bosom of Abraham" and if we can live there or not, nor does it center on whether Jesus was making a historical or metaphorical statement, nor is it centered on the difference between allegory and metaphor; instead it is centered on Scripture and the teaching found within the Word of Truth. Part of the teaching includes the possibility of consequence for action and this is the part that I would like to emphasize today (not speaking metaphorically here either). Please do not allow ill-considered words to help you to become a parable for others to learn by, please.