Luke 16: A response to an article.

[P1LGR1M]

Hello to all, I have been wanting to get to this article for some time now, which was submitted as (I guess) an unquestionable exposition on Luke 16 pertaining to the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

Well...I have a few questions, lol.

And without further ado, here we go (the article will be in blue and the response will be black):


Part One

LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man has been the foundation for many of the erroneous beliefs about "hell" within traditional Christianity. Some have viewed it not as a parable, but as a true story Yeshua told to give details about the punishment of sinners in hell.


It is true that this story found in Luke 16:19-31 is a basis for several beliefs. To name a few:

1-that the Lord told this story to teach us concerning the state of man after physical death.

2-to illustrate that when one dies, they can expect torment or comfort.

3-that this parable can be viewed as prior to the Cross as it is not the Gospel referred to, but Moses (also used as to speak of the Law) and the Prophets (see Luke 24:25,27; 44-47).

4-That once one dies...the chance to hear the word of God and respond has passed.


Now concerning whether one views this as a story or a parable, this will not change the fact that the Lord is, as in all of His parables, teaching us something here, and just like every teaching of the Lord...the importance is in what it is He is teaching. And it is unmistakable that this teaching concerns the disposition of men after death.

In this article we will review the proposals of the author and examine them as to whether we might see some things being spiritualized and inserted into this teaching of the Lord.


Yet a thorough, unbiased examination of this story will show that the generally accepted interpretations of this passage of Scripture are erroneous and misleading.

I think most would admit that it is difficult not to come across as biased if one's teaching is in opposition to another. But I credit the author for the attempt.


In this article, we will go through the parable verse by verse to determine what the Messiah was truly teaching.


And in this response we will go through the story as well as the commentary.


Those who insist that this is not a parable but a true, literal story Yeshua told to describe the condition of the lost in hell must overlook several facts to arrive at that conclusion.


The first criticism would be that it is not Hell which is in view, but hades. In this story, as I said, we are clearly in the Age of Law. This only makes sense seeing that the Lord has not yet gone to the Cross, and again it is Moses and the Prophets referred to as the means of avoiding the destination the rich man finds himself in.

And while it may be true that some overlook facts, what I find to equally if not far worse is to insert that which is not fact into this story.


First, Yeshua the Messiah never accuses the rich man of any sin.


Does he not?

Let us see how the rich man compares to that which is taught in the Law:


The Description:
Luke 16

King James Version (KJV)

19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.


The Law:

Leviticus 19:18

King James Version (KJV)


18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.



Now lets examine the description given by the Lord concerning these two men:


Luke 16

King James Version (KJV)

19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:


The rich man is in need of nothing...



20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,


21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.


Lazarus is desiring to be fed...

In other words, Lazarus is not being taken care of. We can see in the text that Lazarus would be happy to receive the crumbs which fall from the rich man's table, not...that he is desiring that the rich man's daily allotment of provision be met.

Now we jump ahead in our story to cross reference what is said to this man in torment:


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.


Neither Abraham nor the Lord in His teaching say anything about the good works of the rich man in providing for Lazarus in his desperate situation. The rich man received good things, Lazarus evil things. The implication is clear in the story that the rich man did not lift a finger to help Lazarus, who instead was desirous of such help, even to the point where the Lord tells us that Lazarus desired even crumbs from the floor below this man's table.

So to say...

"First, Yeshua the Messiah never accuses the rich man of any sin."

...is to ignore something that is basic in the teaching.

The author then goes on to say:

He is simply portrayed as a wealthy man who lived the good life.

...I would have to disagree with the author's first point.

He is in fact portrayed as someone that has no concern for his neighbor. And we will see, he is portrayed as one that has no regard for the word of God.

Now these are facts which cannot be disputed.


Furthermore, Lazarus is never proclaimed to be a righteous man.


While teaching in the Old Testament was limited and sometimes vague, which we can after having received the revelation of the New Testament, few would ignore the basic principles in scripture which teach that good works are rewarded, evil works punished.

The fact that Lazarus is comforted is an indication that he was a righteous man. Just as the rich man is pictured as unrighteous.

Unless one would like to suggest the Lord is teaching that the works of a man have no bearing after death. But that is quite the opposite of what the Lord is teaching here.

What we would have to conclude is that there is really no lesson to be seen here at all.


He is just one who had the misfortune to be poor and unable to care for himself.

One's situation in life has little bearing on whether they are righteous or not. Often trials and tribulations are seen as instrumental to bring one to righteousness, and to prove that one is righteous, the fact remains that Lazarus, after death, is comforted.


If this story is literal, then the logical implication is that all the rich are destined to burn in hell, while all the homeless and destitute will be saved. Does anyone believe this to be the case?


Why would we question that the Lord is teaching that the rich man is in Hades, and Lazarus is comforted in Abraham's Bosom? A term which speaks of the Jewish concept of the righteous place of the dead, we have to decide if that is in view or if all that are comforted go to be with Abraham.

Why the two receive different situations after death can be seen in the story itself. The author's statement has nothing to do with an examination of the story, it is simply a question designed to blur what is in the text. What we would ask of our author is...well why is it that the rich man is tormented and Lazarus is comforted, if righteousness and the lack thereof can be discounted, as you attempt to do?



If hell is truly as it is pictured in this story,


Hell is not pictured in this story...Hades is. While it is unfortunate that the word heel is used, most understand that there is a difference between Hell (when the word gehenna is found) and Hades.



then the saved will be able to view the lost who are burning there.


Two errors can be found in this, being first: there is no mention of burning in the story, not once.


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.


The word odynaō refers to sorrow, not burning, and "flame" is a reference to judgment, as fire is often used in teaching about judgment. One interesting point I have heard mentioned which I think has some merit is that the rich man, even in death, continues to have a diminutive view of Lazarus as he asks Abraham to allow Lazarus to "serve" him. The fact that he is thirsty might suggest heat, however, we do not see mention of flame and therefore call the author on inserting into the text this concept.

Secondly, concerning Abraham's Bosom which is also called in Jewish tradition "Paradise," we can keep in mind that the Lord is teaching those who would have not only understood this differently than most who read this today, but also what is important to notice is that those who go into torment and those that are comforted...do not go to the same destination, and they do not receive the same "reward." While I am not dogmatic about this, I think it possible (and this is just speculation on my part, not a teaching) that 1) this may very well be the very Lazarus who did die and who was resurrected; 2) that if this is the case Lazarus was not consigned to Abraham's Bosom but was in a state of transition and this story occurs during his death and resurrection.

This story, if it is a parable, uses specific names for specific characters, which we do not see in any other parable. Again, just as in every parable, there is a teaching which we are to gain from it, so that it is a parable or not has little bearing on the teaching itself. This is simply something that is designed to help fortify a position against what happens to those among the dead who are not comforted.

And so far we can see that the intent of the story is to teach the two differing results for those who die. One of torment, and one of comfort.

Note-this response will take some time, so this will be broken up in order to field responses and to keep each response in an easily readable format.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Part Two:



Could anyone enjoy eternal existence if they were able to see lost friends, family, and acquaintances being incinerated in hell, yet never burning up?

We could just as well ask "could anyone enjoy eternal existence knowing that they failed to teach the truth of God's word?"

How we will enjoy eternity has nothing to do with insertions of what is supposed to be fact into a teaching of the Lord designed to bring a conscious awareness to those that are alive that there is torment awaiting those that fail to hear the word of God. In this story "Moses and the Prophets" would have been comparable to us saying "neither will they be persuaded if they refuse to hear the Gospel."

The imagery is inserted to confuse the reader. First, this story does not speak of the eternal state. Secondly, no mention of burning is spoken of by the Lord: we see the torment representing the judgment the rich man receives.

Third, that the Lord uses hyperbole in this teaching is seen in the fact that a drop of water would not have soothed the torment of the rich man, as he is in sorrow that he seems to think that his brothers will share his fate, thus the plea for Lazarus to be sent to his brothers.

Fourth, nowhere in the story do we see the Lord say that the rich man can see all of Abraham's Bosom. Nor do we see that all occupants of Abraham's Bosom are spectators to the rich man's torment. What we do see is that Abraham and Lazarus, only, come into contact with the rich man. That this event is specific to the teaching, rather than establishing conditions of hades/sheol should be apparent.


Additionally, if hell (as it is traditionally taught) is an abyss of fire and brimstone where sinners are tormented forever, does anyone really believe that one drop of water would relieve the pain and anguish of someone suffering in its flames?


We see that the hypotheticals of the author are completely acceptable to reinforce his view, and that he can recognize that a drop of water will not ease his torment, but he offers no explanation for the request. Again he presents the rich man as writhing in flames, which is not mentioned in the story, and fails to mention the use of fire and flame in most of the Lord's teaching concerning hades and Hell (the Lake of Fire). And it easy, when teachings are erroneously merged, to arrive at wrong conclusions.



These are just some of the difficulties we encounter when we try to make the account of Lazarus and the rich man literal, instead of realizing that it is a PARABLE.


I disagree: whether one views this as a parable or a literal story of an actual event does not affect the teaching. In both cases wecan recognize or at the least surmise that just as in other teachings of the Lord is the use of metaphor and hyperbole.


If it is a true story, then all of the things Yeshua said must be factual. If all the points of the story are not literal, then we must view this tale as an analogy Yeshua used to teach larger spiritual truths.


Let us examine the facts set forth so far and consider if this is true:

A. What is in the text.

1-both men die.

2-one is tormented and the other comforted.

3-the wicked and righteous do not go to the same place.

4-the word of God is taught as the means of escaping torment.


B. What is inserted.

1-there is no mention of burning.

2-neither man is described as righteous on unrighteous.

3-the just will view the unjust burning for eternity.


And we haven't even touched the length of this article yet. We have just gotten started.


If it is a true story, then all of the things Yeshua said must be factual.


Folks, do you understand the implication of this statement?

It implies that the Lord teaches that which is not factual.

Yes, what he taught was factual, whether it was parable or not. The wicked will be tormented, the just comforted. But it an understanding of the facts which become clouded in an effort to deny that the wicked will be in torment when they die.


Many think that the Messiah spoke in parables to make the meaning clearer for the uneducated people he was teaching. Reflecting this belief, an appendix to the NKJV says that "Jesus' reputation as a great teacher spread far and wide. And no wonder. He taught in parables, simple stories, that made His lessons clear to all who were ready to learn" (p. 1870, "Man for All Times").

I guess this is cast the commentary in a bad light, but I cannot see where it is wrong. The Lord was considered a great Teacher and those who were willing to learn...understood.

I agree with what the author is saying for the most part, but probably for different reasons. Nobody truly understood the depth of the Lord's teaching until the Comforter was sent.

I think we can see here:

Mark 12:12

King James Version (KJV)


12 And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.



...that it was not a matter that no-one could make sense of any of the Lord's parables. In view in this (v.12) are those He speaks to here:


Mark 11:27

King James Version (KJV)


27 And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders,



Which shows that they understood that the parables spoke...against them. And while as the author mentions they did not understand the teaching in full, they understood enough to see themselves in this teaching, and rather than generate repentance, it drove them farther into sin.



Yet the Messiah said his purpose for speaking to the people in parables was exactly the opposite of the explanation cited above:

MATTHEW 13:1 On the same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the sea. 2 And great multitudes were gathered together to him, so that he got into a boat and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore. 3 Then he spoke many things to them in parables . . . 10 And the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" 11 He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive; 15 for the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.' " (NKJV)


When we examine the "understanding of the disciples, we see that they also must ask the Lord to explain the deeper truths of the word He taught.

God's word is a mirror in which a man can look and see his sin in. And just like the bathroom mirror, if one sees he is in need of cleansing yet fails to utilize that which can remove the dirt, the mirror does him no good. We don't look in a mirror, take note of the dirt on our face, and walk away thinking that recognition of the dirt is equal to removing the dirt.


As this passage and the parallel Scripture in Mark 4 clearly state, Yeshua spoke to the people in parables to hide the spiritual meaning of what he was saying. He only intended for his disciples to understand what the parables truly meant.


So we refuse to recognize a vast majority of scripture which shows that the people understood enough to both gladly hear the Lord, as well as to learn to hate Him?

What this suggests is that the parables could not be comprehended. This is exactly what the author would have us believe concerning the teaching of the rich man and Lazarus. And it is not true. One does not have to seek after "deep thinking theologians" to glean the teaching this story has for all men.


He only intended for his disciples to understand what the parables truly meant.

Then explain why He had to explain the parables to them?


It is no wonder, then, that so many have misunderstood what Yeshua was teaching with the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.


This is simply a fabrication, for many have understood without the need of a theologian explaining it to them...that which is being taught. By confusing the issue by denying some implicit and explicit facts in the story, one can better spiritualize this story to downplay the dire need of all who reject the word of God and live as the author points out here...


"He is simply portrayed as a wealthy man who lived the good life."


...simply living the good life.

It is appointed once to man to die, and after this comes judgment.

That is the simple truth in this story which many wish to make cloudy.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Part Three.


Let's start by getting some background information on the situation in which Yeshua told this parable. Luke tells us that all the tax collectors and sinners were coming to the Messiah to hear what he had to say (Luke 15:1). This made the Pharisees and scribes jealous and they complained, vehemently criticizing Yeshua for receiving sinners and eating with them (Luke 15:2). They were likely envious of his growing fame, afraid that his popularity would diminish their own authority and prestige.


I would not argue with this, as I believe this correctly describes the context in which the story is told.


So the Messiah first spoke a trio of related parables (the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son) to those gathered around him. They were designed to show the tax collectors and sinners (as well as the Pharisees) that God was concerned for them and that He would seek out the lost and welcome them into His family when they repented and turned back to Him.


I am surprised that since the NKJV has been used that the author states this. Preceding this story, if we start where the author does, the NKJV clearly lists:

1- the parable of the lost sheep;

2- the parable of the the lost coin;

3- the parable of the lost son;

4- the parable of the unjust steward;

5- and the teaching it titles "The Law, the Prophets, and the Kingdom.


Going back to the understanding which the people were able to receive from the parables, we can see if we back up to the beginning parable spoken of that there are those that hold the Lord in derision:


Luke 15

King James Version (KJV)


1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.

2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.



Clearly there is a disdain for those that are...below them. We see the same attitude suggested in the rich man toward Lazarus in both life and death.

Now lets look at our list again and see if we can see if those of prominent position come into the teachings:


1- the parable of the lost sheep;

We could understand that the religious leaders were supposed to be shepherds of the flock, those of Israel. What kind of heart despises that which he should be steward over, and have a concern for them, rather than disdain?


2- the parable of the the lost coin;

The point made in the parable of the lost sheep is reiterated using money, and we might see that this is to point out that in view is seeking out that which is lost.


3- the parable of the lost son;

Do we see a prominent one despising in this parable? Do we see that which was lost? Yes, the prodigal son was lost, then found, and the older son despises him, rather than having joy that this son has been returned.



4- the parable of the unjust steward;

Again we see one in a prominent position, again the teaching features money.

What is the reaction of the people? We don't know, there is no mention here. What is mentioned, though, is...

Luke 16

King James Version (KJV)

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


5- and the teaching it titles "The Law, the Prophets, and the Kingdom.


And I will give this in it's entirety as well as in the NKJV:

Luke 16

New King James Version (NKJV)
The Law, the Prophets, and the Kingdom

14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him.

15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

16 “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.

18 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.


As we go into the story of the rich man, it is inescapable not to see that there is an emphasis on stewardship, especislly concerning those in prominent positions.

The severe rebuke seen here...


15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.


...lays a good backdrop for the story of the rich man and Lazarus which immediately follows.

THe author is correct in saying...

The self-righteous Pharisees and scribes, acknowledged by Yeshua as the legitimate religious teachers of the Jews (Matt. 23:1-3), should have been the ones telling these people of God's love for them. They should have been the ones teaching these sinners, exhorting them to return to God and receive His love and forgiveness. However, because of their faith in their own righteousness and their contempt for these tax collectors and sinners who didn't measure up to their standards, the Pharisees and scribes excluded them and considered them accursed (John 7:49).


...but we have to wonder how the teaching of these parables and the story of Lazarus and the rich man does not lead to a conclusion that once again those in prominent positions are judged for their stewardship?

Instead, we are told:

First, Yeshua the Messiah never accuses the rich man of any sin.

What?

He has just given at the least three parables (and I believe the parable of the lost coin reiterates the parable of the lost sheep, tying love of money into the teaching, therefore I would say four parables) and one very explicit teaching which brings these men under condemnation, yet...

...when we get to the story of Lazarus and the rich man, it becomes less of an issue.


Afterward, speaking primarily to his disciples but with the Pharisees (and probably the crowd) still listening in, Yeshua related the parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:1-13). The Pharisees, who were "lovers of money" (Luke 16:14), realized that the Messiah was alluding to them with this parable and took offense.


What happened to "no-one understood?" And why would it be taught that this very truth does not apply to the story of Lazarus and the rich man?

They scoffed at Yeshua. The final part of his response to the derision of the Pharisees and scribes was the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.

But...that is not what is done in this article. Not in a way that kees the integrity of the teachings.


We'll now examine this parable in detail to grasp exactly what the Messiah was teaching about the kingdom of God:

LUKE 16:19 "There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day." (NKJV)

We begin by scrutinizing the description Yeshua gives us of the rich man.

First, he tells us that this man was clothed in purple and fine linen. This type of clothing would not have been out of the ordinary for one of considerable wealth during this time period. However, this attire also has symbolic meaning. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary says: "The wearing of purple was associated particularly with royalty . . ." (p. 863, "Purple"). In addition, the New Bible Dictionary tells us: "The use of linen in OT times was prescribed for priests (Ex. 28:39). The coat, turban and girdle must be of fine linen." (p. 702, "Linen").

So we see that the garments worn by this rich man were symbolic of royalty and the priesthood.


Can't say I would argue with this.


With that in mind, let's see what God told Moses just before giving the Israelites the Law on Mount Sinai:

EXODUS 19:6 And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak to the children of Israel. (Brenton's LXX)

I would take no issue with this, either.


The clothing of the rich man identifies him symbolically with the people of Israel, chosen by God to be His special people. They were called to be a witness to the nations surrounding them, confirming the blessings available to those who would obey God and keep His laws.

Unfortunately, they frequently did not live up to the high calling given to them by God. Eventually He sent them into captivity for their refusal to honor their part of the covenant ratified at Mount Sinai.


Still in agreement.


At the time of Yeshua, only the House of Judah continued to have a covenant relationship with God.


Stop.

This is simply untrue. First, God did not break His covenant with Israel, it was Israel that did not keep the Covenant. Not only that, but one myth that surrounds the division of Israel into Two Kingdoms is that the Ten Tribes which removed themselves from the rule of the House of Judah were lost in the Assyrian captivity, whereas we read...

2 Chronicles 11

King James Version (KJV)

1 And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he gathered of the house of Judah and Benjamin an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against Israel, that he might bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam.

In the initial division we see Judah and Benjamin band together. Now consider the events that follow:

5 And Rehoboam dwelt in Jerusalem, and built cities for defence in Judah.

11 And he fortified the strong holds, and put captains in them, and store of victual, and of oil and wine.

12 And in every several city he put shields and spears, and made them exceeding strong, having Judah and Benjamin on his side.

13 And the priests and the Levites that were in all Israel resorted to him out of all their coasts.


Here we see Judah, Benjamin, and also the Priests and the Levites...joining the Southern Kingdom, and we are told why the Levites come unto Rehoboam:


14 For the Levites left their suburbs and their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem: for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest's office unto the Lord:

15 And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made.


The king of Northern Israel was wicked and removed the legitimate Priesthood and set up false priests in demonic worship.

Now take note what is said next:


16 And after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the Lord God of their fathers.

17 So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and made Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong, three years: for three years they walked in the way of David and Solomon.

The fact is that all of the tribes of Isrrael that "set their hearts to seek the Lord" came to Jerusalem.

So we examine this statement again...

At the time of Yeshua, only the House of Judah continued to have a covenant relationship with God.

...and wonder at the error of this statemetn, which is foundational to much of what will be suggested next as...


We'll now examine this parable in detail to grasp exactly what the Messiah was teaching about the kingdom of God.



The fact is that all of Israel, and in all tribes we see the clear teaching that all are judged to be...lost.

Hence the word of the Lord concerning Israel:

Matthew 10:6

King James Version (KJV)

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.



Matthew 15:24

King James Version (KJV)

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.



I emphasize the word lost because it plays a role in this discussion, as it is the word translated destroy here:

Matthew 10:28

King James Version (KJV)


28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


But we see that the Lord did not come to the house of Judah, but Israel, collectively.

I apologize for the length of this post, but it seemed good to me to try to keep the context of the article intact.

 

[timewerx]

In the New Covenant, the wealthy cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

All who do not practice austerity is living in opposition to what Jesus teaches.

But today, postmodernism has destroyed Christianity. Most Christians will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven for the pursuit of good life on Earth.

The only way you can have a good life, even just survive in the standards of the world here is through exploitation of the poor and nature. There is no other way.

That's why Jesus commanded to sell possessions and give to the poor and he's commanding all of us! It's the only way to give back what you took from them!

That's why Jesus referred to traders as thieves! Even if you don't own a business, you work for a thief, doesn't it make you a thief also?

The only way that changes that is you don't partake of the evil worldly system or give back to the poor most of what you've earned which is only possible through a life of austerity in everything!

That's why Lazarus went to Heaven. He is certainly not guilty of exploiting others. But the rich man? Duh? No need to mention he is a sinner or died in sin. If you are wealthy in the world, you definitely will be condemned to hell even if you're a Christian.

A true Christian cannot have many or nice possessions, be saving money(enriching themselves). If that is what the Spirit is leading them, it is not the Holy Spirit.

NT is many things different from OT - abolish animal sacrifice, stoning sinners to death, and sadly to many, chasing a good life is now considered evil. Jesus said it many times...

The popular Christian doctrines followed suit with abolishing animal sacrifices and stoning sinners to death but why not the accumulation of wealth. Smell something fishy? Or is just serving Mammon instead of God?

 

[P1LGR1M]

In the New Covenant, the wealthy cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

All who do not practice austerity is living in opposition to what Jesus teaches.

But today, postmodernism has destroyed Christianity. Most Christians will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven for the pursuit of good life on Earth.

The only way you can have a good life, even just survive in the standards of the world here is through exploitation of the poor and nature. There is no other way.

That's why Jesus commanded to sell possessions and give to the poor and he's commanding all of us! It's the only way to give back what you took from them!

That's why Jesus referred to traders as thieves! Even if you don't own a business, you work for a thief, doesn't it make you a thief also?

The only way that changes that is you don't partake of the evil worldly system or give back to the poor most of what you've earned which is only possible through a life of austerity in everything!

That's why Lazarus went to Heaven. He is certainly not guilty of exploiting others. But the rich man? Duh? No need to mention he is a sinner or died in sin. If you are wealthy in the world, you definitely will be condemned to hell even if you're a Christian.

A true Christian cannot have many or nice possessions, be saving money(enriching themselves). If that is what the Spirit is leading them, it is not the Holy Spirit.

NT is many things different from OT - abolish animal sacrifice, stoning sinners to death, and sadly to many, chasing a good life is now considered evil. Jesus said it many times...

The popular Christian doctrines followed suit with abolishing animal sacrifices and stoning sinners to death but why not the accumulation of wealth. Smell something fishy? Or is just serving Mammon instead of God?

Hello Timewerx, I will be responding to all posts after I have completed the response to the article. Thanks for the response, though.

God bless.

 

[daq]

Both the black and the blue are mistaken: for the ''certain rich man'' is not an ''Andres-man'' but rather an ''Anthropos-man'' and as such he is akin to ''the son of perdition'' which will not be forgiven or released from the unquenchable fire. Therefore cut off that one from your midst: for ''Sin lieth at the door; and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him'' ...

Luke 16:31-17:10 KJV
31. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
1. Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
2. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
3. Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
4. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
5. And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.
6. And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
7. But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
8. And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
9. Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
10. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

1) Look at yourself in the mirror of Torah by the interpretations given through Yeshua.
2) Having faith command that evil sycamine-fig to be cast into the Sea and it shall obey.
3) Each of us is a porter with lesser members of his house, (Mtt.24:42-51, Mrk.13:31-37).
4) Doing all things commanded count yourself an unprofitable servant such as Lazarus.
5) Unfortunately every man has a fig(tree) and a vine even BEFORE he enters the Kingdom.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Part Four


Verse 19 also tells us that the rich man "fared sumptuously every day." Figuratively, this represents the magnificent spiritual feast available only to the Jews, who were the sole remaining part of God's called people, Israel.


Figuratively? Do we also figuratively see that the rich man participates in this feast daily?

And again we note that Israel collectively is mentioned by the author, who just previous to this makes a distinction that the rich man represents...Judah.

Of which tribe...


Hebrews 7:14

King James Version (KJV)


14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.



So we can clarify that a connotation can be eliminated from the author's proposal that Priesthood has anything to do with the teaching.

...right?

We now put this into a context which speaks of Israel as a whole, and the context seems to focus on those of prominent position given the task of leadership contrasted with the common man.


Verse 19 also tells us that the rich man "fared sumptuously every day." Figuratively, this represents the magnificent spiritual feast available only to the Jews, who were the sole remaining part of God's called people, Israel.


And as discussed in Part Three, the notion that Judah was the sole remaining tribe in Covenant with God is simply false. The Kingdom of Judah was comprised of all tribes.

Now if the author had said Judah, it might be understood that he speaks of the area or the kingdom, but he says specifically...Jews, a term derived from Judah.

Did Pilate refer to all Jews, irregardless of location, when he asked if the Lord was King of the Jews? Or just to those of the Southern Kingdom?


In the 1st century CE, they were the only people on earth who had the true religion.


I would agree, though their practice could not be, I think, set forth as pleasing to the Lord.

When leadership is questionable, so is the following of that leadership.

The religion of the Jews was a God-given religious system that was meant to lead men to Christ. When a man looked into the Law, the only possible conclusion he should have been able to come to is seen in the confession of this man:


Luke 18:13

King James Version (KJV)


13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.



But the rejection of the convicting work of the Law gave place to this profession:



Luke 18:10-12

King James Version (KJV)


10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.



The Law should have made the heart cry out to God, bringing to his awareness his sin and his need for the only Savior this world will ever have...God.


Indeed, Paul recounts the glorious station of the House of Judah in Romans 9:

ROMANS 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen. (RSV)


Where do we see..."House of Judah?"

Paul was a member of the Tribe of Benjamin. The reference here is to Israel...clearly.


4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises;


But it sounds good, doesn't it. And because many will not pay attention to details such as this in this treatment of the story of the rich man and Lazarus, they will read this and think that it is a reasonable treatment of God's word.



The Jews were truly rich, feasting on God's spiritual blessings.


At first glance this might be taken to represent Israel at the time of the Lord's ministry, but this could only apply to that time before Israel was judged, and cannot represent the time in which this story is told.

They were not called Jews until after the division of the Kingdom. So we have to see this statement as a historical reference.

And the benefit of relationship with God does not last very long. God was their King, yet they clamored for a king like the surrounding nations. At the time of the Lord's teaching in this story, the Jews, Israel, were...

Lost. In a state of separation from God due to judgment.

Conquered. Their former glory lost, now subject to something they hated...a foreign power.

Having no shepherd. And again the concept of lost takes on a dimension apart from the state of "destruction" they are in. The leadership were false shepherds, feeding themselves.


The Jews were truly rich, feasting on God's spiritual blessings.

Yet these very gifts caused them to stumble because they prompted them to self-righteousness. They gloried in the gifts, without glorifying the Eternal God who gave them. Instead of being a "royal priesthood" that was a blessing to all nations, they instead loathed and despised the surrounding peoples. Certainly, as Paul wrote, "their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them" (Rom. 11:9).


Among Israel was Levi, and they alone were appointed the task of priesthood. We do see Israel collectively as a Witness Nation, but let's keep the Levitical Priesthood and Israel as the Witness Nation in the places. Israel was not judged because of a failure on the part of the Priesthood alone, though we can see a direct link with failure to carry out those cammands coupled with the evil of most of the kings she had.

And again, we see leadership in view, but...this does not negate the responsibility of the common man. The author attempts to first single out "Judah" and separate them from Israel as a collective whole, then tries to place Judah in the role which belonged exclusively to Levi, and by doing this muddy the waters of an objective understanding that will naturally arise from the teaching the Lord gives in this story.

Which is that there will be those that enter into torment, and those that will be comforted. The word of God which both the rich man and Lazarus had in this Age is shown to be sufficient for one to either be comforted, or it will hold a man guilty.



LUKE 16:20 "But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores." (NKJV)

In contrast to the rich man, we now see Lazarus. The first thing to note is that he is depicted as a beggar. This is an apt description of the Gentiles who "laid at the gate" of Judah.


Overlooked is the fact that here we have two Israelites, and one of them has within his power the means to affect the circumstances of the other.

What the author must do, though, is distract you from this simple fact that would have been recognized by those hearing the Lord teach, even as it is recognized today by most who read this story.

He attempts to spiritualize this simple story, first by making the rich man "figuratively" refer to Judah, then here making Lazarus represent a gentile.

Rather than just viewing this as two men of Israel with contrasting conditions. Rather than before complicating a simple teaching, simply taking it at face value.


Paul describes the predicament of the Gentiles before they accepted the Messiah in his letter to the Ephesians:

EPHESIANS 2:12 Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (RSV)


And Paul here is teaching about salvation in Christ. Israel's relationship with God is not taught by Paul to "another way to be reconciled to God," for Paul concludes both Jew and Gentile to be in need of salvation.

Israel had not received the promises of God whch Gentiles were now receiving. While Israel held a position which was unique concerning relationship to and with God, they were also in need of the fulfillment of the promises which Paul emphasizes here refers to Gentile inclusion. He is not teaching "Now you have become like Israel," but teaches consistently that now all are able to become that which was promised to Israel.

The Law, both the Covenant as well as the written Law, was never meant to, nor brought about the salvation that the Law was only meant to foreshadow. Only when Christ came did the eventual result the Law pointed to come about. We could compare this with the redemption of our bodies: we still await that effect of salvation. Even so, the Age of Law pointed to the end result which will culminate in eternal salvation that no longer awaits fulfillment. And do not to mistake that to mean that salvation has not already taken place for believers, as the redemption of the body is the last aspect of eternal salvation to be fulfilled.



This Scripture is also a fitting representation of the position of the nations before the Messiah's sacrifice for the world's sins. They were certainly "excluded from the commonwealth of Israel," "strangers to the covenants of promise," and "without hope and without God in the world." The Gentiles were beggars, located outside Judah and longing to be fed spiritual crumbs from the table of the divinely blessed Jews.


And the biggest error of spiritualizing scripture is the danger of implying doctrine which is absolutely contrary to sound doctrine, which here, we would have to conclude from the author's proposals thus far that...the rich man represents Christ.

That is the only way to tie what he is teaching together and still make sense of it. Gentile Inclusion was never forbidden to Gentiles, they were able to worship God. They were excluded from all the privileges a child of Israel had, but they were not forbidden to worship the One True God.


This Scripture is also a fitting representation of the position of the nations before the Messiah's sacrifice for the world's sins. They were certainly "excluded from the commonwealth of Israel," "strangers to the covenants of promise," and "without hope and without God in the world." The Gentiles were beggars, located outside Judah and longing to be fed spiritual crumbs from the table of the divinely blessed Jews.


Another error that arises from this type of "exposition" is that it denies the state of Israel at the time of this teaching, as well as the many centuries preceding it.

Another error is to mistakenly see the religious leaders as capable of providing spiritual nourishment to their Gentile neighbors. The fact is that they despised Gentiles, even those that had Hebrew heritage, such as the Samaritans.

They could indeed be likened to the rich man, because they were just as guilty as the rich man in that they had no concern for non-Jews, even as the Lord taught in the parable of the Good Samaritan.


This Scripture is also a fitting representation of the position of the nations before the Messiah's sacrifice for the world's sins.


This teaching is contrary to scripture that Israel can be viewed as not in need of the salvation Christ came to bring. Israel, as well as the rest of the world, was in need of salvation. They were separated from God.

The Lord came to bring that which the Law pointed to in picture, and to fulfill that which neother the rich man, nor Israel...could do.

And He did not come to cast crumbs, but to present the Bread of Life, and to give provision for life.

Casting the rich man in a favorable light in any way ignores the fact that this man found himself in Hades...tormented. We could see in this that a logical, or at least reasonable conclusion is that Lazarus' death could be in direct correlation to the lack of concern this rich man had for his neighbor.

That would certainly be more reasonable than reading into this story all that so far we have examined in the teaching found in this article.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Both the black and the blue are mistaken: for the ''certain rich man'' is not an ''Andres-man'' but rather an ''Anthropos-man'' and as such he is akin to ''the son of perdition'' which will not be forgiven or released from the unquenchable fire. Therefore cut off that one from your midst: for ''Sin lieth at the door; and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him'' ...

Hello Daq, I will be responding to all posts after I have completed the response to the article. Thanks for the response, though.

God bless.

 

[Phantasman]

There is always this "possibility"

Luke did not travel with Jesus and so may not have even heard such a parable. He wasn't authoring even for any one who traveled with Jesus, as far as I know. He was sent a copy of Mark (65-80AD) which he later copied after 80AD (from what scholars agree). He was only mentioned as a doctor who was Pauls friend and authored Luke and Acts.

The whole Hades thing relies a lot on Lukes addition tied in with Johns vision, that when linked properly, scares the hell out of people and shows a loving God as a cruel torturous entity. Punishment does exist, as Jesus explains. But God does not gain satisfaction in torture and torment. His punishment is swift.

Those who seek knowledge may agree.

 

[P1LGR1M]

There is always this "possibility"

Luke did not travel with Jesus and so may not have even heard such a parable. He wasn't authoring even for any one who traveled with Jesus, as far as I know. He was sent a copy of Mark (65-80AD) which he later copied after 80AD (from what scholars agree). He was only mentioned as a doctor who was Pauls friend and authored Luke and Acts.

The whole Hades thing relies a lot on Lukes addition tied in with Johns vision, that when linked properly, scares the hell out of people and shows a loving God as a cruel torturous entity. Punishment does exist, as Jesus explains. But God does not gain satisfaction in torture and torment. His punishment is swift.

Those who seek knowledge may agree.

Hello Phantasman, nice to meet you.

The thread is dealing with and article, but if you would like to discuss this story I will gladly meet you in "Let's Talk about Hell."

I will be responding to posts in this thread after I have gone through the article.

God bless.

 

[Clare73]

In the New Covenant, the wealthy cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

Where do you find that in Scripture?

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Clare73]

In the 1st century CE, they (Judah) were the only people on earth who had the true religion.

I would agree, though their practice could not be, I think, set forth as pleasing to the Lord.

Were the NT churches not the true religion?

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Clare73]

There is always this "possibility"

Luke did not travel with Jesus and so may not have even heard such a parable. He wasn't authoring even for any one who traveled with Jesus, as far as I know. He was sent a copy of Mark (65-80AD) which he later copied after 80AD (from what scholars agree). He was only mentioned as a doctor who was Pauls friend and authored Luke and Acts.

Which scholars?

The whole Hades thing relies a lot on Lukes addition tied in with Johns vision, that when linked properly, scares the hell out of people and shows a loving God as a cruel torturous entity. Punishment does exist, as Jesus explains. But God does not gain satisfaction in torture and torment. His punishment is swift.

Not according to Jesus:

"It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna (hell), where the fire never goes out. .
It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into Gehenna (hell). . .
It is better to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into Gehenna (hell),
where. . .'the fire is not quenched'." (Mk 9:43-48)

In the faith
Clare

 

[P1LGR1M]

Were the NT churches not the true religion?

In the faith,
Clare

Hello Clare, nice to meet you. I will be responding to posts after I have finished the response to the article, which, as it is currently going, may be in about a year or so, lol.

In view is not New Testament Churches, but what you quote deals with the author's attempt to corrupt the facts by making the rich man "figuratively" Judah. The people during the ministry of Christ were not the Church, though this term is used for God's people, at times. It is not until Pentecost that THE Church, the Bride of Christ...begins. The inhabitants of the land were, in regards to Israel, a collective assortment of the Tribes of Israel.

And while we can say "spiritually" we are of Israel, and that we are "children of Abraham," we, the Church, are not Israel. We have not replaced Israel, as God still will bring her to restoration in fulfillment of His promises. They remain a distinct Nation, created by God, and a picture of the Church, as we also are a created people, with the distinction that we are new creations in Christ, whereas Israel awaited Messiah, and nationally, do so to this day. There are those of Israel that are in the Church, but it doesn't work in reverse, that we become Israel.

The Churches that follow Pentecost were true "churches."

God bless.

 

[Phantasman]

Which scholars?


Not according to Jesus:

"It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna (hell), where the fire never goes out. .
It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into Gehenna (hell). . .
It is better to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into Gehenna (hell),
where. . .'the fire is not quenched'." (Mk 9:43-48)

In the faith
Clare

Again, your church confuses you.

41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.


When you gain knowledge to understand the parable in it's entirety, and learn not to take things out of context to make up your own truth, you will learn what the Holy Spirit is saying and shun what men teach.

 

[Clare73]

LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man has been the foundation for many of the erroneous beliefs about "hell" within traditional Christianity. Some have viewed it not as a parable, but as a true story Yeshua told to give details about the punishment of sinners in hell.

Yet a thorough, unbiased examination of this story will show that the generally accepted interpretations of this passage of Scripture are erroneous and misleading.

There is always this "possibility"

Luke did not travel with Jesus and so may not have even heard such a parable. He wasn't authoring even for any one who traveled with Jesus, as far as I know. He was sent a copy of Mark (65-80AD) which he later copied after 80AD (from what scholars agree). He was only mentioned as a doctor who was Pauls friend and authored Luke and Acts.

Which scholars?

The whole Hades thing relies a lot on Lukes addition tied in with Johns vision, that when linked properly, scares the hell out of people and shows a loving God as a cruel torturous entity. Punishment does exist, as Jesus explains. But God does not gain satisfaction in torture and torment. His punishment is swift.

Not according to Jesus:

"It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna (hell), where the fire never goes out. .
It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into Gehenna (hell). . .
It is better to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into Gehenna (hell),
where. . .'the fire is not quenched'." (Mk 9:43-48)

Again, your church confuses you.

Are you sure about that?

41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where there worm dieth not, and the fire is never quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.

You can deny the specific, clear and certain meaning of the words in v. 47, where the stated choice is to enter
the kingdom of God missing an eye, or to enter hell fire with both eyes.

I will take Jesus at his word, not denying its plain meaning and its context to "make up my own truth."

49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.

When you gain knowledge to understand the parable in it's entirety, and learn not to take things out of context to make up your own truth, you will learn what the Holy Spirit is saying and shun what men teach.

Are you sure about that?

1) I note that Mk 9:41-50 is not a parable any more than the Sermon on the Mount is a parable. A parable is a fictitious narrative. Mk 9:41-50 is instruction on dealing radically with our sin.

2) I note vv. 49-50 do not negate Jesus' strong words on the unquenchable fires of hell.

3) I note you did not show how vv. 49-50 negate Jesus' words regarding the unquenchable fires of hell.
All you offered was denial of the plain meaning of his words.
I will show vv. 49-50 do not negate Jesus' words regarding the fires of hell, but complete his instruction regarding them.

4) I note that salt is a symbol of grace/sanctification because:
--salt penetrates - grace penetrates, to the level of our heart and motives, sanctifying them
--salt retards corruption - grace transforms our corruption
--salt aids healing - grace heals our sin (1Pe 2:24; cf 2Kgs 2:20-22)
--salt makes tasteless things tasty and acceptable - we are unacceptable to God without his grace

5) I note that in the NT salt is used as a symbol of grace/sanctification:

Col 4:6 - "Let your conversation be always full of grace (no corruption), seasoned with salt (which retards corruption).

Mt 5:13 - "You are the salt of the earth (and the decaying earth desperately needs salt).
But if salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything,
except to be thrown out and trampled by men."

[If the professing church (salt) loses its saltiness (holiness), it will no longer be good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled on by the world.]

Mk 9:49-50 - "Everyone will be salted (sanctified) with fire (of refining). Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with one another."

[Grace/sanctification retards corruption (the source of our conflicts - Jas 4:1) and makes us peaceable.]

6) I note that salt was added to the grain sacrifices (to sanctify them).

So the understanding of the lesson in its entirety is that those who would not enter the unquenchable fires of hell must enter the fire of suffering and sanctification in dealing radically with their sin.

My church does not confuse me, but your denial of the plain meaning of Jesus' simple words certainly confuses you.
I'm sorry you find the words of Jesus unacceptable to you, and have to "take things out of context to make up your own truth."

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Clare73]

Hello Clare, nice to meet you. I will be responding to posts after I have finished the response to the article, which, as it is currently going, may be in about a year or so, lol.

In view is not New Testament Churches, but what you quote deals with the author's attempt to corrupt the facts by making the rich man "figuratively" Judah. The people during the miinstry of Christ were not the Church, though this term is used for God's people at times.
It is not until Pentecost that THE Church, the Bride of Christ...begins.

The Churches that follow Pentecost were true "churches."

God bless.

Thanks, Pilgrim.

So the NT churches were the true religion, and they existed in the first century.

Judaism was not "the only true religion" in the first century, which is another corruption.

And Scripture does not present the Church as "beginning" at Pentecost.
Scripture presents the Church as all believers who are the body of Christ.
There were many believers in Christ before Pentecost, and they were the Church.


In the faith,
Clare

 

[P1LGR1M]

Thanks, Pilgrim.

So the NT churches were the true religion, and they existed in the first century.

Judaism was not "the only true religion" in the first century.

In the faith,
Clare

It is vital in our understanding of scripture to distinguish between Judaism and the faith followed by Christians.

"Judaism" was the only true religion before Christ's death because it was given by God as a covenant by which man could be in relationship with God. But...God promised the New Covenant because man could not keep the "First Covenant," or, the Mosaic Covenant, also known as the Covenant of Law.

But as Paul teaches the Law (euphemistic for this covenant) was meant to lead man to Christ. In other words, just as God's word today leads man to repentance and faith in Christ whereby we are saved, even so the Law was a tutor, a servant given the job of leading men to an understanding of sin, and that they were reliant upon God for salvation.

Therefore we are "mediators of the New Covenant," not adherents to the covenant which has been abrogated by the New Covenant. The writer of Hebrews goes to great lengths to teach this to his Hebrew brethren, who would have understoof clearly the implication of his teaching which is lost on (though we can understand) us because we were not brought up under Law as they were in the first century.

Read Hebrews 7-10, and take note reference to the "First Covenant" and what he is saying about it.

And by the way, good posting.

God bless.

 

[Clare73]

Hello Clare, nice to meet you. I will be responding to posts after I have finished the response to the article, which, as it is currently going, may be in about a year or so, lol.

In view is not New Testament Churches, but what you quote deals with the author's attempt to corrupt the facts by making the rich man "figuratively" Judah. The people during the ministry of Christ were not the Church, though this term is used for God's people, at times. It is not until Pentecost that THE Church, the Bride of Christ...begins. The inhabitants of the land were, in regards to Israel, a collective assortment of the Tribes of Israel.

And while we can say "spiritually" we are of Israel, and that we are "children of Abraham," we, the Church, are not Israel. We have not replaced Israel, as God still will bring her to restoration in fulfillment of His promises.

But wasn't that promise of restoration fulfilled when they returned from Babylon (Ne 12:43)?
What is the Bilbical basis for another restoration?

Because the Jewish apostles present no hope of a future restoration of national Israel anywhere in the NT.
For the Jewish apostles, restoration is of the original creation in the new creation (Ac 3:21; Mt 17:11, 19:28 w/1Co 6:2-3; Eph 1:9-10).

The restoration of Israel when they returned from Babylon (Ne 12:43) is a type
of the restoration of all creation in the NT (2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15).
For the Jewish apostles, the fulfillment of the ages is in the church (1Co 10:11),
rather than in a future restoration of Israel.

They remain a distinct Nation, created by God, and a picture of the Church, as we also are a created people, with
the distinction that we are new creations in Christ, whereas Israel awaited Messiah, and nationally, do so to this day. There are those of Israel that are in the Church, but it doesn't work in reverse, that we become Israel.

Are you saying there are two peoples of God?

Because on the subject of the relation of Israel to the Church, the NT seems to be quite clear in its analogy of the one olive tree of God's people in Ro 11:16-23.

In the analogy, God's people are branches on one tree, with Israel being the branches on the tree in the OT.
At the death of Christ, which was the inauguration of the New Covenant, making the Sinaitic Covenent obsolete (Heb 8:13), unbelieving Jewish branches were cut off the one tree of the people of God,
and believing Gentile branches were grafted on.
But it's still just one tree of God's people.
Scripture nowhere presents God as having two people.

In the NT analogy, the trunk of the tree would be Christ, in whom all believers, Jew and Gentile, abide;
and the holy roots are the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from whom the trunk, Jesus Christ, came forth.

The one tree is all the people of God, the church of believing Jews and Gentiles, the body of Christ.

And why, when the church is a living reality, would we need a picture of it in unbelieving Isael?
How can unbelieving Israel be a picture of God's believing people?

I don't see any basis in Scripture for two peoples of God,
or for unbelieving Israel being a picture of what is already a living reality,
or for unbelieving Israel being a picture of God's believing people.
This is not a Biblical notion.

Scripture presents only one people of God, past, present and future, the body of Christ, the called-out assembly, or ekklesia, of believing Jews and believing Gentiles.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[timewerx]

4) Doing all things commanded count yourself an unprofitable servant such as Lazarus.

I don't think Lazarus is unprofitable. Jesus said terrible things on unprofitable servants, with destruction in fire being their final fate...

..For Lazarus went to Heaven despite the fact he is very poor and obviously "unprofitable" in worldly economics..

I deduce that "unprofitable" according to Jesus is everything to do with obeying his commands and has nothing to do with finance, commerce, trade, etc which Jesus hates and even calls them thievery!!

The Churches that follow Pentecost were true "churches."

God bless.

If I'm not mistaken, I've only seen/heard such people, not buildings!

I've been to many church buildings who claim to be Pentecostal and all of them are just sham . They are quite disobedient to the teachings of Christ.

They believed they are all saved by a simple acceptance and water baptism. But think of this for a second. You profess to love someone, but you disobey most of what you profess to 'love' wants you to do? By this 'someones' standards, you are not worthy of this one you say you love...

Now I ask. Do you deserve to enter the house of the one you say you love but disobey most, if not all of the difficult things this one you love asks of you? Do you think you deserve to enter His house if He Himself tells you that you are not worthy of Him?

Doesn't add up isn't it?

All there in your Bible...