As all the dead in Hades rise on Judgment Day, why is Luke 16:19-31 cited as proof of eternal torment?

[CoreyD]

Nonsense! The rich man was actually, literally being tormented in flames and he was asking for actual, literal H2O water.

I'm sorry, but an admission cannot be reversed, by adding more claims to it.
Der Alte said:
Yes water might have been available in heaven but it was not available to the rich man.
You do not know, nor understand the parable, or what Jesus is saying.

You apparently, imagine some kind of miracle water that outs fire, and you imagine that it "might have been available in heaven".
You admit, you simply do not understand what Jesus is saying, and it is no wonder, for Jesus explained why. Matthew 13:13-15

The meaning of parable from "Figures of Speech in the Bible" by E, W. Bullinger
Parable. As the name of a Figure of Speech, it is limited to what we may describe as repeated or continued Simile — an illustration by which one set of circumstances is likened to another. It consists in likeness, not in representation, and therefore is not a continued Metaphor, as some have said ; but a repeated Simile. This likeness is generally only in some special point. One person may be like another in appearance, but not in character, and vice versa ; so that when resemblance or likeness is affirmed it is not to be concluded that the likeness may be pressed in all points, or extended to all particulars.

Figures of speech used in the Bible: : Bullinger, E. W. (Ethelbert William), 1837-1913 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Some errata ([2] p.) inserted between p. [iv] and [v]

archive.org

I would not accept a theological argument from a British Anglican clergyman, and ultradispensationalist theologian, on the definition of a word, if I were you.
It does not say much for a person who is willing to learn and understand truth, rather than doctrine.

Ultradispensationalism is a minority Christian doctrine regarding the relationship between God, the Christian church and human beings. It is a form of dispensationalism closely associated with E. W. Bullinger. It is distinguished from other forms of dispensationalism by its view that the Church begins at the end of Acts. Its adherents reject all sacraments, including baptism.

I urge you, encourage you, please find a reputable, or credible source, that is not tied to religious faith.
I usually tell persons, if you are going to link a source, please make sure it is not connected to religion.
The guy rejects baptism. What can he teach you.

Do you find something wrong with the definition I linked you to?

The text does not support this.

Actually, the Pharisees do not care about the message, or the prophets, but hates them.
That is a fact, in scripture.

Where was Lazarus at this time? Was he bones and decaying tissue in the grave or was he experiencing eternal life in paradise with Abraham? The rich man, in Hades, saw an apparently living person who he thought could literally be sent somewhere.

...and the birds saw the seed along the roadside, and plucked them up, and ate them.
That does not alter the fact that the birds is used in an illustrative way, to represent Satan who takes away the word that was sown in the heart.

Lazarus used in an illustrative way, to represent the accursed people, is seen by the rich man used to represent the religious leaders.
So, what is your point?
It's not an illustration, because Jesus gives the beggar a name?

Have you ever been to Sunday School, and heard your teacher use an illustration, with characters having unique names?
Would you conclude the teacher is not giving an illustration, because the characters have real names?
Is that reasonable?

The rich man in Hades was not asking for a message he was tormented in actual, literal flames and was asking for actual, literal H2O water.

Matthew 13:34-36

34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, 35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:​

“I will open My mouth in parables;​

I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”​

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”​

If you would like to understand Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus, you could ask Jesus, rather than try to dismiss it as an actual parable.
There is lots to learn from the parables of Jesus.

He did not tell them anything without using a parable. But privately He explained everything to His own disciples.
Mark 4:34​

This is possible.

If Lazarus was not Jesus' friend how was he in paradise with Abraham?

Are you saying that Lazarus - Jesus' friend - is a beggar?
The onus is on you to show that in scripture. You would not find it anywhere.
Jesus friend Lazarus, lives with his sisters Mary, and Martha. What is more, it was no more than a couple days after Jesus resurrected his friend Lazarus.

If Jesus had named the prodigal son John, would you conclude that Jesus was telling a true story about John? Really?

The rich man said I am tormented in the flames he was conscious and he could not leave the place he was.

Irrelevant to this passage.

However, rellevant to your assertions.

No, Jesus did not contrast Moses and the prophets with with one who rises from the dead.

Luke 16:29-31
29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”

Yes, he did. How do you read?
He referred to Moses and the prophets as living, and Lazarus as dead.
Now, I know you do know what contrast means, so why are you denying what is actually there?

Wrong! Moses and the prophets are figuratively speaking to the people then as they are figuratively speaking to the people now via the words recorded in scripture.

So Moses and the prophets are figuratively speaking, but the rich man is literally speaking? ???

Then what was the rich man being punished for? He closed his hand to Lazarus who didn't even get the crumbs from the rich man's table.

Yes. The religious leaders closed their hand to the "accursed people", and would not give them justice.

Insults do not merit a reasoned response.

Please do not change the subject.

Wrong!

The dictionary is wrong, and the scriptures are wrong? ???

According to Matthew Henry This parable "is intended to enforce that word of warning immediately going before, 'Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish; except you be reformed, you will be ruined, as the barren tree, except it bring forth fruit, will be cut down.'”

A British Nonconformist minister?
Why are you appealing to authority of religious people?
Would it not be the right thing to appeal to the scriptures. The word of God is truth. Not theologians.

It is not identified as a parable. If men do not do what is commanded in scripture they are cast out just as the salt is.

Are you aware that nearly every utterance of Jesus, is a parable? Obviously you are not aware.
Mark 7:15 is a parable.
Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him; but the things that come out of a man, these are what defile him.”

Most people are not aware of that.

Was the rich man asking for water for himself or for the brothers?

Evidently, both.
Only, he wanted a tip of it to cool his tongue.
Was that an answer to my question? Are you saying Jesus did not liken the message to water?
I'm not sure what your answer is. Can you give one, please.

 

[Der Alte]

...You do not know, nor understand the parable, or what Jesus is saying.

Nor do you. I earned a MDiv in grad school. 4+ decades ago.

You apparently, imagine some kind of miracle water that outs fire, and you imagine that it "might have been available in heaven".

I didn't say it was but the rich man seemed to think that Lazarus in Abrahams' bosom, a position NOT a place, had access to water.

You admit, you simply do not understand what Jesus is saying, and it is no wonder, for Jesus explained why. Matthew 13:13-15

You admit you do not understand what Jesus is saying.

I would not accept a theological argument from a British Anglican clergyman,

I am not interested in your prejudices, denominational biases and presuppositions.

Ultradispensationalism

Not interested in your denominational biases

I urge you, encourage you, please find a reputable, or credible source, that is not tied to religious faith.

Follow your own advice amigo. Which you have not done.

Do you find something wrong with the definition I linked you to?

Yes, no credible source cited.

Actually, the Pharisees do not care about the message, or the prophets, but hates them.
That is a fact, in scripture.

Not relevant to anything I said.

...and the birds saw the seed along ...

Not relevant to Lazarus and the rich man

Lazarus used in an illustrative way, to represent the accursed people, is seen by the rich man used to represent the religious leaders.
So, what is your point?
It's not an illustration, because Jesus gives the beggar a name?

You got it dood. Lazarus and the rich man is not identified as a parable by Jesus or His disciples. If Abraham was NOT in the place Jesus stated and did not say the words Jesus quoted then Jesus was lying. Jesus does not lie. In all the uncontested parables some anonymous person in history did the things mentioned. A widow lost coins, a shepherd lost sheep, etc.. You might be interested to know that two of the ECF considered Lazarus and the rich man to be factual.
...Tertullian - Treatise on the Soul Chap VII
...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.
...The Epistles of Cyprian. Epistle LIV 3
...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.

Have you ever been to Sunday School, and heard your teacher use an illustration, with characters having unique names?
Would you conclude the teacher is not giving an illustration, because the characters have real names? Is that reasonable?

Not relevant.

Matthew 13:34-36

Not relevant

If you would like to understand Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus, you could ask Jesus, rather than try to dismiss it as an actual parable.
There is lots to learn from the parables of Jesus.

Not from you. Too many denominational biases.

Mark 4:34

Not relevant.

Are you saying that Lazarus - Jesus' friend - is a beggar?

Jesus' friend Lazarus and the beggar Lazarus are not the same person. By the time Lazarus the beggar reached Abraham's bosom he was no longer a beggar.

The onus is on you to show that in scripture. You would not find it anywhere.
Jesus friend Lazarus, lives with his sisters Mary, and Martha. What is more, it was no more than a couple days after Jesus resurrected his friend Lazarus.
If Jesus had named the prodigal son John, would you conclude that Jesus was telling a true story about John? Really?

Jesus' friend Lazarus was not a poor beggar covered in sores. Thus irrelevant to Lazarus and the rich man.

Luke 16:29-31
29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”
Yes, he did. How do you read?
He referred to Moses and the prophets as living, and Lazarus as dead.
Now, I know you do know what contrast means, so why are you denying what is actually there?

Were Moses and the prophets literally alive when Jesus was speaking? Were they standing there with Abraham, who OBTW was a long time dead at that time. Was Lazarus apparently alive to the rich man when Jesus was speaking? The rich man could see Lazarus reclining in Abraham's bosum.

So Moses and the prophets are figuratively speaking, but the rich man is literally speaking? ???

Were Moses and the prophets literally standing there when Jesus was speaking? Or had they been dead for 100s of years?

Yes. The religious leaders closed their hand to the "accursed people", and would not give them justice.

Jesus did NOT press that point, directly or by implication

Please do not change the subject.

Quit insulting me.

The dictionary is wrong, and the scriptures are wrong? ???

Yours was as I have shown.

A British Nonconformist minister?
Why are you appealing to authority of religious people?
Would it not be the right thing to appeal to the scriptures. The word of God is truth. Not theologians.

Take your own advice dood.

Are you aware that nearly every utterance of Jesus, is a parable? Obviously you are not aware.
Mark 7:15 is a parable.
Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him; but the things that come out of a man, these are what defile him.”
Most people are not aware of that.

One verse does not a rule make.

Evidently, both.
Only, he wanted a tip of it to cool his tongue.
Was that an answer to my question? Are you saying Jesus did not liken the message to water?
I'm not sure what your answer is. Can you give one, please.

No Jesus did NOT liken the message to water. A person being tormented in flames would not be thinking/speaking logically. See

 

[CoreyD]

Nor do you. I earned a MDiv in grad school. 4+ decades ago.

I didn't say it was but the rich man seemed to think that Lazarus in Abrahams' bosom, a position NOT a place, had access to water.

You admit you do not understand what Jesus is saying.

I am not interested in your prejudices, denominational biases and presuppositions.

Not interested in your denominational biases

Follow your own advice amigo. Which you have not done.

Yes, no credible source cited.

Not relevant to anything I said.

Not relevant to Lazarus and the rich man

You got it dood. Lazarus and the rich man is not identified as a parable by Jesus or His disciples. If Abraham was NOT in the place Jesus stated and did not say the words Jesus quoted then Jesus was lying. Jesus does not lie. In all the uncontested parables some anonymous person in history did the things mentioned. A widow lost coins, a shepherd lost sheep, etc.. You might be interested to know that two the ECF considered Lazarus and the rich man to be factual.
...Tertullian - Treatise on the Soul Chap VII
...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.
...The Epistles of Cyprian. Epistle LIV 3
...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.


Not relevant.

Not relevant

Not from you. Too many denominational biases.

Not relevant.

Was a beggar. By the time Lazarus reached Abraham's bosom he was no longer a beggar.

Jesus' friend Lazarus was not a poor beggar covered in sores. Thus irrelevant to Lazarus and the rich man.

Were Moses and the prophets literally alive when Jesus was speaking? Were they standing there with Abraham, who OBTW was a long time dead at that time. Was Lazarus apparently alive to the rich man when Jesus was speaking? The rich man could see Lazarus reclining in Abraham's bosum.

Were Moses and the prophets literally standing there when Jesus was speaking? Or had they been dead for 100s of years?

Jesus did NOT press that point, directly or by implication

Quit insulting me.

Yours was as I have shown.

Take your own advice dood.

One verse does not a rule make.

No Jesus did NOT liken the message to water. A person being tormented in flames would not be thinking/speaking logically. See

It's dude - d u d e, Der.
Take care, and have a nice day.

 

[Der Alte]

It's dude - d u d e, Der.
Take care, and have a nice day.

I have two versions dude and dood for different occasions.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

Der Alte, you Replied to Cory:
“If Abraham was NOT in the place Jesus stated and did not say the words Jesus quoted then Jesus was lying. Jesus does not lie.“

This may be the first time you and I have agreed on anything. So, was Jesus lying to His disciples when He stated the following:

Mathew 13:10-15
Mark 4:11-12
Mark 4:33-34

You told Cory “one verse does not make a rule.” Well how about 10 verses?
If you take the words of Jesus, in the above verses I provided, literally and His words to be authoritative, then the passage in Luke 16 is in fact a parable, whether it fits your theological paradigm or not. Unless you believe He was speaking hyperbole?

Feel free to interject your own standard for deciding what constitutes a parable …

blessings …

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alte, you Replied to Cory:
“If Abraham was NOT in the place Jesus stated and did not say the words Jesus quoted then Jesus was lying. Jesus does not lie.“
This may be the first time you and I have agreed on anything. So, was Jesus lying to His disciples when He stated the following:
Mathew 13:10-15
Mark 4:11-12
Mark 4:33-34
You told Cory “one verse does not make a rule.” Well how about 10 verses?
If you take the words of Jesus, in the above verses I provided, literally and His words to be authoritative, then the passage in Luke 16 is in fact a parable, whether it fits your theological paradigm or not. Unless you believe He was speaking hyperbole?
Feel free to interject your own standard for deciding what constitutes a parable …
blessings …

Thank you for the insult. I did NOT interject my own standard for deciding what constitutes a parable … I started learning to speak Greek in Germany about 6 decades ago and studied Greek at the graduate level about 2 decades after that and I know the meaning of the Greek word parabole' i.e. "lay, throw beside," from which the English "parable" is derived. To whom was Jesus speaking in Luke 16 see vs.1?
Also in my post #121 above I cited one source for my view, which you seem to have ignored, and there are others. Also in my post #122 I cited 2 ECF who considered Lazarus and the rich man to be factual. I don't lose sleep over people arbitrarily rejecting sources I cite because they happen to contradict their strongly held assumptions and presuppositions.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

Thank you for the insult.

Not intended as an insult just an observation. ”You” and the other sources who you quote, to support your stance, ignore the plain straight forward words of Jesus. Also, stop playing the victim role in debates. Go back and read your own replies in threads and see if you are guiltless of such words.

I did NOT interject my own standard for deciding what constitutes a parable … I started learning to speak Greek in Germany about 6 decades ago and studied Greek at the graduate level about 2 decades after that and I know the meaning of the Greek word parabole' i.e. "lay, throw beside," from which the English "parable" is derived.

Never ceases to amaze me how many times you provide your credentials. It appears to be one of several tactics you use to deflect or ignore. They are as you say, irrelevant. You insist on pointing to a historical name in this parable and thus use it to override the words of Jesus. No debate. That is interjecting your own standard in to this parable. Show me from the lips of Jesus, in any of the provided Scripture I and others have given you, where Jesus gives instructions on parable interpretation, other than what He says plainly in the text.

To whom was Jesus speaking in Luke 16 see vs.1?
Nope. I asked you the same question in my previous reply to you with no reply. You get the same.

Also in my post #121 above I cited one source for my view, which you seem to have ignored, and there are others. Also in my post #122 I cited 2 ECF who considered Lazarus and the rich man to be factual. I don't lose sleep over people arbitrarily rejecting sources I cite because they happen to contradict their strongly held assumptions and presuppositions.

ECF were, are and always will be fallible men to whom many people give far too much credit because they lived closer to the time of Jesus and the Apostle.

blessings

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Sin cannot exist in God's presence

Seriously one of the most absurd positions ever foisted upon Christianity

God lived with sinners, loved sinners, and saves sinners.

I think God pretty much understands we are not as Perfect as He Is

IF our goal was to be as Perfect as God, we'd have to be God.

I doubt very much that I could ever "make myself" to be equal to God, so He could manage to "tolerate me" in His Presence

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

That does not alter the fact that the birds is used in an illustrative way, to represent Satan who takes away the word that was sown in the heart.

Brilliant deduction

The reason these matters are defined in parable is because 2 out of the 3 parties in the parables are unseen. They are "likened" so that we could perceive what is being conveyed.

It doesn't mean a parable isn't real. The parable is very real and presents that we have a very real enemy adversary and we have an equally Greater advocate Savior who is the ENEMY of our enemy.

The difficulty that we all have understanding the parable(s) is found in Mark 4:15, as you have rightfully noted.

And most readers can't even get the 3 basic parties on the table. They understand God in is the parable. They understand people are in the parable. But guess which one is always MISSING in the parable? yeah. pretty obvious.

When we understand that "I" engage the adversary within, the reality of the parable unfolds for all of us

 

[CoreyD]

Not intended as an insult just an observation. ”You” and the other sources who you quote, to support your stance, ignore the plain straight forward words of Jesus. Also, stop playing the victim role in debates. Go back and read your own replies in threads and see if you are guiltless of such words.

I did NOT interject my own standard for deciding what constitutes a parable … I started learning to speak Greek in Germany about 6 decades ago and studied Greek at the graduate level about 2 decades after that and I know the meaning of the Greek word parabole' i.e. "lay, throw beside," from which the English "parable" is derived.

Never ceases to amaze me how many times you provide your credentials. It appears to be one of several tactics you use to deflect or ignore. They are as you say, irrelevant. You insist on pointing to a historical name in this parable and thus use it to override the words of Jesus. No debate. That is interjecting your own standard in to this parable. Show me from the lips of Jesus, in any of the provided Scripture I and others have given you, where Jesus gives instructions on parable interpretation, other than what He says plainly in the text.

It's much easier to troll.

To whom was Jesus speaking in Luke 16 see vs.1?
Nope. I asked you the same question in my previous reply to you with no reply. You get the same.

ECF were, are and always will be fallible men to whom many people give far too much credit because they lived closer to the time of Jesus and the Apostle.

blessings

What is ECF?

 

[CoreyD]

Brilliant deduction

The reason these matters are defined in parable is because 2 out of the 3 parties in the parables are unseen. They are "likened" so that we could perceive what is being conveyed.

It doesn't mean a parable isn't real. The parable is very real and presents that we have a very real enemy adversary and we have an equally Greater advocate Savior who is the ENEMY of our enemy.

The difficulty that we all have understanding the parable(s) is found in Mark 4:15, as you have rightfully noted.

And most readers can't even get the 3 basic parties on the table. They understand God in is the parable. They understand people are in the parable. But guess which one is always MISSING in the parable? yeah. pretty obvious.

When we understand that "I" engage the adversary within, the reality of the parable unfolds for all of us

Why do you say the parable is real, because it includes things that are known?
Can a person not use an illustration of something known, without the illustration being real?

Oftentimes persons take words for granted. I hope that's not what you are doing. An illustration is used to explain a message, isn't it?
So, the message is what is given the focus, rather than the illustration.
In other words, the illustration, is not being used to inform us of what is said. It's used to help us get the point of what is represented by the illustration.

Would you agree with me?
May I ask though... Do you acknowledge and give consideration to what others say, or do you just stick to what you believe, and let that be the final word?
I ask, because, I notice that you have repeated yourself... I counted, nine times in this thread, with this same "formula", despite it being shown not to be a scriptural "formula", and you never did acknowledge, or give consideration to what was said to you.

Have you reached a final conclusion - which you have declared correct - on which no open discussion on it is to be considered?

 

[BNR32FAN]

In Christ's prophecy/parable the Pharisees would not believe the risen Lazarus (John 12:9-11) and therefore, contrary to their belief Abraham would prevent them from descending into Hades, a child of Abraham is depicted as paying the penalty for his sin. The conversation he has with Abraham lasts only a minute. Nothing is said to be eternal. We know all in Hades come out on Judgment Day. So how is it believers cite this as proof for eternal torment? Rather, it fits the 1st century apostolic concept of hades as a place where souls can repent and live according to God (1 Pet. 4:6):

11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:11-15 NKJ)


24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
25 "Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.
26 "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,
27 "and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man.
28 "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice
29 "and come forth-- those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. (Jn. 5:24-29 NKJ)


22 “So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 “And being in torments (931 βάσανος basanos) in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 “Then he cried and said, `Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented (3600 ὀδυνάω odunao) in this flame (5395 φλόξ phlox).’
25 “But Abraham said, `Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted (3870 παρακαλέω parakaleo) and you are tormented (3600 ὀδυνάω odunao). (Lk. 16:22-25 NKJ)

The Rich Man does not act like someone who is irreedemably wicked and is suffering Eternal Torment. So how can Bible Believers cite this as proof of eternal torment?

1)His demeanor is not that of a wicked eternally condemned man, he does not blaspheme either Abraham, Lazarus or God even when he doesn’t get what he asked for.
2)Abraham calls him “son…child” displaying affection which implies the rich man is not irredeemably wicked.
3)Both Abraham and many redeemed with him WANT to cross over into Hades to lessen the torment of the rich man. That would be rebellion against God’s Judgment and therefore implies the rich man ultimately would be saved.
4)The symbolic language implies a “torment” with a goal beyond retributive justice:

If the “torment” (3600 ὀδυνάω odunao) is the classic idea of hell-fire, the Rich Man would ask for a lot more than a little water to cool his tongue. Odunao here refers to mental anguish (Luke 2:48; 16:25; Acts 20:38). Its antithesis is parakaleo ‘to be consoled for sorrow’ like Lazarus (Lk. 16:25).

Christ chose the word “torment” (931 βάσανος basanos) to describe the Torment in Hades:

Meaning: 1) a touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal 2) the rack or instrument of torture by which one is forced to divulge the truth.-Strong’s Concordance



This “torment” is the kind that brings truth to the surface, resulting in “anguish” and “sorrow” (3600 ὀδυνάω odunao cp. Acts 20:38) for sin. The imagery of purging from sin is common in the Old Testament (Zech. 13:9; Ps. 51:7; 66:10; Isa. 1:25; 4:4; 6:7; 48:10; Ezek. 24:13; Dan. 11:35):

2 “But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire And like launderer’s soap.
3 He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver; He will purify the sons of Levi, And purge them as gold and silver, That they may offer to the LORD An offering in righteousness. (Mal. 3:2-3 NKJ)

In Luke 16:24 the “flame” (5395 φλόξ phlox) causes the “agony” or “anguish” (3600 ὀδυνάω odunao). The Rich Man is being purged (Mal. 3:3; Job 23:10; Zech. 13:9 cp. 1 Pet. 1:7) by the “flame of God’s inspection”: “His eyes like a flame” (Rev. 1:14; 2:18; 19:12). The “flame” is the “visible aspect of a fire that springs upward and is usually orange”(Logos Bible Sense Lexicon). God is revealed in the “flame” (Ex. 3:2; Judges 13:20; Isa. 66:15 LXX; Acts 7:30; 2 Thess. 1:8).

From all this one could reasonably infer the “torments of Hades” are designed to bring the true person to the surface, liberate their free will from all bondage to sin and delusion. After suffering for their sins “judged according to men in the flesh”, if they choose to believe the gospel preached to them in Hades they will “live according to God in the Spirit” apart from any torment, eagerly waiting for the Second Coming of Christ when they will rise with the dead in Christ.

23 It was necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ hasn't entered into holy places made with hands, which are representations of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
25 nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the holy place year by year with blood not his own,
26 or else he must have suffered often since the foundation of the world. But now once at the end of the ages, he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment,
28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, without sin, to those who are eagerly waiting for him for salvation. (Heb. 9:23-28 RPTE)

You missed a very important part in Revelation 20.

“And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭20‬:‭15‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's much easier to troll.


What is ECF?

Early Church Fathers, it means the early church writers after the apostles.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

It's much easier to troll.


What is ECF?

Early Church Fathers

 

[BNR32FAN]

The fact that you say, might have, is an admission that you don't know, nor understand.
So, please listen to the parable again.

Luke 16:24-31
24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’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.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’
It's right there in the parable Der.
The rich man said, "I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them..."
Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’
The water the rich man is asking for, is the message, but he only wants a tip - a watered down adulterated version of it.

The rich man does not care about the message, or the prophets. He hates them.
He said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’
Send the dead, and they will listen?
Are you seeing the parable yet?
If not, explain how the dead Lazarus will go to the living five brothers, please.

Since Jesus identified the water as the message, how is it not a parable? No. It is not a message in heaven, that God will send down. It is the message of the prophets that is being preached, and persons have the opportunity to hear, and respond to.

First of all Abraham was not in heaven he was in Sheol. The particular place he was in within Sheol is known as Abraham’s Bosom which was the place where the righteous go and the rich man wasn’t in the lake of fire he was in Hades which is the place of torment in Sheol where the wicked go. This isn’t heaven and hell it’s Sheol which is where both the righteous and the wicked went to await judgement day. Abraham’s Bosom is a place of paradise and Hades is a place of torture.

The water that the rich man was asking for was not the message and the portion right after the part you highlighted reveals that. “For/because I am tormented in this flame”. He’s asking for something to relieve him of his torment even just a tiny bit, it has nothing to do with his brothers. What he says afterwards was to try to save his brothers from the torment that he was in but what he said about the water was for the sole purpose of relieving him from the torment he was experiencing. That why he specifically said why he was asking for the water.

 

[Der Alte]

Not intended as an insult just an observation. ”You” and the other sources who you quote, to support your stance, ignore the plain straight forward words of Jesus. Also, stop playing the victim role in debates. Go back and read your own replies in threads and see if you are guiltless of such words.

I did NOT interject my own standard for deciding what constitutes a parable … I started learning to speak Greek in Germany about 6 decades ago and studied Greek at the graduate level about 2 decades after that and I know the meaning of the Greek word parabole' i.e. "lay, throw beside," from which the English "parable" is derived.

Never ceases to amaze me how many times you provide your credentials. It appears to be one of several tactics you use to deflect or ignore. They are as you say, irrelevant. You insist on pointing to a historical name in this parable and thus use it to override the words of Jesus. No debate. That is interjecting your own standard in to this parable. Show me from the lips of Jesus, in any of the provided Scripture I and others have given you, where Jesus gives instructions on parable interpretation, other than what He says plainly in the text.

To whom was Jesus speaking in Luke 16 see vs.1?
Nope. I asked you the same question in my previous reply to you with no reply. You get the same.

ECF were, are and always will be fallible men to whom many people give far too much credit because they lived closer to the time of Jesus and the Apostle.

blessings

And in response to the sources, plural. I quoted you give me your unsupported opinion and denominational biases. IF you think anything I posted is in error I will require more than your unsupported opinion. The ECF I cited know more about the Greek than you do so if you think they are wrong show me some credible scholarship, if you don't mind.
Speaking of fallible men I am conversing with one now I have yet to see any credible scholarship from you.

 

[ChristinaL]

Just gonna say this: The Catholics have purgatory, a temporary place of torment to burn off the rest of our sins. Which denomination are you? It does not matter, but the Catholics and maybe a few other denominations believe in purgatory.

Purgatory is a lie itself

 

[Alfred-Persson]

Purgatory is a lie itself

A corruption of apostolic truth; not a lie. They believe it. But classic Reformation depiction of hell is "protoCatholic", while purgatory was purged none of the other deviance from NT revelation was accomplished. They retained "immortal soul" and Greek myth about Hades.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

And in response to the sources, plural. I quoted you give me your unsupported opinion and denominational biases. IF you think anything I posted is in error I will require more than your unsupported opinion. The ECF I cited know more about the Greek than you do so if you think they are wrong show me some credible scholarship, if you don't mind.
Speaking of fallible men I am conversing with one now I have yet to see any credible scholarship from you.

Ah yes, the typical Der Alte reply. Dodge. Deflect. Redirect. Wash, rinse and repeat … Well my brother you have indeed honed those skills to a high level of proficiency. I don‘t need to provide you with anything other than the Scriptures. Why do I need to quote support from anyone? That mentality just promotes crowd approval mentality. I am no scholar, but I do know how to use basic biblical research tools. What I do posses that you do not is an open mind ready for discovery of whatever truth the Lord chooses to reveal. I am not afraid to be wrong. In fact, I desire the Lord to strip away from me any teaching I have embraced via orthodoxy or anything else.

PS I asked you a question several times in other threads you have yet to answer. If you answer that question honestly, you just might find the truth about the man who is hiding behind the curtain of religion. Freedom is a wonderful thing my friend and once God gives you a taste of it, you will never again allow yourself to be bound by the chains of orthodoxy.

blessings,
Free2bHeretical4Him!

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

Der Alte said:
And in response to the sources, plural. I quoted you give me your unsupported opinion and denominational biases.
So I need support from men to authenticate the veracity of the Scriptures? No thanks. I have the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. Denominational bias? ROTFL … I cut loose from that Tower of Babel never to return. Curious which denomination you assumed I was tethered to?

Speaking of fallible men I am conversing with one now I have yet to see any credible scholarship from you.

Agreed on my fallibility but credible scholarship? Gave you plenty from the greatest scholar the world has ever known and you sought out support from men who confirmed your own bias whom you trust more than the words of Jesus.

Blessings