RESURRECTION OR IMMORTALITYThat would make for an interesting topic in itself.
Very few Bible versions use "gehenna" in their translation. One that does is YLT, a favorite of mine:
Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon
Genesis 1:1 (YLT)
"gehenna"occurs 12 times in 12 verses in the YLT.
See results from these other Bibles:
1 result in the VUL James 3:3
Mat 10:28
'And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna.
The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD
John 2:
14 and He found in the temple those selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money-changers sitting,
15 and having made a whip of small cords, He put all forth out of the temple, also the sheep, and the oxen;.....................
[Nahum 3:2["sound of whip"/Reve 18:11-13]
Reve 18:
8 Yet this, in one day, shall be arriving the stripes of Her, death and sorrow and famine.
And in fire She shall be being burned/katakauqhsetai <2618> (5701),
that strong Lord the God, the one judging Her.
11 'And the merchants of the land shall weep and sorrow over Her, because their lading no one doth buy any more;
13 and cinnamon, and odours, and ointment, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and cattle, and sheep, and of horses, and of chariots, and of bodies and souls of men.
Gehenna - Lake of Everlasting Fire...Just Outside Jerusalem - Christianity Original
3) Where exactly is Gehenna?
The Valley of Hinnom, named Gehenna in Greek, lies just outside the city of Jerusalem. During Jesus’ time, it was the city’s garbage burner.
Gehenna Valley – The Curious Case of the Undying Worms
7) Jesus says in Gehenna ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched’ (Mark 9:47-48 NIV). Many assume that it must be only in a mystic hell that worms don’t die even in fire. Isn’t that the case?
Only those who know Jesus’ first century Gehenna Valley will know the true meaning of this phrase.
No torture. Only complete destruction. Jesus used the same Gehenna in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:22). The Gehenna Valley was not far from where Jesus uttered these words.
8) What does Jesus signify with all these in terms of the Gehenna Valley?
- Even today, we know that fire is kept continually burning in city waste burners. In the same fashion, fires were kept burning (not quenched) in the Gehenna Valley of that time.
- But, why did the worms not die? Because these worms were not exactly amidst the fires. Fires used to burn at the bottom of the Gehenna Valley. It was in the vegetation that lined the slopes of the valley that the worms thrived. Jesus was referring to those worms.
Dead bodies thrown into Gehenna Valley would be destroyed by the fires burning below. The ones that might get stuck in the slopes would be consumed by worms
Doesn't really answer my question. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection to them death was already eternal. If the unrighteous are killed why would they be concerned about how long the fire burns or the worms live after they are dead? What difference would it make to a person after they are dead? Only the fire is eternal in Jude it doesn't say the cities burned forever.The fire serves as a reminder of their eternal destruction to those who live.
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1)
Jesus used the word for death 17 times in the gospels, if Jesus had meant "death" in Matt 2:46, why would He not say death? What He did say was "punishment.""Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25)
...the punishment that is eternal is the second death, therefore the unrighteous face eternal death.
Simply saying that they held erroneous beliefs doesn't make it so. You need to prove it. I mentioned the Jewish belief because some one claimed that the belief in hell came from Greek paganism. Where Jesus and His 12 disciples grew up had a belief in hell and nothing Jesus said or taught contradicted that belief. Please see my post #57 this thread.I am sure that many held to erroneous beleif, nevertheless the record of the Law and the Prophets does not speak of unconditional immortality of the human soul. Just the opposite in fact.
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.LUKE 16:19 "There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day."
First let us examine the 1st verse "purple and fine linen", and find out where they are used in the NT and OT.
I find it amazing how many times those 2 words together are only mentioned in Luke 16 and Revelation 18 of the NT, actually tying this parable to the book of Revelation!.....
Because it fits the scriptural & historical context! And contains no dogmatic prejudices. It actually listens to what Jesus is saying rather than introducing presumptions (eg: the fanciful "flames" of peoples imagination to fit dogmatics which is in direct contradiction of the text that speaks of a "single flame").Google "Lazarus and the rich man" you will see a bunch of theories what it "really means." Why is this theory better than any of the others?
Figures of speech for judgement. Read this from the OT:Doesn't really answer my question. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection to them death was already eternal. If the unrighteous are killed why would they be concerned about how long the fire burns or the worms live after they are dead?
Indeed it doesn't make any difference after they are dead, and why should it? The punishment is in the realisation that ones life is being extinguished, forever. If that is not a horror to a person then the heart is very hard indeed.What difference would it make to a person after they are dead?
Nevertheless the cities remain as a monument to mankind, as a reminder of the wrath of God against sinful mankind.Only the fire is eternal in Jude it doesn't say the cities burned forever.
Yes. The punishment is death. So anybody could refer to the wages of sin as either death or punishment, both are true and they are not mutually exclusive.Jesus used the word for death 17 times in the gospels, if Jesus had meant "death" in Matt 2:46, why would He not say death? What He did say was "punishment."
Please show me any verse which says anyone dies a second death? Hint there ain't none. There is only one verse which mentions anything happening in the lake of fire and that is Rev 20:10.
Right next to the verse you are quoting: "The lake of fire is the second death."(Revelation 20)Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. "tormented day and night for ever and ever." no mention of second death and one of those is a person, the false prophet.
I am not opposing the idea of Hell, this is well established in Scripture. Rather I am stating that the idea of unconditional human immortality is un-biblical and in fact Greek in origin.Simply saying that they held erroneous beliefs doesn't make it so. You need to prove it. I mentioned the Jewish belief because some one claimed that the belief in hell came from Greek paganism. Where Jesus and His 12 disciples grew up had a belief in hell and nothing Jesus said or taught contradicted that belief. Please see my post #57 this thread.
Actually it makes a huge amount of sense if you let go of your preconceptions & prejudices and stick to the written word!If Lazarus did not really exist, then what sense does it make to use a specific name? None.
Not a single depiction or insinuation of "eternal torment" in the tale!the fact remains it teaches eternal torment.
Not a mention or insinuation of "eternal torment" in the text.Generally those that reject the bible's teaching on eternal torment want it to be a parable thinking they can get rid of all that is said about eternal torment in the text.
The same applies to the theological BIAS of those advocating repetative and enduring suffering in a fiery burning hell. An idea that didn't gain popularity in Christianity until the Medieval era of history.Therefore their theological BIAS makes them want it to be a parable rather than real for it being real refutes their bias.
The same applies to the theological BIAS of those that advocating repetative and enduring suffering in a fiery burning hell. An idea that didn't gain popularity until the Medieval era of history.
Proof of BIAS: those that read "flames" into the tale when Jesus spoke of a "single flame".
None of the teachings from chapter 14 thru 16 were introduced by Jesus as being parables. They are all depicted as responses and framed to get a reaction...to which he responded eg: Luke 16:1-8........What about Abraham? Jesus did not introduce the story of Lazarus and the rich man as a parable
Actually he did! Read the first couple of verses of Luke 17 that immediately follow the tale of the RM&L.and He did not explain it later to His disciples.
Sure! But who would know about it!It is very possible that a beggar name Lazarus was thrown down at a rich mans gate sometime in history.
Read John 8 from vs30. You need to get upto speed on the significance of Abraham in Jewish thought of the time (which Jesus is obviously criticising. Why did the Rich Man appeal to Abraham instead of God? How is it that the Rich Man conceived that Abraham could free Lazarus from Hades/Sheol?If the entire story was anonymous then it could be a parable but the inclusion of a specific historical person, Abraham, precludes it being a parable.
How so! What Jesus related was in full accord with his general teaching. Note John 8:40 where Jesus appeals to Abraham as a witness on his behalf (cp. Gen 18).If Abraham was not in the place Jesus said and did not say the words Jesus quoted then Jesus lied.
.....You are partially right about what some Jews believed about hell. Now for the rest of the story.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud, among the Jews in Israel before and during the time of Jesus was a belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom.
Disclaimer: There were different groups within Judaism; Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes etc. and there were different beliefs about resurrection, hell etc. I am addressing only the belief stated above, Any other beliefs are not relevant to this response.Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
Regarding RM&L and the single flame, you might contemplate Acts 2:3. Orthodox scholars (RCC, ROC, EOC & OOC) and other communions have suggested that the one flame could bring benefits to the righteous, or deficits to the unrighteous...
Genesis 1:1 (YLT)
"flame"
occurs 33 times in 32 verses in the YLT.
Used only one time in the Gospels....guess where......
And again a reference to Revelation.......
Luk 16:24
and having cried, he said, Father Abraham, deal kindly with me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and may cool my tongue, because I am distressed in this flame.
Rev 19:12
and his eyes are as a flame of fire, and upon his head are many diadems -- having a name written that no one hath known, except himself,
There is nothing original in your speculations, the "Gentiles at the gate" theory is old but in Church history quite modern. It lacks scriptural backup, which is why it isn't a widespread understanding on what Jesus is telling us.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."
I would like to focus on the word "dogs" in this verse. Their are 2 different greek words used for dogs in the NT, one for an adult dog [used in Luke 16]
and one for a young dog or puppy, which is only used 4 times, 2 in Matt 15 and 2 in Mark 7 concerning a woman of Canaan. This verse ties in with Luke 16:21
Mat 15:27 ¶
And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”
Genesis 1:1 (KJV)
Strong's Number G2965 matches the Greek κύων (kyōn), which occurs 5 times in 5 verses in the Greek concordance
κύων kýōn, koo'-ohn; a primary word; a dog ("hound") (literally or figuratively):—dog.
This the one used in Luke 16 and also Revelation 22:15
Genesis 1:1 (KJV)
Strong's Number G2952 matches the Greek κυνάριον (kynarion), which occurs 4 times in 4 verses in the Greek concordance
κυνάριον kynárion, koo-nar'-ee-on; neuter of a presumed derivative of G2965; a puppy:—dog.
Kindgdom Bible Studies Template Page
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. Paul describes the predicament of the Gentiles before they accepted the Messiah in his letter to the Ephesians:...................
Additionally, we are told that dogs came and consoled Lazarus in his misery, licking his sores. The Jews considered the surrounding Gentiles to be unclean "dogs."
Even Yeshua himself used this unflattering comparison when he conversed with the Greek Syrophoenician woman while in the region of Tyre (Mark 7:24-30).
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.
“Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores” (Lk. 16:21). A more accurate translation of the phrase, “moreover the dogs,” would be, “the other dogs.” The Greek word translated “moreover” is ALLA which means OTHER and not MOREOVER.
I am sure that all my readers are aware that dogs will on occasion lick the sores of humans and other animals but most often they are found licking the sores of their own kind - other dogs!
Neither Lazarus nor the dogs are, of course, literal dogs, but they serve as figures of the heathen nations surrounding Judah, and without the abundant blessings of God they soothe one another the best way they can, except when they are fighting - as dogs often do. Lazarus was a dog - a Gentile - for he found himself in the dog class..................
If one understands the Rich Man is symbolizing the murderous corrupt Judean Rulers in Jerusalem, then the Jewish/Hebrew book of Revelation will be more understandable, imho.
Perhaps you missed my post here:
Rich Man and Lazarus most misunderstood parable in NT?
Yes the fire is unquenchable. Where does it say that what is thrown in the unquenchable fire is indestructible? In fact it does not, anywhere.
Anguspure said:has said that the wages of sin is death, eternal death.
It is Plato that gives us ideas of eternal indestructible spirits.
Actually it makes a huge amount of sense if you let go of your preconceptions & prejudices and stick to the written word!
Multiple speculations regarding an actual personage have been made, ranging from Abraham's faithful servant, to the first High Priest after Aaron, to Lazarus of Bethany. None have been proved as fruitful or supportable. However, the name simply means "God has helped" which fits the configuration with which we are presented.
Karl C said:Not a single depiction or insinuation of "eternall torment" in the tale!
The Rich Man is tormented by a single flame not some fiery Hell! And there is no indication what-so-ever of the duration of his torment.
The Rich Man, Lazarus & Abraham are all in Hades/Sheol, but a chasm seperates them. A very traditional view of Hades/Sheol amoungst the Jews in Jesus' time.
Not a mention or insinuation of "eternal torment" in the text.
However, there is a depiction of the Jewish concept (in the time of Jesus) of purgation. The common teaching of the Jews in the time of Jesus held that the unrighteous would undergo a period of purgation for upto 12 months before they were obliterated from existence & memory. However, this doesn't accord with Daniel 12:2 (imu, the book of Daniel has always been rejected by the Jews).
The same applies to the theological BIAS of those advocating repetative and enduring suffering in a fiery burning hell. An idea that didn't gain popularity in Christianity until the Medieval era of history.
Proof of BIAS: those that read "flames" into the tale when Jesus spoke of a "single flame". And those that presume the torment that the Rich Man suffers is unending, when the tale is silent on the extent or duration of his suffering (which is depicted as mild = a drop of water upon a finger tip would have relieved his torment, and people in Torment don't usually have reasonable conversations).
vs24. "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".
Yes, and?Figures of speech for judgement. Read this from the OT:
Edom’s streams will be turned into pitch, her dust into burning sulfur; her land will become blazing pitch! It will not be quenched night or day; its smoke will rise forever. From generation to generation it will lie desolate; no one will ever pass through it again.(Isaiah 34)
“Son of man, set your face toward the south; preach against the south and prophesy against the forest of the southland. Say to the southern forest: ‘Hear the word of the Lord. This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am about to set fire to you, and it will consume all your trees, both green and dry. The blazing flame will not be quenched, and every face from south to north will be scorched by it. Everyone will see that I the Lord have kindled it; it will not be quenched.’ ”(Ezekiel 20)
“ ‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: My anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place—on man and beast, on the trees of the field and on the crops of your land—and it will burn and not be quenched.(Jeremiah 7)
So what was Jesus teaching them that they did not already know? I think I can safely say that the overwhelming majority of people in Jesus' audience knew that everyone dies; old, young, male, female, righteous, unrighteous etc. and most of the time punishment had nothing to do with it.Indeed it doesn't make any difference after they are dead, and why should it? The punishment is in the realisation that ones life is being extinguished, forever. If that is not a horror to a person then the heart is very hard indeed.
Exactly but it does not prove that the meaning of aion/aionios is not eternity/eternal which is what some groups use that as a proof text for.Nevertheless the cities remain as a monument to mankind, as a reminder of the wrath of God against sinful mankind.
Why is it then that death and punish/punishment never occur in the same verse in the Bible?Yes. The punishment is death. So anybody could refer to the wages of sin as either death or punishment, both are true and they are not mutually exclusive.
You don't know what you are talking about. Why don't you stick to the topic?It is interesting that God said, "You shall surely die" (Genesis 2) and then
Satan said, "You shall surely not die" (Genesis 3). Most Protestant theologians say, "You shall surely not die", just who are we supposed to believe then?
What is your point? According to Revelation 20:10 the lake of fire is not synonymous with death or destruction. Three beings, one, the false prophet, is human are thrown into the LoF but they do not die, they are tormented day and night for ever and ever. Also death and hell are cast into the lake of fire but neither have or could die a first death therefore they can't die a second death.Right next to the verse you are quoting: "The lake of fire is the second death."(Revelation 20)
Nonsense! See my post #57 this thread.I am not opposing the idea of Hell, this is well established in Scripture. Rather I am stating that the idea of unconditional human immortality is un-biblical and in fact Greek in origin.[ /quote]
Unconditional immortality is certainly not a biblical belief and nothing in the Law and the Prophets (notwithstanding translation that reflects and reinforces Platonic understanding), nor the NT would lead one to believe otherwise.
Irrelevant! Jesus often criticized the Jewish leaders for their false teachings, but He never corrected them about their belief in hell. In fact much of Jesus' teaching on the fate of the unrighteous mirrored and supported the Jewish belief in hell.It is not necessary for Jesus to have opposed every pagan belief directly.
"As one might expect?" Evidence? Documentation? Substantiation? Can you provide credible, verifiable, historical evidence that any of this is true.The Jews were exposed to Egyptian culture and religion for 400 years +/- do you postulate that some of their beliefs recorded in scripture are Egyptian in origin? The Jews were exposed to Babylonian culture etc. for 70 years +/-. How much of their beliefs and practices are Babylonian in origin? Or did the Jews only adopt Hellenistic culture, etc?Clearly the Jewish nation had been exposed to Hellenistic influence since 334BC and so one might expect that there were many who added Hellenistic thinking to the Law and the Prophets..
The Greek word for flame φλόξ/phlox in Luk 6:24 occurs 7 times in the NT. It only occurs in the singular, never plural. The word in Acts 2:3 is πῦρ/pur i.e. fire. "Pur" occurs 73 times in the NT and like "phlox," only in the singular. I don't think we can legitimately form any theological dictum on the fact that "phlox" is singular in Luk 16.Regarding RM&L and the single flame, you might contemplate Acts 2:3. Orthodox scholars (RCC, ROC, EOC & OOC) and other communions have suggested that the one flame could bring benefits to the righteous, or deficits to the unrighteous...
This is a spinoff from another thread that is closed:
Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable
Why do some commentators view the Rich Man and Lazarus parable of Luke 16 as of the most misunderstood parables in NT?
If I am understanding this correctly, it appears it is more of a covenantle story between the OC[Moses] and NC[Jesus]
LUKE 16:26 " 'And besides all this, between us[NC Jesus/Spirit?] and ye[OC/Moses/Carnal?] there is a great gulf fixed,
so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.' "
LUKE 16:29 "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets;
let them hear them.' "
Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
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. In this article, we will go through the parable verse by verse to determine what the Messiah was truly teaching..............................
While the significance of this seemingly pointless detail has been neglected by scholars throughout the centuries, you can be certain that it did not escape the notice of the Pharisees and scribes to which Yeshua was speaking. They thoroughly knew their history and were extremely proud of their heritage. Yeshua wanted those self-righteous Pharisees to know exactly who he was referring to with this parable. This detail cements the identity of the rich man as the House of Judah, the Jews!
CONCLUSION
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man, long used by mainstream Christian ministers to teach the "reality of hell," really has nothing to say about punishment or reward in the afterlife. Yeshua used this story, which fit the common misconception about life after death in his day, to show the fate that awaited the Jewish nation because of the unbelief and faithlessness which caused them to reject him as the Messiah.............
Kindgdom Bible Studies Template Page
The story of the rich man and Lazarus is without doubt one of the most misunderstood of all the stories in the Bible. Is it a parable, or an actual statement of facts concerning life beyond the grave? It is strenuously denied by most evangelists that this story, as told by Christ, could be a parable. They hold that this is not a parable because it starts out in narrative form. It is argued, because it reads, “There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day,” that Christ is speaking here of an actual incident that took place. But in the parable of the prodigal son, in the fifteenth chapter of Luke, the narrative introduction is found also, for it says, “A certain man had two sons...”
THE RICH MAN
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is without question one of the least understood of all the teachings of our Lord. What is its aim? It is a similitude of something; for all the parables are similitudes,..................
Observe the particulars respecting the rich man. He was one of Abraham’s seed, one who even in hell could not forget his election, but still cried, “Father! Abraham.” He was “clothed in purple and fine linen, “the raiment of the Kingdom, and, as a child of the Kingdom, he “fared sumptuously every day.” Who is this man? The rich man in this parable represents the Jewish nation, the house of Judah,
Purple is the color of royalty. Fine linen stands for righteousness in this instance the righteousness of the law, established by the priests and Levites who, dressed in white linen, officiated in the sacrifices and ceremonies of the nation. The rich man was “clothed in purple and fine linen.” Those who are in purple are rulers. The rich man was a ruler. And Jesus never uttered His parables or sermons concerning someone away off in Siberia or China. He spoke to and of the Jews, the church of His day. Judah was the royal tribe, and purple is the color pertaining to royalty. The kingdom of Judah had the ministry of the priesthood - clothed in fine linen.
.................................................
Actually it makes a huge amount of sense if you let go of your preconceptions & prejudices and stick to the written word!
Multiple speculations regarding an actual personage have been made, ranging from Abraham's faithful servant, to the first High Priest after Aaron, to Lazarus of Bethany. None have been proved as fruitful or supportable. However, the name simply means "God has helped" which fits the configuration with which we are presented.
Not a single depiction or insinuation of "eternal torment" in the tale!
The Rich Man is tormented by a single flame not some fiery Hell! And there is no indication what-so-ever of the duration of his torment.
The Rich Man, Lazarus & Abraham are all in Hades/Sheol, but a chasm seperates them. A very traditional view of Hades/Sheol amoungst the Jews in Jesus' time.
Not a mention or insinuation of "eternal torment" in the text.
However, there is a depiction of the Jewish concept (in the time of Jesus) of purgation. The common teaching of the Jews in the time of Jesus held that the unrighteous would undergo a period of purgation for upto 12 months before they were obliterated from existence & memory. However, this doesn't accord with Daniel 12:2 (imu, the book of Daniel has always been rejected by the Jews).
The same applies to the theological BIAS of those advocating repetative and enduring suffering in a fiery burning hell. An idea that didn't gain popularity in Christianity until the Medieval era of history.
Proof of BIAS: those that read "flames" into the tale when Jesus spoke of a "single flame". And those that presume the torment that the Rich Man suffers is unending, when the tale is silent on the extent or duration of his suffering (which is depicted as mild = a drop of water upon a finger tip would have relieved his torment, and people in Torment don't usually have reasonable conversations).
vs24. "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".
Thank for showing us your expertise in the greek and for posting.The Greek word for flame φλόξ/phlox in Luk 6:24 occurs 7 times in the NT. It only occurs in the singular, never plural. The word in Acts 2:3 is πῦρ/pur i.e. fire. "Pur" occurs 73 times in the NT and like "phlox," only in the singular.
I don't think we can legitimately form any theological dictum on the fact that "phlox" is singular in Luk 16.
None of the teachings from chapter 14 thru 16 were introduced by Jesus as being parables. They are all depicted as responses and framed to get a reaction...to which he responded eg: Luke 16:1-8...
Jesus explained nothing about RM&L in Lk chap. 17. I think someone has already pointed this out but to reiterate. RM&L differs from the undisputed parables in that Jesus did not use known, every day, common things and activities to introduce or clarify Biblical truths. Lost sheep, lost coins, unprepared wedding guests, wayward sons, rebellious tenants, etc. These were common things which Jesus' audience would be familiar with and which Jesus used to introduce or clarify Biblical truths. The only thing about RM&L which might be known by Jesus' audience is a beggar thrown, not gently laid, at a rich mans gate and the rich man did not even give him the crumbs from his table. Everything after "and he died" would be unknown to the audience so they don't fit a parable.Actually he did! Read the first couple of verses of Luke 17 that immediately follow the tale of the RM&L.
I agree but I gave more than one reason. RM&L was not introduced as a parable, it was not explained to Jesus' disciple, it doesn't fit the form of a parable, unlike all the undisputed parables it includes names, one, Abraham was an actual historical person and all the ECF who quoted or referred to it considered it to be factual. I know, I know a bunch of static about ECF is not canon, etc. etc. etc. but alas unfortunately no credible, verifiable, historical evidence they were wrong.Point of fact: if you read the NT, Jesus infrequently explained his teachings to his disciples, and they are generally depicted as thick as a brick in the NT.
Irrelevant it was something which could have happened. Eleazaros, god is help, was a common name in Israel and beggars were common. But what happened after "and he died" was not a common event known to the Jews.Sure! But who would know about it!
Up until "and he died."Basically, the tale depicts an everyday event in Jesus' time.
You might want to do some real research on that. There was a trash dump outside Jerusalem, it was not Gehenna, but it was there "up to 10 m, 200,000 m3." As conscientious as the Jews were about ritual cleanliness do you think they would throw trash and garbage right outside their homes?People would throw their effluent & rubbish outside their gates/doors for scavengers to clean-up. That included (as scavangers) the sick, lame and impoverished who the Jewish elite conceived as being punished by God for some grievious sin.
True.So there is a hunk of irony in the tale that Lazarus ends up in Abraham's bosom and not the Rich Man. The contra to Jewish expection. (There are a couple of other teachings along this line in the Gospels).
Why did the rich man appeal to Abraham? Because he could see Abraham and Lazarus.Read John 8 from vs30. You need to get upto speed on the significance of Abraham in Jewish thought of the time (which Jesus is obviously criticising. Why did the Rich Man appeal to Abraham instead of God? How is it that the Rich Man conceived that Abraham could free Lazarus from Hades/Sheol?
How so! What Jesus related was in full accord with his general teaching. Note John 8:40 where Jesus appeals to Abraham as a witness on his behalf (cp. Gen 18).
That is what is known as credible, verifiable, historical evidence. Something you seem to be sadly unacquainted with. If one wants to know what the Jews believed and practiced in OT and NT times one should consult Jewish sources rather than googling random websites.I gave the Jewish consensus on the matter = what was generally taught in Jesus' time = what beliefs Jesus' audience would have held.
Not off topic if one is interested in the truth.There is nothing to respond to in the rest of your post. Interesting stuff but off topic.
Which is off topic.Hope you had fun doing research on what is a historical curiousity but a theological non-topic. There is a reason why YHWH ultimately rejected the Jews...it is all there in the OT...
Clearly it is evident that you have an agenda to insert (read into) Luke 16:19-31 what is simply not in the text! There is no indication of the duration of the Rich Man's torment, so no foundation to support your "eternal" premise, thats just a figment of your imagination.It is very evident in reading some posts in this thread there's an agenda to try and figure a way to get rid of the references to eternal torment and conscience with some wild speculations.
Note I said they "suggest", as far as I know there is no dogmatic presentation on the idea. Though I have encountered protestant writers that push it as if it were a fact.The Greek word for flame φλόξ/phlox in Luk 6:24 occurs 7 times in the NT. It only occurs in the singular, never plural. The word in Acts 2:3 is πῦρ/pur i.e. fire. "Pur" occurs 73 times in the NT and like "phlox," only in the singular. I don't think we can legitimately form any theological dictum on the fact that "phlox" is singular in Luk 16.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?