Also, the use of the word tormented does not imply the fire is literal. Why would it?
Allegorical Verses Literal Interpretation Of Scripture
- Thread starter Major
- Start date
- Status
1.
Hades IS NOT the Lake of Fire. Those in Hades will eventually be cast into the Lake of fire as you said.
2.
I did not say "allegories did not have PROPER names my brother. I said "PARABELS" did not include proper names.
3.
I disagree with respect to your opinion.
The event in Luke 16 about the rich man and Lazarus begins exactly the same way as the preceding event in Luke 16:1 and that is NOT referred to as a "parable".
Another thought is that Christ would not have given such truths to unbelieving Pharisees.
Again I say to you that parables are "hypothetical illustrations and never name specific individuals.
Luke himself DOES NOT CALL THIS A PARABLE as he did in 13 other clear cases that were called parables.
4.
You have mis-understood the teaching of Rev. 20:14 my brother. DEATH here is used for the grave, GIVES UP AL THE BODIES OF THE WICKED LOST OF ALL AGES. HELL (Torments/Hades/Sheol etc.) GIVES UP THE SOULS. Death and hell brought into existance by mans sin, end where all sinners do....the lake of fire.
This is the SECOND DEATH and it is eternal punishment experienced by the un-saved. Once this final judgment takes place, there will be no further need for either death or hell (whatever name you choose to call it).
An eternal seperation in then made between those who have LIFE and those who have chosen DEATH.
Luke 16:24
"And he cried and said..Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus that he may did the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue FOR I AM TORMENTED IN THIS FLAME".
Rev. 19:20 b
"These were both cast alive into a lake of FIRE "BURNING" with brimstone".
Two different words to compare my brother. TORMENTED and FOREVER have to be considered as two different word. You can not say give me a apple and then pay for a orange.
The context I was using was the word TORMENTED which is plural and means an ongoing process. If you read the whole story for context and as we were discussing it........it was about forever and ever....correct?????
.
Since it is written God speaks parable:
Ezekiel 20:49 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! they say of me, Doth he not speak parables?
Psalms 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
And as revealed to Mark:
Mark 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
I hope this truth about what is written in the Holy Bible is considered by the believers:
Did Jesus speak except in parables? Who can deciper or expound on the intended meaning of His words?
Could Peter, John, and the other Apostles take the authority to expound on the meaning?
How about taking the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." Of course the "letter" or literal meaning refers to taking anything of value not owned is "stealing." This must be how the Scribes and Pharisees, and also the Apostles/Disciples understood this commandment. But as stated in Mark 4:34, it requires the revelation of the "intended meaning" from our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ezekiel 20:49 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! they say of me, Doth he not speak parables?
Psalms 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
And as revealed to Mark:
Mark 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
I hope this truth about what is written in the Holy Bible is considered by the believers:
Did Jesus speak except in parables? Who can deciper or expound on the intended meaning of His words?
Could Peter, John, and the other Apostles take the authority to expound on the meaning?
How about taking the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." Of course the "letter" or literal meaning refers to taking anything of value not owned is "stealing." This must be how the Scribes and Pharisees, and also the Apostles/Disciples understood this commandment. But as stated in Mark 4:34, it requires the revelation of the "intended meaning" from our Lord Jesus Christ.
Major,
What then are your reasons for stating that the story of the Rich man and Lazarus isn't allegory?
Since when do all parables have to be explicitly stated to be parables? Most Christians are familiar with the Parable of the Unjust Steward, yet you want to say its not a parable? I invite you to start at Luke 15:1, and note that The Rich Man and Lazarus is the last of a series of parables that exhibit all the traits of a parable. Moreover, the parable of the lost son, as well as a number of other parables, makes mention of "a certain man". It is quite evident that Luke, in recording a series of parables, didn't think it necessary to explicitly state each to be parables, for the content of the parables -and their unbroken flow - makes it sufficiently clear that the reader is reading a parable.
With your arbitrary assertion that parables must be explicitly stated to be parables, you have just reclassified dozens of parables as non-parables. At the very least, you should provide some logical reasons for asserting what you have here asserted.
And again, you are merely making an assertion that begs the question. Please substantiate your assertion.
Again, please substantiate your seemingly arbitrary assertion that parables must be explicitly stated to be parables. The fact is that the Lukan parables of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Unjust Steward, and the Rich Fool all begin with mention of a "certain rich man". Each of these stories illustrate a moral and spiritual lesson via narrative, which is typical of Jesus' parables.
I simply noted that because death and Hades will be cast into the lake of fire, it is clear that the lake of fire and Hades are not identical, as you seemed to suggest in post #78. As you just recently clarified that you agree that they are not the same, I'm left wondering how you figure I misunderstanding Rev. 20:14?
Let's keep that particular discussion in the Universalism thread.
What then are your reasons for stating that the story of the Rich man and Lazarus isn't allegory?
Since when do all parables have to be explicitly stated to be parables? Most Christians are familiar with the Parable of the Unjust Steward, yet you want to say its not a parable? I invite you to start at Luke 15:1, and note that The Rich Man and Lazarus is the last of a series of parables that exhibit all the traits of a parable. Moreover, the parable of the lost son, as well as a number of other parables, makes mention of "a certain man". It is quite evident that Luke, in recording a series of parables, didn't think it necessary to explicitly state each to be parables, for the content of the parables -and their unbroken flow - makes it sufficiently clear that the reader is reading a parable.
With your arbitrary assertion that parables must be explicitly stated to be parables, you have just reclassified dozens of parables as non-parables. At the very least, you should provide some logical reasons for asserting what you have here asserted.
And again, you are merely making an assertion that begs the question. Please substantiate your assertion.
Again, please substantiate your seemingly arbitrary assertion that parables must be explicitly stated to be parables. The fact is that the Lukan parables of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Unjust Steward, and the Rich Fool all begin with mention of a "certain rich man". Each of these stories illustrate a moral and spiritual lesson via narrative, which is typical of Jesus' parables.
I simply noted that because death and Hades will be cast into the lake of fire, it is clear that the lake of fire and Hades are not identical, as you seemed to suggest in post #78. As you just recently clarified that you agree that they are not the same, I'm left wondering how you figure I misunderstanding Rev. 20:14?
Let's keep that particular discussion in the Universalism thread.
Major,
Yes, I understand they are two different words. I was trying to ascertain your reasons for making the strange assertion that the word 'tormented' means forever. Perhaps you mistyped?
?
A few things:
- One word does not constitute context, so it doesn't make sense to say "the context I was using was the word..."
-"Tormented" is not plural. Perhaps you meant to say something else?
- An on-going process certainly need not be one that lasts forever. The degeneration of our bodies is ongoing, but I doubt you'd suppose that they will continue to degenerate forever.
No, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus neither mentions nor implies eternity. What it does say is that there is a great gulf fixed between Abraham's Bosom and Hades. It says the gulf cannot be crossed, but it doesn't say it will last forever. Indeed, since we know Hades will be consumed in the lake of fire, it is quite obvious that the gulf will not exist forever.
Yes, I understand they are two different words. I was trying to ascertain your reasons for making the strange assertion that the word 'tormented' means forever. Perhaps you mistyped?
?
A few things:
- One word does not constitute context, so it doesn't make sense to say "the context I was using was the word..."
-"Tormented" is not plural. Perhaps you meant to say something else?
- An on-going process certainly need not be one that lasts forever. The degeneration of our bodies is ongoing, but I doubt you'd suppose that they will continue to degenerate forever.
No, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus neither mentions nor implies eternity. What it does say is that there is a great gulf fixed between Abraham's Bosom and Hades. It says the gulf cannot be crossed, but it doesn't say it will last forever. Indeed, since we know Hades will be consumed in the lake of fire, it is quite obvious that the gulf will not exist forever.
What are you suggesting? You can't be suggesting that these verses are talking about the same place, since you already agreed that Hades is not the Lake of Fire, coreect?
This is becoming rather tediouse.
You ask me in #81..."Also, the use of the word tormented does not imply the fire is literal. Why would it?"
I respond in #83 and now you are using the answer of #83 to ask another question in #88.
I was suggesting nothing. I gave you the Bible answer to your question of the word tormented by fire as literal.
YES. The point is that the FIRE IS REAL AND LITERAL not whether one place os or not.
Hades/Sheol or what ever you choose to call it will eventually become the LAKE OF FIRE.
NO. Hades/Sheol is NOT THE LAKE OF FIRE at the present time.
If you care to ask the questions of post # 86 and 87 one at a time so that they can be properly considered, I would be glad to respond but as I said before, I am not going to respond to a bunch of comments and question all lumped together.
Major,
If you are bored, please do not feel pressured to continue. I appreciate the feedback you've given!
I was asking you to provide reasons for your assertion that the fire mentioned in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is literal, and you responded by merely quoting part of the passage in question which speaks about the fire under consideration. I am aware of what the passage says; what I am asking for is some evidence that the fire must be understood to be literal.
You simply quoted part of the very passage we are discussing. I know it mentions fire; the question is, why should we take this to be literal, physical fire? The truth of this parable no more concerns literal fire than the parable of the lost coin concerns actual currency. The truth of these parables is spiritual, of which the literal merely points to.
Well, Hades and the lake of fire are two completely different things, so if you want to draw a comparison between the role of fire in both places, you're going to have to do more than simply post some verses side by side in order to make the point. I know what these verses say. Show me that your reading of said verses is correct.
Nowhere does Scripture state this. Revelation 20:14 says that death and Hades will be cast into the lake of fire, just as everything impure will be cast into this burning lake. Hades no more becomes the lake of fire than the tares and chaff become the lake of fire. Rather, death, Hades and everything impure will be burnt up in the fire, just as the fire of Heaven has always consumed everything unfit for God's presence.
I did ask them one at a time. If you are requesting that I ask my questions one post at a time, I will graciously decline. My questions were asked clearly and distinctly. If you wish to answer them, I'd appreciate that. If you wish not to answer them, that is quite alright. Thanks for the discussion regardless.
If you are bored, please do not feel pressured to continue. I appreciate the feedback you've given!
I was asking you to provide reasons for your assertion that the fire mentioned in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is literal, and you responded by merely quoting part of the passage in question which speaks about the fire under consideration. I am aware of what the passage says; what I am asking for is some evidence that the fire must be understood to be literal.
You simply quoted part of the very passage we are discussing. I know it mentions fire; the question is, why should we take this to be literal, physical fire? The truth of this parable no more concerns literal fire than the parable of the lost coin concerns actual currency. The truth of these parables is spiritual, of which the literal merely points to.
Well, Hades and the lake of fire are two completely different things, so if you want to draw a comparison between the role of fire in both places, you're going to have to do more than simply post some verses side by side in order to make the point. I know what these verses say. Show me that your reading of said verses is correct.
Nowhere does Scripture state this. Revelation 20:14 says that death and Hades will be cast into the lake of fire, just as everything impure will be cast into this burning lake. Hades no more becomes the lake of fire than the tares and chaff become the lake of fire. Rather, death, Hades and everything impure will be burnt up in the fire, just as the fire of Heaven has always consumed everything unfit for God's presence.
I did ask them one at a time. If you are requesting that I ask my questions one post at a time, I will graciously decline. My questions were asked clearly and distinctly. If you wish to answer them, I'd appreciate that. If you wish not to answer them, that is quite alright. Thanks for the discussion regardless.
Some interpret the Bible to mean that Hades is a temporary place, that the lost (non-believers in Jesus) go to immediately after dying. When the Earth is destroyed by God after His second coming, Hades will be destroyed along with it. On the Judgment Day, the lost will then be thrown into the "lake of fire" which is Hell. It is there they will spend all of eternity. It is clear from the scriptures that in many instances where these words are used, both Hades and Hell are places of torment and suffering.
A few points:
1. Hades/sheol is the common grave for all mankind. Jesus went to Hades/sheol/the grave when He died, but His body was not left there to see corruption.
2. There simply aren't many instances which depict Hades/Sheol as a place of suffering. In fact, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is the only place in scripture where Hades is depicted as such, suggesting that the language Jesus was using was metaphorical.
3. Let me gently remind you to credit your sources, lest you unwittingly plagiarize the author of your borrowed content.
Verses "not seen" by many professing Christians because there were "not preached" by Theologians and Bible Scholars:
2 Cor 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Cor 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
"Letter" of the word or literal "is seen" - what refers to the "body" or PHYSICAL LIFE
"Spirit" of the word or spiritual is "not seen" - what refers to the "soul" or SPIRITUAL LIFE
Now for this commandment:
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
What is "literal or seen" that refers to the "body" or PHYSICAL LIFE? This ends in the cemetery!
What is "spiritual or not seen" that refers to the "soul" or SPIRITUAL LIFE? This ends in Eternal Life with God!
By divine revelation, the foregoing is very clearly demonstrated as JESUS CHRIST and the "two thieves" are on the CROSS!
How did the Religious Leaders understood "stealing?"
How did Jesus Christ expounded "stealing?"
(Something to think about)
1.
The lost go to a place of conscious torment. People know each other after death. we do not lose our identities therfore your belief that Hades/Sheol is a common grave site is in error.
The word HELL in the Greek is "hades" and means "The unseen world". Actually, HELL as we think of it is a place that has not been opened up for business as of yet. As I have stated, Revelation 20:10 tells us that the first occupants will be the anti-christ and the false prophet. When Lazarus and the rich man died, Lazarus and the rich man went to the "unsceen world", the place of the departed dead.
Death is seperation and it never means extinction. The first death is physical.
The SECOND death is a spiritual death and that is the one that means eternal seperation from God eternally.
YES, Jesus went and preached to the souls in Sheol. That alone proves that Sheol IS NOT simply a grave.
Ephesians 4:8-10
"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.
That does not mean He suffered after His death. He went to the Paradise side of Sheol and there confirmed to all who were in Sheol that HE WAS THE fulfillment of all the prophets."
1 Peter 3:18-20
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
2.
How many places ..(instances) would there have to be in the Scriptures on the suffering in Hades/Sheol that would move you to accept the written Word of God????
I do not understand your thinking on this at all. In as nice a way as I can put this I must tell you that your opinions do not follow Bible truth my friend.
The term "hell" occurs 54 times in the Bible and never once is it possible to be considered "Metphorical".
Deuteronomy 32:22: ....................
“For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.”
Amos 9:2 says, .................
“Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down.”
Isaiah 14:15............
“Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.”
Job 21:13 speaks of the wicked and says,
“They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave.”The Hebrew word for grave in this verse is shoel, a negative word, because it is a negative thing when wicked people die and go to hell, even though their bodies go to the grave.Their souls are in hell while their bodies are in the grave with no hope of a resurrection; therefore the negative sheol is used.
Psalm 9:17 says.........,
“The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.”
Matt. 5:22........
“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
James 3:6...........
“And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.”
The source for all of these Bible quotes in the King James Version of the Bible.
3.
That is the second time you have said that and lets make sure that it is the last time, shall we.
You my friend have no authority what so ever to rebuke anyone for anything at all and I am saying that in the nicest way I possibly can.
YOU have posted several Bible passages and you have must know that the only translation in the world that is NOT copywrited is the KJV.
I do not and will not publish my copywrite licence on the internet but it has been recorded with the moderators of this site. It is a private number through the company named "CCLI" and they can not publish it to you but can certainly verify its existance.
So.....channel your concerns on the Bible material you do not know instead of this concern as it simply is NOT A CONCERN.
Major,
And you are getting this all from one passage, namely the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. It is not wise to build doctrine on one passage, especially when, taken literally, it contradicts what the Scripture says elsewhere about Sheol/Hades being a place where the body decays (the grave). I've already sited Acts 2:27, can you address that. See also 1 Cor. 15:55. It is death that is referred to by the word "Hades", not some infernal region where disembodied spirits talk to each other.
I'm with you on this, except of course on taking the parable literally.
Actually, the second death is the destruction of the first death (Rev. 20:14). Evidently, the lake of fire destroys the separation that is referred to as "death". Rev. 14:10 says that the wicked will be tormented/tested IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb, so the second death cannot be separation from God.
Why take 1 Peter 3:19 literally? Do you suppose Sheol is literally a prison?
One question mark would have sufficed, my friend. Thus far, you've only provide one passage (a parable) which depicts Hades as a place of suffering. What do you do with all the other places in Scripture will Sheol/Hades is depicted otherwise?
Which is why I would encourage you to ask questions.It's good to be able to know where each other is coming from.
That is your opinion, and I have noted it.
What Greek and Hebrew words are you referring to specifically?
You take this literally? God's anger literally kindles a physical fire that comes down from Heaven and burns into the earth?
You take this literally? One can literally climb to heaven?
If you take this literally, can you tell me where this pit is?
Who are you quoting? Please cite your sources. Sheol is not a negative term, it is neutral - the common abode from the dead. In the context of this passage, death is indeed set in contrast to a desirable state, that hardly suggests Sheol is reserved for the wicked only. Such a suggestion would fly in the face of dozens of scriptures.
Major, the Greek word translated "hell" here is Gehenna, which corresponds to the Lake of Fire, not to Hades. Do not be fooled by the indiscriminate use of "hell" in the KJV.
Certainly, you cannot take this literally.
.
When did I quote anything other than the KJV?
I was giving you friendly advice. We should always credit our sources. Plagiarism is not something we should take part in as Christians; it sends a bad message. God bless you.
And you are getting this all from one passage, namely the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. It is not wise to build doctrine on one passage, especially when, taken literally, it contradicts what the Scripture says elsewhere about Sheol/Hades being a place where the body decays (the grave). I've already sited Acts 2:27, can you address that. See also 1 Cor. 15:55. It is death that is referred to by the word "Hades", not some infernal region where disembodied spirits talk to each other.
I'm with you on this, except of course on taking the parable literally.
Actually, the second death is the destruction of the first death (Rev. 20:14). Evidently, the lake of fire destroys the separation that is referred to as "death". Rev. 14:10 says that the wicked will be tormented/tested IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb, so the second death cannot be separation from God.
Why take 1 Peter 3:19 literally? Do you suppose Sheol is literally a prison?
One question mark would have sufficed, my friend. Thus far, you've only provide one passage (a parable) which depicts Hades as a place of suffering. What do you do with all the other places in Scripture will Sheol/Hades is depicted otherwise?
Which is why I would encourage you to ask questions.It's good to be able to know where each other is coming from.
That is your opinion, and I have noted it.
What Greek and Hebrew words are you referring to specifically?
You take this literally? God's anger literally kindles a physical fire that comes down from Heaven and burns into the earth?
You take this literally? One can literally climb to heaven?
If you take this literally, can you tell me where this pit is?
Who are you quoting? Please cite your sources. Sheol is not a negative term, it is neutral - the common abode from the dead. In the context of this passage, death is indeed set in contrast to a desirable state, that hardly suggests Sheol is reserved for the wicked only. Such a suggestion would fly in the face of dozens of scriptures.
Major, the Greek word translated "hell" here is Gehenna, which corresponds to the Lake of Fire, not to Hades. Do not be fooled by the indiscriminate use of "hell" in the KJV.
Certainly, you cannot take this literally.
.
When did I quote anything other than the KJV?
I was giving you friendly advice. We should always credit our sources. Plagiarism is not something we should take part in as Christians; it sends a bad message. God bless you.
Yes plagiarism is not something we need to be doing, I agree. That is exactly why I pay for a copyrite license.
You're missing the point. When you post someone else's words, you should do the courtesy of putting the text in quotes and citing the source, lest your readers be misled into thinking you wrote it. It's easy to do, and it is the better alternative. I hope you reconsider. BTW, your "copyright license" does not give you the right to copy others' work without giving due credit. You might want to look into that.
Did you have a response to anything else I wrote in my last post?
Nope. As I have said..........One and done and you refused to do so.
Major,
Are you saying that you will no longer dialogue with me because I am requesting that you stop plagiarizing people? I just want to be clear. May the Lord bless us and teach us humility.
Are you saying that you will no longer dialogue with me because I am requesting that you stop plagiarizing people? I just want to be clear. May the Lord bless us and teach us humility.
Not sure if I'm following this to which you refer Lot, however it seems to me that you might be falling victim to this forum software's failure to quote 'nested quotes'. In other words, when a post contains a quote and that post is subsequently quoted, the original quoted text is dropped from the quoted post
?This has in the past caused much misunderstanding about who said what.
I recall with much sorrow and embarrassment thinking that Major was taking my words and re posting them as if his own words. WE all need to exercise great care when posting replies that the lack of "quote fidelity" here does not lead to unintended aggravation or misunderstanding.
blessings,
calvin
- Status