Hell

Almost there said:

Not to crowds. Often he explained his parables to his core group.

And the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man is the last of a list of parables:
Lost sheep
Lost coin
Lost son
Shrewd Manager
Lazarus and the Rich man

They are all parables. BTW, the name "lazarus" means "God will help".

Click to expand...

Hermeneutic Lives Matter

You just cannot take The Rich Man and Lazarus and lump it in with parables. You argue that EOs don't back up their claims, but dude you reference your own whims as your source. You cannot do that.

Almost there said:

John 3:16
Genesis 3:19
Genesis 3:22-23
Psalm 1
Psalm 37
Psalm 92:6-9
Proverbs 10:25-31
Proverbs 24:19-20
Malachi 4:1-3
Matthew 3:11-12
Matthew 7:13-14
Matthew 10:28
Matthew 13:40-42
Matthew 18:8-9
(Leaving out the other gospels right now)
Romans 6:23
1 Corinthians 15: 50-54
Philippians 3:19
1 Thessalonians 1:7-9
Hebrews 10:26-27
James 5:20
2 Peter 2:6
2 Peter 2:12
2 Peter 3:6-7
1 John 2:17
1 John 5:11-12
Jude 7
Revelation 20:13-14

Click to expand...

Summarize these verses in your own words.

~Anastasia~ said:

Even when Christ used parables, He did not create fantastical events that were untrue by their very nature. Sowers sow, birds eat seeds, plants wiither in the sun. None of the plants in Jesus' parable produced a magic beanstalk that grew into heaven.

Even if Lazarus and the rich man were not actual people, everything Jesus said was "true" in the sense that it reflects truth.

If people slept or disappeared after they died, Jesus would not have described this scenario at all.

Click to expand...

Since none of us were there, we can only speculate. One of those speculations I've heard is that it was actually based on a popular story at the time. What is kind of interesting is that it is clearly not talking about eternity since it does not describe either the Jewish, nor the Christian version of eternity. And it doesn't describe the time between the death of the body and the GWTJ in Jewish nor Christian viewpoints.

And it seems to be about the 5 brothers and, key, the "not believing even if someone is raised from the dead". It appears to be Jesus talking to the descendants of Joseph and looking forward to their impending disbelief even after Jesus' resurrection.

And there is no information about the rich man to suggest that he did anything warranting eternal torture. In fact, there is a chart on the site I linked to that demonstrates that the actual actions of the two men do not warrant either of their conditions, unless one would argue that poverty is, at its core, a virtue of some sort, and being rich, at it's core, is a sin. I'm buying neither of those ideas.

Almost there said:

This does:
Matthew 13:34
Jesus spoke all these things to the crowds in parables. He did not tell them anything without using a parable.

Click to expand...

Jesus was not speaking to the multitude by the sea in Luke 16 as He was in Matthew13:34. Matthew 13:34 is not a rule for every statement Jesus ever made, in context it applies only to the multitude mentioned.

Michael Collum said:

I would just like to confirm what I have read on this forum in the past, The Orthodox position is that God is the lake of fire?

Click to expand...

I think that is highly plausible. Ed Fudge calls God the consuming fire. If you are saved, he doesn't consume. If you are not, you are consumed. It's kinda like throwing a steel wrench and a log into a fire. One is sterilized. The other is consumed.

I'm go

Almost there said:

Since none of us were there, we can only speculate. One of those speculations I've heard is that it was actually based on a popular story at the time. What is kind of interesting is that it is clearly not talking about eternity since it does not describe either the Jewish, nor the Christian version of eternity. And it doesn't describe the time between the death of the body and the GWTJ in Jewish nor Christian viewpoints.

And it seems to be about the 5 brothers and, key, the "not believing even if someone is raised from the dead". It appears to be Jesus talking to the descendants of Joseph and looking forward to their impending disbelief even after Jesus' resurrection.

And there is no information about the rich man to suggest that he did anything warranting eternal torture. In fact, there is a chart on the site I linked to that demonstrates that the actual actions of the two men do not warrant either of their conditions, unless one would argue that poverty is, at its core, a virtue of some sort, and being rich, at it's core, is a sin. I'm buying neither of those ideas.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point. Your hermeneutic approach is based on gut instinct or what you want the scripture to say. You are constructing a Biblical narrative based on your own imagination. The text is the text. It says what it says. You have been given a direct challenge to your use of the text AND you were given a challenge to show where Jesus used some kind of fantasy in a parable. If Jesus did tell a parable about the afterlife it would have been a major deviation from His pattern to use a fantastic setting that was not based in reality. You have failed to address these issues which are valid and serious flaws in your approach.

HereIStand said:

Summarize these verses in your own words.

Click to expand...

Those that accept Jesus free gift go on to eternity with Him. Those that refuse His free gift are destroyed. Gone. Like they never existed. I see it as the Ecclesiastes thing. They live their lives like animals, finding what happiness they can, and then, like animals, they die. Except their soul is killed in the Second Death. Hence the use of the word, "death".

Almost there said:

I think that is highly plausible. Ed Fudge calls God the consuming fire. If you are saved, he doesn't consume. If you are not, you are consumed. It's kinda like throwing a steel wrench and a log into a fire. One is sterilized. The other is consumed.

Click to expand...

Please stop commenting on posts that ask for the Orthodox view.

Almost there said:

I think that is highly plausible. Ed Fudge calls God the consuming fire. If you are saved, he doesn't consume. If you are not, you are consumed. It's kinda like throwing a steel wrench and a log into a fire. One is sterilized. The other is consumed.

Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the consuming fire of God consumes sin, not the God breathed soul.

~Anastasia~ said:

I think it is safe to say that we are not dogmatic about many aspects of hell.

Yes, a very common belief is that those who reject Christ will experience torment because of being in the presence of God, who is a consuming fire to them.

I think saying "God is the lake of fire" can be misleading though.

Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining.

Almost there said:

What is kind of interesting is that it is clearly not talking about eternity since it does not describe either the Jewish, nor the Christian version of eternity.

Click to expand...

What is difference in the “Jewish, nor the Christian version of eternity”?


One is saved by belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ or they are not there are no alternative eternities.

Postvieww said:

Jesus was not speaking to the multitude by the sea in Luke 16 as He was in Matthew13:34. Matthew 13:34 is not a rule for every statement Jesus ever made, in context it applies only to the multitude mentioned.

Click to expand...

My personal belief is that it still applies. I don't think the argument can be made that he talked in parables to some crowds and not to others. This is especially driven home by the fact that the parable of Lazarus and the rich man was preceded by several parables.

This is one of those issues where I look at it and say, "unless there is some doctrine of mine that this interpretation would destroy, I would naturally assume this interpretation."

Kinda like when Jesus "brothers" are discussed in the gospels and elsewhere. A reasonable person would assume, well, yeah, it's talking about his brothers. But if you hold to the belief that Mary never had sex, you must find a different way to interpret it.

One of the ways I root out my own "questionable" beliefs is to see if I'm finding a need to do any interpretational gymnastics regarding scripture to keep from damaging any of my dogmas. It's almost like the scientific method. A theory about the meaning of scripture can be "put to the test" by comparing it to other scripture. And in the case of CI vs ECT, when I did that suddenly a whole litany of things I was having a hard time dealing with just melted away, revealing a nice, cohesive and consistent message.

Suddenly John 3:16 was crystal clear. Suddenly Romans 6:23 was equally clear.

Almost there said:

Since none of us were there, we can only speculate. One of those speculations I've heard is that it was actually based on a popular story at the time. What is kind of interesting is that it is clearly not talking about eternity since it does not describe either the Jewish, nor the Christian version of eternity. And it doesn't describe the time between the death of the body and the GWTJ in Jewish nor Christian viewpoints.

And it seems to be about the 5 brothers and, key, the "not believing even if someone is raised from the dead". It appears to be Jesus talking to the descendants of Joseph and looking forward to their impending disbelief even after Jesus' resurrection.

And there is no information about the rich man to suggest that he did anything warranting eternal torture. In fact, there is a chart on the site I linked to that demonstrates that the actual actions of the two men do not warrant either of their conditions, unless one would argue that poverty is, at its core, a virtue of some sort, and being rich, at it's core, is a sin. I'm buying neither of those ideas.

Click to expand...

Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.



What does the phrase “the fire is not quenched” mean to you? I take it literally.

~Anastasia~ said:

None of this matters to your point though.

Jesus told a story about people who died and had different experiences. Period.

They were not asleep. One of them experienced torment.

That is inescapable, however you wish to debate the particulars.

Click to expand...

I agree. You are stating exactly what the parable says. I think what we're discussing is what it means.

Hermit76 said:

Hermeneutic Lives Matter

You just cannot take The Rich Man and Lazarus and lump it in with parables. You argue that EOs don't back up their claims, but dude you reference your own whims as your source. You cannot do that.

Click to expand...

That's not what I'm doing.

Have you ever seen this:
Believe What the Jewish Apostles Taught -- Why Conditional Immortality Is True and Biblical

Almost there said:

I don't think the argument can be made that he talked in parables to some crowds and not to others.

Click to expand...

When scripture plainly states it is a parable case closed. When it does not it would be wise not to assume it is. IMHO