Hell

~Anastasia~ · Dec 20, 2017

Almost there said:
I disagree. Thing is, I'm arguing that parable is not at all about the afterlife. Just as the parable of the sower is not about farming, and the parable about the lost coin is not about money. Like both of those, it is a parable about something else. And that something else is covered at the end.

Two important points:
1. The rich man had five brothers. Not four. Not three. Not eight.
2. The request to warn the brothers and Jesus response.

I'm not making anything up out of whole cloth. I'm using scripture as precisely as I can, within the context of the scripture immediately surrounding it as well as the books of the bible in general.

What, specifically, have I come up short on?

The parable of the sower was not about farming, but it used true farming principles to illustrate Jesus' point. In every case, in every parable, story, or example, Jesus always used real things to illustrate principles. Why would He depart, in this one instance only? To do so would sow confusion.

There are no giant beanstalks in His farming stories, no talking animals in any story, no women who grow trees for hair. There are only normal plants, normal birds, people doing the many things they normally do. Everything is very concrete and down to earth.

Why do you assume He would tell something fantastical in this one story, to illustrate something else? God in His wisdom is perfectly capable of speaking to us using things we well understand. That was the whole point of parables or stories of illustration.

Almost there · Dec 20, 2017

Michael Collum said:
I recall some Orthodox posting in the past that some Orthodox hold out hope for ultimate reconciliation with the exception if some don't repent. Kindly confirm if this is an Orthodox teaching.
.
(Next thought)
.
For me, the separation of sin and the creation was illustrated in Romans 7 where Paul disassociated from sin, made it seem like the sin was acting on its own.

I have adapted this for use in spiritual warfare to confess sin essence so it disappears. (1 John 1:9)
.
In delving through the thoughts related to this subject I get the distinct impression there will be different tasks for us when we are redeemed and in the resurrection bodies.

Romans 7 and 9 are biggies for me. The comments about Pharaoh certainl give one pause.

~Anastasia~ · Dec 20, 2017

Michael Collum said:
I recall some Orthodox posting in the past that some Orthodox hold out hope for ultimate reconciliation with the exception if some don't repent. Kindly confirm if this is an Orthodox teaching.
.
(Next thought)
.
For me, the separation of sin and the creation was illustrated in Romans 7 where Paul disassociated from sin, made it seem like the sin was acting on its own.

I have adapted this for use in spiritual warfare to confess sin essence so it disappears. (1 John 1:9)
.
In delving through the thoughts related to this subject I get the distinct impression there will be different tasks for us when we are redeemed and in the resurrection bodies.

Yes, there is allowed to be hope for ultimate reconciliation of all or most. But we have not received any such teaching so that we could offer it as truth. We only pray for everyone, hope for everyone, but in the end it is in God's hands alone. What we have received is that there will be torment after death for those who reject Christ.

God's nature is reconciliation though, so we hope this can somehow be didactic, at least for some.

Almost there · Dec 20, 2017

truefiction1 said:
Poverty can be a great blessing in terms of enriching one with treasure in heaven, where material wealth/riches is very often a great curse, being such and obstacle as it usually is in the narrow way that leads to entry into the kingdom of God. This is one of the things that Jesus was showing. It even says so: "But Abraham answered, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things. But now he is comforted here, while you are left to suffer." (Luke 16:25)

So did you really mean to say that you're not buying it when our Lord says that Abraham told the rich man that he was suffering in the afterlife because he chose to let others suffer in this life when he should have shared what he had with those who were suffering instead of selfishly squandering it on his own sinful desires for personal enjoyment? (Could I have written a longer sentence?)

I agree regarding poverty and wealth. I just don't think either is intrinsically good or evil.

And regarding the sharing, this is where we get into what some think it may have been about: The thing to be shared was not monetary riches, but the good news, which Jesus was here to teach and preach. And he was speaking directly to the descendants of Joseph and his five brothers by the one mother.

And the one in Abraham's bosom being named "god will help" is priceless!

Almost there · Dec 20, 2017

~Anastasia~ said:
The parable of the sower was not about farming, but it used true farming principles to illustrate Jesus' point. In every case, in every parable, story, or example, Jesus always used real things to illustrate principles. Why would He depart, in this one instance only? To do so would sow confusion.

There are no giant beanstalks in His farming stories, no talking animals in any story, no women who grow trees for hair. There are only normal plants, normal birds, people doing the many things they normally do. Everything is very concrete and down to earth.

Why do you assume He would tell something fantastical in this one story, to illustrate something else? God in His wisdom is perfectly capable of speaking to us using things we well understand. That was the whole point of parables or stories of illustration.

Because in this case he was using the afterlife. It is not real (yet) to anyone alive on the earth. And he was using it because he was making the point about his death and resurrection - before it happened. He was basing it on a general belief regarding the afterlife within the Jewish community (Abraham's bosom and all that). The Jews of the day were much like Christians today. They all had beliefs, but most of them were not rabbis. They were just regular people that did their religious rituals, had some high level beliefs, and carried on with their lives. That's probably why he used parables, and those parables effectively confused everyone.

~Anastasia~ · Dec 20, 2017

Almost there said:
Because in this case he was using the afterlife. It is not real (yet) to anyone alive on the earth. And he was using it because he was making the point about his death and resurrection - before it happened. He was basing it on a general belief regarding the afterlife within the Jewish community (Abraham's bosom and all that). The Jews of the day were much like Christians today. They all had beliefs, but most of them were not rabbis. They were just regular people that did their religious rituals, had some high level beliefs, and carried on with their lives. That's probably why he used parables, and those parables effectively confused everyone.

But it was already real to everyone who had already died by that point. Abraham was a known person to them.

The Jews may have had a variety of beliefs, but one just as the one Christ described ... a conscious place where one experienced either good things or bad things ... was not a foreign concept to them at all.

~Anastasia~ · Dec 20, 2017

Almost there said:
Because in this case he was using the afterlife. It is not real (yet) to anyone alive on the earth. And he was using it because he was making the point about his death and resurrection - before it happened. He was basing it on a general belief regarding the afterlife within the Jewish community (Abraham's bosom and all that). The Jews of the day were much like Christians today. They all had beliefs, but most of them were not rabbis. They were just regular people that did their religious rituals, had some high level beliefs, and carried on with their lives. That's probably why he used parables, and those parables effectively confused everyone.

Further, that's a bit like saying it's not real to the people he's talking to what it's like to be a king or a nobleman, to throw a big banquet or own a faraway vineyard. Many of them couldn't personally relate to those things, and never would.

I really feel like you're doing some of those gymnastics you mentioned to separate this one story of Jesus from all the others. I don't mean that as any kind of attack, but I don't see the justification for doing so.

Almost there · Dec 20, 2017

~Anastasia~ said:
But it was already real to everyone who had already died by that point. Abraham was a known person to them.

The Jews may have had a variety of beliefs, but one just as the one Christ described ... a conscious place where one experienced either good things or bad things ... was not a foreign concept to them at all.

Right. That's why he used it. It was a simple story about "the afterlife" to make the point. And one could make the argument that the parable was based loosely on what happens after you die, either in hades/sheol, or metaphorically after the GWTJ. But to be frank, I think the afterlife for the saved is a little more than hanging around in Abraham's bosom.

The thing is, we are now over-analyzing it. I think it's pretty clear if you realize the message is not, "This is what hell is like". That's not the message of the parable.

~Anastasia~ · Dec 20, 2017

Almost there said:
Right. That's why he used it. It was a simple story about "the afterlife" to make the point. And one could make the argument that the parable was based loosely on what happens after you die, either in hades/sheol, or metaphorically after the GWTJ. But to be frank, I think the afterlife for the saved is a little more than hanging around in Abraham's bosom.

The thing is, we are now over-analyzing it. I think it's pretty clear if you realize the message is not, "This is what hell is like". That's not the message of the parable.

I think the initial point was that the rich man continued to exist (and possibly that no one was sleeping or unconscious) ... I'm not sure if you were putting forth that as well.

Almost there · Dec 20, 2017

~Anastasia~ said:
Further, that's a bit like saying it's not real to the people he's talking to what it's like to be a king or a nobleman, to throw a big banquet or own a faraway vineyard. Many of them couldn't personally relate to those things, and never would.

I really feel like you're doing some of those gymnastics you mentioned to separate this one story of Jesus from all the others. I don't mean that as any kind of attack, but I don't see the justification for doing so.

I think they had a perception of what it would be like.

Rather than do the gymnastics, I think I'm doing the opposite. I'm trying to keep it simple. Each parable is trying to make a point. And I FIRMLY believe that "what is the afterlife like" is not at all what this parable is about. Rather, it is about the five brothers and the sharing of the spiritual wealth and not accepting even if someone comes back from the dead. The "hell setting" is just like the "road setting" in the parable of the sower. It gives it perspective and teeth.

Almost there · Dec 20, 2017

~Anastasia~ said:
I think the initial point was that the rich man continued to exist (and possibly that no one was sleeping or unconscious) ... I'm not sure if you were putting forth that as well.

I think the rich man had to exist to ask the questions he did so that the parable could get to its real point. But I really do think we're over-analyzing this. His consciousness is only an issue if one needs to have this parable talking about the afterlife as its point. I don't believe that is its point. It is its setting. And God is notorious for being vague when it comes to talking about that sort of stuff. I'd really like to know what the seven thunders said.

ArmyMatt · Dec 20, 2017

Almost there said:
Actually, there is nothing in scripture that supports that there is a hell at all. "Hell" is a made up word. It's a shame too, nobody tried to come up with some other name for Jerusalem, but they seemed to think it needed to be done for Gehenna. I don't get it.

well, no, hell is a Germanic word. to say it's made up because it isn't in Scripture is like rejecting Trinity. yes, it equates to Gehenna for those of us whose language is Germanic like English. God is also the Anglo form of Theos

truefiction1 · Dec 20, 2017

Almost there said:
I agree regarding poverty and wealth. I just don't think either is intrinsically good or evil.

And regarding the sharing, this is where we get into what some think it may have been about: The thing to be shared was not monetary riches, but the good news, which Jesus was here to teach and preach. And he was speaking directly to the descendants of Joseph and his five brothers by the one mother.

And the one in Abraham's bosom being named "god will help" is priceless!

Intrinsically, wealth is neither good or bad, no. But, the story of the rich man and Lazarus, at its heart, is about God: about those who know God (Like Lazarus) because they have become as God is, and those who do not know God because they chose not to become as God is. In the story the Lord makes it crystal clear that a person's condition in the afterlife will be determined by their condition in this. Those who worship mammon cannot know God. When they die they will be eternally cut off from God Whom they do not and cannot know, owing to not being anything Like God. It is a story about the potential state of a person's soul after it is separated from its body, and the eternal fate of those who do not know God.

Hermit76 · Dec 20, 2017

Almost there said:
Anastasia opened this thread specifically so that we could discuss this.

Yes, but the person was asking what the Orthodox view was. You answered a question that you were not asked.

truefiction1 · Dec 20, 2017

ArmyMatt said:
well, no, hell is a Germanic word. to say it's made up because it isn't in Scripture is like rejecting Trinity. yes, it equates to Gehenna for those of us whose language is Germanic like English.

Maybe he does reject the Trinity. With this belief he's been expounding on about hell he already has a good deal in Common with the Watchtower organization.

Almost there · Dec 20, 2017

truefiction1 said:
Intrinsically, wealth is neither good or bad, no. But, the story of the rich man and Lazarus, at its heart, is about God: about those who know God (Like Lazarus) because they have become as God is, and those who do not know God because they chose not to become as God is. In the story the Lord makes it crystal clear that a person's condition in the afterlife will be determined by their condition in this. Those who worship mammon cannot know God. When they die they will be eternally cut off from God Whom they do not and cannot know, owing to not being anything Like God. It is a story about the potential state of a person's soul after it is separated from its body, and the eternal fate of those who do not know God.

I'm not seeing that in this parable. Don't get me wrong. I see that message in a lot of other places, but I think this parable is about something else.

And it seems that the only thing we really know about Lazarus is that he was very poor. That is not the price of a ticket to "heaven". But there is a key to the definition of "Lazarus": God will help.

For all we know, a more accurate translation may be "The one God will help and the rich man".

In all seriousness, this is an excellent rundown of it, and it is the "reader's digest version" that links to the full version:
Lazarus and the Rich Man

Almost there · Dec 20, 2017

Hermit76 said:
Yes, but the person was asking what the Orthodox view was. You answered a question that you were not asked.

Hey, I do that all the time in a public forum. If I want to ask a specific question of a specific person, I use the private message feature. If it's in a thread, it's fair game.

All that said, I must have misinterpreted the question because that is not how I interpreted it. Sorry.

Postvieww · Dec 20, 2017

Almost there said:
Well, I try not to take Revelation too literally.

The seven churches are not lampstands, Jesus is not a lamb and the second death is not a lake of fire. But all three make the point they need to make. Everybody knows what happens when you throw a living thing into a lake of fire. Try it some time. Heck, just make a fire pit and find a dead raccoon on the road somewhere. Throw it in and see what happens.

Hmmm trying to explain the supernatural with the natural. No wonder we disagree.

truefiction1 · Dec 20, 2017

Almost there said:
I'm not seeing that in this parable. Don't get me wrong. I see that message in a lot of other places, but I think this parable is about something else.

And it seems that the only thing we really know about Lazarus is that he was very poor. That is not the price of a ticket to "heaven". But there is a key to the definition of "Lazarus": God will help.

For all we know, a more accurate translation may be "The one God will help and the rich man".

In all seriousness, this is an excellent rundown of it, and it is the "reader's digest version" that links to the full version:
Lazarus and the Rich Man

I don't think that you want to see anything in this parable. I think that you don't want to accept that we have immoral souls or that suffering due to what one does here could have consequences of suffering forever. You wish for an eternal cessation of consciousness as means of punishment rather than never-ending torment. You probably cannot fathom how a Loving God could suffer creatures that He loves to experience such a fate, without end. So, you reject the teaching first, and then work to see scripture through the filtered lens that results.

We have to become as God is, by living according to all of the commandments of Christ. Then, when we have the mind of Christ, we can be better judges of what His Word means. If we are to be simply annihilated -- unconscious for all eternity -- it is doubtful we will have nearly enough reason to do what it takes in this life to become as God is. My point is that it is spiritually damning to rule out eternal torment. Christ did not teach us to do this. He strongly emphasized that one ought to be terribly afraid of what is going to happen if you reject His gift of Eternal Life. Never-ending unconsciousness isn't scary at all, and our Lord did not teach it.

Tutorman · Dec 20, 2017

Almost there said:
I heard about him when discussing the book "Four views of hell", where apologists for each position were allowed to state their cases, with rebuttals. https://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Hell-William-Crockett/dp/0310212685

His book is titled "The Fire that Consumes", and well worth a read.
https://www.amazon.com/Fire-That-Co...rd_wg=OC9gS&psc=1&refRID=8Q3QD8C3WHNMTQK6V4QP

He recently died.

Wow I did not know he passed. I found Ed's works and it has changed my perceptions a lot about Hell and punishment

Hell

† Handmaid of God †

Well-Known Member

† Handmaid of God †

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

† Handmaid of God †

† Handmaid of God †

Well-Known Member

† Handmaid of God †

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Fool

Well-Known Member

Fool

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Believer

Fool

Charismatic Episcopalian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency