What is death?

[patience7]

Well, thank you, i guess i am confused a little on your position...so you believe in the resurrection from the dead when Christ returns?

Yo

DEFINITELY!

 

[YosemiteSam]

DEFINITELY!

LOL

 

[YosemiteSam]

What exactly does it teach? Is there some reference that the richman's torment ever ended in the presentation or else where specifically related to this richman. I'd be most interested.

Is a parable just a meaningless story to fill the time or used as filler material for the author?

Well, i don't think you meant your last question. So beyond that...lets go to your "Is there some reference that the rich man's torment ever ended in the presentation?..."

We read just prior to that in verse 22 that the beggar died and the rich man died as well. (Remember that the pharisee believed in the resurrection of the dead Acts 23) Next we see the rich man is conscious and speaking...Here time has jumped forward to his resurrection...He was resurrected physically...He opens his eyes and sees his judgement the lake of fire! (Rev 20 gives a description) Jesus spoke many times and many parables of those who would be thrown into the lake of fire. The rich man seeing this is absolutely frightened. He is tomented by his fate. Notice he ask for a drop of water to cool his tongue! He did not ask for a bucket of water to put the fire out. A little wierd huh? He only called for a couple of drops of water. The word "torment" in verses 24 and 25 is from the greek word "odunomai" which is defined as "to cause pain, to pain distress; pain of body ,but also pain of mind; grief; distress" The rich man is in great distress. He is in a condition of weeping. What happens when someone is struck with great fear? Their mouth goes dry and the tongue will literally cling to that top of their mouth.

The parable does not state not one word as to how long his torment will last.

What should we learn from this parable. Jesus answered it in Luke 13:27-28 "Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." All who will not repent will be in the exact same position as the rich man. Jesus uses this illustration to show what will befall those who refuse to repent, that they too will be condemned to the lake of fire, where they will burn up like chaff or tares...

How long will his torment last? As long as it takes them to throw him in the fire and for him to burn up. The second death is an eternal punishment not an eternal punishing! Look at Ps 37:20 "But the wicked shall perish (not eternally burning and screaming); and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away." Also Mal 4:1 "Behold the day shall come that will burn like an oven; and all the proud, yes, and all the wicked shall be stubble and the day that cometh shall burn them up, says the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." Mal 4:3 " And you shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet..."

thank you for your question, hope i have answered it for you

 

[James 75]

Well, i don't think you meant your last question. So beyond that...lets go to your "Is there some reference that the rich man's torment ever ended in the presentation?..."

We read just prior to that in verse 22 that the beggar died and the rich man died as well. (Remember that the pharisee believed in the resurrection of the dead Acts 23) Next we see the rich man is conscious and speaking...Here time has jumped forward to his resurrection...He was resurrected physically...He opens his eyes and sees his judgement the lake of fire! (Rev 20 gives a description) Jesus spoke many times and many parables of those who would be thrown into the lake of fire. The rich man seeing this is absolutely frightened. He is tomented by his fate. Notice he ask for a drop of water to cool his tongue! He did not ask for a bucket of water to put the fire out. A little wierd huh? He only called for a couple of drops of water. The word "torment" in verses 24 and 25 is from the greek word "odunomai" which is defined as "to cause pain, to pain distress; pain of body ,but also pain of mind; grief; distress" The rich man is in great distress. He is in a condition of weeping. What happens when someone is struck with great fear? Their mouth goes dry and the tongue will literally cling to that top of their mouth.

The parable does not state not one word as to how long his torment will last.

What should we learn from this parable. Jesus answered it in Luke 13:27-28 "Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." All who will not repent will be in the exact same position as the rich man. Jesus uses this illustration to show what will befall those who refuse to repent, that they too will be condemned to the lake of fire, where they will burn up like chaff or tares...

How long will his torment last? As long as it takes them to throw him in the fire and for him to burn up. The second death is an eternal punishment not an eternal punishing! Look at Ps 37:20 "But the wicked shall perish (not eternally burning and screaming); and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away." Also Mal 4:1 "Behold the day shall come that will burn like an oven; and all the proud, yes, and all the wicked shall be stubble and the day that cometh shall burn them up, says the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." Mal 4:3 " And you shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet..."

Yep, exactly.

thank you for your question, hope i have answered it for you

You answered it but I would not get too hopeful about his receiving it well. (veil)

 

[YosemiteSam]

Yep, exactly.

You answered it but I would not get too hopeful about his receiving it well. (veil)

Yep, just getting exercise going to the scriptures to look them up...Yo

 

[from scratch]

He simply made an observation of the times based on history. He gave you his source as the Jewish encyclopedia. He was simply making several statements based on his reading and understanding. Do you not use a concordance, a lexicon, and other bible commentaries in your studies? So why does his have to be pagan? How do you even come to a conclusion that MK suggest that Jesus taught pagan theology? or your other comment from post 339 the MK is trying to say the Scripture isn't inspired by God?

And he said see Jewish Encylopedia. He did say it was a quote nor did he tell me where to find the info. I need a link I looked for Jewish Encyclopedia and couldn't find his info. In the mean time this c&p in blue highlight from his post sure looks like the idea comes from non Judaistic sources. He said - Judaism (certain parts) had already have been influenced by Greek and Babylonian philosophy. What is this if it isn't pagan philosophy? Did MK suggest that Jesus is taking His material from Jewish thought? Why Would Jesus do this and why would the Jew be upset or not know. Where is the indication that this is so in the Scripture? I simply don't find it.

Here consider this from Barnes Notes on the Bible - It is remarkable that he gave no "name" to this rich man, though the poor man is mentioned by name. If this was a parable, it shows us how unwilling he was to fix suspicion on anyone. If it was not a parable, it shows also that he would not drag out wicked people before the public, but would conceal as much as possible all that had any connection with them. The "good" he would speak well of by name; the evil he would not "injure" by exposing them to public view.

Here is Clark's Commentary on the story - There was a certain rich man - In the Scholia of some MSS. the name of this person is said to be Ninive. This account of the rich man and Lazarus is either a parable or a real history. If it be a parable, it is what may be: if it be a history, it is that which has been. Either a man may live as is here described, and go to perdition when he dies; or, some have lived in this way, and are now suffering the torments of an eternal fire. The account is equally instructive in whichsoever of these lights it is viewed.

I would like very much for you to show any parable in which a person was named? Why in this story or parable as you would say?

See, those comments are egregious to the topic...they hold no merit! Does the bible support the idea that the Jewish leaders (pharisees) were in fact influenced by other sources than their original doctrine, the Pentateuch? Certainly!!!

Are we talking Bible or philosophy? Where did the stroy come from? Why does MK say anything about influence? Are we talking about the Bible or Greek and Babylonian philosophy?

Look at Christ statement in Matt 15:9 speaking in front of the pharisees "But in vain the worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Lazarus and the rich man also He spake in front of the pharisees Luke 16:14...Christ was using this parable to warn them of what would happen to them if they did not repent!

Given the narrative and structure of Greek I have no idea how one can come to yor conclusions. I do see how one migh connect the story with v 14, but don't agree without much more information at least, considering the conversation thus far in the thread. Just isn't very convincing.

The Pharisee Jew understood exactly what Christ was saying to them. That they would be burned up like chaff. See Matt 3.7-12;Luke 3:3-14;Matt 13

Really, then why didn't they understand Jesus was the Messiah the law the prophets spoke about? Why did Jesus have to explain what He said in Mat 5:17-18 with His statment found in LK 24:44 post resurrection? Was there a purpose to the madness?

In fact there were two major groups of jews... the Pharisee and the Sadducees...the pharisee did believe in the resurrection of the dead whereas the Sadducees did not...You can read of this in Acts 23..Paul, a pharisee was on trial for his belief in the resurrection from the dead...The Sadducees wanted to kill him. However, you can also read of the Pharisee and Sadducees from other historical sources as well. An historical source such as Josephus or even Encountering the New Testament does not mean it is pagan and does not mean it is right or wrong. It is just an historical source that we might get more light on the subject to understanding what was going on at a particular time or event.

Hope this helps...Y

I have always thought that anything non Christian religious source material was pagant. So what do you call non Christian religious material or ideas? I can't call all Judaistic material Christian or even godly if you will.

 

[Merlinius]

Interesting that anyone could even not understand death. NTL there is more than one kind of death. The human can die twice. How is this? The scripture speaks clearly about a sceond death.

Death is the cessation of life.

When we die in the waters of baptism, we die in Christ's death.
We "die". We come up out of the water in Newness of Life, in the Resurrection of Christ.
aka, "The first resurrection".

Upon such, the "second death" (flesh stops breathing) "has no power over me".

Thats it

Simplicity in Christ, Ye!

 

[from scratch]

Death is the cessation of life.

When we die in the waters of baptism, we die in Christ's death.
We "die". We come up out of the water in Newness of Life, in the Resurrection of Christ.
aka, "The first resurrection".

Upon such, the "second death" (flesh stops breathing) "has no power over me".

Thats it

Simplicity in Christ, Ye!

I have the same testimony Brother.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Death is the cessation of life.

When we die in the waters of baptism, we die in Christ's death.
We "die". We come up out of the water in Newness of Life, in the Resurrection of Christ.
aka, "The first resurrection".

Upon such, the "second death" (flesh stops breathing) "has no power over me".

Thats it

Simplicity in Christ, Ye!

Baptism is symbolic of death and the resurrection...
You also die when you have a heart attack and don't get to the hospital fast enough. (flesh stops breathing). That is the first death!

 

[YosemiteSam]

And he said see Jewish Encylopedia. He did say it was a quote nor did he tell me where to find the info. I need a link I looked for Jewish Encyclopedia and couldn't find his info. In the mean time this c&p in blue highlight from his post sure looks like the idea comes from non Judaistic sources. He said - Judaism (certain parts) had already have been influenced by Greek and Babylonian philosophy. What is this if it isn't pagan philosophy? Did MK suggest that Jesus is taking His material from Jewish thought? Why Would Jesus do this and why would the Jew be upset or not know. Where is the indication that this is so in the Scripture? I simply don't find it.

He didn't quote it!!! He simply referred you to the material that supported his statement, that he made, that the religion at that time had already been influence by Greek and Babylonian philosophy...and you jumped him with your off-mark questions such as "So your saying Jesus taught pagan theology." Which is completely false from that which was posted.

Here consider this from Barnes Notes on the Bible - It is remarkable that he gave no "name" to this rich man, though the poor man is mentioned by name. If this was a parable, it shows us how unwilling he was to fix suspicion on anyone. If it was not a parable, it shows also that he would not drag out wicked people before the public, but would conceal as much as possible all that had any connection with them. The "good" he would speak well of by name; the evil he would not "injure" by exposing them to public view.

Here is Clark's Commentary on the story - There was a certain rich man - In the Scholia of some MSS. the name of this person is said to be Ninive. This account of the rich man and Lazarus is either a parable or a real history. If it be a parable, it is what may be: if it be a history, it is that which has been. Either a man may live as is here described, and go to perdition when he dies; or, some have lived in this way, and are now suffering the torments of an eternal fire. The account is equally instructive in whichsoever of these lights it is viewed.

Both sources you posted above, only prove that neither writers are fully convinced one way or the other. "If" is the key word here. We also have to remember that those things written here are the words of nothing more than men. Has what they have written agree with what the bible says? Sounds like a "hung jury" to me. Do you believe everything a commentary tells you?

I would like very much for you to show any parable in which a person was named? Why in this story or parable as you would say?Are we talking Bible or philosophy? Where did the stroy come from? Why does MK say anything about influence? Are we talking about the Bible or Greek and Babylonian philosophy? Given the narrative and structure of Greek I have no idea how one can come to yor conclusions. I do see how one migh connect the story with v 14, but don't agree without much more information at least, considering the conversation thus far in the thread. Just isn't very convincing.Really, then why didn't they understand Jesus was the Messiah the law the prophets spoke about? Why did Jesus have to explain what He said in Mat 5:17-18 with His statment found in LK 24:44 post resurrection? Was there a purpose to the madness?I have always thought that anything non Christian religious source material was pagant. So what do you call non Christian religious material or ideas? I can't call all Judaistic material Christian or even godly if you will.

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man to name one. Abraham was also mentioned in this parable! It is very well known, biblical of course, that Abraham would be resurrected when Christ returns. Don't you think the one who is telling the parable, Christ himself, would know of another who also would be entering into the Kingdom as well? People have a chance to repent, here and now, in this physical life, how then could he name someone who would go to the lake of fire? Man does have free will up till death. Another reason we know that it is a parable is the fact that Abraham has not received the promise as of yet! Would you like to discuss this?

You see how one might connect the story with v 14? It is at the beginning of the parable! It is part of whom Christ was speaking to!

Why didn't the pharisee or Jews believe that Christ wasn't the Messiah? This is another topic...But will be glad to discuss elsewhere. We would start in prophecy.

Why does Jesus have to explain his statement in Matt 5:17-18 in Luke 24:44? He doesn't!

Well, a history book, I would call it a history book. Josephus a history book. Paganism is a blanket term and it depends on how one applies it. One of the widest definitions of paganism would be all religions that are not in the Abrahamic category. By definition that would make the Jewish Encyclopedia non-pagan. How can one say the Jewish religion is pagan when Christianity came out of it. Are not the Jews also Isralites? Christianity (popular) is full of paganism. Such as Christmas, Easter...Popular Christianity puts out articles or material on these subjects but does that make them Christian? Or does it mean Christians adopted pagan practices?

You say "you can't call all judaistic material christian or even godly." So there are some that you can!

 

[JohnRabbit]

Death is the cessation of life.

When we die in the waters of baptism, we die in Christ's death.
We "die". We come up out of the water in Newness of Life, in the Resurrection of Christ.
aka, "The first resurrection".

Upon such, the "second death" (flesh stops breathing) "has no power over me".

Thats it

Simplicity in Christ, Ye!

Baptism is symbolic of death and the resurrection...
You also die when you have a heart attack and don't get to the hospital fast enough. (flesh stops breathing). That is the first death!

yes YosemiteSam, it seems he's taken something that is symbolic/shadow and have made it real, not to mention that the bible already has a definition for the first resurrection per rev 20:6!

however, i do find it interesting how people interject things into scripture that are not true.

 

[from scratch]

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man to name one. Abraham was also mentioned in this parable! It is very well known, biblical of course, that Abraham would be resurrected when Christ returns. Don't you think the one who is telling the parable, Christ himself, would know of another who also would be entering into the Kingdom as well? People have a chance to repent, here and now, in this physical life, how then could he name someone who would go to the lake of fire? Man does have free will up till death. Another reason we know that it is a parable is the fact that Abraham has not received the promise as of yet! Would you like to discuss this?

You see how one might connect the story with v 14? It is at the beginning of the parable! It is part of whom Christ was speaking to!

Why didn't the pharisee or Jews believe that Christ wasn't the Messiah? This is another topic...But will be glad to discuss elsewhere. We would start in prophecy.

Why does Jesus have to explain his statement in Matt 5:17-18 in Luke 24:44? He doesn't!

Well, a history book, I would call it a history book. Josephus a history book. Paganism is a blanket term and it depends on how one applies it. One of the widest definitions of paganism would be all religions that are not in the Abrahamic category. By definition that would make the Jewish Encyclopedia non-pagan. How can one say the Jewish religion is pagan when Christianity came out of it. Are not the Jews also Isralites? Christianity (popular) is full of paganism. Such as Christmas, Easter...Popular Christianity puts out articles or material on these subjects but does that make them Christian? Or does it mean Christians adopted pagan practices?

You say "you can't call all judaistic material christian or even godly." So there are some that you can!

On the last comment - not really I'm leaving you an out or option to show any that I may consider favorably. IOW I'm not making a blanket statement that all Judaistic works are outside the truthof the Gospel. For instance the OT could be considered as Judaistic literature and I certianly believe it hook line and sinker. We disagree over definitions and application.

I'll try to come back to this later this morning. Good night sleep tight.

 

[YosemiteSam]

On the last comment - not really I'm leaving you an out or option to show any that I may consider favorably. IOW I'm not making a blanket statement that all Judaistic works are outside the truthof the Gospel. For instance the OT could be considered as Judaistic literature and I certianly believe it hook line and sinker. We disagree over definitions and application.

I'll try to come back to this later this morning. Good night sleep tight.

Mr. Scratch, back at ya...So long, farewell, auf Wiedershen, good night
Adieu, adieu, to yieu and yieu and yieu

Maybe tomorrow we can talk about why Lazarus and the rich man the proof as to why it is a parable? The truth is astounding!

 

[JohnRabbit]

It is interesting that one could not understand death after seeing
a dead rabbit laying on the road.
The only way there can be a second death, which there is, is there has to be a resurrection between the two.
God can do that, ya know.
It's all explained in the scriptures.

Hey, wait a minute!

 

[James 75]

Hey, wait a minute!

Sorry, I meant an opossum.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Sorry, I meant an opossum.

Oh, no James, if you see that rabbit in the road run over it...LOL..ROTF

 

[from scratch]

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man to name one. Abraham was also mentioned in this parable! It is very well known, biblical of course, that Abraham would be resurrected when Christ returns. Don't you think the one who is telling the parable, Christ himself, would know of another who also would be entering into the Kingdom as well? People have a chance to repent, here and now, in this physical life, how then could he name someone who would go to the lake of fire? Man does have free will up till death. Another reason we know that it is a parable is the fact that Abraham has not received the promise as of yet! Would you like to discuss this?

The mention of names takes this narrative out of the parable catagory. Saying that parable are just stories with no valid basis to support one's belief is a little audacious, isn't it? I thought about saying insolent. I do see the suggestion about parables as inflamitory. Effectively you have dismissed the narrative as a meaningless parable. Repentence has nothing to do with the story as relates to the topic of death. This isn't a discussion of how one gets to the place of the rich man. It is talking about the condition of the rich man.

I did make a post discussing the lack of Jesus usning the rich man's name. Kinda like the rules here. Don't mention the moniker of anyone unless it is praising them. Just stirs up trouble. So I personally think Jesus was wise as my commentary quote said.

You see how one might connect the story with v 14? It is at the beginning of the parable! It is part of whom Christ was speaking to!

I said I can see how one could do such. I didn't say it was a fact.

Why didn't the pharisee or Jews believe that Christ wasn't the Messiah? This is another topic...But will be glad to discuss elsewhere. We would start in prophecy.

That my fiend is not an issue here in this thread. The Scripture plainly says they were blinded and could not hear and by Jesus for a purpose. Besides they were only considering the temporal flesh when thinking of the prophecies.

Why does Jesus have to explain his statement in Matt 5:17-18 in Luke 24:44? He doesn't!

Then what exactly was Jesus referring to by saying while I was yet with you mean? What does this clarifying statement refer to, if it isn't Mat 5:17-18?

Well, a history book, I would call it a history book. Josephus a history book. Paganism is a blanket term and it depends on how one applies it. One of the widest definitions of paganism would be all religions that are not in the Abrahamic category. By definition that would make the Jewish Encyclopedia non-pagan. How can one say the Jewish religion is pagan when Christianity came out of it. Are not the Jews also Isralites? Christianity (popular) is full of paganism. Such as Christmas, Easter...Popular Christianity puts out articles or material on these subjects but does that make them Christian? Or does it mean Christians adopted pagan practices?

Josephus is a secular source and not a Jewish or Christian religous work. It certianly is a valid work to consider and I didn't exclude it as pagan in my statement.

You say "you can't call all judaistic material christian or even godly." So there are some that you can!

And I didn't.

 

[from scratch]

Sorry, I meant an opossum.

Yeah a friend said they thought armadillos were born as road kill. What about those comi cosi squirrels who just can't make up their mind which way they want to go?

 

[YosemiteSam]

It is being discussed in the thread as to whether or not Lazarus and the rich man is/is not a parable.

Would like to make a couple of simple statements about this subject just to clear a few things.

The story which is found in Luke 16
Note: The story does not say that Lazarus was taken to heaven.
The story does not say that the rich man will be tormented forever.
Lazarus and the rich man both died.

Christ in telling the story uses Abraham and Lazarus as two of the individuals that are resurrected to eternal life in the Kingdom of God; and uses the rich man as an evil doer resurrected to judgment. Please note: v 23 of the parable puts us in the time frame of the resurrection.

Dan 12.2 "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

John 5:28-29 in Jesus' own words "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

Why use the rich man? and not a name here?

Matt 19:24 "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"

and Matt 7:23 "And I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity."

Above are a few scriptures I thought of last nite.

See post #372

Other scriptures proves that Abraham will be in the coming Kingdom of God. Scripture also says here that Lazarus will be as well.

Lazarus and the rich man is a parable. The bible proves it to be a parable and later we will look at the proof itself. It should be quite obvious by now to the serious bible student that it is indeed a parable.

 

[James 75]

It is being discussed in the thread as to whether or not Lazarus and the rich man is/is not a parable.

Would like to make a couple of simple statements about this subject just to clear a few things.

The story which is found in Luke 16
Note: The story does not say that Lazarus was taken to heaven.
The story does not say that the rich man will be tormented forever.
Lazarus and the rich man both died.

Christ in telling the story uses Abraham and Lazarus as two of the individuals that are resurrected to eternal life in the Kingdom of God; and uses the rich man as an evil doer resurrected to judgment. Please note: V: 23 of the parable puts us in the time frame of the resurrection.

True.
Also The fact that Lazarus is in the first resurrection/the resurrection of "the faithful", makes him a son of Abraham, Abraham being the father of "the faithful."
That is why the term "in the bosom of Abraham" is used, that depicts a very colse relationship like a father and son would have.