What is death?

[YosemiteSam]

The mention of names takes this narrative out of the parable catagory. Saying that parable are just stories with no valid basis to support one's belief is a little audacious, isn't it? I thought about saying insolent. I do see the suggestion about parables as inflamitory. Effectively you have dismissed the narrative as a meaningless parable. Repentence has nothing to do with the story as relates to the topic of death. This isn't a discussion of how one gets to the place of the rich man. It is talking about the condition of the rich man.

I did make a post discussing the lack of Jesus usning the rich man's name. Kinda like the rules here. Don't mention the moniker of anyone unless it is praising them. Just stirs up trouble. So I personally think Jesus was wise as my commentary quote said.I said I can see how one could do such. I didn't say it was a fact.That my fiend is not an issue here in this thread. The Scripture plainly says they were blinded and could not hear and by Jesus for a purpose. Besides they were only considering the temporal flesh when thinking of the prophecies. Then what exactly was Jesus referring to by saying while I was yet with you mean? What does this clarifying statement refer to, if it isn't Mat 5:17-18?[

I would have to say that is very much out of line with the bible. The Lazarus and the rich man has not happened yet and therefore remains a parable. The Bible proves it to be which I will post later.

As far as commentaries I use them often, but very carefully. The often bring historical facts and sometimes even thought provoking incite. What we have to remember is there are those who have not "rightly divided the word of truth" or "who concerning the truth have erred". So extreme caution must be used. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. God's spirit is a spirit of truth and his Word is truth. So every caution is used.

Maybe you have by now seen my last post #379. Will be back later...Have a few chores that I must attend. Thank you

 

[YosemiteSam]

True.
Also The fact that Lazarus is in the first resurrection/the resurrection of "the faithful", makes him a son of Abraham, Abraham being the father of "the faithful."
That is why the term "in the bosom of Abraham" is used, that depicts a very colse relationship like a father and son would have.

Yes, ma'am!!! Talk to me sista!...LOL

 

[from scratch]

It is being discussed in the thread as to whether or not Lazarus and the rich man is/is not a parable.

Would like to make a couple of simple statements about this subject just to clear a few things.

The story which is found in Luke 16

Fact already in evidence through a quote of LK 16:19-31

Note: The story does not say that Lazarus was taken to heaven.

Technically correct. Positionally incorrect. Heaven is equated as a place of eternal bliss as is Abraham's bosom.

The story does not say that the rich man will be tormented forever.

Correct. But we are left hanging on this point. The eternal existence of either is not part of the story.

Lazarus and the rich man both died.

No contest if this means the demise of the flesh.

Lazarus and the rich man are the focal points of the story and Abraham is used as a literay device and not speaking about or to Abraham. For instance Lazarus isn't withing the bosom of Abraham a man. This is figurative. Father Abraham is also figurative and representive of Who does the speaking. For you this is a problem because the dead know nothing. Therefore it can't be Abraham. This also presents a probelm in that neither can the rich man speak. Does that leave us with all the major players in the story as nothing more than mystical non existant beings? Why would Jesus be talking about mystical beings? They would have no validity to reality. Then what would the purpose of the story be?

Christ in telling the story uses Abraham and Lazarus as two of the individuals that are resurrected to eternal life in the Kingdom of God; and uses the rich man as an evil doer resurrected to judgment. Please note: v 23 of the parable puts us in the time frame of the resurrection.

The story isn't about Abraham. Is Abraham in his own bosom? Nope! Do you have some Scripture showing that Abraham had this kind of power? I don't see any mention of the resurrection anyplace within the story and certianly not v 23.

Dan 12.2 "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Interesting! What do you think everlasting contempt is? Here is what I find them to be - Everlasting (`owlam)
1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
a) ancient time, long time (of past)
b) (of future)
1) for ever, always
2) continuous existence, perpetual
3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

I see no indication of stopping or end.

contempt (dĕra'own) -
1) aversion, abhorrence

I do take it that your verse talks specifically of the destination of both the righteous and the wicked (unregenerate)

John 5:28-29 in Jesus' own words "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

Is there a need to discuss life in the above quote?

What are those that have done evil resurrected to? damnation which is
1) a separating, sundering, separation
a) a trial, contest
2) selection
3) judgment
a) opinion or decision given concerning anything
1) esp. concerning justice and injustice, right or wrong
b) sentence of condemnation, damnatory judgment, condemnation and punishment
4) the college of judges (a tribunal of seven men in the several cities of Palestine; as distinguished from the Sanhedrin, which had its seat at Jerusalem)
5) right, justice


The righteous have already pasted from Judgement to life - 24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5

Why use the rich man? and not a name here?

I already made my point on this and that was that Jesus avoided a problem in discussing the wicked. Postitve comments are hard to find about the wicked and easy to find about the righteous without causing a problem. Surely you can understand the desire to defend the accused by the Pahrisees, especially one of them.

Matt 19:24 "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"

Jesus isn't talking about the rich man in Luke 16 here. But if so the rich man has been identified. The same story mentioned in Mat 19 is found in Luke 18. This would make the richman out of sequence for Luke to be implying they are the same man. But then Jesus (God) also knew the future.

and Matt 7:23 "And I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity."

has no direct bearing on the story underdiscussion.

Above are a few scriptures I thought of last nite.

See post #372

Other scriptures proves that Abraham will be in the coming Kingdom of God. Scripture also says here that Lazarus will be as well.

Lazarus and the rich man is a parable. The bible proves it to be a parable and later we will look at the proof itself. It should be quite obvious by now to the serious bible student that it is indeed a parable.

OK, I await your presentation.

 

[zeke37]

I would have to say that is very much out of line with the bible. The Lazarus and the rich man has not happened yet and therefore remains a parable. The Bible proves it to be which I will post later.

huh?
Lazarus died, and we know he actually existed and walked with Christ on earth....
so i don't follow???

im interested in hearing your proof.

 

[Merlinius]

Baptism is symbolic of death and the resurrection...
You also die when you have a heart attack and don't get to the hospital fast enough. (flesh stops breathing). That is the first death!

That might be your first death sam. If so, so sad.
But when this body of mine dies, that is most definetly what Christ means in saying on such who have died already in Christ, the "second death" has no power.
There is no other meaning.

 

[from scratch]

That might be your first death sam. If so, so sad.
But when this body of mine dies, that is most definetly what Christ means in saying on such who have died already in Christ, the "second death" has no power.
There is no other meaning.

 

[Mikecpking]

And he said see Jewish Encylopedia. He did say it was a quote nor did he tell me where to find the info. I need a link I looked for Jewish Encyclopedia and couldn't find his info. In the mean time this c&p in blue highlight from his post sure looks like the idea comes from non Judaistic sources. He said - Judaism (certain parts) had already have been influenced by Greek and Babylonian philosophy. What is this if it isn't pagan philosophy? Did MK suggest that Jesus is taking His material from Jewish thought? Why Would Jesus do this and why would the Jew be upset or not know. Where is the indication that this is so in the Scripture? I simply don't find it.

Here consider this from Barnes Notes on the Bible - It is remarkable that he gave no "name" to this rich man, though the poor man is mentioned by name. If this was a parable, it shows us how unwilling he was to fix suspicion on anyone. If it was not a parable, it shows also that he would not drag out wicked people before the public, but would conceal as much as possible all that had any connection with them. The "good" he would speak well of by name; the evil he would not "injure" by exposing them to public view.

Here is Clark's Commentary on the story - There was a certain rich man - In the Scholia of some MSS. the name of this person is said to be Ninive. This account of the rich man and Lazarus is either a parable or a real history. If it be a parable, it is what may be: if it be a history, it is that which has been. Either a man may live as is here described, and go to perdition when he dies; or, some have lived in this way, and are now suffering the torments of an eternal fire. The account is equally instructive in whichsoever of these lights it is viewed.

I would like very much for you to show any parable in which a person was named? Why in this story or parable as you would say?Are we talking Bible or philosophy? Where did the stroy come from? Why does MK say anything about influence? Are we talking about the Bible or Greek and Babylonian philosophy? Given the narrative and structure of Greek I have no idea how one can come to yor conclusions. I do see how one migh connect the story with v 14, but don't agree without much more information at least, considering the conversation thus far in the thread. Just isn't very convincing.Really, then why didn't they understand Jesus was the Messiah the law the prophets spoke about? Why did Jesus have to explain what He said in Mat 5:17-18 with His statment found in LK 24:44 post resurrection? Was there a purpose to the madness?I have always thought that anything non Christian religious source material was pagant. So what do you call non Christian religious material or ideas? I can't call all Judaistic material Christian or even godly if you will.

The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture. As long as the soul was conceived to be merely a breath ("nefesh"; "neshamah"; comp. "anima"), and inseparably connected, if not identified, with the life-blood (Gen. ix. 4, comp. iv. 11; Lev. xvii. 11; see Soul), no real substance could be ascribed to it. As soon as the spirit or breath of God ("nishmat" or "ruaḥ ḥayyim"), which was believed to keep body and soul together, both in man and in beast (Gen. ii. 7, vi. 17, vii. 22; Job xxvii. 3), is taken away (Ps. cxlvi. 4) or returns to God (Eccl. xii. 7; Job xxxiv. 14), the soul goes down to Sheol or Hades, there to lead a shadowy existence without life and consciousness (Job xiv. 21; Ps. vi. 6 [A. V. 5], cxv. 17; Isa. xxxviii. 18; Eccl. ix. 5, 10). The belief in a continuous life of the soul, which underlies primitive Ancestor Worship and the rites of necromancy, practised also in ancient Israel (I Sam. xxviii. 13 et seq.; Isa. viii. 19; see Necromancy), was discouraged and suppressed by prophet and lawgiver as antagonistic to the belief in Yhwh, the God of life, the Ruler of heaven and earth, whose reign was not extended over Sheol until post-exilic times (Ps. xvi. 10, xlix. 16, cxxxix. 8).
As a matter of fact, eternal life was ascribed exclusively to God and to celestial beings who "eat of the tree of life and live forever" (Gen. iii. 22, Hebr.), whereas man by being driven out of the Garden of Eden was deprived of the opportunity of eating the food of immortality (see Roscher, "Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie," s.v. "Ambrosia"). It is the Psalmist's implicit faith in God's omnipotence and omnipresence that leads him to the hope of immortality (Ps. xvi. 11, xvii. 15, xlix. 16, lxxiii. 24 et seq., cxvi. 6-9); whereas Job (xiv. 13 et seq., xix. 26) betrays only a desire for, not a real faith in, a life after death. Ben Sira (xiv. 12, xvii. 27 et seq., xxi. 10, xxviii. 21) still clings to the belief in Sheol as the destination of man. It was only in connection with the Messianic hope that, under the influence of Persian ideas, the belief in resurrection lent to the disembodied soul a continuous existence (Isa. xxv. 6-8; Dan. xii. 2; see Eschatology; Resurrection).
Hellenistic View.

Page from the First Edition of Immanuel ben Solomon's "Meḥabberot," Brescia, 1491.(In the Columbia University Library, New York.)
The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended, as the Semitic name "Minos" (comp. "Minotaurus"), and the Egyptian "Rhadamanthys" ("Ra of Ament," "Ruler of Hades"; Naville, "La Litanie du Soleil," 1875, p. 13) with others, sufficiently prove. Consult especially E. Rhode, "Psyche: Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen," 1894, pp. 555 et seq. A blessed immortality awaiting the spirit while the bones rest in the earth is mentioned in Jubilees xxiii. 31 and Enoch iii. 4. Immortality, the "dwelling near God's throne" "free from the load of the body," is "the fruit of righteousness," says the Book of Wisdom (i. 15; iii. 4; iv. 1; viii. 13, 17; xv. 3). In IV Maccabees, also (ix. 8, 22; x. 15; xiv. 5; xv. 2; xvi. 13; xvii. 5, 18), immortality of the soul is represented as life with God in heaven, and declared to be the reward for righteousness and martyrdom. The souls of the righteous are transplanted into heaven and transformed into holy souls (ib. xiii. 17, xviii. 23). According to Philo, the soul exists before it enters the body, a prison-house from which death liberates it; to return to God and live in constant contemplation of Him is man's highest destiny (Philo, "De Opificio Mundi," §§ 46, 47; idem, "De Allegoriis Legum," i., §§ 33, 65; iii., §§ 14, 37; idem, "Quis Rerum Divinarum Hæres Sit," §§ 38, 57).
It is not quite clear whether the Sadducees, in denying resurrection (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 1, § 4; idem, "B. J." ii. 12; Mark xii. 18; Acts xxiii. 8; comp. Sanh. 90b), denied also the immortality of the soul (see Ab. R. N., recension B. x. [ed. Schechter, 26]). Certain it is that the Pharisaic belief in resurrection had not even a name for the immortality of the soul. For them, man was made for two worlds, the world that now is, and the world to come, where life does not end in death (Gen. R. viii.; Yer. Meg. ii. 73b; M. Ḳ. iii. 83b, where the words

, Ps. xlviii. 15, are translated by Aquilas as if they read:

, "no death," ἀθανασί&#945.

From http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8092-immortality-of-the-soul

 

[from scratch]

The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture. As long as the soul was conceived to be merely a breath ("nefesh"; "neshamah"; comp. "anima"), and inseparably connected, if not identified, with the life-blood (Gen. ix. 4, comp. iv. 11; Lev. xvii. 11; see Soul), no real substance could be ascribed to it. As soon as the spirit or breath of God ("nishmat" or "ruaḥ ḥayyim"), which was believed to keep body and soul together, both in man and in beast (Gen. ii. 7, vi. 17, vii. 22; Job xxvii. 3), is taken away (Ps. cxlvi. 4) or returns to God (Eccl. xii. 7; Job xxxiv. 14), the soul goes down to Sheol or Hades, there to lead a shadowy existence without life and consciousness (Job xiv. 21; Ps. vi. 6 [A. V. 5], cxv. 17; Isa. xxxviii. 18; Eccl. ix. 5, 10). The belief in a continuous life of the soul, which underlies primitive Ancestor Worship and the rites of necromancy, practised also in ancient Israel (I Sam. xxviii. 13 et seq.; Isa. viii. 19; see Necromancy), was discouraged and suppressed by prophet and lawgiver as antagonistic to the belief in Yhwh, the God of life, the Ruler of heaven and earth, whose reign was not extended over Sheol until post-exilic times (Ps. xvi. 10, xlix. 16, cxxxix. 8).
As a matter of fact, eternal life was ascribed exclusively to God and to celestial beings who "eat of the tree of life and live forever" (Gen. iii. 22, Hebr.), whereas man by being driven out of the Garden of Eden was deprived of the opportunity of eating the food of immortality (see Roscher, "Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie," s.v. "Ambrosia"). It is the Psalmist's implicit faith in God's omnipotence and omnipresence that leads him to the hope of immortality (Ps. xvi. 11, xvii. 15, xlix. 16, lxxiii. 24 et seq., cxvi. 6-9); whereas Job (xiv. 13 et seq., xix. 26) betrays only a desire for, not a real faith in, a life after death. Ben Sira (xiv. 12, xvii. 27 et seq., xxi. 10, xxviii. 21) still clings to the belief in Sheol as the destination of man. It was only in connection with the Messianic hope that, under the influence of Persian ideas, the belief in resurrection lent to the disembodied soul a continuous existence (Isa. xxv. 6-8; Dan. xii. 2; see Eschatology; Resurrection).
Hellenistic View.

Page from the First Edition of Immanuel ben Solomon's "Meḥabberot," Brescia, 1491.(In the Columbia University Library, New York.)
The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended, as the Semitic name "Minos" (comp. "Minotaurus"), and the Egyptian "Rhadamanthys" ("Ra of Ament," "Ruler of Hades"; Naville, "La Litanie du Soleil," 1875, p. 13) with others, sufficiently prove. Consult especially E. Rhode, "Psyche: Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen," 1894, pp. 555 et seq. A blessed immortality awaiting the spirit while the bones rest in the earth is mentioned in Jubilees xxiii. 31 and Enoch iii. 4. Immortality, the "dwelling near God's throne" "free from the load of the body," is "the fruit of righteousness," says the Book of Wisdom (i. 15; iii. 4; iv. 1; viii. 13, 17; xv. 3). In IV Maccabees, also (ix. 8, 22; x. 15; xiv. 5; xv. 2; xvi. 13; xvii. 5, 18), immortality of the soul is represented as life with God in heaven, and declared to be the reward for righteousness and martyrdom. The souls of the righteous are transplanted into heaven and transformed into holy souls (ib. xiii. 17, xviii. 23). According to Philo, the soul exists before it enters the body, a prison-house from which death liberates it; to return to God and live in constant contemplation of Him is man's highest destiny (Philo, "De Opificio Mundi," §§ 46, 47; idem, "De Allegoriis Legum," i., §§ 33, 65; iii., §§ 14, 37; idem, "Quis Rerum Divinarum Hæres Sit," §§ 38, 57).
It is not quite clear whether the Sadducees, in denying resurrection (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 1, § 4; idem, "B. J." ii. 12; Mark xii. 18; Acts xxiii. 8; comp. Sanh. 90b), denied also the immortality of the soul (see Ab. R. N., recension B. x. [ed. Schechter, 26]). Certain it is that the Pharisaic belief in resurrection had not even a name for the immortality of the soul. For them, man was made for two worlds, the world that now is, and the world to come, where life does not end in death (Gen. R. viii.; Yer. Meg. ii. 73b; M. Ḳ. iii. 83b, where the words

, Ps. xlviii. 15, are translated by Aquilas as if they read:

, "no death," ἀθανασί&#945.

From IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Thanks. will have to read it a few times to understand what is being saind and from where. Yes I understand your citation source, but not necessarily the dcontent at the moment.

 

[Mikecpking]

Thanks. will have to read it a few times to understand what is being saind and from where. Yes I understand your citation source, but not necessarily the dcontent at the moment.

Hi Scratch,
Its the first paragraphs which define 'soul' which should be taken as the 'correct view', but when you dig deeper, you can see how the Greeks and the Babylonians influenced the Jews.
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, he was using the popular rabbinical teaching of the day.

 

[from scratch]

Hi Scratch,
Its the first paragraphs which define 'soul' which should be taken as the 'correct view', but when you dig deeper, you can see how the Greeks and the Babylonians influenced the Jews.
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, he was using the popular rabbinical teaching of the day.

OK. Thanks I can read. Just seemed to be distracted at the moment, perhaps by the events of the day.

 

[JohnRabbit]

The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture. As long as the soul was conceived to be merely a breath ("nefesh"; "neshamah"; comp. "anima"), and inseparably connected, if not identified, with the life-blood (Gen. ix. 4, comp. iv. 11; Lev. xvii. 11; see Soul), no real substance could be ascribed to it. As soon as the spirit or breath of God ("nishmat" or "ruaḥ ḥayyim"), which was believed to keep body and soul together, both in man and in beast (Gen. ii. 7, vi. 17, vii. 22; Job xxvii. 3), is taken away (Ps. cxlvi. 4) or returns to God (Eccl. xii. 7; Job xxxiv. 14), the soul goes down to Sheol or Hades, there to lead a shadowy existence without life and consciousness (Job xiv. 21; Ps. vi. 6 [A. V. 5], cxv. 17; Isa. xxxviii. 18; Eccl. ix. 5, 10). The belief in a continuous life of the soul, which underlies primitive Ancestor Worship and the rites of necromancy, practised also in ancient Israel (I Sam. xxviii. 13 et seq.; Isa. viii. 19; see Necromancy), was discouraged and suppressed by prophet and lawgiver as antagonistic to the belief in Yhwh, the God of life, the Ruler of heaven and earth, whose reign was not extended over Sheol until post-exilic times (Ps. xvi. 10, xlix. 16, cxxxix. 8).
As a matter of fact, eternal life was ascribed exclusively to God and to celestial beings who "eat of the tree of life and live forever" (Gen. iii. 22, Hebr.), whereas man by being driven out of the Garden of Eden was deprived of the opportunity of eating the food of immortality (see Roscher, "Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie," s.v. "Ambrosia"). It is the Psalmist's implicit faith in God's omnipotence and omnipresence that leads him to the hope of immortality (Ps. xvi. 11, xvii. 15, xlix. 16, lxxiii. 24 et seq., cxvi. 6-9); whereas Job (xiv. 13 et seq., xix. 26) betrays only a desire for, not a real faith in, a life after death. Ben Sira (xiv. 12, xvii. 27 et seq., xxi. 10, xxviii. 21) still clings to the belief in Sheol as the destination of man. It was only in connection with the Messianic hope that, under the influence of Persian ideas, the belief in resurrection lent to the disembodied soul a continuous existence (Isa. xxv. 6-8; Dan. xii. 2; see Eschatology; Resurrection).
Hellenistic View.

Page from the First Edition of Immanuel ben Solomon's "Meḥabberot," Brescia, 1491.(In the Columbia University Library, New York.)
The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended, as the Semitic name "Minos" (comp. "Minotaurus"), and the Egyptian "Rhadamanthys" ("Ra of Ament," "Ruler of Hades"; Naville, "La Litanie du Soleil," 1875, p. 13) with others, sufficiently prove. Consult especially E. Rhode, "Psyche: Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen," 1894, pp. 555 et seq. A blessed immortality awaiting the spirit while the bones rest in the earth is mentioned in Jubilees xxiii. 31 and Enoch iii. 4. Immortality, the "dwelling near God's throne" "free from the load of the body," is "the fruit of righteousness," says the Book of Wisdom (i. 15; iii. 4; iv. 1; viii. 13, 17; xv. 3). In IV Maccabees, also (ix. 8, 22; x. 15; xiv. 5; xv. 2; xvi. 13; xvii. 5, 18), immortality of the soul is represented as life with God in heaven, and declared to be the reward for righteousness and martyrdom. The souls of the righteous are transplanted into heaven and transformed into holy souls (ib. xiii. 17, xviii. 23). According to Philo, the soul exists before it enters the body, a prison-house from which death liberates it; to return to God and live in constant contemplation of Him is man's highest destiny (Philo, "De Opificio Mundi," §§ 46, 47; idem, "De Allegoriis Legum," i., §§ 33, 65; iii., §§ 14, 37; idem, "Quis Rerum Divinarum Hæres Sit," §§ 38, 57).
It is not quite clear whether the Sadducees, in denying resurrection (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 1, § 4; idem, "B. J." ii. 12; Mark xii. 18; Acts xxiii. 8; comp. Sanh. 90b), denied also the immortality of the soul (see Ab. R. N., recension B. x. [ed. Schechter, 26]). Certain it is that the Pharisaic belief in resurrection had not even a name for the immortality of the soul. For them, man was made for two worlds, the world that now is, and the world to come, where life does not end in death (Gen. R. viii.; Yer. Meg. ii. 73b; M. Ḳ. iii. 83b, where the words

, Ps. xlviii. 15, are translated by Aquilas as if they read:

, "no death," ἀθανασί&#945.

From IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL - JewishEncyclopedia.com

i see what you are saying.

i think it's interesting that in the discourse between martha and Jesus that all this stuff about the soul going to heaven didn't come up!

John 11:20-24(NKJV)
20Now Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met Him, but Mary was sitting in the house.
21Now Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.
22But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.”
23Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”
24Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

martha seems to have understood that her brother would not live again until the resurrection! and if we look further in the chapter:

John 11:39(NKJV)
39Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of him who was dead, said to Him, “Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days.”

the bible seems to think that lazarus was dead, and martha states how long he's been dead.

however, there's no mention of souls going to heaven or the like!

the only thing they're talking about is dying and being raised back to life!

 

[Merlinius]

Why does a simple parable cause so much confusion with folk?

The parable of Lazarus being poor, barely eating of the Word of God because the rich Sanhedrin Jews were spiritually starving the people...
Then the rich man dying and Lazarus preserved into the Everlasting Abrahamic Covenant with eternal Life...

Lazarus, who Loves Jesus Lives forever, the Jewish leaders lovers of money die.
The parable is understood.

Lazarus lives.
Rich man dies.

life
death.

Are we getting it yet? lol

 

[from scratch]

i see what you are saying.

i think it's interesting that in the discourse between martha and Jesus that all this stuff about the soul going to heaven didn't come up!

John 11:20-24(NKJV)
20Now Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met Him, but Mary was sitting in the house.
21Now Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.
22But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.”
23Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”
24Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

martha seems to have understood that her brother would not live again until the resurrection! and if we look further in the chapter:

John 11:39(NKJV)
39Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of him who was dead, said to Him, “Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days.”

the bible seems to think that lazarus was dead, and martha states how long he's been dead.

however, there's no mention of souls going to heaven or the like!

the only thing they're talking about is dying and being raised back to life!

So I wonder what is important about the incident. I really see no need to say what happened the 3 days Lazarus was in the grave. All it does show is Martha's carnal conderns. I don't think that Martha was concerned about Lazarus's eternal state. She is mourning only about the demise of the flesh.

Didn't Jesus say there was a purpose in His not coming before Lazarus demise?

 

[Merlinius]

So I wonder what is important about the incident. I really see no need to say what happened the 3 days Lazarus was in the grave. All it does show is Martha's carnal conderns. I don't think that Martha was concerned about Lazarus's eternal state. She is mourning only about the demise of the flesh.

Didn't Jesus say there was a purpose in His not coming before Lazarus demise?

Lazarus was dead four days. For a reason, so that he would have stunk in beginning corruption. Jesus did not see that corruption (Act 2:27). Four days and stinking (John 11:39) was proof that Lazarus was dead dead dead.

The entire reason for it all was so that we would know that the Resurrection had Come and IS JESUS;

Having Jesus = Living Resurrection NOW.

(Joh 11:25) Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Martha mistakenly thought, as do so many now today also, that the resurrection was an "event" and was in the "future".

Which neither is right.

Jesus IS the resurrection.

Jesus IS NOW. Forever.

Whoever died in Christ has been raised up in newness of Life. This is the Word of God. It is NOW.

(Rom 6:4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

(Rom 13:11) And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

Now the second death has no power over us.

Period

It all boils down to whether we "LIVE" the word or not.

How "Real" was your first death?

Or was it just "symbolic" as some here have said?

Hmmm

 

[JohnRabbit]

So I wonder what is important about the incident. I really see no need to say what happened the 3 days Lazarus was in the grave. All it does show is Martha's carnal conderns. I don't think that Martha was concerned about Lazarus's eternal state. She is mourning only about the demise of the flesh.

Didn't Jesus say there was a purpose in His not coming before Lazarus demise?

i just thought it was interesting that no one mentioned that his soul went to heaven.

i hear people say " i know he's in heaven with the lord now", or "i know he's looking down smiling at us".

martha didn't do that.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Lazarus was dead four days. For a reason, so that he would have stunk in beginning corruption. Jesus did not see that corruption (Act 2:27). Four days and stinking (John 11:39) was proof that Lazarus was dead dead dead.

The entire reason for it all was so that we would know that the Resurrection had Come and IS JESUS;

Having Jesus = Living Resurrection NOW.

(Joh 11:25) Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Martha mistakenly thought, as do so many now today also, that the resurrection was an "event" and was in the "future".

Which neither is right.

Jesus IS the resurrection.

Jesus IS NOW. Forever.

Whoever died in Christ has been raised up in newness of Life. This is the Word of God. It is NOW.

(Rom 6:4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

(Rom 13:11) And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

Now the second death has no power over us.

Period

It all boils down to whether we "LIVE" the word or not.

How "Real" was your first death?

Or was it just "symbolic" as some here have said?

Hmmm

Lazarus, Martha's brother was raised from the dead...But, here it is, he was raised a fleshly human being...he was not raised a spiritual being...He did not at that time enter into the Kingdom of God. Christ resurrected him, brought him back to life to prove that the great God above has that power! It was just to prove a point! There are others in scripture to that were resurrected human beings...But they did not go on living forever, eternally. THAT TIME HAS NOT COME YET!

By the way, the second death is one that comes at the judgment of the wicked...not the first death in which you keep pointing to and calling it the second death.

 

[YosemiteSam]

So I wonder what is important about the incident. I really see no need to say what happened the 3 days Lazarus was in the grave. All it does show is Martha's carnal conderns. I don't think that Martha was concerned about Lazarus's eternal state. She is mourning only about the demise of the flesh.

Didn't Jesus say there was a purpose in His not coming before Lazarus demise?

So Scratch, we see here that Martha did loose her brother, like many of us today have lost a parent. Martha was distressed, and grieved over her loss; even though she understood that her brother would one day live again. That is important information.

But strangely enough there is a reason, and an important one that Christ left Lazarus in the grave till the fourth day. It happens that the three days three nights were used to prove a person dead! Same thing with Jonah, same thing with Christ. It was a measure or a custom, if you wish, to prove the individual was dead. Why do you think up until the later half of this last century people laid in the morgue for three days...before interment began.

You might go check out some history sources on that...If you cannot find any. I can copy where it is spoken of in the misnah.

Havent had time to work on the other yet but just thought i would jump out here real quick to check out the goings on...

Yo

 

[YosemiteSam]

huh?
Lazarus died, and we know he actually existed and walked with Christ on earth....
so i don't follow???

im interested in hearing your proof.

Talking about the events of the parable! Stay tuned!

I will have to do it tomorrow...

 

[from scratch]

Lazarus, Martha's brother was raised from the dead...But, here it is, he was raised a fleshly human being...he was not raised a spiritual being...He did not at that time enter into the Kingdom of God. Christ resurrected him, brought him back to life to prove that the great God above has that power! It was just to prove a point! There are others in scripture to that were resurrected human beings...But they did not go on living forever, eternally. THAT TIME HAS NOT COME YET!

By the way, the second death is one that comes at the judgment of the wicked...not the first death in which you keep pointing to and calling it the second death.

What about the transfiguration as it relates to the topic?

 

[from scratch]

So Scratch, we see here that Martha did loose her brother, like many of us today have lost a parent. Martha was distressed, and grieved over her loss; even though she understood that her brother would one day live again. That is important information.

But strangely enough there is a reason, and an important one that Christ left Lazarus in the grave till the fourth day. It happens that the three days three nights were used to prove a person dead! Same thing with Jonah, same thing with Christ. It was a measure or a custom, if you wish, to prove the individual was dead. Why do you think up until the later half of this last century people laid in the morgue for three days...before interment began.

You might go check out some history sources on that...If you cannot find any. I can copy where it is spoken of in the misnah.

Havent had time to work on the other yet but just thought i would jump out here real quick to check out the goings on...

Yo

Me thinketh some study is in order for you concerning the topic of a requirement for people being in the morgue for 3 days. Has nothing to do with religious ideas on death.