Happiness in Heaven while Loved Ones Fry in Hell?

[Jesus: From Gen to Rev]

Saying the Bible should be helpful on a personal level and stating it was meant to be used by individuals to independently develop their own theology are not the same thing. The denial of the later is also not a denial of the first.

I would argue the idea one should be able to arrive or verify independently using only the Bible any given theology would frequently lead to error, which would be neither helpful or benefit to a believer.

Dear DrBubbaLove, I see you are a Catholic, and if I understand your reply correctly, you are saying one cannot safely rely on the Bible alone.

I came out of Catholicism on reading the Bible - it stripped away the forms and traditions of man that Catholicism had imposed in place of a pure Thus Saith the Lord.

I will rely on the Bible thanks, not man's interpretation of it.

Please forgive me if I misunderstood what you were saying, as it was couched obscurely and philosophically rather than Biblically.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Dear DrBubbaLove, I see you are a Catholic, and if I understand your reply correctly, you are saying one cannot safely rely on the Bible alone.

I came out of Catholicism on reading the Bible - it stripped away the forms and traditions of man that Catholicism had imposed in place of a pure Thus Saith the Lord.

I will rely on the Bible thanks, not man's interpretation of it.

Please forgive me if I misunderstood what you were saying, as it was couched obscurely and philosophically rather than Biblically.

No aplogies necessarry - not taking anything personally. Late in life I converted to Catholicism, in part because I recognized in my journey as a Christian the issues with saying we need no external teaching Authority to guide us.
The Trinity is a good example. Not explicitly taught or at least not immediately obvious from just reading the Bible alone. So absent a body of teaching Authority (Magesterium - that is not a person BTW) that works in addition to and supportive of the Bible and both of those all mutually supportive working with teachings from the Apostles passed down through them to us (Tradition) from God Himself, we would be left with only a one legged stool of the Bible. That single legged stool always felt unstable to me, easily tilted this way or that. Even the guy on the road trying to understand the OT needed help and God said go and teach, not go and create a Bible to pass out to let people teach themselves.

So I found the three legged stool the Church offered infinitely more stable than the Bible alone I already had. Am glad you found a place that strengthens your faith and hope it continues to do so.

 

[Der Alte]

Dear Der Alter, thank you for your reply, but I noticed that the theology espoused is relying on external evidence to prove the Bible, rather than allowing the Bible to self-interpret, then finding the external evidence to support what the Bible actually teaches.

I appreciate this attempt to lecture me but I have not seen anything which disproves the evidence I provided. In order to instruct about correct interpretation one must know something about the languages involved. Do you read either of the Biblical languages? I do. I began learning to speak Greek the year that Elvis and I were stationed in Germany and I formally studied both Biblical languages about two decades later.
I speak more than one language. If I wish to know the meaning of a word I am not familiar with, I ask a native speaker of that language or consult an accredited dictionary of that language. Have you by any chance looked up the meaning of sheol in a Hebrew lexicon? You might have noticed I consulted the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud for the meaning of the word. I am sure that the Jewish scholars who compiled those two references knew the meaning of the Hebrew word sheol and therefore used it advisedly. Despite some imaginary "law of first mention."

It seems to me that "the law of first mention" seems to have something to it when it comes to Bible theology. Essentially, the first time (chronologically) a concept is mentioned in Scripture, the remainder of the Bible agrees with it.

Having studied the Bible and Biblical languages for several decades I do not know of any "law of first mention." There may be a general practice but woodenly applying this could result in the lexical fallacy "Root fallacy" i.e. "assigning the (supposed) original meaning of a word to its usages throughout history;"

May I safely assume that all understand that the first two books of the Bible written are Job and Genesis (and we don't need to wrangle about which was first here because ...)
The first mention of sheol in each is as follows ...
Genesis 37 (grave in v35)
34 And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days.
35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him.
Job 14 (grave in v13)
12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.
13 O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!
14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
15 Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.
Surely no Christian nor Jew would care to suggest that Jacob and Job were talking of going into hell fire? Job even goes the extra mile in speaking of the future resurrection.

Arguments in support of a false premise. While the word "sheol" can mean grave.

Proverbs 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. ​

Can physical punishment deliver a misbehaving child from the grave?

All the righteous in sheol will be resurrected at Jesus' return, but the unrighteous will remain in the grave for 1000 years longer, then be resurrected, then burn up in hell (gehenna) fire.

Scripture?

The punishment is eternal, not the flames. The fire can't be quenched by anyone - it will do its work until there is nothing left to burn.
Jude 7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, ."
Surely nobody would try to suggest that Sodom and Gomorrha are still in flame today. Check the Bible's use of the Greek word behind 'eternal' here - from the Bible please.

I did check the Bibles's use of the word "eternal." The word "eternal" is an adjective and it only modifies one word in this proof text. "Eternal" does not modify the word "suffering" and it does not modify the word "vengeance." The verse says "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" This verse says only the fire is eternal, not the suffering or the vengeance.

"Give me the Bible, the blessed Bible, this my only question be; The teachings of me so often deceive me, what says the Bible to me?" (unknown author to me.)

Because anyone can pull together some Bible quotes and external "proofs", we need to individually sit down with the Bible alone first and see what it actually says itself, by comparing Scripture with Scripture. seemingly hard texts: leave aside temporarily until the easier ones are understood correctly, then come back and the seemingly hard ones will fit correctly.

I saw only one verse of scripture in your post. That is an example of "pull together some Bible quotes and external 'proofs'" And as I said above I have formally studied both Biblical languages and am not in need of instruction on how to study languages from someone who does not have more formal education than I do.

Please do not entrust your understanding to anyone but God, through His Holy Bible.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.​

 

[Jesus: From Gen to Rev]

... Do you read either of the Biblical languages? I do. I began learning to speak Greek the year that Elvis and I were stationed in Germany and I formally studied both Biblical languages about two decades later.
I speak more than one language. If I wish to know the meaning of a word I am not familiar with, I ask a native speaker of that language or consult an accredited dictionary of that language. Have you by any chance looked up the meaning of sheol in a Hebrew lexicon? You might have noticed I consulted the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud for the meaning of the word.

Dear Der Alter, in light of 2 Tim 3:7 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.", while I am all for as much knowledge about God as I can possibly get, I am never impressed nor intimidated by the professions of one's superior knowledge through formal learning, or number of years spent learning, unless they actually have the Truth as found in Scripture.

As far as relying on the correct understanding of a word as used in Scripture, from sources outside of Scripture, this can lead to misinterpreting parts of the Bible. I would never rely on a modern Greek person telling what the Bible taught - I know this first hand from a Greek JW. He was their Greek 'expert' locally in my home town area.

I have interaction with Chinese in China. The Bible story from Creation to the Tower of Babel is found within their own characters (their pictograms and ideograms), yet they can not correctly give you the etymology of the characters. They are too far removed from the truth, even though the Emperor's border sacrifices to the God of Heaven only stopped in relatively recent times.

Whilst I too make use of the Talmud, etc., I am aware of the inconsistency within, and the fact that the Jews who wrote them were not Christian.

I am further aware of the plight of the Jews of the OT in their misinterpretation of Scripture, and their departure from Truth at times.

For me, the safest way to find Truth is to rely on that which I know to be fully inspired by God, and 100% harmonious.

By the way, yes I do rely heavily on the original languages for my studies, and have even dabbled in the Ancient Hebrew - but I am very far from holding myself up as an expert, as I know I am not.

If you don't mind, I'm going to be even more blunt now. I do not take the theology of commandment breakers seriously. I see you are a Baptist, and you tell me your credentials and fondness for the Truth. My friend, are you a seventh-day Sabbath keeper, or do you have Sunday in its place?

 

[Der Alte]

Dear Der Alter, in light of 2 Tim 3:7 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.", while I am all for as much knowledge about God as I can possibly get, I am never impressed nor intimidated by the professions of one's superior knowledge through formal learning, or number of years spent learning, unless they actually have the Truth as found in Scripture.

And are you claiming to be the sole depository of Biblical truth? Are you quoting 2 Timothy 3:7 as referring to yourself or is it directed at me?

As far as relying on the correct understanding of a word as used in Scripture, from sources outside of Scripture, this can lead to misinterpreting parts of the Bible. I would never rely on a modern Greek person telling what the Bible taught - I know this first hand from a Greek JW. He was their Greek 'expert' locally in my home town area.

Irrelevant! I didn't quote any modern anything.

I have interaction with Chinese in China. The Bible story from Creation to the Tower of Babel is found within their own characters (their pictograms and ideograms), yet they can not correctly give you the etymology of the characters. They are too far removed from the truth, even though the Emperor's border sacrifices to the God of Heaven only stopped in relatively recent times.

Not relevant to this discussion.

Whilst I too make use of the Talmud, etc., I am aware of the inconsistency within, and the fact that the Jews who wrote them were not Christian.

Biased irrelevant argument. Of course the Jews were not Christian which has nothing to do with anything. Only Jews can inform us the correct interpretation of Hebrew scriptures.

I am further aware of the plight of the Jews of the OT in their misinterpretation of Scripture, and their departure from Truth at times.

More unsupported irrelevant arguments which do not directly address anything I posted.

For me, the safest way to find Truth is to rely on that which I know to be fully inspired by God, and 100% harmonious.

And how do you do that?

בטח אל־יהוה בכל־לבך ואל־בינתך אל־תשׁען׃​

By the way, yes I do rely heavily on the original languages for my studies, and have even dabbled in the Ancient Hebrew - but I am very far from holding myself up as an expert, as I know I am not.

Nor am I an expert but I am knowledgeable enough to know when someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes claiming they have the "correct" interpretation and I don't.

If you don't mind, I'm going to be even more blunt now. I do not take the theology of commandment breakers seriously. I see you are a Baptist, and you tell me your credentials and fondness for the Truth. My friend, are you a seventh-day Sabbath keeper, or do you have Sunday in its place?

Your views on this matter are irrelevant and have no bearing on this discussion. If you wish to discuss those points please take them to the proper thread. Can you or can you not provide a reasoned discussion of the scripture and points I have posted without ad hominems?
Perhaps you could go back to my previous post and address more, hopefully all, of the points I made?

 

[Doveaman]

If God can make finite, fallible, imperfect man immortal, don't you think He can do the same with worms if He chooses?

Sure He can, but He won't. Worms were not created to inherit eternal life.

 

[Doveaman]

Correct they are eternally dead, but in this case not totally destroyed by death in that an experience is being depicted.

Dead people have no experiences, that's why they are called "dead people".

A person who is spiritual dead have no experience of God.

A person who is eternally dead have no experience at all:

"No one remembers you when he is dead...For the living know they will die; But the dead know nothing" -- (Psalms 6:5, Ecclesiastes 9:5).

That very negative experience is being compared to another painful experience - chopping off one's on limb for example. And the point is one experience is said to be far better than the other, as in one should prefer one over the other to avoid the worse experience.

Christ is here describing the experience of the living, not the dead.

The worse experience humans will have is eternal death when cast into hell.

Losing your life eternally is worse than losing a limb temporarily.

That is the point Christ is making.

Both are personal experience - things applicable to only a person. So a personal experience - "their worm never dies". There would literally be no sense of speaking of a particular personal experience if there is no person left to experience it.

"Their worm never dies" is not describing the experience of the dead, but the experience of the worm (an allegory of course).

The dead have no experience:

"No one remembers you when he is dead...For the living know they will die; But the dead know nothing" -- (Psalms 6:5, Ecclesiastes 9:5).

 

[Der Alte]

Sure He can, but He won't. Worms were not created to inherit eternal life.

Jesus said "cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." That is a very good indication that the fire is never quenched and the worm does not die.<period>!" When Jesus spoke these words many of the Jews who heard Him believed it to be literal not figurative.
.....If the Jewish belief was wrong would Jesus teach what He did which supported that belief, rather than teaching that their belief was wrong?

Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
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, this is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT the bias of Christian translators.]
n general …sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell (B.M. 83b).
But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b). 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 (B. M. 58b).
… heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b). When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "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" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b).
Link:Jewish Encyclopedia Online
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1. The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [follower of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]: "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, as it is written [Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more. Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
Link:Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.​

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Anything to do with Molech involves emotions which is associated with the flesh, and the annihilation of another.

Lust (Molech) (Emotions) (Flesh)
1)Superficial Commitment

Ezekiel 33:31-32
31 My people come to you, as they usually do, and sit before you to listen to your words, but they do not put them into practice. With their mouths they express devotion, but their hearts are greedy for unjust gain.
32 Indeed, to them you are nothing more than one who sings love songs with a beautiful voice and plays an instrument well, for they hear your words but do not put them into practice.

Cure= Faith in Action

 

[Jesus: From Gen to Rev]

בטח אל־יהוה בכל־לבך ואל־בינתך אל־תשׁען׃

You make my point here, which is why I stepped out of my comfort zone in complete faith in entrusting my entire life to Him, which included accepting His Holy Sabbath day.

For other readers ... the Hebrew quoted is Prov 3:5 "Trust to YHWH (the LORD) with all your heart and to your understanding not do lean".

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Dead people have no experiences, that's why they are called "dead people".

A person who is spiritual dead have no experience of God.

A person who is eternally dead have no experience at all:

"No one remembers you when he is dead...For the living know they will die; But the dead know nothing" -- (Psalms 6:5, Ecclesiastes 9:5).
Christ is here describing the experience of the living, not the dead.

The worse experience humans will have is eternal death when cast into hell.

Losing your life eternally is worse than losing a limb temporarily.

That is the point Christ is making.
"Their worm never dies" is not describing the experience of the dead, but the experience of the worm (an allegory of course).

The dead have no experience:

"No one remembers you when he is dead...For the living know they will die; But the dead know nothing" -- (Psalms 6:5, Ecclesiastes 9:5).

Again and simpler. How can an experience that is claimed to be no experience be said to be worse that an actually real horrible experience?

Exactly the point. You would have us believe Christ is equating an actually horrible real experience as being somehow better than nothing at all. You cannot claim something that is nothing is worse than something that is really and actually a horrible experience (cutting one's own limb for example). So to reduce a comment about Hell to saying the "not experiencing anything of it" is worse than anything is to create an impossibility. On what possible basis can we suggest a thing which is "not a thing" is worse that something horrible?

And to then rephrase the statement of a false notion of how bad "nothing" is and further confound His Words, by suggesting we could imagine a worm living for ever is worse than our chopping off our own limb is a huge leap. What is so horrible about imagining the longevity of an animal that we should rather cut are own limb off.

All of those are nonsensical comparisons to cutting off one's own limbs.

 

[Der Alte]

You make my point here, which is why I stepped out of my comfort zone in complete faith in entrusting my entire life to Him, which included accepting His Holy Sabbath day.
For other readers ... the Hebrew quoted is Prov 3:5 "Trust to YHWH (the LORD) with all your heart and to your understanding not do lean".

And once again you have ignored the bulk of my post. Your comment does not make sense to me. How could something I posted here today be the reason "why [you] stepped out of [your] comfort zone in complete faith in entrusting [your] entire life to Him, which included accepting His Holy Sabbath day," sometime in the past?"
This may be true, but I have also"stepped out of my comfort zone in complete faith in entrusting my entire life to Him" and I have had many, many experiences walking with the Lord which have further validated and reinforced my faith and beliefs.

 

[Der Alte]

Dead people have no experiences, that's why they are called "dead people".
A person who is spiritual dead have no experience of God.

A person who is eternally dead have no experience at all:

Abraham, the rich man and Lazarus seemed to be having experiences after death in Luke 16:19-31. And see quote at the bottom two passages which speak of the dead in sheol/hades having experiences

"No one remembers you when he is dead...For the living know they will die; But the dead know nothing"

-- (Psalms 6:5, Ecclesiastes 9:5).
Christ is here describing the experience of the living, not the dead.

Proverbs 6:5 is often quoted out-of-context, to prove that dead is dead and the dead know nothing, etc. A form of the phrase "under the sun" occurs 29 times in Prov., 6 times in chapter 9. So vs. 5 should be understood as "the dead know nothing[under the sun]"

The worse experience humans will have is eternal death when cast into hell.

According to you are the dead in hell conscious? For many, perhaps most, people death is no more a "worse experience" than going to sleep.

Losing your life eternally is worse than losing a limb temporarily.

The choice is not either/or. If the dead know nothing how is that worse than anything?

That is the point Christ is making.
"Their worm never dies" is not describing the experience of the dead, but the experience of the worm (an allegory of course).
The dead have no experience:

"No one remembers you when he is dead...For the living know they will die; But the dead know nothing" -- (Psalms 6:5, Ecclesiastes 9:5).

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, 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. ​

 

[Jesus: From Gen to Rev]

Abraham, the rich man and Lazarus seemed to be having experiences after death in Luke 16:19-31

Dear Der Alter, surely you are not trying to suggest that this it literal? Do you really believe that anyone in "Abraham's bosom" would be communicating with those in "hell"? The saved having a conversation with the lost, after they've both died?

These are rhetorical questions, please don't bother answering. It's just too absurd to consider this passage as anything other than parabolic.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Dear Der Alter, surely you are not trying to suggest that this it literal? Do you really believe that anyone in "Abraham's bosom" would be communicating with those in "hell"? The saved having a conversation with the lost, after they've both died?

These are rhetorical questions, please don't bother answering. It's just too absurd to consider this passage as anything other than parabolic.

I'll bother because the rebuttal it is "too absurd" bothers me.

I think the depiction would be understood as well as familiar to the audience hearing it as a real thing, having long held general beliefs of two different abodes for good and bad people in the next life, separated by an impassable void, one side suffering the other not. Abraham bosom would represent to them a promise to Abraham to which they associate inheritance - not literally an actually belly of a dead guy.
So yeah, a real depiction.
Communication? Why not, but I could take that part as not being literal as well.

So to me one issue for claiming it is just a parable, besides not being in the familiar format of one, it is giving credence to a belief God would know these people already held. Which if the belief really is that much in error, giving credence to it is not just deceptive it is intentionally leading them away from the truth by helping to strengthen the belief.

 

[Jesus: From Gen to Rev]

I'll bother because the rebuttal it is "too absurd" bothers me.

I think the depiction would be understood as well as familiar to the audience hearing it as a real thing, having long held general beliefs of two different abodes for good and bad people in the next life, separated by an impassable void, one side suffering the other not. Abraham bosom would represent to them a promise to Abraham to which they associate inheritance - not literally an actually belly of a dead guy.
So yeah, a real depiction.
Communication? Why not, but I could take that part as not being literal as well.

So to me one issue for claiming it is just a parable, besides not being in the familiar format of one, it is giving credence to a belief God would know these people already held. Which if the belief really is that much in error, giving credence to it is not just deceptive it is intentionally leading them away from the truth by helping to strengthen the belief.

Thank you for your humble comment DrBubbaLove. I am pleased to share the following with you, for you and the other readers to consider please ...

1.

Remember how Paul approached the his witnessing about Jesus to the Athenians - he didn't cause them to raise their defenses by telling them that their belief in multiple gods was wrong, he approached them by using what they already believed (even though their belief was wrong) ...

Acts 17
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. ...
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.


2.

The context of "Lazarus and the Rich Man" is that it follows straight after a parable Jesus used to teach His disciples, and all others present.

In the parable the dishonest servant is the one who receives salvation. Jesus was not teaching that we should practice dishonesty to achieve salvation, however He was teaching the necessity of using present opportunities, in this current life, to gain salvation. Then ...

Luke 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

Jesus then turns his attention to the showing the Pharisees about themselves, using as His basis for teaching them, the current thinking that had infiltrated Judaism by then.

So that I am not quoting from my own Church, I found a free PDF online of ...
"A Critical and Exegetical Commentary - Gospel According to St Luke."

It says ... "The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man" on p.487.

Please download the PDF and read the entire commentary on the two parables.

The Pharisees had placed more importance of being in the lineage of Abraham than following the True God of Heaven. Jesus addressed that too, by including in the parable the Rich Man addressing Abraham. Surely God would have been the more appropriate one to ask for help?

I will address another issue here. There are those Christians who believe we contain a soul, and at death we either go to Heaven or hell, or even limbo if you are a Catholic. They then tell me that at Jesus' second coming He resurrects the body and places the soul back in it. None of this is Biblical.

All who die are dead, (comma, not a full-stop) - Jesus called it "sleep". When Jesus comes He will raise the righteous dead, change the righteous living, and all the Righteous will then, and only then, be with Him - (1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:51-54; John 14:1-3, etc.). Only at the end of the 1000 years will all the unrighteous be raised (Rev 20:5(a)).

But lets run with the scenario that I say is not Biblical. Let's pretend it is for a moment for this discussion ...

How come, if the soul is what goes to Abraham's bosom or to hell upon death, that the 'story' speaks of Lazarus and the Rich Man in physical, bodily terms?

Luke 16
24 And 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.

These are body parts - 'finger' and 'tongue'.

No, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, straight after the parable He used to the disciples, etc., and the two parables were to show the two opposite outcomes. His parable to the Pharisees was to address their ...

v.25 "But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented."

 

[Der Alte]

Dear Der Alter, surely you are not trying to suggest that this it literal? Do you really believe that anyone in "Abraham's bosom" would be communicating with those in "hell"? The saved having a conversation with the lost, after they've both died?

This I do not understand. There are many miraculous events depicted in scripture, for example, how was Satan able to show Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time?" Luke 4:5. Is that also a parable because we as finite humans cannot do that?
.....Do you know what "Abraham's bosom" refers to? It is not a place, it is a position. "In the bosom" is the position at a feast immediately to the front or right of the host. They did not eat sitting in chairs at a table but reclining on their left elbow, at a low table, with their feet away from the table. That is how the woman was able to anoint Jesus' feet with her tears. Luke 7:38. A woman unknown to the guests would not be crawling around under a table at the feet of men she did not know.
.....Now is the story of Lazarus and the rich man a parable or factual? Every native Greek speaking early church father who quotes or refers to the story considered it factual.

–٠Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies Book II [pupil of Polycarp, who was a pupil of John the apostle]
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
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 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. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead.
٠Tertullian [A.D. 145-220.] Treatise on the Soul
ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
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.
٠Tertullian On Idolatry
ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Thus, too, Eleazar in Hades, (attaining refreshment in Abraham’s bosom) and the
rich man, (on the other hand, set in the torment of fire) compensate, by an answerable retribution, their alternate vicissitudes of evil and good.
٠ Clement Of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor “
There was a certain man,” said the Lord, narrating, “very rich, who was clothed in purple and scarlet, enjoying himself splendidly every day.” This was the hay. “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.
٠ 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.​

These are rhetorical questions, please don't bother answering. It's just too absurd to consider this passage as anything other than parabolic.

This demurring will not deter me from pointing errors and questionable arguments.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Thank you for your humble comment DrBubbaLove. I am pleased to share the following with you, for you and the other readers to consider please ...

1.

Remember how Paul approached the his witnessing about Jesus to the Athenians - he didn't cause them to raise their defenses by telling them that their belief in multiple gods was wrong, he approached them by using what they already believed (even though their belief was wrong) ...

Acts 17
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. ...
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.


2.

The context of "Lazarus and the Rich Man" is that it follows straight after a parable Jesus used to teach His disciples, and all others present.

In the parable the dishonest servant is the one who receives salvation. Jesus was not teaching that we should practice dishonesty to achieve salvation, however He was teaching the necessity of using present opportunities, in this current life, to gain salvation. Then ...

Luke 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

Jesus then turns his attention to the showing the Pharisees about themselves, using as His basis for teaching them, the current thinking that had infiltrated Judaism by then.

So that I am not quoting from my own Church, I found a free PDF online of ...
"A Critical and Exegetical Commentary - Gospel According to St Luke."

It says ... "The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man" on p.487.

Please download the PDF and read the entire commentary on the two parables.

The Pharisees had placed more importance of being in the lineage of Abraham than following the True God of Heaven. Jesus addressed that too, by including in the parable the Rich Man addressing Abraham. Surely God would have been the more appropriate one to ask for help?

I will address another issue here. There are those Christians who believe we contain a soul, and at death we either go to Heaven or hell, or even limbo if you are a Catholic. They then tell me that at Jesus' second coming He resurrects the body and places the soul back in it. None of this is Biblical.

All who die are dead, (comma, not a full-stop) - Jesus called it "sleep". When Jesus comes He will raise the righteous dead, change the righteous living, and all the Righteous will then, and only then, be with Him - (1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:51-54; John 14:1-3, etc.). Only at the end of the 1000 years will all the unrighteous be raised (Rev 20:5(a)).

But lets run with the scenario that I say is not Biblical. Let's pretend it is for a moment for this discussion ...

How come, if the soul is what goes to Abraham's bosom or to hell upon death, that the 'story' speaks of Lazarus and the Rich Man in physical, bodily terms?

Luke 16
24 And 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.

These are body parts - 'finger' and 'tongue'.

No, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, straight after the parable He used to the disciples, etc., and the two parables were to show the two opposite outcomes. His parable to the Pharisees was to address their ...

v.25 "But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented."

And thank you for the humble and civil reply.
A few points made I feel compelled to respond to and make some disclosure clear first and then I will reply in another post. This is not meant to further debate or discussion these points, so if anyone has such an interest please invite us to another thread. I just want to be sure my point of reference for my reply is understood by everyone reading and not have any assume something said in the above post agrees with my point of reference.

Soul sleep, even when most of my life was spent protesting the Church, was never something I believed in, but I heard it expressed not infrequently by other protestors, understand it and familiar with the view. Also having a soul is not denied by most Christians, including most Protestants, so that is something I have always believed in, as well as the idea the human soul is our spirit and not the concept of some Christians that we have both a spirit and a soul. And with these beliefs, that we have a soul and a body, our conscience (and person in terms of identity) is a part/function of the soul, it departs after death and remains "us" so we are conscience but without a body - a new experience in that we are seeming thereby denied normal sensory input. Those ideas are fully in line with the Catholic faith, so that part of Protesting beliefs came with me into the Church. Others I had to and have left behind.

Limbo is something I had to pick up as a convert to Catholicism. It has never been properly taught as a "place" (for that matter technically neither has Heaven or Hell either). Limbo is understood to be a necessary process for a believer to enter into God's Presence, kind of like taking one's shoes off and cleaning the feet before entering a home, only the process may require some temporary amount discomfort or pain in some not fully understood means applicable to a soul that is not joined with a body. Limbo is only for those bound for heaven. Unclear or at least uncertain, either the length of time and/or the severity of discomfort is directly related to the amount of and severity of unremitted sins we carry into death (for a Catholic not confessed and truly repented IOWs). The thought and point being for having a belief in Limbo, is there is no point in claiming some go to Hell for a punishment for sin when at same time we insist a believer must truly repent of every sin commented in this life and realize some believers may die without having done so. Catholics distinguish levels of sins, all bad but some worse than others. Allowing in the Catholic view then that some of those "believers" may be going to Hell because of the nature of their particular unrepented sins - say murder for one example, the thought arises what about those believers who have maybe only a few lessor sins - told some lie they did not repent for - and realizing there seems no Justice for saying God would condemn a believer to Hell for that but realizing it is still sin Justice demands punishment for it - so Limbo.

Again no debate or questioning plz - this is just my point of reference for my reply to the above post.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Thank you for your humble comment DrBubbaLove. I am pleased to share the following with you, for you and the other readers to consider please ...

1.

Remember how Paul approached the his witnessing about Jesus to the Athenians - he didn't cause them to raise their defenses by telling them that their belief in multiple gods was wrong, he approached them by using what they already believed (even though their belief was wrong) ...

Acts 17
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. ...
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.


2.

The context of "Lazarus and the Rich Man" is that it follows straight after a parable Jesus used to teach His disciples, and all others present.

In the parable the dishonest servant is the one who receives salvation. Jesus was not teaching that we should practice dishonesty to achieve salvation, however He was teaching the necessity of using present opportunities, in this current life, to gain salvation. Then ...

Luke 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

Jesus then turns his attention to the showing the Pharisees about themselves, using as His basis for teaching them, the current thinking that had infiltrated Judaism by then.

So that I am not quoting from my own Church, I found a free PDF online of ...
"A Critical and Exegetical Commentary - Gospel According to St Luke."

It says ... "The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man" on p.487.

Please download the PDF and read the entire commentary on the two parables.

The Pharisees had placed more importance of being in the lineage of Abraham than following the True God of Heaven. Jesus addressed that too, by including in the parable the Rich Man addressing Abraham. Surely God would have been the more appropriate one to ask for help?

I will address another issue here. There are those Christians who believe we contain a soul, and at death we either go to Heaven or hell, or even limbo if you are a Catholic. They then tell me that at Jesus' second coming He resurrects the body and places the soul back in it. None of this is Biblical.

All who die are dead, (comma, not a full-stop) - Jesus called it "sleep". When Jesus comes He will raise the righteous dead, change the righteous living, and all the Righteous will then, and only then, be with Him - (1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:51-54; John 14:1-3, etc.). Only at the end of the 1000 years will all the unrighteous be raised (Rev 20:5(a)).

But lets run with the scenario that I say is not Biblical. Let's pretend it is for a moment for this discussion ...

How come, if the soul is what goes to Abraham's bosom or to hell upon death, that the 'story' speaks of Lazarus and the Rich Man in physical, bodily terms?

Luke 16
24 And 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.

These are body parts - 'finger' and 'tongue'.

No, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, straight after the parable He used to the disciples, etc., and the two parables were to show the two opposite outcomes. His parable to the Pharisees was to address their ...

v.25 "But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented."

To the claim made in point 1 of the above reply that Jesus's approach in supposedly not rebuking an allegedly false belief can be compared to Saint Paul's treatment of heathen practices in Athens Greece. I categorically deny we can make that comparison.

• While true Saint Paul begins by mention of seeing that they pay homage to an "unknown" god by erecting a monument (which in practice was meant to avoid offending any god they might otherwise offend - hedging their bets as it were), it is not true he was not harsh on their practice of worship. He makes the connection in the beginning that he does to turn the table on them by telling them he will proceed to declare that unknown God to them. And that declaration includes the point that their practice/beliefs offend Him and they should repent.
• Jesus on the other hand in giving this story in no way condemns or asks his audience to repent of a held belief. If it is claimed to be a false depiction of the afterlife, by not condemning it He is guilty of misguiding them and tacitly endorsing their holding that belief.
• Endorsing a false belief is not something God does, in fact as Saint Paul pointed out to the Greek heathens a false belief/practice offends Him and they would need to repent of it. So I cannot accept that God in the Flesh would do this.

As to point #2, I can appreciate the attempt to connect a clear parable (of the "good" steward) to what followed, however I also deny that is in anyway an accurate depiction for the following reason;

• the case made one parable is following another apparently needs strengthening by presenting v14, which is OK on the face of it, except the story of Lazarus is not what follows v14, rather Jesus strongly rebukes them first in v15-18 for the way the "honor" the law which is not done in their hearts and God would know and judge their hearts not on how they use the law to esteem themselves before men. So much for claiming His was a gentile approach.
• I think this is important point because the "alledged" second parable does not follow v14. The story of Lazarus and the rich man follows the condemnation of men who God Himself tells them their hearts will condemn them before their Judge, just as those serving mammon in V1-13 cannot serve both God and mammon.
  
• So God judging men's hearts is a common repeating theme throughout this particular discourse starting with the parable of the "good steward" being condemned for being concerned less with righteousness than his affiliation to "mammon".
• What is the result of that Judgement Jesus told they were risking in v1-v18? In the minds of everyone in God's audience it would be assignment to a place of either happiness or one of suffering. Also a part of that judgement being possible Jesus audience would be associated with their inheritance through Abraham - IOW the fact they are Jews meant to them were entitled potentially to a good place if they were a good person (in the bosom of Abraham).
• So what immediately follows God telling them He would judge their behavior harshly (v1-V18)? The very thing they already believed - v19 that a harsh judgement would end with them in a place of suffering, not a good place.
• To top it off He rebukes the very REAL Pharisees once again at the end of the real story of Lazarus and the rich man, further affirming the story is rooted in reality. The very Man standing before them telling them they would not even listen to someone raised from the dead is the very Person that would be raise from the dead as testimony that His Words are true.

"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.'"​

So no, and for these reasons my position is we should not accept those two points in the above quoted post demonstrate that the story of Lazarus and rich man is not firmly rooted in reality.

​

 

[juvenissun]

The first question being “How is it even possible for a finite creature to offend an infinite God?” Could a grain of sand offend Mount Everest?

The second question being “If it were possible for the finite to offend the infinite, would the infinite punishment of a finite creature be just?”

Of course it can happen, and it happened all the time.

How do we offend God? Very simple, we simply say: God does not exist.
How would God punish us? Also very simple, we will never see Him. It is fully justified.

That is it.

Human is God's best creature. We are so powerful that we can even deny Him easily.

God is the source of all Good. People do not want God? Fine, suit themselves. They are not going to get anything from God. They will live in a world which has not any good. The is the most severe punishment God would give to them.

So, sand to mountain? ant to human? Improper analogy.