There is no Hell (Moved)

[ozso]

No you quoted Matthew 13:34-35 trying to use that as evidence that the story of Lazarus and the rich man is a parable. That was absolutely spoken on a different day, about a different conversation, to a different group, in a different place. So when Matthew 13:34 says “all these things Jesus spoke” that is only referring to what He spoke at that time. All THESE THINGS, not everything He ever spoke to a crowd throughout His entire ministry.

“All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭13‬:‭34‬-‭35‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

I don't see how that doesn't apply to the two stories Jesus told in Luke 16.

 

[ozso]

I agree we don’t know for sure but it’s been my experience that when a statement Jesus made has been quoted and someone replies “that was a parable” they’re insinuating that the message is invalid to support a particular idea or doctrine. The whole reason this came up was because I mentioned that the rich man was not allowed to cross over from Hades into Abraham’s bosom despite his repentant condition. The rich man realized his mistake and was still not allowed to cross over to Abraham’s bosom. So the excuse “that was a parable” was played.

A lot of that has to do with the insistence that it absolutely isn't a parable. Those insisting it isn't and can't be, seem to place just as much importance on whether it's a parable or not.

If it is a parable, it might not have anything to do with hell. But when it's decided it must be an account of something that actually happened, then it's taken at face value, rather than needing to be deciphered.

I've read and heard those who have treated as a parable and brought out aspects about it that most people never see.

One of many is Lazarus is the Greek version of Eliazer. Before Issac was born, Eliazer of Damascus (who might have been a Gentile) was Abraham's heir. He was set to inherit everything that belonged to Abraham. So there's a possible huge significance to Lazarus/Eliazer and Abraham being together in this story that most are completely oblivious to. And that's just one of many aspects that have been uncovered when viewing it as a prophetic parable.

 

[ozso]

…..The word “parable” is from the Greek word “παραβολή/parabole’” which means to place or throw beside, a parable should clarify/explain something unknown/not understood by comparing it to something known or understood. All of the unquestioned “parables” have this comparison.
Jesus identified 5 parables as such. Others identified 26 parables as such.
…..1. The Lazarus/rich man account does not have the grammatical structure of a parable it presents no worldly situation which was or can be likened to heaven. There was no comparison.
2. It is not introduced as a parable and Jesus did not explain it later to His disciples.
…..None of the unquestioned parables refer to unreasonable, fictitious or imaginary events. All of the unquestioned parables refer to real life type events which had happened at some time in history; e.g. a widow found lost coins, a shepherd found a lost sheep, a wayward son squandered all of his inheritance.
…..All of the unquestioned parables refer to anonymous people, “a certain man,”” a certain widow,””a certain land owner,” etc. The Lazarus account names two specific people, by name, “Lazarus,” otherwise unknown, and Abraham, an actual historical person, whom the rich man refers to as “father Abraham.” If Abraham was not in the place Jesus said and did not say the words Jesus quoted, then Jesus lied.
All 5 ECF who quoted/referred to the Lazarus and the rich man account considered it to be factual.See below.

[1]• Irenaeus Against Heresies Book II Chapter XXXIV.-Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning.​

Ireneaeus, [120-202 AD], was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John.​

1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,-in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives [=Latin for rich] knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him-[Lazarus], on whom he did not [[formerly]] bestow even the crumbs [[which fell]] from his table.​

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library​

[2]•Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1​

On the Resurrection.​

This was the day. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.​

[3]•Tertullian IX A Treatise On The Soul Chap. VII [A.D. 145-220.]​

In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality . For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.​

[4]•Tertullian Part First A Treatise On The Soul Chapter 57​

9. Moreover, the fact that Hades is not in any case opened for (the escape of) any soul , has been firmly established by the Lord in the person of Abraham, in His representation of the poor man at rest and the rich man in torment.​

•The Epistles Of Cyprian [A.D. 200-258] Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics ​

Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.​

[5]•Methodius . [A.D. 260-312] XIX he Discourse on the Resurrection. Part III. [A.D. 260-312] ​

But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence, also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are such according to their essence. ​

As usual you re-posted a one size fits all copy paste reply that you've posted umpteen times before, instead of just answering my question.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree we don’t know for sure but it’s been my experience that when a statement Jesus made has been quoted and someone replies “that was a parable” they’re insinuating that the message is invalid to support a particular idea or doctrine. The whole reason this came up was because I mentioned that the rich man was not allowed to cross over from Hades into Abraham’s bosom despite his repentant condition. The rich man realized his mistake and was still not allowed to cross over to Abraham’s bosom. So the excuse “that was a parable” was played.

ok. Thanks for sharing your side of it. If you've run into folks who insinuate that the presence of a Parable in a biblical text means we can ignore the ideas in that text, then I guess I can understand your concern.

I have to admit that I haven't yet run into anyone yet who has done this, though, so my experience with this kind of thing is limited.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A lot of that has to do with the insistence that it absolutely isn't a parable. Those insisting it isn't and can't be, seem to place just as much importance on whether it's a parable or not.

If it is a parable, it might not have anything to do with hell. But when it's decided it must be an account of something that actually happened, then it's taken at face value, rather than needing to be deciphered.

I've read and heard those who have treated as a parable and brought out aspects about it that most people never see.

One of many is Lazarus is the Greek version of Eliazer. Before Issac was born, Eliazer of Damascus (who might have been a Gentile) was Abraham's heir. He was set to inherit everything that belonged to Abraham. So there's a possible huge significance to Lazarus/Eliazer and Abraham being together in this story that most are completely oblivious to. And that's just one of many aspects that have been uncovered when viewing it as a prophetic parable.

That's any interesting perspective. Do you have the source for this so that those of us who'd like to check it out can reference it?

Thanks, MMXX!

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's any interesting perspective. Do you have the source for this so that those of us who'd like to check it out can reference it?

Thanks, MMXX!

Do you see what I mean now? The whole purpose of claiming that it is a parable is to remove the evidence that the rich man was not allowed to cross over after he was repentant. That’s exactly what I was talking about and by this post hopefully you can see that I was correct that this was the intention of dismissing the story as being a parable.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, I did read it. But have you woken up yet to realize that you're not the only educated person on this website?
As for Jewish scholarship, the Talmuds aren't the kind of thing that should be making or breaking our hermeneutical and exegetical studies in the Bible. For the Christian, they can be helpful in some ways (to understand the development of Jewish thought in Judaism); in other ways they might not be an asset.
And where the concepts of Hades and Gehenna are concerned, however muddled they may seem to be to some scholars, I'm not going to solely rely upon the Talmuds to tell me the difference, most especially if I'm reading Luke 16.
Surely, you can understand what I'm saying here.

Had you actually read my Gehenna post you would have known that several verses of scripture were also quoted by the Jews in the Jewish Encyclopedia supporting the Jewish belief in hell. Evidently what you did was skim the post looking for something you thought you could refute. Off the top of my head Isaiah 14:9 and others. Let me know if you ever want to have a reasonable discussion.

 

[Der Alte]

As usual you re-posted a one size fits all copy paste reply that you've posted umpteen times before, instead of just answering my question.

Good tell me the question you claim I did not answer and I will give it the attention it deserves.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you see what I mean now? The whole purpose of claiming that it is a parable is to remove the evidence that the rich man was not allowed to cross over after he was repentant. That’s exactly what I was talking about and by this post hopefully you can see that I was correct that this was the intention of dismissing the story as being a parable.

Well, while it could be that you're correct, but I'd have to see the actual source that MMXX is referring to in order for me to analyze what's being said and then decide whether or not it has relevance and application. Being that we're dealing with ancient, foreign writings, some nuances of meaning aren't always clear.

For instance. I tend to think that Jesus' main point with presenting that story/parable/account(?) is that the Pharisees He was contending with had extraordinarily hard hearts and because of that, Jesus knew they wouldn't believe even if certain epistemic conditions for evidence were presented. But even with this being the case, sometimes there is more than one trajectory alone within what Jesus says, and it turns out it has two (maybe three) applications.

But yeah. I tend to think Dives was stuck in the "bad side" of Hades.

 

[Der Alte]

A lot of that has to do with the insistence that it absolutely isn't a parable. Those insisting it isn't and can't be, seem to place just as much importance on whether it's a parable or not.
If it is a parable, it might not have anything to do with hell. But when it's decided it must be an account of something that actually happened, then it's taken at face value, rather than needing to be deciphered.
I've read and heard those who have treated as a parable and brought out aspects about it that most people never see.
One of many is Lazarus is the Greek version of Eliazer. Before Issac was born, Eliazer of Damascus (who might have been a Gentile) was Abraham's heir. He was set to inherit everything that belonged to Abraham. So there's a possible huge significance to Lazarus/Eliazer and Abraham being together in this story that most are completely oblivious to. And that's just one of many aspects that have been uncovered when viewing it as a prophetic parable.

The Lazarus -rich man story absolutely is not a parable. A parable has a specific format. Something unknown/not understood is explained by comparison with something known/understood. For example, The kingdom of heaven, not known or understood, is like unto e.g. "a certain king, which would take account of his servants," something known/understood.
The Lazarus/rich man story might be some other figure of speech but it is NOT a parable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Had you actually read my Gehenna post you would have known that several verses of scripture were also quoted by the Jews in the Jewish Encyclopedia supporting the Jewish belief in hell. Evidently what you did was skim the post looking for something you thought you could refute. Off the top of my head Isaiah 14:9 and others. Let me know if you ever want to have a reasonable discussion.

So, what you're saying, then, is this: You want me to ignore the hundreds of scholar's works that I have sitting on my shelves and/or whom I can easily look up from various seminaries and biblical schools in order to make space for "yours"?

For me, a "reasonable" discussion goes like this: You show me yours, AND THEN I show you mine, with you giving equal attention to detail.

Moreover, remember that you're speaking here in this forum to Christian brethren. I am your Brother in Christ, not the Viet Cong ...

 

[Der Alte]

So, what you're saying, then, is this: You want me to ignore the hundreds of scholar's works that I have sitting on my shelves and/or whom I can easily look up from various seminaries and biblical schools in order to make space for "yours"?
For me, a "reasonable" discussion goes like this: You show me yours, AND THEN I show you mine, with you giving equal attention to detail.
Moreover, remember that you're speaking here in this forum to Christian brethren. I am your Brother in Christ, not the Viet Cong ...

A scholar, any scholar making a statement without credible evidence is no more compelling than the scribbling on a passing box car. You will not accept what I say when I provide evidence but expect me to accept everything you post without any evidence of any kind. "This guy said this.[no evidence], that guy said that [no evidence] some other guy said something else [no evidence.]
I am quite sure there are scholars who make statements, with no credible evidence, that you disagree with. Here is a quote from Abraham Lincoln, when he was criticized for his conduct of the civil war.

"If I were to try to reply to every criticism this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the best I can, the best I know how and intend to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out wrong 10 angels swearing I was right would make no difference."​

Here is part of my irrefutable evidence that "aionios" most assuredly means "eternal." I can post 7 more vss. spoken by Jesus.

John 3:15-16​

(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionios] life.​

(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aioinios] life.​

John 10:28​

(28) And I give unto them eternal [aionios] life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.​

In these three vss. Jesus parallels "aionios life" with "shall not perish" three times. Who are you going to believe Jesus or a bunch of scholars who claim "aionios" never means "eternal?"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A scholar, any scholar making a statement without credible evidence is no more compelling than the scribbling on a passing box car. You will not accept what I say when I provide evidence but expect me to accept everything you post without any evidence of any kind.
I am quite sure there are scholars who make statements, with no credible evidence, that you disagree with. Here is a quote from Abraham Lincoln, when he was criticized for his conduct of the civil war.

"If I were to try to reply to every criticism this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the best I can, the best I know how and intend to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out wrong 10 angels swearing I was right would make no difference."​

Here is part of my irrefutable evidence that "aionios" most assuredly means "eternal." I can post 7 more vss. spoken by Jesus.

John 3:15-16​

(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionios] life.​

(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aioinios] life.​

John 10:28​

(28) And I give unto them eternal [aionios] life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.​

In these three vss. Jesus parallels "aionios life" with "shall not perish" three times. Who are you going to believe Jesus or a bunch of scholars who claim "aionios" never means "eternal?"

Boy, you just don't don't get it, do you? Do you not even pay attention to who it is you're talking to or what the context is of the discussion?

PAY ATTENTION! At this moment, the ONLY details in contention between us are: 1) my averring that HADES is not GEHENNA, and 2) that you're relying too much on the interpretations of Jewish Rabbis who drew up the Talmuds.

I have said nothing thus far to you about whether or not "hell" is of eternal nature. Maybe it is; maybe it's not, but here you go, going off suddenly on that tangent when it wasn't and hasn't been my focus.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my reading of Jacob Neusner.

Thanks!

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, while it could be that you're correct, but I'd have to see the actual source that MMXX is referring to in order for me to analyze what's being said and then decide whether or not it has relevance and application. Being that we're dealing with ancient, foreign writings, some nuances of meaning aren't always clear.

For instance. I tend to think that Jesus' main point with presenting that story/parable/account(?) is that the Pharisees He was contending with had extraordinarily hard hearts and because of that, Jesus knew they wouldn't believe even if certain epistemic conditions for evidence were presented. But even with this being the case, sometimes there is more than one trajectory alone within what Jesus says, and it turns out it has two (maybe three) applications.

But yeah. I tend to think Dives was stuck in the "bad side" of Hades.

Parable or not emphasis was put on the fact that the Rich man realized his mistake and was repentant and he was not allowed to cross over to Abraham’s bosom. Would you agree? I mean that portion of not being allowed to cross over could’ve easily been left out of the message, but it was included for a purpose.

 

[Der Alte]

Boy, you just don't don't get it, do you? Do you not even pay attention to who it is you're talking to or what the context is of the discussion?
PAY ATTENTION! At this moment, the ONLY details in contention between us are: 1) my averring that HADES is not GEHENNA, and 2) that you're relying too much on the interpretations of Jewish Rabbis who drew up the Talmuds.
I have said nothing thus far to you about whether or not "hell" is of eternal nature. Maybe it is; maybe it's not, but here you go, going off suddenly on that tangent when it wasn't and hasn't been my focus.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my reading of Jacob Neusner.
Thanks!

You can stop replying any time you want. So, you didn't say "You want me to ignore the hundreds of scholar's works?"
Wrong about the Talmud and Jewish Rabbis. I also quoted quite a few scripture. I even highlighted them in blue so people like you can't miss them. Evidently you missed them, any way. Your rejection of the Talmudim is irrelevant. I quoted Jewish sources which document their ancient belief in Hell. Nothing you say can change that. You don't like it? Too bad.
Here is a link to the complete 4 page article, from which I only quoted about 2 paragraphs. You can see for yourself how many scripture are quoted, for you to ignore, again.

GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

jewishencyclopedia.com

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Parable or not emphasis was put on the fact that the Rich man realized his mistake and was repentant and he was not allowed to cross over to Abraham’s bosom. Would you agree? I mean that portion of not being allowed to cross over could’ve easily been left out of the message, but it was included for a purpose.

Sure. I tend to agree. I don't do so dogmatically, but yes, I agree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You can stop replying any time you want. So, you didn't say "You want me to ignore the hundreds of scholar's works?"
Wrong about the Talmud and Jewish Rabbis. I also quoted quite a few scripture. I even highlighted them in blue so people like you can't miss them. Evidently you missed them, any way. Your rejection of the Talmudim is irrelevant. I quoted Jewish sources which document their ancient belief in Hell. Nothing you say can change that. You don't like it? Too bad.
Here is a link to the complete 4 page article, from which I only quoted about 2 paragraphs. You can see for yourself how many scripture are quoted, for you to ignore, again.

GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

jewishencyclopedia.com

And that's all you can do---just throw stuff at people without minute, detailed, integral, respectful discussion?

Were you ever a teacher in a classroom at some point in the past?

Don't like my questions: TOO BAD!!!

I guess we'll never talk about your hermeneutical and/or exegetical method, will we? No, we'll all just receive the same text wall from you, won't we?

And I notice you didn't even bother to lift a finger to find out who Jacob Neusner is (was). Duly noted!

 

[ozso]

That's any interesting perspective. Do you have the source for this so that those of us who'd like to check it out can reference it?

Thanks, MMXX!

"Lazarus is a given name and surname. It is derived from the Hebrew אלעזר, Elʿāzār (Eleazar) meaning "God has helped"".
Lazarus (name) - Wikipedia

But Abram said, “Lord God, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” Genesis 15:2

 

[ozso]

Do you see what I mean now? The whole purpose of claiming that it is a parable is to remove the evidence that the rich man was not allowed to cross over after he was repentant. That’s exactly what I was talking about and by this post hopefully you can see that I was correct that this was the intention of dismissing the story as being a parable.

I don't see the rich man apologizing in that story. As for the gulf, that could allude to the gulf between man and God that was bridged by the cross.

That's all sorts of interesting things to be found in this story when you start digging into it.

 

[Der Alte]

And that's all you can do---just throw stuff at people without minute, detailed, integral, respectful discussion?
Were you ever a teacher in a classroom at some point in the past?
Don't like my questions: TOO BAD!!!
I guess we'll never talk about your hermeneutical and/or exegetical method, will we? No, we'll all just receive the same text wall from you, won't we?
And I notice you didn't even bother to lift a finger to find out who Jacob Neusner is (was). Duly noted!

Re: Jacob Neusner. Did you bother checking out the Jewish Encyclopedia entry I linked to?
I have been giving classroom instruction since the '60s.
Re: [My] hermeneutical and/or exegetical method. I doubt very much you are interested in my unsupported opinions.
Re: Wall of text. That is a cop out I often get.