Eternal Fire SAVES not TORTURES (2)

[dollarsbill]

true, first time I heard little lamb, jump the fence

shocking

I'll take the literal. God meant what He said.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by gradyll for one, it was not a parable it was a literal story. No parable mentions the name of a person in it. It normally states the subject of the parable as a farmer or as a lawyer or as a merchant, never a specific name.

They keep trying, don't they? Even though there is ZERO indication of being a parable.

Yes we do

The apostate religion of Judaism should read thru it, as they have no concept of an eternal hellfire as do the religions of Islam and Christianity

http://www.christianforums.com/t7306890/
Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable

......

 

[dollarsbill]

Yes we do

The apostate religion of Judaism should read thru it, as they have no concept of an eternal hellfire as do the religions of Islam and Christianity

http://www.christianforums.com/t7306890/
Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable

......

I guess that's what I like about you. I never know what you mean.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Yes we do

The apostate religion of Judaism should read thru it, as they have no concept of an eternal hellfire as do the religions of Islam and Christianity

​

I guess that's what I like about you. I never know what you mean.

Likewise I'm sure

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes we do

The apostate religion of Judaism should read thru it, as they have no concept of an eternal hellfire as do the religions of Islam and Christianity

http://www.christianforums.com/t7306890/
Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable

......

I have read through it and in Jewish apocryphal books predating greek mythology we have concepts of hell.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I have read through it and in Jewish apocryphal books predating greek mythology we have concepts of hell.

This parable is spoken to both the common Jews and the corrupt murderous Judean rulers, Pharisees.
Did ya notice his bit about the 5 brothers in vs 28

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

LUKE 16:27 "Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house,
28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.'

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 Yeshua 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!

 

[createdtoworship]

This parable is spoken to both the common Jews and the corrupt murderous Judean rulers, Pharisees.
Did ya notice his bit about the 5 brothers in vs 28

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

LUKE 16:27 "Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house,
28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.'

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 Yeshua 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 don't adhere to ultra dispensational views that some parts of the Bible are for Jews only. God knew who the audience would be and made the Bible for everyone, not just Jews. Most of the time Christ spake, there was a mixed multitude present, and many gentiles.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't adhere to ultra dispensational views that some parts of the Bible are for Jews only. God knew who the audience would be and made the Bible for everyone, not just Jews.
Most of the time Christ spake, there was a mixed multitude present, and many gentiles.

He is not the only commentator with that view

Kindgdom Bible Studies Template Page
Abraham's bosom

Any arrangement of chapter and verse division that clarifies or harmonizes other scripture, is more authoritative than that division that beclouds other statements of the Bible. At the beginning of Jesus' discourse in chapter fifteen of Luke the statement is made that "He spoke this parable unto them, saying," (Lk. 15:3). The Greek is very definite in making the word for parable clearly a singular noun. It is "the parable this.."
This statement is followed by five separate stories, the first of which is the story of the lost sheep, and the last is the story of the rich man and Lazarus. You see, the teaching in chapter sixteen is but the continuation of the discourse in chapter fifteen, without interruption. Now, which of the five stories He gave them in this sermon was called a parable?

The only one of the five which is prefaced by the claim, "And He spoke this parable unto them," was the story about the lost sheep. Was the lost sheep the only one that could be called a parable? And yet, any preacher or believer that I know will answer that the story of the lost coin, as well as the prodigal son, were also parables. Then why was the singular used - "this parable"?

It should be clear to any thinking mind that all these stories were ONE PARABLE, like the facets of a diamond, as they turn each scintillates with new brilliance. Each was illustrating a view point of one great truth, and together they compose a whole. And this parabolic discourse of Jesus is continued into chapter sixteen of Luke, including the story of the rich man and Lazarus. The truth is that all five stories are each a fractional part of the complete parable, and when we read, "He spoke this parable unto them," this embraces the entire collection of symbol-pictures which in their completeness constituted the parable which He spoke. It is a careless assumption and an unfounded assertion to argue that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable!

 

[strangertoo]

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

the MASSES are deceived by mass religion of Satan [Rev 13:3-4] , believe his subtle alteration of God's word [for 'aion-' in Greek indeed refers to an 'aeon', not an impossible infinity of time] ...and are DESTROYED [Matt 7:13] ...

why do you not believe this scripture ?

the rest of scripture explains the mistake, , why do you ignore that ?

 

[Timothew]

for one, it was not a parable it was a literal story. No parable mentions the name of a person in it. It normally states the subject of the parable as a farmer or as a lawyer or as a merchant, never a specific name.

So, show us the rule that says a parable can't have a name in it.
Otherwise, parables can contain names if the parable teller wants to put a name in it.

 

[Leggomyegolas]

Sure, a parable *can* have a name in it. But none of them do, because adding the name of a fictional character in a story wouldn't add anything beneficial to the story. We don't know what the prodigal son's name was, or his older brother's name. Why? Because the names are irrelevant to the story.

So, in the rich man and Lazarus, we do have names. Why? Because it's telling a historical account of something that really happened. In that case, names do matter.

 

[Timothew]

But you just said a parable can have a name. But your evidence that this is not a parable is that it has a name. But you just said parables can have names.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

But you just said a parable can have a name. But your evidence that this is not a parable is that it has a name. But you just said parables can have names.

Sure, a parable *can* have a name in it. But none of them do, because adding the name of a fictional character in a story wouldn't add anything beneficial to the story. We don't know what the prodigal son's name was, or his older brother's name. Why? Because the names are irrelevant to the story.

So, in the rich man and Lazarus, we do have names. Why? Because it's telling a historical account of something that really happened. In that case, names do matter.

Ok. I can hang with that.
Perhaps after Lazarus eventually died, he was actually carried away by Messengers to Abraham's bosom, where *it shows he is also alive

John 12:1 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany where Lazarus was who had been dead, whom He had raised from the dead.
10 But the chief priests plotted to put Lazarus to death also,
11 because on account of him many of the Jews went away and believed in Jesus.

LUKE 16:22 "So it was that the poor one died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom.
The rich man also died and was buried."

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

The next events recorded in this parable are the deaths of Lazarus and then the rich man. Since the parable has been figurative up until this point, there is no reason to assume it becomes literal now.

First, to prove that this language is symbolic and not meant to be taken literally, let's examine exactly what we are told by Yeshua. He says that first, Lazarus dies and is taken to the bosom of Abraham. Notice, there is no mention of his burial here. Then later the rich man dies, and he is buried (in Hades, according to verse 23). So the time sequence given indicates that upon his death, Lazarus was taken immediately to Abraham's bosom, while afterward the rich man was buried in Hades when he died.

If this story is literal, then we have a contradiction in the Bible. Here, Lazarus is shown to have immediately received the promise of eternal life. Yet the author of Hebrews clearly tells us that Abraham, as well as all the other Old Testament saints, have not yet received the promises given to them by God:

 

[he-man]

Ok. I can hang with that.
Perhaps after Lazarus eventually died, he was actually carried away by Messengers to Abraham's bosom, where is shows he is also alive
If this story is literal, then we have a contradiction in the Bible. Here, Lazarus is shown to have immediately received the promise of eternal life. Yet the author of Hebrews clearly tells us that Abraham, as well as all the other Old Testament saints, have not yet received the promises given to them by God:

You got it and it also says...
Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man.

 

[Leggomyegolas]

Story #1:
A man had 2 sons. One of them asked for his inheritance early, and left home and spent it recklessly on loose living. When he ran out of money, and was barely scraping by, eating the same food as pigs, he came back home and asked his father to make him one of his servants, because even his father's servants ate better than those pigs did. But his father instead threw a big banquet in his son's honor, and was overjoyed because his son had been lost but was now found. The older brother was jealous, but the father rebuked him for his jealousy.

Story #2:
Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak met in 1971, when their mutual friend, Bill Fernandez, introduced 21-year-old Wozniak to 16-year-old Jobs. In 1976, Wozniak invented the Apple I computer. Jobs, Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne founded Apple computer in the garage of Jobs's parents in order to sell it. They received funding from a then-semi-retired Intel product-marketing manager and engineer Mike Markkula.
In 1978, Apple recruited Mike Scott from National Semiconductor to serve as CEO for what turned out to be several turbulent years. In 1983, Jobs lured John Sculley away from Pepsi-Cola to serve as Apple's CEO, asking, "Do you want to make sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to come with me and change the world?"

Which one would you assume is a real, historical story, and which one is a parable? Why?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Ok. I can hang with that.
Perhaps after Lazarus eventually died, he was actually carried away by Messengers to Abraham's bosom, where it shows both he and Abraham are also alive

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

If this story is literal, then we have a contradiction in the Bible. Here, Lazarus is shown to have immediately received the promise of eternal life. Yet the author of Hebrews clearly tells us that Abraham, as well as all the other Old Testament saints, have not yet received the promises given to them by God:
​

You got it and it also says...
Joh 3:13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,the Son of man.

Good catch bro!

....

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure, a parable *can* have a name in it. But none of them do, because adding the name of a fictional character in a story wouldn't add anything beneficial to the story. We don't know what the prodigal son's name was, or his older brother's name. Why? Because the names are irrelevant to the story.

So, in the rich man and Lazarus, we do have names. Why? Because it's telling a historical account of something that really happened. In that case, names do matter.

thanks for making my point for me, I forgot to mention that

 

[createdtoworship]

Story #1:
A man had 2 sons. One of them asked for his inheritance early, and left home and spent it recklessly on loose living. When he ran out of money, and was barely scraping by, eating the same food as pigs, he came back home and asked his father to make him one of his servants, because even his father's servants ate better than those pigs did. But his father instead threw a big banquet in his son's honor, and was overjoyed because his son had been lost but was now found. The older brother was jealous, but the father rebuked him for his jealousy.

Story #2:
Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak met in 1971, when their mutual friend, Bill Fernandez, introduced 21-year-old Wozniak to 16-year-old Jobs. In 1976, Wozniak invented the Apple I computer. Jobs, Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne founded Apple computer in the garage of Jobs's parents in order to sell it. They received funding from a then-semi-retired Intel product-marketing manager and engineer Mike Markkula.
In 1978, Apple recruited Mike Scott from National Semiconductor to serve as CEO for what turned out to be several turbulent years. In 1983, Jobs lured John Sculley away from Pepsi-Cola to serve as Apple's CEO, asking, "Do you want to sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to come with me and change the world?"

Which one would you assume is a real, historical story, and which one is a parable? Why?

good illustration!

 

[Leggomyegolas]

You got it and it also says...
Joh 3:13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,the Son of man.

Not trying to argue, but where does that mean Enoch and Elijah were translated to?

 

[createdtoworship]

Ok. I can hang with that.
Perhaps after Lazarus eventually died, he was actually carried away by Messengers to Abraham's bosom, where *it shows he is also alive

John 12:1 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany where Lazarus was who had been dead, whom He had raised from the dead.
10 But the chief priests plotted to put Lazarus to death also,
11 because on account of him many of the Jews went away and believed in Jesus.

LUKE 16:22 "So it was that the poor one died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom.
The rich man also died and was buried."

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

The next events recorded in this parable are the deaths of Lazarus and then the rich man. Since the parable has been figurative up until this point, there is no reason to assume it becomes literal now.

First, to prove that this language is symbolic and not meant to be taken literally, let's examine exactly what we are told by Yeshua. He says that first, Lazarus dies and is taken to the bosom of Abraham. Notice, there is no mention of his burial here. Then later the rich man dies, and he is buried (in Hades, according to verse 23). So the time sequence given indicates that upon his death, Lazarus was taken immediately to Abraham's bosom, while afterward the rich man was buried in Hades when he died.

If this story is literal, then we have a contradiction in the Bible. Here, Lazarus is shown to have immediately received the promise of eternal life. Yet the author of Hebrews clearly tells us that Abraham, as well as all the other Old Testament saints, have not yet received the promises given to them by God:

where does it state in hebrews that the Jews have not recieved the promise yet?