The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus Explained

[SarahsKnight]

why do you defend them? There's nothing good that comes out of that church. They persecuted and killed our brethren for over 1,000 years, and now they are a false church intoxicating the world with the wine of her false doctrine. If there is something I'm discussing that relates to a doctrine they've pushed I'm definitely mentioning it. Eternal fiery torment happens to be a HUGE doctrine they've pushed, so IM DEFINITELY mentioning it. Is it the center of my discussion? No. In fact I only mention them once at the very end after I present my scriptures and spiel.

I realize the Catholic Church did some really messed up things in the past, but that doesn't mean everyone in her now is a bad or heretical person. I'm only trying to be fair here and not seem biased for the side of conditional immortality. If you display fruit that really doesn't sound like it came from the Holy Spirit when trying to argue for your position by dishing out judgmental statements like "if the Catholics believe it, it's wrong, because they're all bad", then no one is going to be willing to give an ear to your argument.

 

[Wgw]

why do you defend them? There's nothing good that comes out of that church. They persecuted and killed our brethren for over 1,000 years, and now they are a false church intoxicating the world with the wine of her false doctrine. If there is something I'm discussing that relates to a doctrine they've pushed I'm definitely mentioning it. Eternal fiery torment happens to be a HUGE doctrine they've pushed, so IM DEFINITELY mentioning it. Is it the center of my discussion? No. In fact I only mention them once at the very end after I present my scriptures and spiel.

Except your point is fallacious. Even by the standard of "by their fruits ye shall know them," given that the very considersble charitable work of the contemporary Roman church has saved far more lives than were lost in the Inquisition, for example.

 

[Wgw]

I regret sharing with you my encounter with Jesus. I'll have to watch what I share with you in the future.
I happen to believe that God can and does allow believers to see small glimpses of Himself from time to time.

I do too, although I believe we should exercise caution regarding religious experiences that could be regarded as relevant to doctrine.

 

[cgaviria]

Except your point is fallacious. Even by the standard of "by their fruits ye shall know them," given that the very considersble charitable work of the contemporary Roman church has saved far more lives than were lost in the Inquisition, for example.

Have you not read the Book of Daniel? Have you not read the Book of Revelation? The seat of the "papacy" fulfilled the prophecy of the "little horn" after the breakup of the Roman Empire, that would bring forth the "antichrist" AS the seat of the papacy fulfilling the scripture of the 1,260 years of persecution against the saints. This "little horn" was the BEAST OF THE SEA in Revelation. The church in those times WAS the antichrist. Now today, it has morphed INTO the harlot of babylon as an even more deceiving false church.

 

[cgaviria]

I realize the Catholic Church did some really messed up things in the past, but that doesn't mean everyone in her now is a bad or heretical person. I'm only trying to be fair here and not seem biased for the side of conditional immortality. If you display fruit that really doesn't sound like it came from the Holy Spirit when trying to argue for your position by dishing out judgmental statements like "if the Catholics believe it, it's wrong, because they're all bad", then no one is going to be willing to give an ear to your argument.

The scripture is true regardless of what I say against them. Your defense against them concerns me. Do you not realize that in accordance with the prophecies of Daniel that the papacy was in fact the seat of the antichrist and that they fulfilled the 1,260 years of persecution against the saints? It has also fulfilled the scripture in the Book of Revelation concerning the same 42 month prophecy (1,260 years) in reference to the killing of the saints by their hand. The seat of the papacy was in fact the BEAST OF THE SEA in Revelation. It has now MORPHED into the harlot of babylon, and it is even more deceitful than ever. The fact that you're even defending them shows how deceitful they are in you not realizing what they really are.

 

[SarahsKnight]

The scripture is true regardless of what I say against them. Your defense against them concerns me. Do you not realize that in accordance with the prophecies of Daniel that the papacy was in fact the seat of the antichrist and that they fulfilled the 1,260 years of persecution against the saints? It has also fulfilled the scripture in the Book of Revelation concerning the same 42 month prophecy (1,260 years) in reference to the killing of the saints by their hand. The seat of the papacy was in fact the BEAST OF THE SEA in Revelation. It has now MORPHED into the harlot of babylon, and it is even more deceitful than ever. The fact that you're even defending them shows how deceitful they are in you not realizing what they really are.

I do not even begin to feign knowledge of Bible prophecy to make any kind of half-sure judgment that the papacy is the seat of the Antichrist and so forth. I am not defending their position, but I am recommending, quite frankly, not being the aggressor in arguing like a jerk. Too many on the traditional side of eternal torment and the immortal soul are like that when debating against conditional immortality, and as a person who believes in the latter, you should set the better example.

 

[cgaviria]

I do not even begin to feign knowledge of Bible prophecy to make any kind of half-sure judgment that the papacy is the seat of the Antichrist and so forth. I am not defending their position, but I am recommending, quite frankly, not being the aggressor in arguing like a jerk. Too many on the traditional side of eternal torment and the immortal soul are like that when debating against conditional immortality, and as a person who believes in the latter, you should set the better example.

Its not a question of setting a better example, its an example of warning people. If there was a person outside your home that was armed and ready to shoot you as soon as you left the house, am I doing you evil by warning you of such a person? The same thing applies with this church. It is an extremely deceitful church and if there is a chance to warn people about it, I will surely make mention of it. Their doctrine KILLS people spiritually.

 

[Wgw]

Have you not read the Book of Daniel? Have you not read the Book of Revelation? The seat of the "papacy" fulfilled the prophecy of the "little horn" after the breakup of the Roman Empire, that would bring forth the "antichrist" AS the seat of the papacy fulfilling the scripture of the 1,260 years of persecution against the saints. This "little horn" was the BEAST OF THE SEA in Revelation. The church in those times WAS the antichrist. Now today, it has morphed INTO the harlot of babylon as an even more deceiving false church.

This is a controversial exegesis, not entirely unlike the writings of Ellen G. White, which suffers the very considerable disadvantage of being demonstrably false (the 1,260 years figure cannot be specifically applied to the Roman church in any meaningful way).

Its not a question of setting a better example, its an example of warning people. If there was a person outside your home that was armed and ready to shoot you as soon as you left the house, am I doing you evil by warning you of such a person? The same thing applies with this church. It is an extremely deceitful church and if there is a chance to warn people about it, I will surely make mention of it. Their doctrine KILLS people spiritually.

This is simply a smear of epic proportions. What is more, it is predicated on an exegesis of various prophecies which can be shown to be false.

 

[cgaviria]

This is a controversial exegesis, not entirely unlike the writings of Ellen G. White, which suffers the very considerable disadvantage of being demonstrably false (the 1,260 years figure cannot be specifically applied to the Roman church in any meaningful way).



This is simply a smear of epic proportions. What is more, it is predicated on an exegesis of various prophecies which can be shown to be false.

Actually no. The 1,260 rulership of the papacy and the persecution of the saints started with the Justinian Decree, known as the Justinian Code, giving the papacy governmental power in 538 A.D. and it ended with the French Revolution of Napoleon, who had the pope captured and imprisoned in 1798 A.D..

 

[Wgw]

Actually no. The 1,260 rulership of the papacy and the persecution of the saints started with the Justinian Decree, known as the Justinian Code, giving the papacy governmental power in 538 A.D. and it ended with the French Revolution of Napoleon, who had the pope captured and imprisoned in 1798 A.D..

In fact, this is untrue. The Corpus Juris Civilis applied throughout the Byzantine Empire, not just in Rome; any powers it might conceivably grant the Pope were also granted to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Ultimately, what caused the rise of Papal temporal power was the collapse of the Western Empire, what little was left of it, under Romulus "Augustulus," which created a vacuum which St. Gregory Dialogos alone could fill. And one would be rather hard pressed to identify any cases of the Roman church persecuting anyone during his tenure, or indeed during that of his predecessors. Indeed, problems did not really begin to commonly occur until much later.

On the other side of the coin, your history is equally skewed. After the defeat of Napoleon, the Papal States regained sovereignity, which they retained until the fall lf Rome during the Italian national revolution, ending around 1870. The auto da fe meanwhile continued into the early 19th century.

So whereas the date range you provide is perhaps somewhat of a "nice try," it just does not add up when one looks at the actual historical events in question.

 

[cgaviria]

In fact, this is untrue. The Corpus Juris Civilis applied throughout the Byzantine Empire, not just in Rome; any powers it might conceivably grant the Pope were also granted to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Ultimately, what caused the rise of Papal temporal power was the collapse of the Western Empire, what little was left of it, under Romulus "Augustulus," which created a vacuum which St. Gregory Dialogos alone could fill. And one would be rather hard pressed to identify any cases of the Roman church persecuting anyone during his tenure, or indeed during that of his predecessors. Indeed, problems did not really begin to commonly occur until much later.

On the other side of the coin, your history is equally skewed. After the defeat of Napoleon, the Papal States regained sovereignity, which they retained until the fall lf Rome during the Italian national revolution, ending around 1870. The auto da fe meanwhile continued into the early 19th century.

So whereas the date range you provide is perhaps somewhat of a "nice try," it just does not add up when one looks at the actual historical events in question.

You're speaking out of a confusion of events. One thing lead after the other, there were the rule of emperors, and there was a breakup of the roman empire, but they all lead to the formal decree of the papal office which lasted all that time. Then it was abolished. Then it was reinstated by Mussolini with the Lateran Treaty of 1929, and it is in fact now the harlot of babylon now, not the beast of the sea, or little horn of daniel anymore.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

That was a great big wall of text. Can I get a TLDR just to sum the conclusion?

 

[Wgw]

You're speaking out of a confusion of events. One thing lead after the other, there were the rule of emperors, and there was a breakup of the roman empire, but they all lead to the formal decree of the papal office which lasted all that time.

If anyone is confusing the events, it is you. You are confusing the promulgation of the Corpus Juris Civlis with the slow process by which the Roman bishop increasingly sougt to dominate other dioceses, culminating in the papal supremacy we see decreed in 1075.

Then it was abolished. Then it was reinstated by Mussolini with the Lateran Treaty of 1929, and it is in fact now the harlot of babylon now, not the beast of the sea, or little horn of daniel anymore.

Here you refer to the loss of temporal sovereignity of the Vatican City State due to the unification of the Kingdom of Italy in the 1870s, which the Lateran Treaty restored. This is essentially a red herring as the date range has the effect of disproving the "1260 years" argument.

 

[Wgw]

That was a great big wall of text. Can I get a TLDR just to sum the conclusion?

In summary, members would benefit from reading scholarly works on ecclesiastical history as opposed to writing polemical tracts loosely modelled on the discredited, historically inaccurate sensationalism of The Great Controversy, and other such works.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

In summary, members would benefit from reading scholarly works on ecclesiastical history as opposed to writing polemical tracts loosely modelled on the discredited, historically inaccurate sensationalism of The Great Controversy.

I agree. Scholarship is a great thing. I've recently started reading Samuel Hugh Moffett's A History of Christianity in Asia, volume 1. Far too many historians, even some of the most important scholars, seem content on taking Latin Christianity as something of a neutral beginning point without acknowledging that throughout most of the first millennia the largest Christian presence in the world was in Asia and Africa.

 

[cgaviria]

If anyone is confusing the events, it is you. You are confusing the promulgation of the Corpus Juris Civlis with the slow process by which the Roman bishop increasingly sougt to dominate other dioceses, culminating in the papal supremacy we see decreed in 1075.



Here you refer to the loss of temporal sovereignity of the Vatican City State due to the unification of the Kingdom of Italy in the 1870s, which the Lateran Treaty restored. This is essentially a red herring as the date range has the effect of disproving the "1260 years" argument.

The little horn of Daniel came shortly after the breakup of the Roman empire into ten. And the little horn is said to perform the persecutions for 1,260 years, and lives up to the very end around the time of the second coming, so regardless of ur accounts of dates, it stands to conclude it has already come. Read Daniel and Revelation.

 

[Wgw]

I agree. Scholarship is a great thing. I've recently started reading Samuel Hugh Moffett's A History of Christianity in Asia, volume 1. Far too many historians, even some of the most important scholars, seem content on taking Latin Christianity as something of a neutral beginning point without acknowledging that throughout most of the first millennia the largest Christian presence in the world was in Asia and Africa.

Have you read at all of the history of Syriac Christianity in Asia? It's easy to overlook the fact that before the genocide of Tamerlane, the Church of the East extended into China and Tibet. Indeed too many members are unaware of the existence of the Nasrani St. Thomas Syriac Christians in India.

 

[Wgw]

The little horn of Daniel came shortly after the breakup of the Roman empire into ten. And the little horn is said to perform the persecutions for 1,260 years, and lives up to the very end around the time of the second coming, so regardless of ur accounts of dates, it stands to conclude it has already come. Read Daniel and Revelation.

Umm, no. The Western Empire simply collapsed as a geopolitical entity. I do believe in the books of Daniel and Revelation, and my great respect for them precludes me from applying them to various historical situations which are not aligned with the prophecy.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Have you read at all of the history of Syriac Christianity in Asia? It's easy to overlook the fact that before the genocide of Tamerlane, the Church of the East extended into China and Tibet. Indeed too many members are unaware of the existence of the Nasrani St. Thomas Syriac Christians in India.

Yeah, I've read Philip Jenkins The Lost History of Christianity a few years ago. Very interesting history.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That was a great big wall of text. Can I get a TLDR just to sum the conclusion?

People will believe any sort of craziness, stretching what needs to be stretched, making up what needs to be made up, so they can hate what they need to hate. Nothing happened in 538 AD except in fanciful history but that doesn't stop that date from being critical to their theory about how the Catholic Church is evil evil evil. That's their gospel in a nutshell. Not about how the creator of the universe became a man, suffered and died for our redemption, and offers us the hope of glory with him. Just the screed about the evils of the Catholic Church.