Eternal Torment, Annihilation or Universal Reconciliation?

[Der Alte]

So far almost 50% of the people in this vote have voted "eternal conscious torment." Can you explain how that view of God is different than say a father who tells his child he must love him back and if not, he will lock him in the back room away from him and he assures his child that this will be like being tormented in flames?

This argument is a logical fallacy appeal to emotion. "God must think exactly like I do, I think it would be terrible if some Father locked up a child for not loving him, so it would terrible if God sent people away into eternal punishment just because they didn't love or disobeyed Him." Finite, fallible, imperfect men do not determine what is proper or just for God who is infinite, infallible and perfect. Perhaps you could try to make your argument strictly from scripture without trying to appeal to emotion?

 

[Der Alte]

Hebrews speaks of those who reject Christ as deserving a "sorer" punishment than death by Moses' law, i.e. stoning:
10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Stoning to death is not a very sore or longlasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.
Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed the wicked would suffer endless torments in fire, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death. Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is a sadist for all eternity.

Already addressed and refuted in the other thread. Dead is dead it does not matter how one got that way. This is a logical fallacy argument "Appeal to emotion." If someone makes their argument gruesome enough maybe they can convince people they are right. Then let's throw in a little Godwin's law "As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

 

[GingerBeer]

Do you mean going to Hell because you KNOW the place is a myth? Absurd.

Do you "know" that?

 

[GingerBeer]

I don't know. It doesn't say. It just says it happens *after* we die.

The story says that the rich man and Lazarus were both placed in the right place according to their deeds.

 

[surrender1]

This argument is a logical fallacy appeal to emotion. "God must think exactly like I do, I thin it would be terrible if some Father locked up a child for not loving him, so it would terrible if God sent people away into eternal punishment just because they didn't love or disobeyed Him." Finite, fallible, imperfect men do not determine what is proper or just for God who is infinite, infallible and perfect. Perhaps you could try to make your argument strictly from scripture without trying to appeal to emotion?

You could have just admitted that you can't answer my question.
Again, how is that view of God any different?

 

[surrender1]

The story says that the rich man and Lazarus were both placed in the right place according to their deeds.

That parable is not a teaching on the afterlife. This parable is in a line-up with other parables (lost sheep, lost coin, lost son, and the shrewd accountant) and all have to do with wasting one's gifts and responsibilities. Jesus used a common storytelling device from Jewish folklore, the reversal of fortunes, to do this.

 

[GingerBeer]

That parable is not a teaching on the afterlife.

Odd that you say that. Scripture says that it is teaching and it is about the "after life".

There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz'arus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz'arus in his bosom. And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz'arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz'arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.' Luke 16:19-31

And he taught them many things in parables (Mark 4:2)
​

 

[Der Alte]

You could have just admitted that you can't answer my question.
Again, how is that view of God any different?

Logical fallacies do not merit an answer. If you want to post questions or comments that are not logical fallacies I would be glad to respond. You might wish to look up "Logical Fallacies" so that you won't use another one.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Perhaps you should go back and read my post. What I posted was not my "exegesis" from anything I quoted from two historical Jewish sources the Jewish Encyclopedia [JE] and the Talmud. Your assumptions/presuppositions about Zoroastrianism and Hellenization are not relevant without credible, verifiable, historical evidence similar to what I have provided. I quoted from the sources I did not add or change anything. Please read this which I quoted.

The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). … the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a);​

Note, "soon" after children were sacrificed to the deity Moloch in Gehinnom, more than 700 years BC, "Gehenna" soon became a figurative equivalent to hell.

The post I was responding to posted the internet version of the history of Gehenna I posted the archaeological evidence disproving that version.

Whether you believe it or not is not really relevant. The historical evidence I posted documented the fact that the ancient Jews believed in a place of eternal, everlasting, unending fiery punishment and they called it both Gehinnom/Gehenna and sheol/hades

How many semesters of Koine Greek have you had? I studied Hebrew and Greek at the graduate level more than 3 decades ago.
Nine language sources cited. Fourteen total references! 1. NAS Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries, 2. Thayer’s Lexicon, 3. Vine’s Expository of Biblical Words, 3 references, 4. Louw-Nida Greek English Lexicon of the NT based on Semantic Domains, 2 references, 5. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 6. Abridged Greek lexicon, Liddell-Scott, 7. Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, 3 references, 8. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Greek English Lexicon of the NT and other Early Christian Literature, 9. Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the NT.
Aion, Aionios and the lexicons:
166. αιωνιος aionios; from 165; agelong, eternal:— eternal(66), eternity(1), forever(1).

Thomas, Robert L., Th.D., General Editor, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries,​

166 aionios- αιωνιος
1) without beginning and end, what has always been and always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

---Thayers​

2. αιωνιος aionios [166] "describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in <Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2>; or undefined because endless as in <Rom. 16:26>, and the other sixty-six places in the NT.
"The predominant meaning of αιωνιος , that in which it is used everywhere in the NT, save the places noted above, may be seen in <2 Cor. 4:18>, where it is set in contrast with proskairos, lit., `for a season,' and in <Philem. 15>, where only in the NT it is used without a noun. Moreover it is used of persons and things which are in their nature endless, as, e. g., of God, <Rom. 16:26>; of His power, <1 Tim. 6:16>, and of His glory, <1 Pet. 5:10>; of the Holy Spirit, <Heb. 9:14>; of the redemption effected by Christ, <Heb. 9:12>, and of the consequent salvation of men, <5:9>, as well as of His future rule, <2 Pet. 1:11>, which is elsewhere declared to be without end, <Luke 1:33>; of the life received by those who believe in Christ, <John 3:16>, concerning whom He said, `they shall never perish,' <10:28>, and of the resurrection body, <2 Cor. 5:1>, elsewhere said to be `immortal,' <1 Cor. 15:53>, in which that life will be finally realized, <Matt. 25:46; Titus 1:2>.
αιωνιος is also used of the sin that `hath never forgiveness,' <Mark 3:29>, and of the judgment of God, from which there is no appeal, <Heb. 6:2>, and of the fire, which is one of its instruments, <Matt. 18:8; 25:41; Jude 7>, and which is elsewhere said to be `unquenchable,' <Mark 9:43>.
"The use of αιωνιος here shows that the punishment referred to in <2 Thes. 1:9>, is not temporary, but final, and, accordingly, the phraseology shows that its purpose is not remedial but retributive."

From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp 232, 233. (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words) (Copyright (C) 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)​

67.96 αιωνιος aji>vdio", on; aijwvnio", on: pertaining to an unlimited duration of time - ‘eternal.’
aji>vdio"ò h{ te aji>vdio" aujtou` duvnami" kai; qeiovth" ‘his eternal power and divine nature’ Ro 1.20.
aijwvnio"ò blhqh`nai eij" to; pu`r to; aijwvnion ‘be thrown into the eternal fire’ Mt 18.8; tou` aijwnivou qeou` ‘of the eternal God’ Ro 16.26.
The most frequent use of αιωνιος in the NT is with zwhv ‘life,’ for example, i{na pa`" oJ pisteuvwn ejn aujtw/` e[ch/ zwh;n aijwvnion ‘so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life’ Jn 3.15. In combination with zwhv there is evidently not only a temporal element, but also a qualitative distinction. In such contexts, αιωνιος evidently carries certain implications associated with αιωνιος in relationship to divine and supernatural attributes. If one translates ‘eternal life’ as simply ‘never dying,’ there may be serious misunderstandings, since persons may assume that ‘never dying’ refers only to physical existence rather than to ‘spiritual death.’ Accordingly, some translators have rendered ‘eternal life’ as ‘unending real life,’ so as to introduce a qualitative distinction.

Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989.​

αιωνιος aionios. An adjective meaning “eternal,” and found in the LXX in Pss. 24; 77:5; Gen. 21:33, aionios in the NT is used 1. of God (Rom. 16:26), 2. of divine possessions and gifts (2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 5:10; 1 Tim. 6:16; 2 Th. 2:16, and 3. of the eternal kingdom (2 Pet. 1:11), inheritance (Heb. 9:15), body (2 Cor. 5:1), and even judgment (Heb. 6:2, though cf. Mt. 18:8; 2 Th. 1:9, where the sense is perhaps “unceasing”).

Kittel, Gerhard, and Friedrich, Gerhard, Editors, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) 1985.​

αιωνιος aionios ", ov and a, ov, lasting for an age (aion 3), Plat.: ever-lasting, eternal, Id.

Liddell, H. G., and Scott, Abridged Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 1992.​

166 aionios { ahee-o’-nee-os} αιωνιος from 165; TDNT - 1:208,31; adj
AV - eternal 42, everlasting 25, the world began + 5550 2, since the world began + 5550 1, for ever 1; 71
GK - 173 { aionios }
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.​

CL The Gk. word αιων aion, which is probably derived from aei, … It thus appeared appropriate to later philosophers to use the word both for the dim and distant past, the beginning of the world, and for the far future, eternity (e.g. Plato, Tim. 37d).
Plato (Timoeus, ed. Steph. 3, 37, or ed. Baiter, Orell. et Winck. 712) says, speaking of the universe: …The nature therefore of the animal (living being) was eternal (aionios, before aidios), and this indeed it was impossible to adapt to what was produced (to genneto, to what had a beginning); he thinks to make a moveable image of eternity (aionos), and in adoring the heavens he makes of the eternity permanent in unity a certain eternal image moving in number, … And after unfolding this, he says (p. 38): "But these forms of time imitating eternity (aiona), and rolling round according to number, have had a beginning (gegonen).... For that pattern exists for all eternity (panta aiona estin on), but on the other hand, that which is perpetual (dia telous) throughout all time has had a beginning, and is, and will be." … Aion is what is properly eternal, in contrast with a divine imitation of it in ages of time, the result of the creative action of God which imitated the uncreate as nearly as He could in created ages.. ]
In Plato the term is developed so as to represent a timeless, immeasurable and transcendent super-time, an idea of time in itself. Plutarch and the earlier Stoics appropriate this understanding, and from it the Mysteries of Aion, the god of eternity, could be celebrated in Alexandria, and gnosticism could undertake its own speculations on time.* * *

NIDNTT Colin Brown
Aristotle
peri ouranou, 1, 9 (ed. Bekker, 1, 279): "Time," he says, "is the number of movement, but there is no movement without a physical body. But outside heaven it has been shewn that there is not, nor possibly can come into existence, any body. It is evident then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time outside. Wherefore neither in place are things there formed by nature; nor does time cause them to grow old: neither is there any change of anything of those things which are arranged beyond the outermost orbit; but unchangeable, and subject to no influence, having the best and most independent life, they continue for all eternity (aiona). … According to the same word (logon) the completeness of the whole heaven, and the completeness which embraces all time and infinitude is aion, having received this name from existing for ever (apo tou aei einai), immortal (athanatos, undying), and divine." In 10 he goes on to shew that that beginning to be (genesthai) involves the not existing always, which I refer to as shewing what he means by aion. He is proving the unchangeable eternity of the visible universe. That is no business of mine; but it shews what he means by eternity (aion). It cannot be aidion and genesthai at the same time, when, as in Plato, aidios is used as equivalent to aionios
Philo, the sentence is in De Mundo, 7, en aioni de oute pareleluthen ouden, oute mellei, alla monon iphesteken. Such a definition needs no explanation: in eternity nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but only subsists. This has the importance of being of the date and Hellenistic Greek of the New Testament, as the others give the regular, and at the same time philosophical force of the word, aion, aionios. Eternity, unchangeable, with no 'was' nor 'will be,' is its proper force, that it can be applied to the whole existence of a thing, so that nothing of its nature was before true or after is true, to telos to periechon. But its meaning is eternity, and eternal. … That is, things that are for a time are put in express contrast with aionia, which are not for a time, be it age or ages, but eternal. Nothing can be more decisive of its positive and specific meaning.
0166 aionios αιωνιος without beginning or end, eternal, everlasting
LEH lxx lexicon
UBS GNT Dict. # 169 (Str#166)
aionios eternal (of quality rather than of time); unending, everlasting, for all time
αιωνιος (iva Pla., Tim. 38b; Jer 39:40; Ezk 37:26; 2 Th 2:16; Hb 9:12; as v.l. Ac 13:48; 2 Pt 1:11; Bl-D. §59, 2; Mlt.-H. 157), on eternal (since Hyperid. 6, 27; Pla.; inscr., pap., LXX; Ps.-Phoc. 112; Test. 12 Patr.; standing epithet for princely, esp. imperial power: Dit., Or. Index VIII; BGU 176; 303; 309; Sb 7517, 5 [211/2 ad] kuvrio" aij.; al. in pap.; Jos., Ant. 7, 352).
1. without beginning crovnoi" aij. long ages ago Ro 16:25; pro; crovnwn aij. before time began 2 Ti 1:9; Tit 1:2 (on crovno" aij. cf. Dit., Or. 248, 54; 383, 10).
2. without beginning or end; of God (Ps.-Pla., Tim. Locr. 96c qeo;n t. aijwvnion; Inscr. in the Brit. Mus. 894 aij. k. ajqavnato"; Gen 21:33; Is 26:4; 40:28; Bar 4:8 al.; Philo, Plant. 8; 74; Sib. Or., fgm. 3, 17 and 4; PGM 1, 309; 13, 280) Ro 16:26; of the Holy Spirit in Christ Hb 9:14. qrovno" aij. 1 Cl 65:2 (cf. 1 Macc 2:57).
3. without end (Diod. S. 1, 1, 5; 5, 73, 1; 15, 66, 1 dovxa aij. everlasting fame; in Diod. S. 1, 93, 1 the Egyptian dead are said to have passed to their aij. …keep someone forever Phlm 15 (cf. Job 40:28). …On the other hand of eternal life (Maximus Tyr. 6, 1d qeou` zwh; aij.; Diod. S. 8, 15, 3 life meta; to;n qavnaton lasts eij" a{panta aijw`na; Da 12:2; 4 Macc 15:3; PsSol 3, 12; Philo, …carav IPhld inscr.; doxavzesqai aijwnivw/ e[rgw/ be glorified by an everlasting deed IPol 8:1. DHill, Gk. Words and Hebr. Mngs. ’67, 186-201. M-M.

Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979.​

BIBLE STUDY MANUALS - AIONIOS -- AN IN DEPTH STUDY
αιωνιος
• Strong's - Greek 165
• NRSV (the uses of the word in various contexts in the NRSV text):
again, age, course, end, eternal, forever, permanent, time, world, worlds
• CGED (A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, by Barclay M. Newman, New York: United Bible Societies, 1993, page 5):
age; world order; eternity (ap aion or pro aion, from the beginning; eis aion, and the strengthened form eis tous aion, ton aion, always, forever);
• The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology [NIDNTT], Volume 3 (edited by Colin Brown, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1978, page 827, 830):
In Plato the term [aion] is developed so as to represent a timeless, immeasurable and transcendent super-time, an idea of time in itself. Plutarch and other earlier Stoics appropriate this understanding, and from it the Mysteries of Aion, the god of eternity, could be celebrated in Alexandria, and gnosticism could undertake its own speculations on time.
The statements of the Johannine [John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John] writings, … reveal a strong inclination to conceive of a timeless, because post-temporal, eternity… As in the OT [Old Testament], these statements reveal the background conviction that God's life never ends, i.e. that everything belonging to him can also never come to an end…
aion - αιων - age, world
A. "for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity; the worlds, universe; period of time, age."
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.
• aionion, aionios – αιωνιον, αιωνιος - eternal
B. "aionios," the adjective corresponding, denoting eternal. It is used of that which in nature is endless, as, e.g., of God, (Rom. 16:26), His power, (1 Tim. 6:16), His glory, (1 Pet. 5:10), the Holy Spirit, (Heb. 9:14), redemption, (Heb. 9:12), salvation, (5:9), life in Christ, (John 3:16), the resurrection body, (2 Cor. 5:1), the future rule of Christ, (2 Pet. 1:11), which is declared to be without end, (Luke 1:33), of sin that never has forgiveness, (Mark 3:29), the judgment of God, (Heb. 6:2), and of fire, one of its instruments, (Matt. 18:8; 25:41; Jude 7)."
i. Rom. 16:26 - " . . .according to the commandment of the eternal God. . ."
ii. 1 Tim. 6:16 - ". . . To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen."
iii. 1 Pet. 5:10 - " . . . who called you to His eternal glory in Christ,"
iv. Mark 3:29 - " . . . never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."
v. etc.
SOURCE: Vine, W. E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981, Available: Logos Library System.
• "describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom. 16:26, and the other sixty–six places in the N.T.
A. Rom. 16:25 - " . . which has been kept secret for long ages past,"
B. Rom 16:26 - ". . . according to the commandment of the eternal God,"
C. 2 Tim. 1:9 - ". . . which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,"
D. Titus 1:2 - "the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised" long ages ago"
SOURCE: Vine, W. E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981, [Online] Available: Logos Library System)
• Eis tous aionios ton aionion – εις τους αιωνας των αιωνιωον
- Forever and Ever, Lit. "into the age of the ages"
A. "unlimited duration of time, with particular focus upon the future - ‘always, forever, forever and ever, eternally."
B. Phil. 4:20 - ". . .to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever."
C. Rev. 19:3 - " . . .Her smoke rises up forever and ever."
D. Rev. 20:20 - "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
SOURCE: Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989, Available: Logos Library System. ​

What do Greek dictionaries say about "aionion" | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

I appreciate you sharing your unsupported opinion what you "think" Paul believed but I do not see any evidence of any kind supporting these assertions.

Yeah...I don't care that much about a discussion on an internet forum to go back, research, and dig up all of my sources.

 

[Der Alte]

Odd that you say that. Scripture says that it is teaching and it is about the "after life".

There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz'arus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz'arus in his bosom. And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz'arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz'arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.' Luke 16:19-31
And he taught them many things in parables (Mark 4:2)​

Every early church father who quoted or referred to the Lazarus/rich man account considered it to be factual .

• Ireneaeus, 120-202 AD, was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John.
1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,-in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives [=Latin for rich] knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position , and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him-[Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
• Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1
On the Resurrection.
This was the day. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.
• Tertullian A Treatise On The Soul [A.D. 145-220.]
In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality . For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.
• Tertullian Part First [A.D. 145-220.]
9. A Treatise On The Soul Chapter 57
Moreover, the fact that Hades is not in any case opened for (the escape of) any soul , has been firmly established by the Lord in the person of Abraham, in His representation of the poor man at rest and the rich man in torment.
• The Epistles Of Cyprian [A.D. 200-258] Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics
Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.
• Methodius Fragments On The History Of Jonah [A.D. 260-312]
But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence, also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are such according to their essence. ​

 

[GingerBeer]

Every early church father who quoted or referred to the Lazarus/rich man account considered it to be factual .

You could be right. I call it "the story of the rich man and Lazarus" because it reads as a story - it may be history or it may be a parable,m I do not know which it is - and because it has a lesson in it as stories ought. Some people may call it a parable in the hope that its teaching will be dismissed as unimportant or as unreliable. I cannot agree with anybody who thinks that calling it a parable somehow diminishes its importance for understanding the "after life".

 

[HighwayMan]

This argument is a logical fallacy appeal to emotion. "God must think exactly like I do, I thin it would be terrible if some Father locked up a child for not loving him, so it would terrible if God sent people away into eternal punishment just because they didn't love or disobeyed Him." Finite, fallible, imperfect men do not determine what is proper or just for God who is infinite, infallible and perfect. Perhaps you could try to make your argument strictly from scripture without trying to appeal to emotion?

There is nothing wrong with "appealing to emotion." I connect with the Bible through emotion, because the story of Jesus connects with me like none other. All the great religious work of arts throughout the centuries, films etc. are an "appeal to emotion." Human beings are not robots, they are emotional creatures.

And yes, If we believe things, they must make sense emotionally wise as well. Finite man can not understand the cosmic mysteries of the universe. But finite man most certainly can use the brain and morals God gave him/her to explore whether something is just or not.

 

[surrender1]

Odd that you say that. Scripture says that it is teaching and it is about the "after life".

There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz'arus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz'arus in his bosom. And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz'arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz'arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.' Luke 16:19-31

And he taught them many things in parables (Mark 4:2)
​

Yeah, it's a teaching. But it's not *about* the afterlife, as we easily see with the line-up of parables in which it sits.

 

[Der Alte]

Yeah...I don't care that much about a discussion on an internet forum to go back, research, and dig up all of my sources.

Sounds like you are just here to argue.

 

[GingerBeer]

Yeah, it's a teaching. But it's not *about* the afterlife, as we easily see with the line-up of parables in which it sits.

If the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not about what happens after one dies then why is all of it about what happens after death?

 

[Der Alte]

There is nothing wrong with "appealing to emotion." I connect with the Bible through emotion, because the story of Jesus connects with me like none other. All the great religious work of arts throughout the centuries, films etc. are an "appeal to emotion." Human beings are not robots, they are emotional creatures.
And yes, If we believe things, they must make sense emotionally wise as well. Finite man can not understand the cosmic mysteries of the universe. But finite man most certainly can use the brain and morals God gave him/her to explore whether something is just or not.

Logical Fallacy Emotional Appeals
When it comes to determining the validity or factuality of a claim, any attempt to sway an argument via emotion, rather than the quality of the logic or evidence, can be considered a fallacy. This includes in some but not all cases the fallacy argument from adverse consequences, or “scare tactic”; bad things will happen to us if you do not agree with my argument. However, if one is arguing over whether or not bad things will occur, this is no longer a fallacy.​

 

[Der Alte]

Yeah, it's a teaching. But it's not *about* the afterlife, as we easily see with the line-up of parables in which it sits.

Parable literally means to throw beside. In all of the undisputed parables Jesus uses examples of actual, ordinary things, events from life to explain or teach an unknown Bible truth. Things like lost coins, lost sheep, unwise wedding guests, wayward sons, ungrateful tenants etc., they are all anonymous no names are given. All of the events have actually happened somewhere in history and all of the events would have been familiar to His audience and Jesus could legitimately use them in a parable.
.....The story of Lazarus and the rich man does not use anything from ordinary life to clarify or explain a Bible truth. The only thing in the Lazarus account which would have been familiar to Jesus' audience was a beggar begging and a rich man living lavishly and these two things are not compared to any Bible truth. Jesus' audience would not have known anything about what happens after death and nothing in the account after the death of Lazarus and the rich man is used to compare to any Bible truth.
.....The Lazarus account differs from all the undisputed parables in that they are not anonymous, the names of two people are given Lazarus and Abraham, who was an actual historical person. If the events that Jesus described did not actually happen, if Abraham was not actually in the place stated and if Abraham did not actually speak the words Jesus quoted, then Jesus was a liar.

 

[Rajni]

If the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not about what happens after one dies then why is all of it about what happens after death?

That was a parable. If doctrine were to be established upon it, then one would also have to conclude from it that being a rich man is, in all cases, a direct ticket to hell.

Another problem with taking it as a literal illustration of the afterlife is that it would mean that those in heaven would be able to see their loved ones suffering in hell. Not sure that's going to exactly enhance the bliss of heaven, to be honest.

 

[cuja1]

Which one do you believe will happen at the final punishment?

A fire that torments, a fire that consumes or a fire that purifies?

The three main views are eternal conscious torment where the unrepentant are tormented by the fire for all eternity, annihilation where the unrepentant are punished according to wrongs committed and then annihilated by the fire, and universal reconciliation where the unrepentant go through a fire that burns impurities away leading to eventual repentance and reconciliation.

edit to add: So far almost 50% of the people in this vote have voted "eternal conscious torment." Can you explain how that view of God is different than say a father who tells his child he must love him back and if not, he will lock him in the back room away from him and he assures his child that this will be like being tormented in flames?

I believe in ECT. I wonder sometimes if I believe that bc of the way I was raised. Idk. It seems like the Bible is stating that there will be ECT to me. There is some wiggle room for annihilation though, and I would be perfectly fine with that even if there was some limited punishment after death.

 

[ClementofA]

I don't care. If you, can provide credible, verifiable, historical evidence not what some modern scholar says.

You don't care if many scholars disagree with your opinion?

I spoke of many scholars, not just one.

Also they include ancient as well as modern scholars.

And BTW JPS translates OLAM as "of old" in Genesis 6:4. Does that sound like "for ever" to you?

JPS Tanakh 1917
The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old(OLAM), the men of renown. (Gen.6:4)

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

I am quite sure the Jewish scholars who translated the JPS OT in 1917 knew the meaning of "olam" therefore the word must mean "for ever."
.....What about those times it is used to mean something which is not eternal? That is called hyperbole.