The fact that you are looking for a FOOTNOTE inserted that has no source text as a standard of evidence leaves both you and Lon looking rather pale in your understanding of what constitutes a valid argument. Likewise, I know that neither you nor Lon would relinquish your erroneous argument were I to bother scanning paper bibles and recognize this particular absurd standard of evidence. I don't think you are sincere on this.
Matthew Henry calls Lazarus and the Rich Man a parable, "This he shows in the other parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which has likewise a further intention, and that is, to awaken us all to take the warning given us by the written word, and not to expect immediate messages from the other world (v. 19-31)."
John Gil says that Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable.
"No mention is made in this parable of the burial of this man, nor any words used expressive of it, or that in the least hint it"
Albert Barnes calls Lazarus and the Rich Man a parable. "In hell - The word here translated hell ("Hades") means literally a dark, obscure place; the place where departed spirits go, but especially the place where "wicked" spirits go. See the Job 10:21-22 notes; Isa 14:9 note. The following circumstances are related of it in this parable:"
It seems that pretty much most recognized Bible commentators (or at least the most famous ones) recognize this passage as a parable. And you (and Lon) are telling me, that unless a Bible publisher tampers with the purity of the text to insert their own comments, it cannot be a parable? Please, show some intellectual honesty here.
Jesus in his earthly ministry
only talked about things that actually exist. :think:
consciousness after death and fire that does not consume.
Luk 16:22 And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich one also died and was buried.
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.
Jesus in his earthly ministry
only talked about things that actually exist. :think:
consciousness after death and fire that does not consume.
Luk 16:22 And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich one also died and was buried.
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.
You just cant let go of this 'parable' - ....its a 'parable'. You cannot prove this is an actual account of a condition of existence somewhere in space at any point in time, neither can you prove what parts of this are 'authentic' to what is embellished to serve to illustrate a teaching, this STORY serving as a teaching tool. Much is 'figurative'.
Way 2 Go, are you actually addressing me, or are you using rhetorical questions?
1. The normal meaning of death does mean the cessation of existence, or at least the ceasing of function. "Let the dead bury their own dead" is obviously a metaphor. A metaphor has no meaning unless it is based on a known reality.
2. Scripture doesn't tell us Adam died twice, and I have yet to see the Bible define anything called "spiritual death." Do you have some other writing where God says that Adam died on the day he disobeyed?
Because the book I have written by God says that he died 930 years later. Since the deaths are enumerated first and second, and the second death is in the future by a lake of fire, that sort of excludes anyone "dying twice" as you imply.
Please be careful to not to apply metaphor as if it were "thus saith the Lord" when it's more like speculation.
3. In that passage that Jesus speaks, the word for "destroy" is even more emphatic than "kill" not in a different application or of a lesser degree. Destruction is even more emphatic. If necessary we can examine what actual Greek translators and scholars have said about this. I suppose if you try really hard you can find an exception in an entirely different context, but we are interested in the truth of meaning here, aren't we?
Here's "destroy" in its normal use:
Genesis 6:7 KJV
(7) And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Matthew 2:13 KJV
(13) And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
Was God going to merely hurt humanity on earth a little? Or was Herod going to seek the Christ child to torture him and set him back alive? Please take care that you are not so zealous in your defense of never ending torment that you interpret words out of their intended context.
4. If you are willing to believe the prophets, Satan did have salvation offered to him, and he rejected it. Ezekiel 28. Remember what Jesus said about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? And what Paul said about it being impossible to take those who have tasted of the good fruits of the spirit, and rejected them, to turn them again unto repentance?
Ezekiel 28:14-16 KJV
(14) Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
(15) Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
(16) By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
5. Isn't it amazing that the fire in "Lazarus and the rich man" is so tame compared to what we know of fire? Have you ever tried to engage in a calm conversation while you were being tormented in flame? For that matter, have you ever had personal experience with fire? Set yourself on fire? Held your hand into a burning fireplace for at least two minutes? Were you able to talk and bargain at the same time?
It's so amazing, it's like it's taken straight from a story! Anyway, please share us your experiences with being on fire.
Mat_8:22 And Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead."
spiritual death is first , Adam died the day he ate from the tree
Rom_7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
spirit is already dead unless born again
our spirits go on,
Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment
you don't have a point here because Jesus switches from the word kill to destroy . destroy = ruin
Mat 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Rom 14:15 But if your brother is grieved with your food, you no longer walk according to love. Do not with your food destroy him for whom Christ died.
is salvation offered to satan ?
Jesus only talked about things that actually exist
consciousness after death and fire that does not consume.
Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
Luk 16:24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’
no it doesn't
Rev 20:10 And the Devil who deceived them was cast into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet were . And he will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
There seems to be a point of misunderstanding... I'll try to be constructive.
Valhalla is a Norse hell. Hades is the Greek hell. Dante's Inferno is a satirical Catholic hell. They may each be examples of hell, but they aren't the same. They are constructs of cultural mythology. Even the English word hell has a corresponding deity named "Hel" (although I think it ultimately derived from the Hebrew "sheol.")
Even if words have pagan origins doesn't mean they aren't adopted into the language in other normal fashions. I'll use a well known example: the New Testament uses the same word for Jew's Passover as would be be also used for the pagan Easter (Greek doesn't have a separate word for the Jewish passover.) That doesn't mean that they are the same, it just means that the meaning of the word must be determined by context.
With Passover, the closest word to the Hebrew "pesach" is the Greek "pascha." With hell, the closest word to the Hebrew "sheol" is "hades." In Greek, hades can mean either the general state of death or the tomb or grave, but it also has the mythological realm of the dead meaning that we would use a capital letter for, i.e. "Hades." The "sheol" equivalent of "hades" and "Hades" are not the same concepts.
Your answers seem to assume that these are interchangeable. Even a Greek atheist could speak of "hades" without meaning anything supernatural or giving the idea that he believed Hades was in charge of an ethereal underworld. That's just the way the word is used.
When Peter says that the soul of Jesus was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption (Acts 2:31) I don't think it means that Jesus was in the Greek underworld ruled by the Greek god Hades. I think it far more likely that Peter means it in the same sense as the Hebrew sheol, which is simply the general term for death and the grave. Christ was buried in the earth, his soul was left in hell for three days and three nights.
... so cutting to the point, just because the word hell (or hades, in the Greek) occurs within the New Testament does not mean it is the same as the satirical Hades that Christ used as a backdrop for a pointed parable. There is also the plain normal use of the well that has no such connotation. It is usually the safer method of Biblical interpretation to assume that words carry their normal ordinary meaning unless the context demands otherwise.
:think: You are saying you believe Jesus was talking about the Greek Hel? Am I understanding you correctly?
Likewise, consider when Revelation prophesies that death and hell will be thrown into the lake of fire. You can't literally pick up a location or an underworld and toss it into a lake, but it could very well imply that those that are slain (death and hell) are thrown into that fire to be permanently burnt up and destroyed.
I think it is a point worth pondering. The question: Can it definitively make one who understands ECT, switch? I've given you the two passages (Luke 16:19-31 being one of them), are there one or three passages that keep you unshaken in your annihilation stance?
Revelation 20:13-14 KJV
(13) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
(14) And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Verse 13 treats death, hell, and the sea as being the same type of thing, and it is in verse 14 that death and hell are thrown into fire. Why not the sea? Because God isn't going to slay anyone by water in the judgment. But if you assume a supernatural realm of conscious ghosts is the meaning of hell, then why is the sea in that statement?
The story of Pharaoh is about a man who rejected God and after 10 warnings, charged after God's people to kill them. The Lord Jesus Christ either draws men, or repels them. The ones drawn, are broken, in need of being remade. Are Christians the 'worst' of society? Jesus said 1) He came for the lost and the sick. 2) That they need[ed] Him. Pharaoh didn't need God. When warnings were thrown at his feet, he hardened. When Saul met the Lord Jesus Christ, Love softened him. Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of men/women's lives, or He is the stone of stumbling. Same love, same God, two different results. Hard people get harder. Broken people, soft people, are remade, remolded.
Where can a people go, who ONLY get more bitter, more hardened as time goes by? Ever seen them? What can possibly work for them. Would mercy be to give them a room for their own? Would their 'happiness' really be happy? Or more like a fire? Would 'they' think so? You've seen people do this to themselves. You help them get out of drugs, and they are right back there the next day. You help a bum, and maybe 1 in 100 will leave it through help from the shelter. The 99 keep looking to themselves, forget that life is worth living when you pour into another human soul...
Yes,...the theology of "Because I say so" is absolute! :crackup:
Joking asides, our former observations on this punishing subject hold. The all-supreme Creator must from his integrity..... judge fairly with complete justice and mercy, his love and wisdom directing those mediations with all care and diligence, doing all to save, heal, mend, restore and empower souls to fulfill their purpose of being, to flourish. Love could do no less, and no harm or ill-will ever.
1. Link or source for what specifically? I had about three or four paragraphs there. I'm not sure which part is being questioned. Is it that Dante's Inferno is a satire? or ... (I'm quoting it below so you don't have to go digging back)
Spoiler
Valhalla is a Norse hell. Hades is the Greek hell. Dante's Inferno is a satirical Catholic hell. They may each be examples of hell, but they aren't the same. They are constructs of cultural mythology. Even the English word hell has a corresponding deity named "Hel" (although I think it ultimately derived from the Hebrew "sheol.")
Even if words have pagan origins doesn't mean they aren't adopted into the language in other normal fashions. I'll use a well known example: the New Testament uses the same word for Jew's Passover as would be be also used for the pagan Easter (Greek doesn't have a separate word for the Jewish passover.) That doesn't mean that they are the same, it just means that the meaning of the word must be determined by context.
With Passover, the closest word to the Hebrew "pesach" is the Greek "pascha." With hell, the closest word to the Hebrew "sheol" is "hades." In Greek, hades can mean either the general state of death or the tomb or grave, but it also has the mythological realm of the dead meaning that we would use a capital letter for, i.e. "Hades." The "sheol" equivalent of "hades" and "Hades" are not the same concepts.
Your answers seem to assume that these are interchangeable. Even a Greek atheist could speak of "hades" without meaning anything supernatural or giving the idea that he believed Hades was in charge of an ethereal underworld. That's just the way the word is used.
2. Why do you think Luke 23:43 is relevant? I need something to go on here. If I take a guess and put words into someone's mouth, I have to use twelve times the text to counter-counter possible branching and that gets very lengthy very fast. And plus no one reads anymore after that point.
When Peter says that the soul of Jesus was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption (Acts 2:31) I don't think it means that Jesus was in the Greek underworld ruled by the Greek god Hades. I think it far more likely that Peter means it in the same sense as the Hebrew sheol, which is simply the general term for death and the grave. Christ was buried in the earth, his soul was left in hell for three days and three nights.
3. I think the Greek hell "Hades" is the closest approximation of what was used in Luke 23:43 for the Jewish rich man. If the Jew is sent to the Greek hell, and the gentile to the Jewish metaphor of reward, it does have a poetic symmetry. Granted there are some differences, as in Abraham seems to be the go-to person and/or ruler of this Realm, instead of Hades, and it also has the similarity that a place of reward is in the same realm (in the Greek they have the Elysian Fields).
In favor of this interpretation, I would point out that "Hades" is indeed the actual word used in the Greek text. It doesn't have capitalization but if that is what was meant, that's exactly the word that would have been chosen. It's not as if this would have been a foreign concept to any of his audience. I was raised as a Christian all my life and I am familiar with the Greek gods and demigods and Hades, even 2000 years removed. Christ's audience were ruled by the Romans that owned this mythology.
I think it is a point worth pondering. The question: Can it definitively make one who understands ECT, switch?
4a. Thanks for the question, but honestly that answer alone (death and hell being through into the lake of fire) isn't enough to make anyone switch from Eternal Conscious Torment. It's not definitive either way by itself. However, it poses no contradiction when viewed in light of the basic assumptions of each perspective.
In all honesty, the reason I think there is so much misunderstanding is because the ECT mindset assumes that "such and such proof text" means such and such, and doesn't realize that the Annihilation side already takes ownership of the said passages and believes them to support them even more strongly. That's how come you'll see the same passages pasted back and forth by both sides over and over again.
Are there answers that will switch someone? Yes, I think there are. What is it? Seems to differ for each person. People won't tell you what will change their minds, and I think most people don't know themselves until you've hit upon it. For one friend (a pastor of a small Church of Christ) it was something Martin Luther said that finally caught his interest. I didn't consider that really significant at that time.
I've given you the two passages (Luke 16:19-31 being one of them), are there one or three passages that keep you unshaken in your annihilation stance?
4b) Many reasons. But I'm not sure I understand your question. I'll take a stab at it if you skip past the spoiler answer.
Spoiler
I haven't yet seen anyone offer me a question that causes annihilation of the wicked (or that death is dark and silence) to be brought into contradiction. The character and nature of Jesus as revealed on earth would be inconsistent with an infinite torture for no constructive reason. Eternal life is called a gift, that we must especially receive, and only upon faith in Christ, not a curse bestowed upon the wicked against their will. The language of the bible is decidedly in favor of annihilation, and to veer from that results in a multitude of contradictions that start to require complex models to explain what used to be very simple.
A single parable, in the context of parables before and after, spoken to people who were part of the multitude, which just so happens to line up ever so nicely and neatly with already-included Biblical references and with these symbols happens to match the meaning of other existing parables, to me, makes terrific sense in the context of that parable.
In contrast, it were treated as not a parable confusion results, and many things no longer make sense. The words of the prophets and even the future apostles start to contradict, people receive rewards merely because they had experienced bad things in their lifetimes, people are punished because they received good things in their lives, punishments and rewards are handed out without the judgment, so on and so forth. I got used to Hell-preaching pastors claim "Not a parable" (without evidence, because they said so) over seventeen years ago so the shock value has long worn off.
If you're looking for a prime passage, "As touching the resurrection of the dead, that they rise, .... I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, therefore he is not the God of the dead, but of the Living" is not spoken in any context of parable, but as a direct answer to a challenge. Abraham cannot be alive in any sense if it requires the Resurrection of the Dead to make God the God of the Living. Christ isn't going to contradict himself in the same breath.
That, and probably about a couple other dozen passages throughout the books of the bible that also agree in this point. I believe the Bible is complete and does not contradict. Even when I did not understand the parable, it was the weight of 30-40 passages against 1-2 that I didn't properly understand at that time. It is far more likely that the misunderstanding is in the realm of the 1-2 rather than the 30-40.
Buried at sea, or perished in storms, or eaten by sharks. No matter how you died, eaten by worms, sharks, burnt to death, you will be resurrected. That's what Revelation 20 must mean when it says death and hell and the sea gave up its dead. My point being is that the word "hell" doesn't necessarily mean something metaphysical. It's just covering all the bases to give us the general idea that no one is missed.
As per the death at sea, in pirate tongue I think it's called "Davy Jones Locker."
:think: You are saying you believe Jesus was talking about the Greek Hel? Am I understanding you correctly?
I think it is a point worth pondering. The question: Can it definitively make one who understands ECT, switch? I've given you the two passages (Luke 16:19-31 being one of them), are there one or three passages that keep you unshaken in your annihilation stance?
1. Link or source for what specifically? I had about three or four paragraphs there. I'm not sure which part is being questioned. Is it that Dante's Inferno is a satire? or ... (I'm quoting it below so you don't have to go digging back)
All of them were about Hades vs hades and them not being the same place in your mind. I was wanting to get to some source material. Hades, is kind of like earth and Earth. Same place and depends on who is using it for what. Another word is Heaven or heaven. Both 'can' mean the same place in the same manner that Hades or hades can be the same place. The only time you'd not capitalize, is if you are talking about the concept of heaven or comparing one's heaven to another's. For us, there is only one Heaven. One Hell. It seems like you are convinced the Lord Jesus Christ was using Greek mythology and talking about Hades, and Hel. I was asking if this is your work and thought, or if you'd read it somewhere such as a link or other resource.
Spoiler
Valhalla is a Norse hell. Hades is the Greek hell. Dante's Inferno is a satirical Catholic hell. They may each be examples of hell, but they aren't the same. They are constructs of cultural mythology. Even the English word hell has a corresponding deity named "Hel" (although I think it ultimately derived from the Hebrew "sheol.")
Even if words have pagan origins doesn't mean they aren't adopted into the language in other normal fashions. I'll use a well known example: the New Testament uses the same word for Jew's Passover as would be be also used for the pagan Easter (Greek doesn't have a separate word for the Jewish passover.) That doesn't mean that they are the same, it just means that the meaning of the word must be determined by context.
With Passover, the closest word to the Hebrew "pesach" is the Greek "pascha." With hell, the closest word to the Hebrew "sheol" is "hades." In Greek, hades can mean either the general state of death or the tomb or grave, but it also has the mythological realm of the dead meaning that we would use a capital letter for, i.e. "Hades." The "sheol" equivalent of "hades" and "Hades" are not the same concepts.
Your answers seem to assume that these are interchangeable. Even a Greek atheist could speak of "hades" without meaning anything supernatural or giving the idea that he believed Hades was in charge of an ethereal underworld. That's just the way the word is used.
As far as Hebrew/Greek the words are Sheol then Hades. Hades and hades would be interchangeable as to whether you are talking about hades in general, standing for all concepts of a hades, or the Hades with the context of Judeo/Christianity.
2. Why do you think Luke 23:43 is relevant? I need something to go on here. If I take a guess and put words into someone's mouth, I have to use twelve times the text to counter-counter possible branching and that gets very lengthy very fast. And plus no one reads anymore after that point.
When Peter says that the soul of Jesus was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption (Acts 2:31) I don't think it means that Jesus was in the Greek underworld ruled by the Greek god Hades. I think it far more likely that Peter means it in the same sense as the Hebrew sheol, which is simply the general term for death and the grave. Christ was buried in the earth, his soul was left in hell for three days and three nights.
3. I think the Greek hell "Hades" is the closest approximation of what was used in Luke 23:43 for the Jewish rich man. If the Jew is sent to the Greek hell, and the gentile to the Jewish metaphor of reward, it does have a poetic symmetry. Granted there are some differences, as in Abraham seems to be the go-to person and/or ruler of this Realm, instead of Hades, and it also has the similarity that a place of reward is in the same realm (in the Greek they have the Elysian Fields).
In favor of this interpretation, I would point out that "Hades" is indeed the actual word used in the Greek text. It doesn't have capitalization but if that is what was meant, that's exactly the word that would have been chosen. It's not as if this would have been a foreign concept to any of his audience. I was raised as a Christian all my life and I am familiar with the Greek gods and demigods and Hades, even 2000 years removed. Christ's audience were ruled by the Romans that owned this mythology.
I had thought you meant this from your previous post, but wanted to be sure. Any sources that you derive this idea from? Any particular thing that drives this thought other than your piecing it together? I asked for your primary resources so I could read a bit. I have never heard anyone speculate this before.
4a. Thanks for the question, but honestly that answer alone (death and hell being through into the lake of fire) isn't enough to make anyone switch from Eternal Conscious Torment. It's not definitive either way by itself. However, it poses no contradiction when viewed in light of the basic assumptions of each perspective.
In all honesty, the reason I think there is so much misunderstanding is because the ECT mindset assumes that "such and such proof text" means such and such, and doesn't realize that the Annihilation side already takes ownership of the said passages and believes them to support them even more strongly. That's how come you'll see the same passages pasted back and forth by both sides over and over again.
I've seen that as well, which is why the two are the ones that will not leave my mind alone that I could adopt Annihilation. The doubt is too great for me.
Are there answers that will switch someone? Yes, I think there are. What is it? Seems to differ for each person. People won't tell you what will change their minds, and I think most people don't know themselves until you've hit upon it. For one friend (a pastor of a small Church of Christ) it was something Martin Luther said that finally caught his interest. I didn't consider that really significant at that time.
You mean something from Martin Luther's writings convinced him that Annihilation was true? I am open, but it would have to be something substantial from scriptures. The church has held this much too long and we are not innovators of the challenge. I will repeat: Like Glorydaz, I would be an annihilationist, if I could with any kind of integrity. I am not because I don't believe I honestly 'can' be and this not to disparage you. We are each given so much information. For me, orthodoxy stands pretty well on most points, as I've noticed. I do think systematic theologies can use more work, but that is more in the way things all tie together. It doesn't generally mean reinventing doctrinal wheels, but just how we organize them.
4b) Many reasons. But I'm not sure I understand your question. I'll take a stab at it if you skip past the spoiler answer.
Spoiler
I haven't yet seen anyone offer me a question that causes annihilation of the wicked (or that death is dark and silence) to be brought into contradiction. The character and nature of Jesus as revealed on earth would be inconsistent with an infinite torture for no constructive reason. Eternal life is called a gift, that we must especially receive, and only upon faith in Christ, not a curse bestowed upon the wicked against their will. The language of the bible is decidedly in favor of annihilation, and to veer from that results in a multitude of contradictions that start to require complex models to explain what used to be very simple.
I was more looking for scriptures that seem to cinch it for you, and have you staked in annihilation ground. Sorry I didn't make that clearer (assumed because I mentioned two scriptures).
A single parable, in the context of parables before and after, spoken to people who were part of the multitude, which just so happens to line up ever so nicely and neatly with already-included Biblical references and with these symbols happens to match the meaning of other existing parables, to me, makes terrific sense in the context of that parable.
In contrast, it were treated as not a parable confusion results, and many things no longer make sense. The words of the prophets and even the future apostles start to contradict, people receive rewards merely because they had experienced bad things in their lifetimes, people are punished because they received good things in their lives, punishments and rewards are handed out without the judgment, so on and so forth. I got used to Hell-preaching pastors claim "Not a parable" (without evidence, because they said so) over seventeen years ago so the shock value has long worn off.
For me, even if it were concerning the Pharisees strictly (and Luke 16:1 and 17:1 make that a bit difficult for me), it would still make it a story of warning to them, including torment from wicked living. To me, it would actually keep the same fervency and truthfulness of the warning.
If you're looking for a prime passage, "As touching the resurrection of the dead, that they rise, .... I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, therefore he is not the God of the dead, but of the Living" is not spoken in any context of parable, but as a direct answer to a challenge. Abraham cannot be alive in any sense if it requires the Resurrection of the Dead to make God the God of the Living. Christ isn't going to contradict himself in the same breath.
As you said, we tend to use the same verses and this one is also seen that way. His body? Clearly dead. His consciousness? Soul? --> Paradise (Sans Heaven) next to Hades, gap between them. (I don't think I'm telling you anything now, that you didn't know I already believed).
That, and probably about a couple other dozen passages throughout the books of the bible that also agree in this point. I believe the Bible is complete and does not contradict. Even when I did not understand the parable, it was the weight of 30-40 passages against 1-2 that I didn't properly understand at that time. It is far more likely that the misunderstanding is in the realm of the 1-2 rather than the 30-40.
It too, is the 'way' we read them. We have to bring our assumptions with us in texts, so it makes sense we use about the same ones and about the same # of them.
Buried at sea, or perished in storms, or eaten by sharks. No matter how you died, eaten by worms, sharks, burnt to death, you will be resurrected. That's what Revelation 20 must mean when it says death and hell and the sea gave up its dead. My point being is that the word "hell" doesn't necessarily mean something metaphysical. It's just covering all the bases to give us the general idea that no one is missed.
Hell/Hades is that holding place, once adjacent to Paradise before it moved, as I understand it. Death thanatos and the sea thaylossa could either be read as other places, like land and sea, or those who had just died, yet because it was the bema seat, came directly passed Hell/Hades, and did not collect 200 dollars or land on free parking.
The usage of the word would depend on context. For example, Santa Claus lives at the North Pole. There is a real North Pole, and there is also the mythical North Pole where Santa Claus lives. If the context is flying reindeer or toy-making elves, one intuitively recognizes that this North Pole is a fictional setting, not the one that aligns our compasses. Both have the same name, and in English the capitalization is even the same. One is populated with talking animals and elves, the other is a barren land with the occasional seal or polar bear.
The bible does have words for the realm of death: the Hebrew sheol. It does not describe this realm of death as the other religions do. This realm of death is darkness, silence, and quiet, a place where there is no conscious recognition that one is dead. I realize that it is possible that there may be dozens of different myths that might have evolved with sheol, but these will be found in extra-biblical sources. It is recorded how quickly the Israelites fell away from God and started adopting the practices and superstitions of those around them.
As such, I think it is vital that we confine ourselves to what the Bible actually says, without overlaying assumptions from Jewish superstition, Greek philosophy, or Catholic/ Islamic tradition. "Scripture only" in other words. If this method is used, the sheol hell is consistently described in terms that is incompatible with any assumption of conscious thought or existence. It's simply the "holding place" for the dead, much like we would use a Zero to signify nothing. The use of the word Zero doesn't prove something exists, rather the opposite. It's a placeholder.
In agreement with this method, we see Jesus defending himself from scripture, and chiding those who rejected the doctrine of the resurrection for not knowing the scriptures. He said the scriptures testified of him. I think that it should bear consideration that Jesus may have expected us to believe what was already written, in the normal every day language, without supposing that what God said and what his prophets said were mistaken, or that there were ignorant because they "only knew that dead bodies didn't move."
I'm not trying to veer off topic, this is important because the Hebrew sheol is translated as the Greek hades in the New Testament. We have an example of this when Peter quotes Psalm 16 during his speech in Acts 2, "His soul was not left in hell." If we want to know what the New Testament authors usually meant by hades in the New Testament, you cannot do so without first understanding how sheol is used in the Old Testament. Reality doesn't suddenly switch inside out from one testament to the other, the same God that spoke in Genesis also inspired the scripture by his Holy Spirit, and sent his Son into the world.
That which is revealed first is the foundation for understanding what is said after, that which comes after will never contradict what came before. As Jesus confirmed, "The scriptures cannot be broken." Sound interpretation requires us to start at Genesis and move and build forward, not the other way around.
You spoke of Earth and earth. Earth is the planet, a sphere, or a realm. By itself, earth is simply dirt. If one were to terraform the planets, we might one day have earth on the moon or Mars. As such earth isn't a place, it's a material.
You said for us there is only one Heaven. The birds fly above in heaven, rain falls from heaven. The stars move in their courses in heaven. Finally, God has his abode in heaven. Paul makes allusion to three heavens (2 Corinthians 12:3). If one reads the Bible with the assumption that there is only one heaven, contradiction will be the inevitable result. It's another word that depends on context.
It seems like you are convinced the Lord Jesus Christ was using Greek mythology and talking about Hades, and Hel. I was asking if this is your work and thought, or if you'd read it somewhere such as a link or other resource.
Whatever Hades Jesus is talking about, it is a fantastical realm that contains three conscious people, where God is absent, and flames that torment in such an obscure way that they seem to be a minor irritation. When Jesus means to speak of the fire or judgment or hell fire, the word is always gehenna. This parable stands as a lone exception, and this Hades is in no way compatible with what has been revealed by the word of God in all the previous books that are called scripture.
So either God lied and the prophets lied all this time and Jesus now accidentally let something slip, or Jesus is borrowing a well known setting for a parable. I've read enough mythology to recognize that this hell seems a lot like the Greek Hades. And lo and behold, if you look up the source text he called it Hades. It's not Hades proper because the god Hades is missing, but it's the same concept. Did I read this on a website? No, it's just the natural connection. The Jews may have had a bastardized version that they adopted, a predecessor concept borrowing from the surrounding religious elements, similar to what Josephus described in his Discourse to the Greeks.
It's a good setting for a parable, not much good for anything else. If Jesus meant to teach a new doctrine, you'd think he would say something like "I tell you something new..." or at least give enough to explain how come he was contradicting every scripture that came before. He even said "A new commandment I give unto you ..." when the commandment wasn't really that new at all. (Compare John 13:34 with Lev 19:18, add in 1 John 2:7, 2 Jn 1:5-6). If "love one another" is even called a new commandment (when it can be easily inferred from Love thy Neighbor) one would think that "the dead are conscious in Hades" would merit some mention to establish it as fact and doctrine.
As far as Hebrew/Greek the words are Sheol then Hades. Hades and hades would be interchangeable as to whether you are talking about hades in general, standing for all concepts of a hades, or the Hades with the context of Judeo/Christianity.
Yes, I guess you could say so. I think that there is only one New Testament instance (Luke 16) where hades is a mythological folk reference, the rest would be the equivalent of sheol (the holding place of the dead, unconscious, without knowledge or emotion).
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Was that supposed to be an equals sign, or like in Chemistry when that symbol is used to indicate a reaction as one substance transfigures to another type?
Any particular thing that drives this thought other than your piecing it together? I asked for your primary resources so I could read a bit. I have never heard anyone speculate this before.
I didn't need anything for myself. I could probably find some supporting related material for you, but what comes to mind is quite a bit of reading. Henry Constable's "Hades and the Intermediate State" is over 160 pages and very thorough. I don't post this online (as it has a small item with which I do not concur) but I think well enough of the author to have posted his The Duration and Nature of Future Punishment (148 pages). He does a lot of research and detail that you find in R.A. Torrey. If you are up for quite a bit of reading I can send a PDF by email.
I've seen that as well, which is why the two are the ones that will not leave my mind alone that I could adopt Annihilation. The doubt is too great for me.
If I had to give the prime factor in favor of death being the absolute cessation of being and the eternal punishment of sin being utter annihilation, I would say it is scriptural support in sheer overwhelming numbers and zero contradiction. It's very hard to say "it's this verse, or that passage." In my opinion,this doctrine is easier to prove than that Jesus is none other than our Lord God Almighty Creator (which I also agree with, and by the same standards of scriptural analysis.)
You mean something from Martin Luther's writings convinced him that Annihilation was true?
My friend (pastor of small church) isn't much of the reading type. It would be more accurate that it finally got his attention to the point where he was able to listen fairly instead of instinctively reaching for traditional denial. It seems he had a respect for Martin Luther. I don't remember exactly what I related, but it was essentially that Martin Luther denied immortality of the soul and believed that the dead exist only in an unconscious unknowing sleep. Regardless, it got his attention to to where the subject could be fairly addressed.
For examples of what you might find from Martin Luther, those are easy to find. I already quoted Sir Thomas More who recognized both Tyndale and Luther as saying that the dead knew nothing of pain or experience before the judgment. This site here has more quotations from both Tyndale and Luther
Orthodoxy is defined by those that hold power and influence at the current time.
The early church wasn't hell fire torment, it developed over the course of the first few hundred years. I have a different friend who read through all the early writings for bits on this topic for his theological thesis. The earliest writings either specify or are compatible with annihilation.
When Tyndale and Luther were on the front row of the Reformation, they (and others) also started lining up with "death as sleep." Calvin even helps testify to this as he wrote a specific piece to attack those of that belief, although he also states that he never bothered to listen to anyone or to even read any of their writings. I once read it thinking it would be useful as a launching point for a rebuttal essay, but it lacked content to justify such an effort.
What I'm saying here is that (a perception) Orthodoxy isn't a right standard for evaluation of truth. If Orthodox is correct, it will stand on scripture and be able to be quickly built up again even if you go back to ground zero. Even then, you might be surprised at who has stood where historically, even if "Orthodox" has told you that everyone has always been one way or another. It isn't always the case.
When Luther and Tyndale were breaking new ground translating the Bible into the common tongue, they both came to the conclusion that the dead are truly dead in every sense of the word. I think it's a natural result of forcing oneself to read all of the scripture starting at the beginning.
I was more looking for scriptures that seem to cinch it for you, and have you staked in annihilation ground. Sorry I didn't make that clearer (assumed because I mentioned two scriptures).
I have essays (posted) that I could share by sending the link by private message. That would probably be a fair way of showing what I've thought was convincing before. They would have been tailored for the specific question or argument or person but you could probably read past that.
All of them were about Hades vs hades and them not being the same place in your mind. I was wanting to get to some source material. Hades, is kind of like earth and Earth. Same place and depends on who is using it for what. Another word is Heaven or heaven. Both 'can' mean the same place in the same manner that Hades or hades can be the same place. The only time you'd not capitalize, is if you are talking about the concept of heaven or comparing one's heaven to another's. For us, there is only one Heaven. One Hell. It seems like you are convinced the Lord Jesus Christ was using Greek mythology and talking about Hades, and Hel. I was asking if this is your work and thought, or if you'd read it somewhere such as a link or other resource.
Spoiler
Valhalla is a Norse hell. Hades is the Greek hell. Dante's Inferno is a satirical Catholic hell. They may each be examples of hell, but they aren't the same. They are constructs of cultural mythology. Even the English word hell has a corresponding deity named "Hel" (although I think it ultimately derived from the Hebrew "sheol.")
Even if words have pagan origins doesn't mean they aren't adopted into the language in other normal fashions. I'll use a well known example: the New Testament uses the same word for Jew's Passover as would be be also used for the pagan Easter (Greek doesn't have a separate word for the Jewish passover.) That doesn't mean that they are the same, it just means that the meaning of the word must be determined by context.
With Passover, the closest word to the Hebrew "pesach" is the Greek "pascha." With hell, the closest word to the Hebrew "sheol" is "hades." In Greek, hades can mean either the general state of death or the tomb or grave, but it also has the mythological realm of the dead meaning that we would use a capital letter for, i.e. "Hades." The "sheol" equivalent of "hades" and "Hades" are not the same concepts.
Your answers seem to assume that these are interchangeable. Even a Greek atheist could speak of "hades" without meaning anything supernatural or giving the idea that he believed Hades was in charge of an ethereal underworld. That's just the way the word is used.
As far as Hebrew/Greek the words are Sheol then Hades. Hades and hades would be interchangeable as to whether you are talking about hades in general, standing for all concepts of a hades, or the Hades with the context of Judeo/Christianity.
For me, not Hell --> Paradise (Abraham's Bosom).
I had thought you meant this from your previous post, but wanted to be sure. Any sources that you derive this idea from? Any particular thing that drives this thought other than your piecing it together? I asked for your primary resources so I could read a bit. I have never heard anyone speculate this before.
Agree and thanks for your assessment of the same as well.
I've seen that as well, which is why the two are the ones that will not leave my mind alone that I could adopt Annihilation. The doubt is too great for me.
You mean something from Martin Luther's writings convinced him that Annihilation was true? I am open, but it would have to be something substantial from scriptures. The church has held this much too long and we are not innovators of the challenge. I will repeat: Like Glorydaz, I would be an annihilationist, if I could with any kind of integrity. I am not because I don't believe I honestly 'can' be and this not to disparage you. We are each given so much information. For me, orthodoxy stands pretty well on most points, as I've noticed. I do think systematic theologies can use more work, but that is more in the way things all tie together. It doesn't generally mean reinventing doctrinal wheels, but just how we organize them.
I was more looking for scriptures that seem to cinch it for you, and have you staked in annihilation ground. Sorry I didn't make that clearer (assumed because I mentioned two scriptures).
For me, even if it were concerning the Pharisees strictly (and Luke 16:1 and 17:1 make that a bit difficult for me), it would still make it a story of warning to them, including torment from wicked living. To me, it would actually keep the same fervency and truthfulness of the warning.
As you said, we tend to use the same verses and this one is also seen that way. His body? Clearly dead. His consciousness? Soul? --> Paradise (Sans Heaven) next to Hades, gap between them. (I don't think I'm telling you anything now, that you didn't know I already believed).
It too, is the 'way' we read them. We have to bring our assumptions with us in texts, so it makes sense we use about the same ones and about the same # of them.
Hell/Hades is that holding place, once adjacent to Paradise before it moved, as I understand it. Death thanatos and the sea thaylossa could either be read as other places, like land and sea, or those who had just died, yet because it was the bema seat, came directly passed Hell/Hades, and did not collect 200 dollars or land on free parking.
Argh. Have a fantastic weekend blessed in Him -Lon
The story of Pharaoh is about a man who rejected God and after 10 warnings, charged after God's people to kill them. The Lord Jesus Christ either draws men, or repels them. The ones drawn, are broken, in need of being remade. Are Christians the 'worst' of society? Jesus said 1) He came for the lost and the sick. 2) That they need[ed] Him. Pharaoh didn't need God. When warnings were thrown at his feet, he hardened. When Saul met the Lord Jesus Christ, Love softened him. Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of men/women's lives, or He is the stone of stumbling. Same love, same God, two different results. Hard people get harder. Broken people, soft people, are remade, remolded.
Where can a people go, who ONLY get more bitter, more hardened as time goes by? Ever seen them? What can possibly work for them. Would mercy be to give them a room for their own? Would their 'happiness' really be happy? Or more like a fire? Would 'they' think so? You've seen people do this to themselves. You help them get out of drugs, and they are right back there the next day. You help a bum, and maybe 1 in 100 will leave it through help from the shelter. The 99 keep looking to themselves, forget that life is worth living when you pour into another human soul...
The usage of the word would depend on context. For example, Santa Claus lives at the North Pole. There is a real North Pole, and there is also the mythical North Pole where Santa Claus lives. If the context is flying reindeer or toy-making elves, one intuitively recognizes that this North Pole is a fictional setting, not the one that aligns our compasses. Both have the same name, and in English the capitalization is even the same. One is populated with talking animals and elves, the other is a barren land with the occasional seal or polar bear.
The bible does have words for the realm of death: the Hebrew sheol. It does not describe this realm of death as the other religions do. This realm of death is darkness, silence, and quiet, a place where there is no conscious recognition that one is dead. I realize that it is possible that there may be dozens of different myths that might have evolved with sheol, but these will be found in extra-biblical sources. It is recorded how quickly the Israelites fell away from God and started adopting the practices and superstitions of those around them.
of
I don't believe a study of Sheol alone, sufficient. There needs to be an awareness of other scriptures. In some ways, to me, it seems we are reinventing the wheel of debate between the Pharisees and Sadducees, over this same topic. The Sadducees were convinced that the dirt was the end (Sheol) from the scriptures. The Pharisees believed, from the scriptures, that there was consciousness after death (Sheol).
As such, I think it is vital that we confine ourselves to what the Bible actually says, without overlaying assumptions from Jewish superstition, Greek philosophy, or Catholic/ Islamic tradition. "Scripture only" in other words. If this method is used, the sheol hell is consistently described in terms that is incompatible with any assumption of conscious thought or existence. It's simply the "holding place" for the dead, much like we would use a Zero to signify nothing. The use of the word Zero doesn't prove something exists, rather the opposite. It's a placeholder. In agreement with this method, we see Jesus defending himself from scripture, and chiding those who rejected the doctrine of the resurrection for not knowing the scriptures. He said the scriptures testified of him. I think that it should bear consideration that Jesus may have expected us to believe what was already written, in the normal every day language, without supposing that what God said and what his prophets said were mistaken, or that there were ignorant because they "only knew that dead bodies didn't move." .
I'm not trying to veer off topic, this is important because the Hebrew sheol is translated as the Greek hades in the New Testament. We have an example of this when Peter quotes Psalm 16 during his speech in Acts 2, "His soul was not left in hell." If we want to know what the New Testament authors usually meant by hades in the New Testament, you cannot do so without first understanding how sheol is used in the Old Testament. Reality doesn't suddenly switch inside out from one testament to the other, the same God that spoke in Genesis also inspired the scripture by his Holy Spirit, and sent his Son into the world.
I too think it an important point to belabor. We are both under different perceptions of the O.T. understanding. The Pharisees/Sadducees debate seems to press on here, to me.
That which is revealed first is the foundation for understanding what is said after, that which comes after will never contradict what came before. As Jesus confirmed, "The scriptures cannot be broken." Sound interpretation requires us to start at Genesis and move and build forward, not the other way around.
You said for us there is only one Heaven. The birds fly above in heaven, rain falls from heaven. The stars move in their courses in heaven. Finally, God has his abode in heaven. Paul makes allusion to three heavens (2 Corinthians 12:3). If one reads the Bible with the assumption that there is only one heaven, contradiction will be the inevitable result. It's another word that depends on context.
Generally, the clouds and atmosphere and space --> "heavens" The birds fly in the 'heavens.' The mention of Heaven, always signifies whichever heaven is predominately in the minds between two or more people in discussion.
Whatever Hades Jesus is talking about, it is a fantastical realm that contains three conscious people, where God is absent, and flames that torment in such an obscure way that they seem to be a minor irritation. When Jesus means to speak of the fire or judgment or hell fire, the word is always gehenna. This parable stands as a lone exception, and this Hades is in no way compatible with what has been revealed by the word of God in all the previous books that are called scripture.
It is a disagreement and where you part ways with the majority
of the orthodox. I'm not sure what else to say but that the disagreement is stark and profound. I think we both understand that.
So either God lied and the prophets lied all this time and Jesus now accidentally let something slip, or Jesus is borrowing a well known setting for a parable. I've read enough mythology to recognize that this hell seems a lot like the Greek Hades. And lo and behold, if you look up the source text he called it Hades. It's not Hades proper because the god Hades is missing, but it's the same concept. Did I read this on a website? No, it's just the natural connection. The Jews may have had a bastardized version that they adopted, a predecessor concept borrowing from the surrounding religious elements, similar to what Josephus described in his Discourse to the Greeks.
Honestly, these 'sound' like desperation assertions, in that they are extreme and without substance. In order to topple the orthodox position, you'd have to significantly and academically, scripturally prove the accusations. They are huge and merely assertions of your perception at this point.
If Jesus meant to teach a new doctrine, you'd think he would say something like "I tell you something new..." or at least give enough to explain how come he was contradicting every scripture that came before. He even said "A new commandment I give unto you ..." when the commandment wasn't really that new at all. (Compare John 13:34 with Lev 19:18, add in 1 John 2:7, 2 Jn 1:5-6). If "love one another" is even called a new commandment (when it can be easily inferred from Love thy Neighbor) one would think that "the dead are conscious in Hades" would merit some mention to establish it as fact and doctrine.
Yes, I guess you could say so. I think that there is only one New Testament instance (Luke 16) where hades is a mythological folk reference, the rest would be the equivalent of sheol (the holding place of the dead, unconscious, without knowledge or emotion).
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Was that supposed to be an equals sign, or like in Chemistry when that symbol is used to indicate a reaction as one substance transfigures to another type?
I didn't need anything for myself. I could probably find some supporting related material for you, but what comes to mind is quite a bit of reading. Henry Constable's "Hades and the Intermediate State" is over 160 pages and very thorough. I don't post this online (as it has a small item with which I do not concur) but I think well enough of the author to have posted his The Duration and Nature of Future Punishment (148 pages). He does a lot of research and detail that you find in R.A. Torrey. If you are up for quite a bit of reading I can send a PDF by email.
If I had to give the prime factor in favor of death being the absolute cessation of being and the eternal punishment of sin being utter annihilation, I would say it is scriptural support in sheer overwhelming numbers and zero contradiction. It's very hard to say "it's this verse, or that passage." In my opinion,this doctrine is easier to prove than that Jesus is none other than our Lord God Almighty Creator (which I also agree with, and by the same standards of scriptural analysis.)
My friend (pastor of small church) isn't much of the reading type. It would be more accurate that it finally got his attention to the point where he was able to listen fairly instead of instinctively reaching for traditional denial. It seems he had a respect for Martin Luther. I don't remember exactly what I related, but it was essentially that Martin Luther denied immortality of the soul and believed that the dead exist only in an unconscious unknowing sleep. Regardless, it got his attention to to where the subject could be fairly addressed.
For examples of what you might find from Martin Luther, those are easy to find. I already quoted Sir Thomas More who recognized both Tyndale and Luther as saying that the dead knew nothing of pain or experience before the judgment. This site here has more quotations from both Tyndale and Luther
Might have been at one time. Now it is defined by mutuality because of the many denominations. To me, 'orthodox' now hold more power, not less, in that of all the doctrinal differences that have made so many denominations, whatever is held in common it tested and proved twice over "orthodox" (right theology).
The early church wasn't hell fire torment, it developed over the course of the first few hundred years. I have a different friend who read through all the early writings for bits on this topic for his theological thesis. The earliest writings either specify or are compatible with annihilation.
When Tyndale and Luther were on the front row of the Reformation, they (and others) also started lining up with "death as sleep." Calvin even helps testify to this as he wrote a specific piece to attack those of that belief, although he also states that he never bothered to listen to anyone or to even read any of their writings. I once read it thinking it would be useful as a launching point for a rebuttal essay, but it lacked content to justify such an effort.
As I said, orthodoxy is today, what we all hold in common as true, rather than the way it used to be handed down as 'believe this or else...' Men have always came down on one side or the other of this discussion. By the numbers, it is important to recognize by the numbers, how much you or I are going up against, when we depart 'orthodoxy.' Calvin wrote against Luther's stance on Conditionalism.
What I'm saying here is that (a perception) Orthodoxy isn't a right standard for evaluation of truth. If Orthodox is correct, it will stand on scripture and be able to be quickly built up again even if you go back to ground zero. Even then, you might be surprised at who has stood where historically, even if "Orthodox" has told you that everyone has always been one way or another. It isn't always the case.
One is [O]rthodox, if they belong to the Orthodox churches. One is [o]rthodox if they have correct theology. A bit of irony where we are yet talking about whether to capitalize or not capitalize. Similarly [C]atholic refers to the Roman Catholic Church whereas [c]atholic means all believers. Because of that, any in the Catholic church are 'catholic' if they belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, and any Orthodox are 'orthodox' if they hold to the same teachings the church at large hold to as well. As Protestants, the capital representations of the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church only matter insofar as they are united with us, therefore to us, only catholic and orthodox are of interest to us.
When Luther and Tyndale were breaking new ground translating the Bible into the common tongue, they both came to the conclusion that the dead are truly dead in every sense of the word. I think it's a natural result of forcing oneself to read all of the scripture starting at the beginning.
I have essays (posted) that I could share by sending the link by private message. That would probably be a fair way of showing what I've thought was convincing before. They would have been tailored for the specific question or argument or person but you could probably read past that.
You just cant let go of this 'parable' - ....its a 'parable'. You cannot prove this is an actual account of a condition of existence somewhere in space at any point in time, neither can you prove what parts of this are 'authentic' to what is embellished to serve to illustrate a teaching, this STORY serving as a teaching tool. Much is 'figurative'.
Even the Lord's parables are based on things that actually exist, and you want to deny that fact by quibbling over the term "parable". Jesus would NEVER make something up that could mislead people ....especially about something as serious as the afterlife.
Even the Lord's parables are based on things that actually exist, and you want to deny that fact by quibbling over the term "parable". Jesus would NEVER make something up that could mislead people ....especially about something as serious as the afterlife.
I see a little room for something.....in that it was before the Lord's resurrection. It may even be the position of the sheep and goats until the final judgment. The two seemed to be separated according do their deeds rather than their beliefs. :idunno:
Yes,...the theology of "Because I say so" is absolute! :crackup:
Joking asides, our former observations on this punishing subject hold. The all-supreme Creator must from his integrity..... judge fairly with complete justice and mercy, his love and wisdom directing those mediations with all care and diligence, doing all to save, heal, mend, restore and empower souls to fulfill their purpose of being, to flourish. Love could do no less, and no harm or ill-will ever.
That's a bit of a hopeful stretch, since it is love to judge righteously. Complete justice would be reaping what we've sown. Believers can escape justice by throwing themselves on the "mercy of the court" so to speak. Those whose conscience is so seared that they have become evil through and through need to be put down like the rabid dog they've become.
Yes,...the theology of "Because I say so" is absolute! :crackup:
Joking asides, our former observations on this punishing subject hold. The all-supreme Creator must from his integrity..... judge fairly with complete justice and mercy, his love and wisdom directing those mediations with all care and diligence, doing all to save, heal, mend, restore and empower souls to fulfill their purpose of being, to flourish. Love could do no less, and no harm or ill-will ever.
1) I have seen no biblical evidence that the Pharisees believed that anyone was conscious after death. Scripture itself says no such thing. Would you please share what source you are using for this assumption? The reason I am asking is because I suspect this is one of those things that is oft repeated without being checked. Source, please? If you think you have a scripture, read it carefully first please.
2) Other than my question above, our question has nothing to do with Pharisee or Sadducee. Let's try to avoid red herrings.
3) There is a difference in something being hidden, compared to flat-out contradicting what was already given by God through the holy scripture. Consider also Amos 3:7, "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." It is also written that God "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2) and that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine..." The "scripture" that they are talking about specifically includes the Old Testament.
4) Did you read that excerpt from "Discourse to the Greeks" where Josephus describes what he believes hell is like? The details he gives are far too elaborate and descriptive making it clearly obvious that the source is not scripture. What he says certainly isn't from the gospel, so where does he get his information from? Besides this, his description actually conflicts with Jesus's parable of Lazarus and the rich man in a few places. Do you suppose that it might be wise to consider that Jewish traditions and/or folklore might not always be on target?
Titus 1:14 KJV
(14) Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
If there was no such thing as Jewish fables, why would there me a mention like this in Titus?
5) There is nothing extreme in saying that contrasting Jewish fable with Greek fable makes a good setting for the parable on hand. May I also point out that "Lazarus and the rich man" is spoken in the same style as parables, introduced in the same fashion as other parables, surrounded by other parables, and that there is no indication from Jesus that this is anything but another parable? To me, an attempt to dismiss this one story as "not a parable" seems more desperate.
ECT theologians usually acknowledge the story as parable, but seeing as this passage provides about 40% of the argument for all ECT arguments, instead affirm that even if it is a parable, it must be meant to teach eternal conscious torment. But they allow it status among the rest of the parables.
6) If one reads the Bible from Genesis onward in canonical order, you will find many and numerous bits that describe death as the absence of consciousness. God introduces the subject himself in Genesis, when he plainly spells out for Adam what will happen when he dies - he came from the dust, and shall return to the dust. What you won't find is anything (either before or after) the parable of Lazarus to give weight that it is an real actual setting. To make such an assumption you'd have to set aside all the previous scripture (and some of what comes after as well.)
So yes, it would be an entirely new doctrine and/or revelation.
7) I am a bit confused as to your list of scriptures here. Of the five, I don't know why you gave four of them, and the fifth we already reviewed.
Job 19:25-27 ... does nothing for your point. Job prophesies the resurrection of the dead and that God himself will stand on the earth.
Psalm 49:12,20 ... man perishes in the same fashion as the beasts. Unless we assume all dogs go to heaven, I'm not sure why you gave this.
Psalm 73:24 ... What does "Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory" have to do with the state of death?
Psalm 16:10 "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption"
Lon, I really don't know what you are thinking here. There's nothing in any of those passages to suggest death is anything other that the cessation of thought, love, hatred, envy, and being.
1 Samuel 28:15 "The ghost of Samuel" passage. There's two aspects here. First, respected theologians from many different angles agree this was not Samuel, but a devil. This is as easy to find as Wikipedia:
J. M. Buckley. Faith Healing, Christian Science and Kindred Phenomena. p. 221 2003, "The witch of Endor – The account of the "Witch of Endor is the only instance in the Bible where a description of the processes and ... Luther held that it was "the Devil's ghost"; Calvin that "it was not the real Samuel, but a spectre. "
If you read the King Jame's Daemonologie, the topic is discussed by the characters there, and this dialogue also agrees that "Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light" and that an apparition summoned through necromancy is a fake, and that the souls of the dead lie in rest until the resurrection.
Aside from that, even if you were to believe the witch and the apparition, Samuel doesn't say he came from a place of bliss and happiness like the "Abraham's bosom", the spirit says "Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?" "Disquieted" means that he was quiet, and now is no longer. So even if a witch could bring up the souls of the dead, the spirit itself said its former state was "quiet"
So I'm not sure where you were going with these. Can you offer explanation?
8) Can you also please explain what you mean by this, below? Did you mean a different passage? Because Job's prophecy of the resurrection and Christ's return hardly is at odds with my hermeneutic.
:think:Job 19:25-27 I'd think even by your own hermeneutic, it 'seems' your summation doesn't hold up to me.
Just in case we have different translation, here's what my bible says:
Spoiler
Job 19:25-27 KJV(25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
(26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
(27) Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
Job also says quite a few other things about the state of death - if we are looking at Job, are we allowed to consider the rest of what Job himself says? Because back when I did the Genesis forward copy-down-all-death-reference study, the book of Job was a gold mine.
9) Someone can "read" without being much of a "reader." Paul was a writer, Apollos was a speaker. No need for astonished blue face emotes.
10) Your argument for the validity of "orthodox" as a measure might be more persuasive had the orthodox side not taken to persecuting and/or killing their opponents that disagreed with them on this topic. Regardless, it is written that a man cannot have two masters. Either we agree that the scripture alone is our source of doctrine, or that tradition decides what we believe. We can't pick both, or we will favor one over the other.
So this may feel like I am pressing you, but I am hoping you can confirm that "scripture only" is our accepted and agreed upon standard.
11) Would you do me a favor, and take a close look at the "ECT Fathers" link you just provided? This is one of the typical examples of irresponsible ECT propaganda. It's plainly inaccurate and attempts to claim anyone and everyone, regardless of whether the claim has merit. For example, let's pull up the first on on the list, with the quote from Ignatius of Antioh 110 AD (you posted this so please read carefully):
Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death. how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God. for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him. (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1-2)
Did you see that? The result of departing into unquenchable fire is to suffer death. There's nothing about eternal conscious torment or being conscious while dead in that passage, yet "Please Convince Me" Jim Wallace (I have actually talked with him before) attempts to claim him as "Eternal Conscious Torment" support. He does this because he needs people from that time period.
When you place a person into a fire and quench the fire, you might save some of the dead body from being consumed. If you do not quench the fire, they will be completely burnt up.
Lon, speaking frankly, pulling up a link from Jim Wallace (of all people) and using that as evidence that "the early fathers were eternal conscious torment" when it is clearly insufficient on its face, without having asked to compare the doctorate research paper I mentioned... . You need to look carefully at what you present to make sure it's being above board.
Here's a list of earlier fathers (earlier than Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria) that were not "Immortal soul" or "Eternal conscious torment"
Spoiler
Clement of Rome
Writer(s) of Odes of Solomon
Ignatius of Antioch
Polycarp of Smyrna
Papias of Hierapolis
Writer(s) of Didache
Quadratus of Athens
“Mathetes”
Clement of Corinth
Barnabas of Alexandria
Aristides of Athens
Hermas of Rome
Justin of Samaria
Tatian of Assyria
Theophilus of Antioch
Melito of Sardis
source: "The Doctrine of Immortality in the Early Church, by Dr. John H. Roller
The aforementioned Henry Constable essays also has his own research with similar agreement (one of them did, I saw the chart again today). Eternal Conscious Torment and "immortal souls" creep into the writings with Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.
Now I will grant that the idea may have been setting in before then, as evidenced by Justin's warning to the Jew that there there might be some who called themselves Christian, but blaspheming against the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by saying their souls went to heaven when they died.... because there must have been some like that for Justin to make such a comment. Justin said "call them not Christian" as they were a minority sect outside of proper orthodox Christianity.
(The definition of orthodox changes with the times, Lon)
Anyway, moral of the story Lon, make sure to look carefully at what someone "claims" is support for ECT before passing it on as proof. The support attempts for ECT are often less than fair or objective in their zeal.
If I seem a bit frustrated it's because I've seen this all too many times. Someone sees the word "fire" or "unquenchable" and claims it's proof someone believed that people burned without end while conscious. It's like they get so excited at the prospect of support that they no longer critically analyze the material.
I don't believe a study of Sheol alone, sufficient. There needs to be an awareness of other scriptures. In some ways, to me, it seems we are reinventing the wheel of debate between the Pharisees and Sadducees, over this same topic. The Sadducees were convinced that the dirt was the end (Sheol) from the scriptures. The Pharisees believed, from the scriptures, that there was consciousness after death (Sheol).
I don't believe it is consistent, at least it isn't to me:
Job 19:25-27 Psalm 49:12,20 Psalm 73:24 Psalm 16:10 1 Samuel 28:15
I too think it an important point to belabor. We are both under different perceptions of the O.T. understanding. The Pharisees/Sadducees debate seems to press on here, to me.
I think it depends. As to a fast hard rule, I disagree. Ephesians 3:9 for example.
Generally, the clouds and atmosphere and space --> "heavens" The birds fly in the 'heavens.' The mention of Heaven, always signifies whichever heaven is predominately in the minds between two or more people in discussion.
It is a disagreement and where you part ways with the majority
of the orthodox. I'm not sure what else to say but that the disagreement is stark and profound. I think we both understand that.
I believe this is a falsely drawn conclusion. I don't know of one of us that believes this accusation or logical conclusion. I certainly don't.
Honestly, these 'sound' like desperation assertions, in that they are extreme and without substance. In order to topple the orthodox position, you'd have to significantly and academically, scripturally prove the accusations. They are huge and merely assertions of your perception at this point.
I don't believe it was new, except to those who were Sadducees or following them, perhaps.
Arrow --> Paradise was part of the same place. I was simply trying to say the Lord Jesus Christ went to the Paradise portion thereof.
I found it, and thanks.
:think: Job 19:25-27 I'd think even by your own hermeneutic, it 'seems' your summation doesn't hold up to me.
A pastor who doesn't read? :jawdrop:
Might have been at one time. Now it is defined by mutuality because of the many denominations. To me, 'orthodox' now hold more power, not less, in that of all the doctrinal differences that have made so many denominations, whatever is held in common it tested and proved twice over "orthodox" (right theology).
See here for some ECFathers. It seems your friend's information was wrong to me.
As I said, orthodoxy is today, what we all hold in common as true, rather than the way it used to be handed down as 'believe this or else...' Men have always came down on one side or the other of this discussion. By the numbers, it is important to recognize by the numbers, how much you or I are going up against, when we depart 'orthodoxy.' Calvin wrote against Luther's stance on Conditionalism.
One is [O]rthodox, if they belong to the Orthodox churches. One is [o]rthodox if they have correct theology. A bit of irony where we are yet talking about whether to capitalize or not capitalize. Similarly [C]atholic refers to the Roman Catholic Church whereas [c]atholic means all believers. Because of that, any in the Catholic church are 'catholic' if they belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, and any Orthodox are 'orthodox' if they hold to the same teachings the church at large hold to as well. As Protestants, the capital representations of the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church only matter insofar as they are united with us, therefore to us, only catholic and orthodox are of interest to us.
Both of them were reacting against Purgatory and unending torment. They both seemed to have the same troubled concept you carry.
Just looking for specific scriptures that clinch this doctrine for you. I may take you up on the further offer at another time. Thanks. -Lon
That's a bit of a hopeful stretch, since it is love to judge righteously. Complete justice would be reaping what we've sown. Believers can escape justice by throwing themselves on the "mercy of the court" so to speak. Those whose conscience is so seared that they have become evil through and through need to be put down like the rabid dog they've become.
With language like "put down like ... a rabid dog" you sound like you've adopted Annihilation (or at least understand it.)
2 Peter 2:11-12 KJV
(11) Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
(12) But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
Even the Lord's parables are based on things that actually exist, and you want to deny that fact by quibbling over the term "parable". Jesus would NEVER make something up that could mislead people ....especially about something as serious as the afterlife.
Obviously Jesus is referencing things that are recognized by his audience. Greek folklore and Jewish fable are things that exist with known settings. Of course Jesus didn't have to make these up. If he was making up something new, then they might get confused. But then again, Jesus did say that parables cloaked understanding, so they would not understand, did he not?
Matthew 13:10-14 KJV
(10) And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
(11) He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
(12) For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
(13) Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. (14) And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
I think Jesus said that. Do you agree Glorydaz?
If someone in the audience preferred folklore and fable over that which was already revealed by Moses and the prophets, and they get confused... Jesus says that's fine, let their understanding be taken away.
- ....its a 'parable'. You cannot prove this is an actual account of a condition of existence somewhere in space at any point in time, neither can you prove what parts of this are 'authentic' to what is embellished to serve to illustrate a teaching, this STORY serving as a teaching tool. Much is 'figurative'.
