Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
OT does not overrule perfectly clear NT.
No you just need to present a scriptural basis for the literalist rules of interpretation. It isn't believing the bible that is the issue, but what you think the bible means. Unfortunately while you want to believe scripture itself, you have something that is neither scripture nor scriptural to tell you what the text means.
Mat 25:33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. Sheep? Goats? You do realise this is another parable? How literal do we take a reference to eternal fire and eternal punishment in the middle of a metaphor? We also need to look at the meaning of aiwnion, does it mean eternal and everlasting? Or can it simply mean belonging to the age to come?
I was wondering how deeply bound up in literalism you were. If you cannot recognise the story of the rich man and Lazarus as a parable I afraid I cannot help you on that one. What you need to do first is realise the doctrine of literalism has no scriptural basis.
You're chasing your tail.
I don't know of anyone who doesn't know that Jesus is referring to His people and those who are not His.
Yes, it means eternal. Or you could say 'the eternal age' never ending. Eternal is confirmed throughout the NT.
This is exactly what you run into when you reject 'literalism'. Calling Scripture 'parables' when it clearly is not to prove what you believe.
You mean you can't find any biblical basis for literalism?
We all know that. The issue is that the sheep and goats are a metaphor for people who are his and the ones who are not. Which means the reference to eternal fire comes up in a metaphorical description of the judgement.
The age to come may be never ending, but that doesn't mean things that happen in the age to come are never ending processes, just that they happen in the age to come or share the characteristics of that age.
Is it clear that the story of the rich man and Lazarus isn't a parable, or is it just the unscriptural rules of literalism that claim it is literal?
You totally misunderstood. I can't find any Biblical basis against literalism. Just believe it unless there's VERY clear reason not to.
Eternal is used throughout the NT.
If there's no eternal punishment, FINE. Everybody will have eternal peace, even Satan and Hitler.
Abraham and Moses, clearly literal.
Why does the doctrine of literalism get a free ride? It tells you what the bible is supposed to mean, and binds you from searching out the meaning yourself, yet literalism never faces any scrutiny to see if it is even scriptural itself?
How does that change the fact that the parable of the sheep and the goats is a metaphor?
They will be punished for what they have done and then they will cease to exist. How is that 'peace'?
You can't mention things that are real in parables? Jericho and Jerusalem are real too but Jesus mentioned them in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Or do you take that parable literally too?
You're implying that it is totally metaphor with no proof. It is very clear, "eternal punishment".
No more sorrow, pain, death, poverty, etc.
Luke 16 does not say it's a parable. Why do you say it is?
If it is in the middle if a parable, a metaphor, you are the one who needs to show it is literal.
You realise the biblical meaning of peace, of shalom, is not about the absence of trouble, but is about the presence of the positive qualities: completeness, soundness, welfare, wholeness, tranquillity, contentment, friendship. Shalom is the opposite of annihilation.
Because I learned to understand parables and metaphor from Jesus, by spending time in his word and seeing how he spoke and taught, rather than unscriptural rule of literalism. It is how his disciples learned to understand his metaphors and parables, it is how we should.
YOU need to prove Jesus was wrong.
Oh please. Annihilation is peace compared to the Biblical doctrine of eternity in Hell fire.
Do you believe 'eternal life' ends?
No Biblical proof?
My argument isn't with Jesus, but with your literalist interpretation of a parable and the misunderstanding of the word 'eternal'.
From the Greek word aiwn meaning an age. It is the word used to translate the Hebrew olam which again means an age. Translating it as everlasting or eternal results in odd verses like Deut 33:15 with the finest produce of the ancient mountains and the abundance of the everlasting hills. Have hills always existed? Does the bible say they will last forever? What about erosion? What about the verses that say this world will come to an end? It can mean age long or belonging to ages past or future, but it does not tell you they are everlasting. Or you have Psalm 77:5 I consider the days of old, the years long ago (olam), which was talking about the Moses and Aaron, not an infinity of time past.
Lets start with a biblical understanding of what peace then we can work our way up to a biblical understanding of hell and biblically based bible interpretation
No it doesn't, but that is because our life in the age to come is sharing in Christ's indestructible life, not because aiwnios means everlasting.
Sorry no proof. Being a disciple and learning from Jesus is an ongoing process that won't be complete until we meet him face to face. But it is still a much better way to start than basing your interpretation on a completely a unscriptural literalist rule. I however did give you evidence from scripture that literalism didn't work, twice in fact you didn't address my points.
I think it is.
OT does not overrule perfectly clear NT.
Lets start with a biblical understanding of what peace then we can work our way up to a biblical understanding of hell and biblically based bible interpretation
No it doesn't, but that is because our life in the age to come is sharing in Christ's indestructible life, not because aiwnios means everlasting.
It's the exact same wording for 'eternal punishment', never ending.But we have His clear word to guide us, the NT, first and foremost.
The overwhelming evidence is 'eternal punishment' taught by Jesus is indeed 'eternal', NEVER ending. Yes, I understand why many oppose it. But in the end God will punish those who reject Him, forever, in Hell fire. He won't have to ask my permission.
That's Gehenna fire again, a reference to the municipal rubbish dump in the valley outside Jerusalem. Firstly it's another metaphor and secondly there is nothing in the metaphor to suggest continuously being on fire through all eternity.
It isn't about overruling, it is about understanding what these words mean when spoke to Hebrew and Aramaic speaking first century Jews.
Eternal is the same word, 'life' and 'punishment' aren't.
Where does the NT tell the Good Samaritan is literal?
Doesn't help help you with your rules of literalism or the parable of the Good Samaritan.
I'm tired of dealing with your opinions against what Jesus clearly said. The eternal Hell fire is real and taught by Jesus.
How could it better to poke one's own eye out thant to suffer the fate of ceasing to be?
