Let's Talk About Hell (2)

[Timothew]

It has been a long time since we have gotten to my beliefs vs. yours. Usually we only speak of your unorthodox beliefs. Yes, I remember my past lives. Never the less, my notion of an afterlife clearly falls under the category of the commonly held belief of an afterlife, verses your notion of an afterlife being pure unconsciousness for thousands of years until the time of the resurrection.

Being Resurrected for an eternity with Christ has GOT to be an essential christian belief.

Reincarnation is more of an essential Hindu Belief, isn't it?

 

[LutheranMafia]

Being Resurrected for an eternity with Christ has GOT to be an essential christian belief.

But in what sort of eternity? I believe in a physical eternity that is not so different from now. You believe in some unspecified eternity that is ill defined.

Reincarnation is more of an essential Hindu Belief, isn't it?

I am more a fan of Judiaism, which explicitly believes in reincarnation from Jesus's time, thus the statement in the Gospels that the masses believed John to be the reincarnation of Elijah and Jesus to be the reincarnation of Elisha.

 

[Timothew]

You don't understand my beliefs.

 

[LutheranMafia]

You don't understand my beliefs.

Such a whiner. And you think that you understand my beliefs? We have barely touched on my true beliefs and yet you think that it is your beliefs which have been hashed over and over again that are misunderstood. Please...

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

It wasn't a prophecy because he was immediately kicked out of the Garden, and He KNEW death followed.

here is a sobering verse regarding Hell

Luke 16:22-26
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
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.
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 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.

more info on eternal hell...
Is Hell Eternal? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Again though, you're only looking at the surface of what its saying. Jesus warned many people in his day even that people would hear his parables and be confused or only hear it as it sounded. Those who wanted to hear the spiritual meaning behind his parables would, those that wouldn't would not. Why do you think he used so many parables concerning farming? It was something the people could relate to.

What you mentioned is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. This parable mentions several things that aren't in other parts of the Bible. For instance, why is """"ABRAHAM"""" talking to the rich man? Why isn't there any mention of YHWH being present in this parable? Is Abraham God? No, he isn't, its symbolic. How could the rich man be talking to someone so far away? Why would he merely ask for a drop of water when it would burn away before it even reached his mouth? Why would Lazarus be willing or even able to go to Hell to give the rich man this drop of water?

Its also noteworthy that neither the rich man or Lazarus are described as being good or bad people, let alone whether or not they followed God. Being rich was not an evil thing in the Old Testament, rather it was a sign of wisdom and making use of your talents. Being poor could actually be argued as being lazy and incompetent. This story could easily be looked at as those who have been blessed not fulfilling their duty of helping out those not blessed. In other words, the Jews who had been God's chosen people were too busy excluding others from their faith and in the process of doing so were not sharing what they knew about God with other peoples.

Its a parable because it is not meant to be taken literally. You could interpret the rich man as being the Jews and Lazarus as being the Gentiles, or you could look it as the rich man being the pharisees and Lazarus being the those looking for God. Abraham could be symbolizing that yes, He is the father of this faith so to speak, or you could look at it as a reference to Abraham's bosom being a name for paradise.

Its also noteworthy that this is the ONLY account for someone being in a fiery Hell in the Bible, and its debatable, if that really, that this story is not a historical account. Revelations mentions a lake of fire and hades and death being caste into hell, but we never get to hear about what its like from someone inside this hell. Seeing as this is a parable, I wouldn't take it at face value. Just as mustard seeds are not literally the smallest seed around, I don't think the story of Lazarus and the rich man is meant to be taken literally, but for you to take the meaning from it. If you want some clarification on some interpretations of this story, I'd be happen to delve into it more.

I find it very disturbing that people take Revelations literally. I'm not saying its not literal at all, but its highly symbolic in nature, or to be more precise its highly apocalyptic in nature. Just as Nebuchadnezzar's dream was an apocalypse of those destined to rule after him, Revelations is an apocalypse of Jesus to John and how Jesus will accomplish all he sets out to do.

 

[Timothew]

Such a whiner. And you think that you understand my beliefs? We have barely touched on my true beliefs and yet you think that it is your beliefs which have been hashed over and over again that are misunderstood. Please...

Not a whine, just a statement. You don't understand my beliefs, although you believe that you do. If you understood my beliefs, you wouldn't believe in reincarnation.

 

[LutheranMafia]

Not a whine, just a statement. You don't understand my beliefs, although you believe that you do. If you understood my beliefs, you wouldn't believe in reincarnation.

*What*, I HAVE to believe as you do in order to understand your beliefs? That is the ultimate arrogance.

You have no ability to fathom my beliefs, so what does that say about your beliefs?

 

[Timothew]

*What*, I HAVE to believe as you do in order to understand your beliefs? That is the ultimate arrogance.

You have no ability to fathom my beliefs, so what does that say about your beliefs?

I didn't say that you HAD to. I said IF you understood my beliefs, then you WOULD not believe in reincarnation. It's only semi-arrogant
I am confident that if you understood what I say to you, that you WOULD agree with it. I never claimed to understand your beliefs. You did:

You believe in some unspecified eternity that is ill defined.

 

[LutheranMafia]

I never claimed to understand your beliefs. You did:

That is pure jibberish. You claim I have to believe exactly as you do in order to truely understand you. That is pure arrogance. You do not understand my beliefs at all, in the slightest, and yet you think that your automatic disbelief of my personal experience is utterly valid. This is personal experience vs. utterly abstract beliefs. Mine are personal experiences, yours are purely intellectual beliefs.

 

[Timothew]

Well, you don't understand my beliefs.

 

[LutheranMafia]

I understand your beliefs perfectly well. You have explained them over and over again, what possible misunderstanding could there be?

The fact that I have entirely different beliefs is hardly proof that you are misunderstood. That is just pure arrogance, the assumption that anyone that truly understands you must think as you do. Your beliefs are nothing more than that, just beliefs. My beliefs are based on actual experiences of the afterlife. This is pure conjecture and intellectual belief vs. actual experience.

 

[Hillsage]

here is a sobering verse regarding Hell

Only to you because you can't see the truth for lie you believe. Notice what this punishment was for.

thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Both were children of Abraham. So according to this parable and your theology you go to heaven if you had a tough life here and you go to hell if you're living like an American. So are you ready to go to eternal hell Grady? There are absolutely no other qualifiers in this parable. It wasn't about sins or 'knowing Jesus'...read it again with new eyes that don't have eternal purposeless torturing fire in them.

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/phox.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

Gee, I wonder what this flame and fire torment is all about? I mean, other than Lazarus had a rotten life here and the rich guy didn't. Well let's look at another verse with that FLAME/PHOX he talked about.

Hebrews 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame/phlox of fire/pur.

Gosh, now we have ministers of God who are flames of fire....what 'the hell'?
Who could this possibly be for. I mean if 'the chosen people' were in eternal hell in the parable what about "CHRISTIANS" now???

2CO 5:10 For we must all (speaking to CHRISITANS) appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

1CO 3:15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself (a believer) will be saved, but only as through fire.

Are you reading this close GRADY? Same story spoken to believers (the good guys) but in a different dispensation. I guess scripture must remain true (fire saves) and eternal torture must be left for the church of false doctrine.

MAR 9:49 For every one will be salted with fire.

Gee Grady, sorry know you believe the only fire is eternal torture. Might want to invest in a fire suit...NOT.

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 understanding of this parable is to know that you will undergo your time of fiery judgment too. And even though you are a Christiain, you won't get out until the fire has served it's purpose....and "every penny has been paid."

more info on eternal hell...
Is Hell Eternal? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Who cares? You haven't come up with one thing we haven't addressed, from a God of Love point of view, all the while you're serving the God of torture point of view. I think I'll stay on this side of that chasm.

 

[createdtoworship]

Its also noteworthy that this is the ONLY account for someone being in a fiery Hell in the Bible, and its debatable,

There are a lot of verse regarding Hell, I just haven't quoted them to you. But all of your observations regarding this text goes out the window because no parable in the Bible mentions a name of a person. I don't know why He was talking to abraham, maybe because it's was HIS bosom they were in. And He was in CHarge obviously. Like a guardian over Hell. Until Christ would set the captives free. Then Christ would be the guardian.

 

[createdtoworship]

Only to you because you can't see the truth for lie you believe. Notice what this punishment was for.

thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Both were children of Abraham. So according to this parable and your theology you go to heaven if you had a tough life here and you go to hell if you're living like an American. So are you ready to go to eternal hell Grady? There are absolutely no other qualifiers in this parable. It wasn't about sins or 'knowing Jesus'...read it again with new eyes that don't have eternal purposeless torturing fire in them.

Gee, I wonder what this flame and fire torment is all about? I mean, other than Lazarus had a rotten life here and the rich guy didn't. Well let's look at another verse with that FLAME/PHOX he talked about.

Hebrews 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame/phlox of fire/pur.

Gosh, now we have ministers of God who are flames of fire....what 'the hell'?
Who could this possibly be for. I mean if 'the chosen people' were in eternal hell in the parable what about "CHRISTIANS" now???

2CO 5:10 For we must all (speaking to CHRISITANS) appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

1CO 3:15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself (a believer) will be saved, but only as through fire.

Are you reading this close GRADY? Same story spoken to believers (the good guys) but in a different dispensation. I guess scripture must remain true (fire saves) and eternal torture must be left for the church of false doctrine.

MAR 9:49 For every one will be salted with fire.

Gee Grady, sorry know you believe the only fire is eternal torture. Might want to invest in a fire suit...NOT.

The understanding of this parable is to know that you will undergo your time of fiery judgment too. And even though you are a Christiain, you won't get out until the fire has served it's purpose....and "every penny has been paid."

Who cares? You haven't come up with one thing we haven't addressed, from a God of Love point of view, all the while you're serving the God of torture point of view. I think I'll stay on this side of that chasm.

Materialism is a sin in the Bible, and money is the root of all evil. So if you are living for your mammon you can't have two masters the Bible says. easy. You need to repent of that sin to be saved. secondly,
So your saying HE's in heaven because you quoted a verse regarding Angels being a minister of the flame? I think you got it backwards. He was in torments like the verse plainly says.

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

There are a lot of verse regarding Hell, I just haven't quoted them to you. But all of your observations regarding this text goes out the window because no parable in the Bible mentions a name of a person. I don't know why He was talking to abraham, maybe because it's was HIS bosom they were in. And He was in CHarge obviously. Like a guardian over Hell. Until Christ would set the captives free. Then Christ would be the guardian.

If you believe the story to be literal, you're being silly. How many people can fit inside Abraham's bosom? Has he been working out? It would have to be big enough for at least the nation of Israel. Did he get breast implants then to sustain having all these people in his chest? Why would Abraham be in charge over Hell? That makes no sense. I don't mean to insult you, just think about it. I know the road to heaven is narrow, but sheesh. It should hold more than a few people.

Do you want to know WHY there are specific names being given for two of the three characters in this story? Do you want to know WHY there isn't a name given to the third man? I shall tell you.

Here, we have Abraham, Lazarus, and a rich man.

The rich man is decked out in wealthy clothing (purple) and linen (symbol of priesthood). This is a man who has lived life being bless tremendously. He has a roof over his head, he's the elite of the elite in the Jewish culture, and he's wealthy. I mentioned that this could very easily symbolize the Jews, as in they were blessed as God's chosen people, or the pharisees, who were considered to be the elite of the elite and were the pinnacle of Jewish culture. They would be equivalent to America's top scientists, their word is golden, especially in Western civilization it seems. We take their interpretations of the world around us and try to force them into definitions of the world around us.

However, there is another interpretation that would make sense as well. The rich man was Judah.

The Rich Man was an actual son of Abraham. Christ had him calling Abraham his "father" (Luke 16:24) and Abraham acknowledged him as "son" (verse 25). Such sonship made the Rich Man a legal possessor of Abraham’s inheritance. Indeed, the Rich Man had all the physical blessings promised to Abraham’s seed. He wore purple, the symbol of kingship, a sign that the Davidic or Messianic Kingdom was his. He wore linen, the symbol of priesthood, showing that God’s ordained priests and the Temple were his. Who was this Rich Man who possessed these blessings while living on the earth?

The Israelite tribe that finally assumed possession of both the kingdom and priesthood, and the tribe which became the representative one of all the promises given to Abraham, was Judah. There can not be the slightest doubt of this when the whole parable is analyzed. Remember that Judah had "five brothers." The Rich Man also had the same (verse 28).

"The sons of Leah; [1] Reuben; Jacob’s firstborn, and [2] Simeon, and [3] Levi, and Judah, and [4] Issachar, and [5] Zebulun." Genesis 35:23

"And Leah said ... ‘now will my husband be pleased to dwell with me; for I have born him six sons.’" Genesis 30:20

Judah and the Rich Man each had "five brethren." Not only that, the five brothers of the parable had in their midst "Moses and the prophets" (verse 29). The people of Judah possessed the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:1–2). Though the Rich Man (Judah) had been given the actual inheritance of Abraham’s blessings (both spiritual and physical), Christ was showing that he had been unfaithful with his responsibilities. When the true inheritance was to be given, Judah was in "hades" and "in torment" while Lazarus (Eleazar, the faithful steward) was now in Abraham’s bosom. He was finally received into the "everlasting habitations" (verse 9).

The other two characters are interesting in their own right. They're given names.

Abraham makes sense, he is the founding father of the nation of Israel. It makes much more sense that this is the point Jesus is trying to make when the rich man cries out "Father, send Lazarus to bring me water." Jesus is trying to tell the audience that this rich man is a Jew, possibly using a double meaning to mock the pharisees. Abraham's bosom is not literal, but another name for paradise, or Heaven.

Lazarus is the most interesting character in this story. To understand why you have to look back at Abraham's history as well as the context in which Jesus is speaking this parable.

It is very important to note the context in which the parable is found. There was a reason why Christ spoke this parable at that time. Christ had just given His teaching about the unjust steward who had mishandled his master’s money (Luke 16:1–13). This parable was told to further illustrate what proper stewardship is.

Let us first consider the identification of Lazarus. This is the only time in Christ’s parables that a person’s name is used. Some have imagined that this use of a personal name precludes the story being a parable. But this is hardly true. The name "Lazarus" is a transliteration of the Hebrew "Eleazar" (which means "God has helped"). The name was a common Hebrew word used for eleven different persons in the Old Testament.

When one analyzes the parable, this Eleazar can be identified. He was one who must have had some kind of affinity with Abraham (or the Abrahamic covenant), for the parable places him in Abraham’s bosom after death. But he was probably a Gentile. The phrase "desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table" was typical of Gentile identification (see Matthew 15:22–28). Even the phrase "laid at his gate" is reminiscent of the normal one used by Jews to denote the Gentile proselyte "Proselyte of the Gate." This Eleazar must also have been associated with stewardship because Christ gave the parable precisely for the reason of explaining what represents the true steward.

There was only one Eleazar in the historical part of the Bible that fits the description. He was a person associated with Abraham, he was a Gentile (not an ethnic part of the Abrahamic family), and a steward. He was Eleazar of Damascus, the chief steward of Abraham.

"And Abram said, ‘Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eleazar [Lazarus] of Damascus and lo, one born in my house is mine heir.’" Genesis 15:2–3

Long ago it was suggested that the Lazarus of the parable represented the Eleazar associated with Abraham (Geiger, JuJ Zejtschr., 1868, p. 196 sq.), but for some reason very few modern commentators have taken up the identification. But once this simple connection is made, a flood of light emerges on the scene which can interpret the parable with real meaning.

The Lazarus of the parable represented Abraham’s faithful steward Eleazar. And faithful he was! Though he had been the legal heir to receive all of Abraham’s possessions (Genesis 15:3), Abraham gave him an assignment which was to result in his own disinheritance. But the Bible shows he carried out the orders of Abraham in a precise (and faithful) way.

"And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house [Eleazar], that ruled over all that he had, ‘Put, I pray thee, your hand under my thigh: and I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that you shall not take a wife unto my son [Isaac] of the daughters of the Canaanites.’"Genesis 24:2–3

Eleazar agreed to do what Abraham desired, although the fulfillment of his task meant the complete abandonment of Eleazar’s claim to any of Abraham’s inheritance—both present and future! Each step that Eleazar took northward to procure a wife for Isaac was a step towards his own disqualification. Eleazar recognized this, for he admitted to Laban, Rebecca’s brother, that "unto him [Isaac] hath he [Abraham] given all that he hath" (Genesis 24:36). There was nothing left for him! Thus, Eleazar’s faithfulness to Abraham resulted in his own disinheritance from all the promises of blessing which God had given to Abraham. They were now given to Isaac and his future family. That inheritance included wealth, prestige, power, kingship, priesthood, and the land of Canaan as an "everlasting" possession. But now Eleazar was "cast out." He and his seed would inherit nothing. Thus, the parable calls Lazarus a "beggar" who possessed nothing of earthly worth.

Things start to make a great deal more sense. There's another question though, what about hell? This is the biggest issue that we are arguing about.

Well, there's a few things to keep in mind regarding hell and death

Abraham's bosom is not heaven (Hebrews 11:8-10, 16)

People in hell can't talk to those in heaven (Isaiah 65: 17)

The dead are in their graves (Job 17:13; John 5:28, 29). The rich man was in bodily form with eyes, a tongue, etc., yet we know that the body does not go to hell at death. It is very obvious that the body remains in the grave, as the Bible says. Not to mention, you start to rot when you die.

Men are rewarded at Christ's second coming, not at death (Revelation 22:11, 12)

The lost are punished in hell at the end of the world, not when they die (Matthew 13:40-42).

Parables cannot be taken literally. If we took parables literally, then we must believe that trees talk. (See this parable in Judges 9:8-15). Again, this is backed up by Jesus mentioning that he uses parables to hide their spiritual meaning.

So we can't be talking about hell literally here. Hell as in a place of eternal literal torture may or may not exist, but it isn't supported in this story. Hell isn't even the focus, I believe we lost that meaning in translation.

Think I'm just making this up? Here's more.

Stories of a reversal of fortunes after death appear to have been commonplace in the ancient world. In an Egyptian folktale Si-Osire is upset by the wretched burial of a poor man but is comforted by a vision of his transformed circumstances in the afterlife. One Jewish legend tells of a wealthy but ungodly woman who communicates a message of repentance to her husband; another relates the reversed fortunes of a rich tax collector and a poor teacher of the Law. It cannot be demonstrated conclusively, but it seems likely that Jesus is deliberately evoking such traditional stories in order to construct a vivid and populist critique of the complacency of the wealthy. The parable is addressed to the Pharisees, who were “lovers of money” (Lk. 16:14).

Also;

In Jewish understanding “Hades” is not normally a place of torment: it is effectively a metonymy for “death”. In view of this and the literary character of the story, we should hesitate to conclude that Jesus thought of Hades as being literally a place where sinners are tormented.

 

[Timothew]

But all of your observations regarding this text goes out the window because no parable in the Bible mentions a name of a person.

Where did the rule that you can't name a person in a parable originate? I don't believe that this cannot be a parable just because it uses the name "Lazarus." If this rule can't be substantiated it should stop being repeated. The parable of the good Samaritan uses a name of a place, Samaria. If this really is a rule, its an odd one. So can you show me this rule?

 

[Hillsage]

Materialism is a sin in the Bible, and money is the root of all evil. So if you are living for your mammon you can't have two masters the Bible says. easy. You need to repent of that sin to be saved.

You forget one great big point in your attempt to make this parable line up with your eternal torture mentality. HELL isn't even mentioned in this parable...SIN isn't even mentioned in this parable...your theology is weak. This guy was guilty of the very same thing you are as an American...period. Got your fire-suit?

secondly,
So your saying HE's in heaven because you quoted a verse regarding Angels being a minister of the flame? I think you got it backwards. He was in torments like the verse plainly says.

No, I'm not saying he is in heaven, nor am I saying he is not in heaven. I don't know where he is. All I know is that he is in the place where the 'grief/sorrow' of correction is taking place for the things he did on earth whether "good or evil". And as far as the word TORMENT is concerned why didn't the translators translate it like Strong's defines it? Why, in this parable only, is the word translated "torment" and not "grief" or something similar. I'll tell you why, because the hearts of those believing in eternal sadistic torture are far from the heart of the God of Love, when it comes to this horrendous doctrine. Read a better translation like the one below.

YLT LUK 16:24 and having cried, he said, Father Abraham, deal kindly with me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and may cool my tongue, because I am distressed/odunao in this flame.
25 'And Abraham said, Child, remember that thou did receive - thou - thy good things in thy life, and Lazarus in like manner the evil things, and now he is comforted, and thou art distressed/odunao;

Here is Strong's definition
3600 odunao: to grieve.
And odunao it is derived from the root word odune

3601 odune: grief (as dejecting),

These words paint a little different picture than those who want you to love an despot who treats people for eternity worse than Hitler did. Sorry, that is not the God I serve, nor strive to become like.

Now, kindly deal with the verses of my last post saying that believers are going to be saved by fire. You can't keep playing your cut and paste theology if you want any respect here. Deal with our hard facts or quit embarrassing your position by sticking your head in the sand. You never commented on your error of Adam dying in some 24 hour period either. Did you change your opinion there? If not, please refute my post.


Lord Herdsetk

Interesting read concerning 'the rich man'.

 

[Timothew]

It is interesing about odunao I have never seen that, thank you.

 

[Hillsage]

It is interesing about odunao I have never seen that, thank you.

You're welcome. I actually just found it as I was looking to see if Grady might have had anything substantive concerning this parable. How wonderful it is to find that when 'we' dig deeper we find facts that continue to reinforce our position while theirs just slowly erodes.

I guess that's why Daniel Block, professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, wrote, "The traditional doctrine of hell now bears the marks of odium theologium-Its defenders are seemingly few."

In other words, the guys who are really smart, and have all those really fancy seminary degrees!!...well, they've quit trying to defend this doctrine...cause they're smart, or did I already mention that?

 

[Hillsage]

Hell is reading posts from brainwashed folk who believe hell is eternal torture.

If the truth were to be told, I think we're all a bit brainwashed. I'm just grateful that mine were washed clean with the warm water of the Spirit as opposed to being tortured eternally with boiling.