No such thing in scripture as 3 compartments of hell

[BobRyan]

We are more dead than the Saints in Heaven.

That would be a nice quote to have from scripture.

We do have this one though in the mean time.

1 Thess 4
13 " But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. "

Your "we who are alive are more dead than those who have ..." is missing from the text.

16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds

 

[BobRyan]

1. Neither Eph 4 nor Hebrews 2 mention "Abraham's bosom"

bobryan,
1. Point 1 is that it doesn’t have to say Abraham’s Bosom.
These verses collaborate with Luke 16:19-31 which is the context of Abraham’s Bosom.

You said "these verses collaborate with"??... And so then we are free to insert "Abraham's bosom" verbiage/preference into them?

We would all agree that all of scripture -- every verse -- in some way can be found to be in harmony with the rest of scripture. That does not mean we can insert "the crossing of the Jordan" into every other text of scripture -- as I am sure you would agree.

Eisegesis is the practice of inserting into the text what a specific bias would "need" as if the text actually said it.

Exegesis is the opposite.

2. Ephesians 4:8; Wherefore he saith, When he (Christ) ascended up on high, he (Christ) ascended up on high (Heaven), he (Christ) led captivity captive these were those that were in Abraham’s Bosom.

"these were those that were in Abraham’s Bosom." -- I think we would both agree that that is a great example of words that don't actually show up in Eph 4:8 even though you give that text as a reference for them -- but in some sense are probably "needed" by a certain POV

The word captivity is used is because Satan had the keys (Authority) of hell and death till Christ arose from the dead and Hebrews 2:14-15; Revelation 1:18 shows this to be true.

Certainly we can all agree that Christ is the "first fruits of the dead" 1 Cor 15 - but that does not allow us to simply "insert" the "Abraham's bosom" topic as if the text itself teaches it whenever our own bias happens to "need" it.

3. I believe you are misunderstanding the concept of the devil holding them against their will.
Satan had the rights to hell and Christ had to make his right for them to have to free them.
This freeing was to make Satan’s rights inoperative legally.

When you render the story as God's angels delivering saints into Satan's captivity at death - you are bending the text beyond the limits of even a parable

4. I didn’t say good angels carry dead saints to Abraham’s Bosom. The scripture said the beggar was carried by the angels into Abraham’s Bosom.

Which means he was carried by the angels of God to Abraham's bosom -( I assume you agree with me that it does not mean he was carried by demons to Abraham's bosom ) and then we are told he was being "comforted there" for all the sorrow he had endured during his life.

I already explained why Paradise and Abraham’s Bosom was the same place though it is not an exact plain statement that they are the same.

Indeed - I come across that preference sometimes and I agree that everyone has free will and can choose such a preference if they wish.

I am looking for a Bible based POV where preference takes a back seat. I am not trying to say that you are not entitled to your own opinion.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Not even one text saying that "Abraham's bosom" is on Earth

Abraham's bosom is not a place. It is a reference to the intimacy that Lazarus has with Abraham. We see this same word in reference to Jesus and the Apostle John: "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." (John13:23) "Abraham's bosom" is a synonym for the eternal blessedness of the righteous, presenting a vivid contrast to the foul horrors of Gehenna.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That would be a nice quote to have from scripture.

Heaven is Spiritual, death has to do with our physical body. Pauls says that "death is at work in us" (2cor4:12), we are to die to self. Paul says we die daily to self. The resurrection power of God is already at work in us to lift us up form this body of death. We die to self so we can live for God.

"He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away.” (Rev2:4)

 

[BobRyan]

22 Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house—

Abraham's bosom is not a place. It is a reference to the intimacy... .

The language in the parable is that of a location and in that location is Abraham... and thus Abraham's bosom. All the dead saints of all of time in the lap of father Abraham who is in fact speaking in the parable - having a Q&A if you will.

 

[joshua 1 9]

22 Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom

A lot of translations use the word: "side" "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side."

If you have a different translation. Then what is your translation? Where do you think that Lazarus and Abraham were in this story? We know that today they are in Heaven, but this was before Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

 

[mmksparbud]

I have gone out on a limb in the claim that there is no Bible statement in OT or NT claiming that hell is divided into three parts, or that Paradise is in hell, or that paradise is the first compartment in hell or any such thing as that. so if I am wrong this should be pretty easy to point out my error.

In the example of the parable in Luke 16 we have prayers to the dead that are of the form of the rich man praying to Ἀβραάμ Abraam

Someone could possibly respond like this


Well I do know the the following;

1. no text in OT or NT says that - only this parable where we have prayers to the dead. And even it does not say "until Jesus ascended into heaven all the saved went to the compartment of hell known as Abrahams Bosom/Paradise"

2. what is more NO TEXT in OT or NT says that another name for Paradise is "Abrham's bosom"

3. There are in fact only 3 uses of the term "paradise" in all of scripture and none say they are abraham's bosom

Now I suppose that someone "might" say in response



As I have said elsewhere

Well, goes to show how much I know---I never heard there were 3 levels of hell!! I just read that hell was called by different names and didn't realize people were compartmentalizing it. I know the Mormons have 3 levels of heaven, I didn't realize some Christians have 3 levels of hell. Ok---so does that mean that there are levels of torture? 1st level, not so bad, 2nd, level, gets more brutal and by the 3rd hell, God really is pulling out nails and tonsils and piercing eyeballs???? Does this include purgatory or is that a separate place? What verses describe each level? And why would a parable about Abrahams bossom be used to designate a compartment of hell?

 

[BobRyan]

A lot of translations use the word: "side" "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side."

If you have a different translation. Then what is your translation? .

well everyone on this thread has been using the phrase "Abraham's bosom" instead of "Abraham's side" --

Possibly they are reading either the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, YLT, J.B. Phillips, American Standard...

But as you point out there is ESV using the term "Abraham's side" instead of bosom... I don't really have a problem with that -- I am just trying to use the most well known well-publicized form in the majority of translations.

 

[BobRyan]

And why would a parable about Abrahams bossom be used to designate a compartment of hell?

Yes that is where the problem is ... no such text so far as we have seen on this thread.

 

[jerry kelso]

1. Neither Eph 4 nor Hebrews 2 mention "Abraham's bosom"



These verses "collaborate with"??... And then we are free to insert "Abrham's bosom" verbiage/preference into them?

We would all agree that all of scripture -- every verse -- in some way can be found to be in harmony with the rest of scripture. That does not mean we can insert the crossing of the Jordan into every other text of scripture -- as I am sure you would agree.

Eisegesis the practice of inserting into the text what a specific bias would "need" as if the text actually said it.

Exegesis is the opposite.



"these were those that were in Abraham’s Bosom." -- I think we would both agree that that is a great example of words that don't actually show up in Eph 4:8 even though you give that text as a reference for them -- but in some sense "are needed" by a certain POV



Certainly we can all agree that Christ is the "first fruits of the dead" 1 Cor 15 - but that does not allow us to simply "insert" the "Abraham's bosom" topic as if the text itself teaches it whenever our own bias happens to "need" it.



When you render the story as God's angels delivering saints into Satan's captivity at death - you are bending the text beyond the limits of even a parable



Which means he was carried by the angels of God to Abraham's bosom -( I assume you agree with me that it does not mean he was carried by demons to Abraham's bosom ) and then we are told he was being "comforted there" for all the sorrow he had endured during his life.



Indeed - I come across that preference sometimes and I agree that everyone has free will and can choose such a preference if they wish.

I am looking for a Bible based POV where preference takes a back seat. I am not trying to say that you are not entitled to your own opinion.

bobryan,

1. Proper exegesis is that Luke 16:19-31 is the main context.
That context is about where the righteous beggar goes to Abraham’s bosom before the cross and the rich man to the torment side. That is a fact of scripture.
I gave the reason that it is not a parable and you have not rebutted it by scripture.
Your argument of angels carrying Lazarus to AB and the no mention of demons carrying the rich doesn’t prove that it goes beyond reality.
Elijah was translated in a whirlwind by the chariots of fire and Elisha saw the chariots of fire and the horses of fire and the horsemen. The horsemen were somebody and most likely angels.
A parable is a story that is not in the details of every jot and tittle. It is about a specific point.
The KoH parables were about Israel’s rejection for the most part.

2. I already mentioned about the legality
issue debunk the whole argument of prison, prison and Keys etc.
Keys means authority not an actual key that you lock someone up with.

3. I have given you proper exegesis and debunked your human logic according to the scriptures.
You ought to try to come to the right side of exegesis and rest and be free. Jerry Kelso

 

[mmksparbud]

bobryan,

1. Proper exegesis is that Luke 16:19-31 is the main context.
That context is about where the righteous beggar goes to Abraham’s bosom before the cross and the rich man to the torment side. That is a fact of scripture.
I gave the reason that it is not a parable and you have not rebutted it by scripture.
Your argument of angels carrying Lazarus to AB and the no mention of demons carrying the rich doesn’t prove that it goes beyond reality.
Elijah was translated in a whirlwind by the chariots of fire and Elisha saw the chariots of fire and the horses of fire and the horsemen. The horsemen were somebody and most likely angels.
A parable is a story that is not in the details of every jot and tittle. It is about a specific point.
The KoH parables were about Israel’s rejection for the most part.

2. I already mentioned about the legality
issue debunk the whole argument of prison, prison and Keys etc.
Keys means authority not an actual key that you lock someone up with.

3. I have given you proper exegesis and debunked your human logic according to the scriptures.
You ought to try to come to the right side of exegesis and rest and be free. Jerry Kelso

So you think it is not a parable but reality----interesting. That must be one huge, gigantic bosom Abraham has---I mean truly huge for millions of people to go to. And just exactly what is a finger dipped in water supposed to do to someone that is in flames? It also says--
Luk 16:26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that they that would pass from hence to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from thence to us.

But here is the rich man talking to Abraham, even though there is a great gulf fixed---must not be too great if a man in hell can talk to Abraham in heaven---nor too fixed. Must be close enough to talk and so Abraham and all those on his bosom are able to hear those writhing in hell ---must be rather unsettling to spend eternity hearing people screaming in pain all the time, You ever had a small burn? Makes you scream at the top of your lungs, I've had several. Ever been to a rehab hospital at night? There is always one old person screaming---just one drives you nuts, millions of them screaming 24/7??? And you think this is heaven? The rich man is buried---but not the beggar, the beggar is taken by angels to heaven. Is hell in the grave then? And no righteous person should be buried? And though Abraham can talk to the rich man, he can't make himself heard by the rich man's brothers to warn them, instead he tells the rich man---
Luk 16:29 But Abraham saith, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one go to them from the dead, they will repent.

Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rise from the dead.

So even if someone were to rise from the dead, they still wouldn't pay attention. Really? And all those stories of people coming back from the dead? If they are true then Abraham certainly could send someone --but there is a gulf fixed---so all those stories are not real? People really can not come back from the dead??


You interpretation of what a parable is, is not Semitic but Aristotelian Greek. The concept that a parable has only one point is definitively not Semitic. You can look up the differences. Here is just one site
Parable Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

 

[joshua 1 9]

just exactly what is a finger dipped in water supposed to do to someone that is in flames?

This is water from the River of Live that flows from the Throne of God. Clearly the rich man understood living water. He was in a dry place where there was none of the living water of life. This is like dead religion where water become stagnate and the very water we need to live will poison us and kill us or make us sick.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yes that is where the problem is ... no such text so far as we have seen on this thread.

They equate this with the Paradise Jesus was talking about to the thief on the cross when He said: “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43) We are told: "the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew12:40)

If we are told that Jesus spent 3 days in the heart of the earth then why do you doubt that. This is a spiritual place we are talking about. Not something you can see with your natural eyes. We can see the bottomless pit with our natural eyes, but we are not going to see Satan in the bottomless pit anymore then you can see him now on the earth.

 

[mmksparbud]

This is water from the River of Live that flows from the Throne of God. Clearly the rich man understood living water. He was in a dry place where there was none of the living water of life. This is like dead religion where water become stagnate and the very water we need to live will poison us and kill us or make us sick.

The Water of Life is not for the wicked, it is reserved, along with the Tree of Life, as a reward, a gift of God, for the saved.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So you think it is not a parable but reality----interesting.

If you are given a name then it is a real person. In this case Lazarus has a name. If the story was about a rich man and a beggar, then we do not have real people to deal with. As it is Lazarus is a real person that we can go and visit and talk to when we go to Heaven. So we can talk to him about his experience.

 

[BobRyan]

And why would a parable about Abraham's bosom be used to designate a compartment of hell?

Yes that is where the problem is ... no such text so far as we have seen on this thread.

They equate this with the Paradise Jesus was talking about to the thief on the cross when He said: “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43) We are told: "the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew12:40)

Jesus was asked "master remember me WHEN you come into your kingdom" Luke 16
Jesus responds "Truly I say to you today - you SHALL be with Me in paradise" Luke 16.

He did not say "the grave is paradise" or "the tomb is paradise" His answer tells us that WHEN He comes into His kingdom He will take the penitent thief to paradise.

If we are told that Jesus spent 3 days in the heart of the earth then why do you doubt that.

Not doubting that... I am simply pointing that the context for "when" in Luke 16 is "when you come into your kingdom" not "When you descend into the heart of the earth"

 

[mmksparbud]

If you are given a name then it is a real person. In this case Lazarus has a name. If the story was about a rich man and a beggar, then we do not have real people to deal with. As it is Lazarus is a real person that we can go and visit and talk to when we go to Heaven. So we can talk to him about his experience.

So the rich man is not real, since he has no name, but Lazarus is? So by your definition, the only real persons are Abraham and Lazarus. Lazarus never says a word, only the rich man does the talking, and, of course, Abraham.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So the rich man is not real, since he has no name, but Lazarus is?

He will never be real to me because he is forever lost and I am saved and going to Heaven.

 

[BobRyan]

1. Neither Eph 4 nor Hebrews 2 mention "Abraham's bosom"

You said "these verses collaborate with"??... And so then we are free to insert "Abraham's bosom" verbiage/preference into them?

We would all agree that all of scripture -- every verse -- in some way can be found to be in harmony with the rest of scripture. That does not mean we can insert "the crossing of the Jordan" into every other text of scripture -- as I am sure you would agree.

Eisegesis is the practice of inserting into the text what a specific bias would "need" as if the text actually said it. Exegesis is the opposite.

"these were those that were in Abraham’s Bosom."
-- I think we would both agree that that is a great example of words that don't actually show up in Eph 4:8 even though you give that text as a reference for them -- but in some sense are probably "needed" by a certain POV

Certainly we can all agree that Christ is the "first fruits of the dead" 1 Cor 15 - but that does not allow us to simply "insert" the "Abraham's bosom" topic as if the text itself teaches it whenever our own bias happens to "need" it.

When you render the story as God's angels delivering saints into Satan's captivity at death - you are bending the text beyond the limits of even a parable

The text says "the angles took him" Which means he was carried by the angels of God to Abraham's bosom -( I assume you agree with me that it does not mean he was carried by demons to Abraham's bosom ) and then we are told he was being "comforted there" for all the sorrow he had endured during his life.

Indeed - I come across that preference sometimes and I agree that everyone has free will and can choose such a preference if they wish. But as for me - I am looking for a Bible based POV where preference takes a back seat. I am not trying to say that you are not entitled to your own opinion.

bobryan,
1. Proper exegesis is that Luke 16:19-31 is the main context.

Agreed and "the answer" given in Luke 23 is in context with "the question asked" in Luke 23

(a text that actually does use the term "paradise")

40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” 43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you today, you SHALL be with Me in Paradise.



So also Luke 16 has the context within it of the Jews complaining at the end of a long line of parables from Jesus - and then Jesus switches to a parable in Luke 16 that they cannot but help agree to - since in it Abraham is sovereign of all saints in heaven.

That context is about where the righteous beggar goes to Abraham’s bosom before the cross and the rich man to the torment side. That is a fact of scripture.

Certainly many scholars admit that the parable in Luke 16 shows the wicked in hell praying to Abraham and the saints in heaven are all in Abraham's lap.

I gave the reason that it is not a parable and you have not rebutted it by scripture.

I have you scripture showing specifics given in the case of the parable of the trees in Judges -- even though it is never called a parable and even though it does use specific details... everyone admits it is a parable. You did not rebut my scripture. But it is in response to your example where even you do not find a text saying the Luke 16 story is not a parable or showing other folks in Christ's day praying to Abraham.

Your argument of angels carrying Lazarus to AB and the no mention of demons carrying the rich doesn’t prove that it goes beyond reality.

I simply point out that you provide the logic or reason for God sending his angels to carry saints to the devil or to the devil's prison and no text says this is the normal thing in scripture.

Elijah was translated in a whirlwind by the chariots of fire and Elisha saw the chariots of fire and the horses of fire and the horsemen.

True but no text says Elijah was taken to "the devils prison" .. and in fact Moses and Elijah stand "with Christ" in glorified form in Matthew 23 before the cross.

 

[mmksparbud]

He will never be real to me because he is forever lost and I am saved and going to Heaven.

Since he's the one doing most of the talking, and he is not real to you---then it's a one sided parable??? And it will be pretty crowded on Abrahams bosom when you get there---hope you find a spot.