Eternal Torment, Annihilation or Universal Reconciliation?

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

  • Eternal Torment

    Votes: 33 42.3%
  • Annihilation

    Votes: 16 20.5%
  • Universal Reconciliation

    Votes: 10 12.8%
  • Probably annihilation but still hopeful of universal reconciliation

    Votes: 5 6.4%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 10 12.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 5.1%

  • Total voters
    78

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, it means that any Jew wanting salvation, MUST accept the "one that rose from the dead".
Good answer! But wait a minute Jesus did not say that and Romans had not been written when Jesus talked about Lazarus and the rich man. So how would the Jews Jesus was talking to know that?
.....If the rich man being tormented in hades represented the kingdom being taken away from the Jews, and they understood that, they would have understood it was permanent. If the Jews did not understand that is what Jesus meant what was the purpose of Jesus saying it? Apparently nobody understood it for about 2000 years +/-. Was Jesus in the habit of saying things with no purpose?
 
Upvote 0

Dartman

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2017
1,311
221
71
Washington
✟27,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good answer! But wait a minute Jesus did not say that and Romans had not been written when Jesus talked about Lazarus and the rich man. So how would the Jews Jesus was talking to know that?
Jesus told them they needed to accept him.
John 8:24-30 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. 30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
Der Alter said:
.....If the rich man being tormented in hades represented the kingdom being taken away from the Jews, and they understood that, they would have understood it was permanent.
First, it is the fact that the rich man is NOT in "Abraham's bosom" that tells us they are no longer in the promises/kingdom.
Second, what makes you think they would have understood it was permanent?
There are MANY instances of Jehovah punishing the Jews, and yet keeping a remnant, or later returning them to the land.
Der Alter said:
If the Jews did not understand that is what Jesus meant what was the purpose of Jesus saying it? Apparently nobody understood it for about 2000 years +/-. Was Jesus in the habit of saying things with no purpose?
What makes you think they didn't get it?
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You keep making the same comments and arguments after I have already addressed them.
Luke 16:26
(26) And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
People on the bad side cannot cross over to the good side and people on the good side cannot cross over to the bad side. If the rich man's torment only lasted five minutes where did he go when it ended?
.....If this is a parable



I didn't say it is a parable & have already responded to your comment above:

In any case, the duration, nature & purpose of the torments the rich man was suffering are not revealed in this story. His torments there could have lasted less than 5 minutes.

"If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in the nether-world (Sheol/Hades/hell), behold, Thou art there." (Psalm 139:8)

We are told the rich man requested water. He seemed to think a few drops of water would ease his sufferings. Apparently this isn't served in "hell" (Hades), but whether or not alcohol & morphine is on the menu is not revealed. After all, God is omnipresent.

Luke 16:27-28 seems to show the rich man's concern for others. Perhaps he was beginning to have a change of heart. Supposedly that is the purpose of those in Hades recieving the word of the Lord, in this case via Abraham.

So does this story do more harm than good for the endless tormenting god position, even if taken literally?

Your version quoted speaks of a great gulf fixed stopping the transfer of persons from one place to the other place. It does not say this gulf will remain in place forever. Only that at that moment in time it was so. Possibly the chasm barrier refers to the unrepentant state of those in Hades, & that once they repent the barrier stopping any individual from leaving is removed. Nor does the passage deny the possibility of salvation to the rich man in Hades while he remains there.

According to the Jews (Pharisees) you love to quote thinking it supports your views, many of the wicked who descend to Gehenna/hell will come up again. Does this passage disprove what the Jews said? Or do you still say that Jesus never contradicted their beliefs?

Any proof that the story of the rich man & Lazarus disproves universalism is absent from your post.

They get out of "hell" (Luke 16:19-31) in Revelation 20:11-15, if not sooner.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jesus told them they needed to accept him.
Was the group of Jews Jesus was talking to in Lk 16 the same Jews that Jesus was talking to in Jn 8?
First, it is the fact that the rich man is NOT in "Abraham's bosom" that tells us they are no longer in the promises/kingdom.
Second, what makes you think they would have understood it was permanent?
There are MANY instances of Jehovah punishing the Jews, and yet keeping a remnant, or later returning them to the land.
What makes you think they didn't get it?
What makes me think the Jews in Luk 16 thought that what Abraham said about the rich man being in Hades was permanent. "And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." The Greek word translated "neither" μηδέ "but not, not even; in a continued negation,"
 
Upvote 0

Dartman

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2017
1,311
221
71
Washington
✟27,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Was the group of Jews Jesus was talking to in Lk 16 the same Jews that Jesus was talking to in Jn 8?
John 8 = Pharisees
Luke 16 = Pharisees.
Check.
Keep in mind, the things Jesus was doing were creating a stir in the entire region.
Here is just ONE example; Matt 9: 31 But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.
Der Alter said:
What makes me think the Jews in Luk 16 thought that what Abraham said about the rich man being in Hades was permanent. "And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." The Greek word translated "neither" μηδέ "but not, not even; in a continued negation,"
What would be the value of the parable then?
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
What would be the value of the parable then?
The simplest answer is that What Y'SHUA Spoke Accomplished All That ABBA YHWH Meant For It TO DO.

Like Parables in other Scripture, always as the Father intended.
(often more than all but a few men realize at all today)
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
John 8 = Pharisees
Luke 16 = Pharisees.
Check.
Keep in mind, the things Jesus was doing were creating a stir in the entire region.
Here is just ONE example; Matt 9: 31 But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.
What would be the value of the parable then?
You are correct Pharisees in both passages but different times and places. Jn 8 in the temple, Lk 16 apparently in the home of one of the Pharisees. Were the same Pharisees present at both events? Maybe, maybe not.
.....Since Jesus did not explain the story of Lazarus and the rich man maybe we should take it at face value instead of allegorizing, metaphorizing etc it? Perhaps the ECF got it right. Google the story and you get a whole boat load of different versions of the "real" meaning. Eenie, meenie, minie moe, take your pick.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yep, all the early church fathers were wrong and the church has been wrong for ca. 2000 years +/- until some folks came along who don't know an Aorist from an aardvark or a hithpael from a hatpin came up with the true truth. The ECF are right until proven wrong.


"Because I said so" isn't proof. Your claim is arbitrary. I could just as easily say they are wrong until you prove their right. As for the 2000 years, how long has the church taught that Christians go to heaven? It's been a long time. The problem is they don't.

As I said before in all the undisputed parables Jesus used ordinary, everyday things and events to introduce or explain a Biblical truth e.g. lost sheep, lost coins,
wayward son who squanders his money, unprepared wedding guests etc. nothing that was not within the experience of His audience.
.....These things/events could legitimately be used as illustrations because sometime in history a shepherd found a lost sheep, a widow found a lost coin, a wayward son returned home etc.
.....Jesus did not introduce the story of Lazarus/rich man as a parable and He did not explain it later to His disciples. The only thing Jesus' audience was familiar with was a beggar begging and a rich man living lavishly, so what is the ordinary everyday event that Jesus refers to that the kingdom of heaven is like unto?


The parable begins, "there was a certain rich man". That sure sounds like another parable. You don't know that He didn't explain it later. Just because it's not recorded doesn't mean He didn't do it.

In all of the undisputed
parables Jesus referred to anonymous persons, "a certain man,"'a certain rich man,""a certain widow" etc. The Lazarus/rich man story is not anonymous, two persons are named Lazarus and Abraham who was an actual historical person. If Abraham was not in the place Jesus mentioned and did not say the words Jesus quoted, then Jesus was a liar.

Just because He uses names doesn't necessitate that it's an actual event. If uses names there's probably a reason for it.

If you're going to claim is a literal event you're going to need to show a reason why it should be understood that way.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"Because I said so" isn't proof. Your claim is arbitrary. I could just as easily say they are wrong until you prove their right. As for the 2000 years, how long has the church taught that Christians go to heaven? It's been a long time. The problem is they don't.
Where have I even so much as implied "Because I said so?" I didn't, I quoted historical evidence. So it might be advisable to stick a little closer to truth. What you say against the ECF is irrelevant. Their writings have been accepted by the church since they were written so any objections must be supported with credible, verifiable, historical evidence not just empty objections,
The parable begins, "there was a certain rich man". That sure sounds like another parable. You don't know that He didn't explain it later. Just because it's not recorded doesn't mean He didn't do it.
The opening of the story of Lazarus and the rich man is the only thing that it has in common with the undisputed parables.
Just because He uses names doesn't necessitate that it's an actual event. If uses names there's probably a reason for it.
How did those who heard Jesus talking about Lazarus and Abraham, an actual historical person, understand it? Did they understand it as a parable or did they understand it as factual? I have posted credible, verifiable, historical evidence, what have you posted? Unsupported opinion.
If you're going to claim is a literal event you're going to need to show a reason why it should be understood that way.
I can't get inside Jesus' head but I gave you my reasons which you have ignored.
 
Upvote 0

Dartman

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2017
1,311
221
71
Washington
✟27,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are correct Pharisees in both passages but different times and places. Jn 8 in the temple, Lk 16 apparently in the home of one of the Pharisees. Were the same Pharisees present at both events? Maybe, maybe not.
.....Since Jesus did not explain the story of Lazarus and the rich man maybe we should take it at face value instead of allegorizing, metaphorizing etc it?
We can't.
1) We are told absolutely, Jesus spoke to them in parables, and didn't speak to them WITHOUT a parable.
2) The parable of the rich man and Lazarus starts EXACTLY like the other parable Jesus told in that same chapter.
3) All other Scripture describes death as sleep, no thoughts, no works, no actions, not alive, in the grave, etc.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dartman

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2017
1,311
221
71
Washington
✟27,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The opening of the story of Lazarus and the rich man is the only thing that it has in common with the undisputed parables.
Absolutely not true. The most critical point, the AUDIENCE, proves it was a parable;

Mark 4:33-34 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. 34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

Der Alter said:
How did those who heard Jesus talking about Lazarus and Abraham, an actual historical person, understand it?
One thing is certain.... we KNOW they didn't take it as literal.
They knew Abraham's chest cavity was dust LONG before this point.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where have I even so much as implied "Because I said so?" I didn't, I quoted historical evidence. So it might be advisable to stick a little closer to truth. What you say against the ECF is irrelevant. Their writings have been accepted by the church since they were written so any objections must be supported with credible, verifiable, historical evidence not just empty objections,


You said the ECF''s are right until proven wrong. That's akin to saying they're right because I said so. You've not given any proof that they're right, you've just stated they are.

However, if you need proof just compare what they said with what Paul said and you'll see they don't agree.


The opening of the story of Lazarus and the rich man is the only thing that it has in common with the undisputed parables

There you go it opens as a parable.


How did those who heard Jesus talking about Lazarus and Abraham, an actual historical person, understand it? Did they understand it as a parable or did they understand it as factual? I have posted credible, verifiable, historical evidence, what have you posted? Unsupported opinion.

How did they understand it? What did it mean to them? Why is this subject brought up when nowhere in the discourse of three chapters is the state of the dead mentioned? Why Abraham and not Moses? If you xan answer these questions the parable begin's to become clearer.

All you've given as evidence is the opimoons of the Churcb Fathers. You haven't even shown why I should believe they're correct. After all look how long the church has been teaching that Christians go to heaven and that's found nowhere in Scripture. Just because the Church believes something doesn't make it fact.


I can't get inside Jesus' head but I gave you my reasons which you have ignored.

I haven't ignored what you've said. You've given reasons, just no valid ones. Opinions aren't facts. What someone belives doesn't neccitate that it is a fact. And that many believe it doesn't make it a fact. If you can present some verifiable evidence as to why I should believe it's literal then great. However, the empirical evidence is against you. I've seen dead people and none have ever spoken
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Absolutely not true. The most critical point, the AUDIENCE, proves it was a parable;
Mark 4:33-34 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. 34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
Who does Luk 16:1 and 17:1 say was Jesus' primary audience and the Pharisees happened to overhear? Luke 16:14
One thing is certain.... we KNOW they didn't take it as literal. They knew Abraham's chest cavity was dust LONG before this point.
Abraham's bosom is not a place it is a position to the right, actually in front, of the host at a banquet. At that time diners reclincd on their left elbow, at a low table, with their feet extending away from the table. That is how a woman was able to wash Jesus' feet. Women did not crawl around under a western style table full of men they did not know.
Jewish Encyclopedia-ABRAHAM'S BOSOM:
In the New Testament and in Jewish writings a term signifying the abodeof bliss in the other world. According to IV Macc. xiii. 17, the righteous who die for their faith are received by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in paradise (compare Matt. viii. 11: "Many shall come from the east and the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven"). In Ḳid. 72b, Adda bar Ahaba, a rabbi of the third century, is said to be "sitting in the bosom of Abraham," which means that he has entered paradise. With this should be compared the statement of R. Levi (Gen. R. xlviii.): "In the world to come Abraham sits at the gate of Gehenna, permitting none to enter who bears the seal of the covenant" (see Circumcision).
In the Hellenistic Testament of Abraham it is Adam, the representative of humanity, who sits at the gate of hell and paradise; the Jewish view of later times placed Abraham, the progenitor of Israel, in Adam's place. This was also the view of the New Testament writers as presented in Luke, xvi. 19-31, the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Lazarus, the beggar, died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's Bosom; the rich man died and was put into Gehenna, where he saw Lazarus in the Bosom of Abraham, full of joy, whereas he suffered great torment. Thereat he cried: "Father Abraham, have mercy on me!" and finally he asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his father's house to admonish his five brothers to lead lives characterized by repentance, in order not to meet the same fate as his own. Whereupon Abraham said: "They have the law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets; let them be mindful of these, and they will enter paradise as well as Lazarus." On Lazarus (Eliezer) and Abraham see Geiger's "Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben," vii. 200. It is plain that Abraham is here viewed as the warden of paradise, like Michael in Jewish and St. Peter in Christian folk-lore ("Texts and Studies," v. 55, 69, Cambridge). Of Abraham as attorney pleading for Israel, R. Jonathan also speaks (Shab. 89b).
ABRAHAM'S BOSOM - JewishEncyclopedia.com
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
nd
We can't.
1) We are told absolutely, Jesus spoke to them in parables, and didn't speak to them WITHOUT a parable.
2) The parable of the rich man and Lazarus starts EXACTLY like the other parable Jesus told in that same chapter.
3) All other Scripture describes death as sleep, no thoughts, no works, no actions, not alive, in the grave, etc.
And we can just ignore the fact that every ECF who quoted or referred to Lazarus and the rich man because we have been taught that it is a parable and our teachers could not possibly be wrong!.
In Isa 14 there is a long passage about the king of Babylon dying, according to many the dead know nothing. They are supposedly annihilated, destroyed, pfft, gone! But God, Himself, speaking, these dead people in שאול/sheol, know something, they move, meet the dead coming to sheol, stir up, raise up, speak and say, etc.

Isa 14:9-11 (KJV)
9) Hell [שאול ] from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

10) All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
11) Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, [שאול] and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

[ . . . ]
22) For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.
In this passage God, himself is speaking, and I see a whole lot of shaking going on, moving, rising up, and speaking in . These dead people seem to know something, about something. We know that verses 11 through 14 describe actual historical events, the death of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.
Some will try to argue that this passage is figurative because fir trees don’t literally rejoice, vs. 8. They will try to argue that the passage must be figurative since God told Israel “take up this proverb against the king of Babylon.” vs. 4. The occurrence of one figurative expression in a passage does not prove that anything else in the passage is figurative. The Hebrew word משׁל/mashal translated “proverb” does not necessarily mean something is fictional. For example, Israel did not become fictional when God made them a mashal/proverb in 2 Chronicles 7:20, Psalms 44:14, and Jeremiah 24:9.

Here is another passage where God Himself is speaking and people who are dead in sheol, speaking, being ashamed, comforted, etc.

Ezek 32:18-22, 30-31 (KJV)
18) Son of man, [Ezekiel] wail for the multitude of Egypt, and cast them down, even her, and the daughters of the famous nations, unto the nether parts of the earth, with them that go down into the pit.
19) Whom dost thou pass in beauty? go down, and be thou laid with the uncircumcised.
20) They shall fall in the midst of them that are slain by the sword: she is delivered to the sword: draw her and all her multitudes.
21) The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell [שאול] with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword.

22) Asshur is there and all her company: his graves are about him: all of them slain, fallen by the sword::[ . . . ]
Eze 32:30-31
(30) There be the princes of the north, all of them, and all the Zidonians, which are gone down with the slain; with their terror they are ashamed of their might; and they lie uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword, and bear their shame with them that go down to the pit.
(31) Pharaoh shall see them, and shall be comforted over all his multitude, even Pharaoh and all his army slain by the sword, saith the Lord GOD.
The Jews considered Isa 14:9-10 to be factual. Guess they were wrong too?
Jewish Encyclopedia-GEHENNA (Hebr.גי הנם ; Greek, Γέεννα):
When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10).
GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You said the ECF''s are right until proven wrong. That's akin to saying they're right because I said so. You've not given any proof that they're right, you've just stated they are. ...
I'll get right on that just as soon as you start providing proof that all the people you quote are right. Tick tock. I accept the ECF as generally correct because their writings have been accepted by the church and scholars for many. many years.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'll get right on that just as soon as you start providing proof that all the people you quote are right. Tick tock. I accept the ECF as generally correct because their writings have been accepted by the church and scholars for many. many years.

I haven't quoted anyone. You're telling me I should accept that the parable of Lazarus and the rich man as an actual account. The only evidence you've given is the ECF''s. As I pointed out its their opinion. You can accept them blindly if you choose to, that's your perogative. However, that you choose to believe them doesn't make them right. I agree with the ECF''s in many areas, however, on this subject they missed the boat. Their views flatly contradict the apostle Paul. That the ECF''s cone from. Platonic background explains why they believed the way they did
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Who does Luk 16:1 and 17:1 say was Jesus' primary audience and the Pharisees happened to overhear? Luke 16:14

Abraham's bosom is not a place it is a position to the right, actually in front, of the host at a banquet. At that time diners reclincd on their left elbow, at a low table, with their feet extending away from the table. That is how a woman was able to wash Jesus' feet. Women did not crawl around under a western style table full of men they did not know.

Jewish Encyclopedia-ABRAHAM'S BOSOM:
In the New Testament and in Jewish writings a term signifying the abodeof bliss in the other world. According to IV Macc. xiii. 17, the righteous who die for their faith are received by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in paradise (compare Matt. viii. 11: "Many shall come from the east and the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven"). In Ḳid. 72b, Adda bar Ahaba, a rabbi of the third century, is said to be "sitting in the bosom of Abraham," which means that he has entered paradise. With this should be compared the statement of R. Levi (Gen. R. xlviii.): "In the world to come Abraham sits at the gate of Gehenna, permitting none to enter who bears the seal of the covenant" (see Circumcision).
In the Hellenistic Testament of Abraham it is Adam, the representative of humanity, who sits at the gate of hell and paradise; the Jewish view of later times placed Abraham, the progenitor of Israel, in Adam's place. This was also the view of the New Testament writers as presented in Luke, xvi. 19-31, the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Lazarus, the beggar, died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's Bosom; the rich man died and was put into Gehenna, where he saw Lazarus in the Bosom of Abraham, full of joy, whereas he suffered great torment. Thereat he cried: "Father Abraham, have mercy on me!" and finally he asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his father's house to admonish his five brothers to lead lives characterized by repentance, in order not to meet the same fate as his own. Whereupon Abraham said: "They have the law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets; let them be mindful of these, and they will enter paradise as well as Lazarus." On Lazarus (Eliezer) and Abraham see Geiger's "Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben," vii. 200. It is plain that Abraham is here viewed as the warden of paradise, like Michael in Jewish and St. Peter in Christian folk-lore ("Texts and Studies," v. 55, 69, Cambridge). Of Abraham as attorney pleading for Israel, R. Jonathan also speaks (Shab. 89b).
ABRAHAM'S BOSOM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

This article contains an error. It reads of the NT Writers that the rich man went to Gehenna. That is incrrect. The rich man went to Hades. That's a big difference and one way we know that it is a parable and not literal. We've got to be careful not to read our theology into the Scriptures
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This article contains an error. It reads of the NT Writers that the rich man went to Gehenna. That is incrrect. The rich man went to Hades. That's a big difference and one way we know that it is a parable and not literal. We've got to be careful not to read our theology into the Scriptures
You are entitled to your opinion. According to the quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia which I quoted more than once and everyone has ignored the Jews used Gehinnom/Gehenna and Sheol/Hades interchangeably. One should take their own advice re: reading their theology into Scripture.
.....There is a difference between accepting something blindly and accepting something which has been around for 1700 years +/- and has been thoroughly reviewed by scholars for years and found to be generally correct.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are entitled to your opinion. According to the quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia which I quoted more than once and everyone has ignored the Jews used Gehinnom/Gehenna and Sheol/Hades interchangeably. One should take their own advice re: reading their theology into Scripture.

You do realize these sources you quote aren't infallible don't you?

Using Hades and Gehenna interchangeably would go a long way in explaining how this erroneius understanding of the parable came about. They are two completely different places.

That's part of the problem. Just because something has been around for 1700 years doesn't make it true. The theory of Evolution has been around for hundreds of years, that doesn't make it true. Having something believed by scholars evaluated by said scholars doesn't necessitate that it is true either. Having a majority belief doesn't make something true. As I've pointed out several times now. The majority of Christians believe they go to Heaven when they die. That doesn't make it true. However, following something that you can't prove is true is blindly following. It's easy enough to check. All we have to do is look at the Scriptures. We see that the ECF''s on this subject contradict the apostle Paul, therefore they are wrong.

It's easy to verify whether the the parable is lateral or not. All we have to do is read it. It has dead people talking. Dead people can't talk, thus it is a parable.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You do realize these sources you quote aren't infallible don't you?

According to Der Alter, based on info from the circa 1900 Jewish Encyclopedia:

As I said and which you have talked around but not addressed Jesus never contradicted these Jewish beliefs
• The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell.
• hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away"
• All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them
• heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jew.
• When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [שׁאול/Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them
• chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment
• "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity"
• The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment,
• they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation,
•"And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched."
• Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed And their forms wasteth away in the nether world,"
 
Upvote 0