Pope Resigns - Sign Of The Times?

Mr. Darby said:
Paul expected to depart and be with Christ. Philippians 1:23,

'For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better'.

And Lazarus was immediately in paradise.

As you get to know me better, you will find that I don't care too much for the opinions of Biblical 'scholars'. Most of them spend a majority of the time trying to get around what the text obviously says in order to defend their own theological biases. I am only interested in the scriptures themselves.

In regard to the question of parables, we find the prophet Ezekiel giving a somber prophecy in Ezekiel 20:45-48,

Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Son of man, set thy face toward the south, and drop thy word toward the south, and prophesy against the forest of the south field;
And say to the forest of the south, Hear the word of the LORD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will kindle a fire in thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee, and every dry tree: the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burned therein.
And all flesh shall see that I the LORD have kindled it: it shall not be quenched.

A very somber message indeed! How did his hearers react? Verse 49 says,

Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! they say of me, Doth he not speak parables?

We must be very careful in labeling teachings as parables when they contain a message we might not like. The tendency of flesh is to not take God literally when it doesn't suit our own notions. It is too much of a stretch to suggest that everything in this passage must be a parable because some of the teachings in the passage are parables.
Click to expand...

So, was he indeed speaking in parables or not? The Scripture does not say he was, nor does it say he was not.
Only that his hearers think that he was. and that does not make it so, nor does it make it not so. The real issue was was the Lord's message a parable or not? How it it that all flesh will see, and how is it that every tree and every face will be burned therein? Did this have a literal or metaphoric fulfillment? How do we know?
 
But, if we remove all punctuation......"Verily I say unto thee today shalt thou be with me in paradise.", where does that take us?
 
Rusty said:
Sorry, Mr. Darby....I showed you two Bible facts that you can look up:

1) The Lazarus Parable is smack dab in the midst of Christ speaking 7 (seven) parables to the Jews, the unbelieving lawyers and Pharisees (see Luke 14:3)

2)Jesus did not break His stride and say "Now this one of the seven I will speak is not a parable!"

Now it is also a "tendency of the flesh" to ignore that which is contrary with one's personal tastes. It is also a trait to resist anything one has not learned beforehand.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing a Bible fact in this passage. We are more than once told that he is speaking a parable as new parables are introduced in this segment of scripture, yet that is conspicuously absent here. You are missing a fact that Jesus gives one of these men an actual name. That is missing from other parables. Also, you are assuming that all these stories must have been parables. There is nothing to indicate that many of the events in these chapters, e.g. the Prodigal Son story, were not actual events. These stories that are not actually spoken of as parables are likely true stories related by Jesus to teach truths.

I do not usually break stride in my speech when I am speaking literally to tell everyone that I am not speaking in parables. That does not mean that every utterance I speak not preceded by that caveat should be equated with a parable.
When scripture speech is understood as all other speech would naturally be understood, all these difficulties disappear.

There just might be more points to this story than just one.

Luke 147 And he put forth a parable......

Luke 15: 3 And he spake this parable .....
 
Rusty said:
Simple...That day, the Lord promised the thief that he was saved. He would be in the New Earth, as that, not heaven, is Paradise. Christ promised him the resurrection of the redeemed, not of the doomed.Note that the thief repented (by admission of his guilt) and carved to be with Christ. To me that is the basics of salvation.
Click to expand...

Most people would read this passage the way it is rendered in nearly all translations even without added punctuation. The thief did not need any clarification as to which day Jesus was speaking this on. Barnes made a comment in one of his commentaries that the interpretation that most people down through the ages would give to a passage in reading it in the normal sense is most likely to be the right one. I would agree with him on this point. The meaning of most scriptures is very plain, but we can try to get around that plain meaning when we don't like what it says. I have been guilty of that myself.
 
I pray to the Lord God Almighty, to Lord Jesus, and to the Holy Ghost, three in One, world without end. I pray that you bless me here in this space and allow the light of your truth to shine through.

I ask again, on this thread, why I was barred from this web site for roughly 12 hours, while others were allowed to continue. In your reply, you might consider that I know how to use the print screen function key, which dates and times the screen at the time the key is used. Is this how people of God do things?
 
Hi Silk, You are asking in the wrong place IMO. I too, also was unable to log on for a very long time. Actually, I typed out a reply to you and when I clicked on the 'post reply' button, nothing happened. a little later, after closing the web browser and restarting it, I could not log on. I'm sure it was not aimed at you or at anyone. The server was shut down for some reason, but I'm willing to bet is shut everyone out., not just we two.
 
calvin said:
What is a parable? Is it not a teaching story?
as for Lazarus and the rich dead person, is that set in a teaching context?
If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck.......
If it reads like a parable and teaches like a parable.........
Click to expand...

Then it must be a duck!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Rusty said:
Simple...That day, the Lord promised the thief that he was saved. He would be in the New Earth, as that, not heaven, is Paradise. Christ promised him the resurrection of the redeemed, not of the doomed.Note that the thief repented (by admission of his guilt) and carved to be with Christ. To me that is the basics of salvation.
Click to expand...

Wasn't "Paradise" the Abraham's bosom of Sheol/Hades and "Torments" the part of the wicked dead?????

What Bible verse in Luuke 16 tells us that the man was in The New Earth????
 
Major said:
Wasn't "Paradise" the Abraham's bosom of Sheol/Hades and "Torments" the part of the wicked dead?????

What Bible verse in Luuke 16 tells us that the man was in The New Earth????
Click to expand...
Doesn't Paradise translate as outback steak house the garden of God?
 
Suppose I accept your assertion that this is a parable. (Which I never will in a million years.) Does that it make it unacceptable to base a doctrine of the state of the dead on? For example, could I not write a historical novel, say about WWII, and use fictional characters in the story, and yet have the story reflect the true and accurate history of the war? Suppose this passage was a total parable, and Lazaraus and the rich man fictional; is it not possible that the facts related of the intermediate state may be accurate? Would Jesus give false details as to the state of the afterlife? To suggest such would make our Lord less than honest. It would suggest that the Lord went along with a popular misconception rather correcting it. Parable, or not, this passage reflects divinely inspired, infallible, and inerrant teaching concerning the state of the dead in the time of Christ.

As to my quoting a 'scholar', I was making a point. I did not suggest you should believe it simply because a scholar said it. I think the point made was something that most everyone, regardless of their rank and life could agree is reasonable. However, my point wasn't that everything a scholar says is wrong and should be ignored, but that they are not the final authority, and where they are not in alignment with scripture, they can be safely discarded. Can you keep this discussion polite?
 
OK, some questions Mr. Darby. Arguing that there really was this rich guy that ignored a poor guy named Lazarus (as I'm sure there have been plenty similar throughout the ages). Arguing that they were both dead and Lazarus was up there sipping cocktails while the former rich guy was being toasted. Arguing that Jesus would never give false details of the after life.

How do you reconcile the vision that He gave John as recorded in Rev 20:4,5. Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.
It seems clear enough that the rich guy was not invited to the first resurrection. So...he must be part of the subset of the dead that won't come to life till the time of the second resurrection. How, he being dead and all, could he whinge to Abraham about the climate?
Clearly something does not add up, if we want to understand Jesus' teaching about Lazarus and the rich guy as a factual account. But as a parable teaching about pig headedness in rejecting the Christ who was staring them in the face, no problems.
 
Rusty said:
This discussion IS polite...you infer tone by letters.

If I cannot understand your "making a point" by going opposite of what you wrote about scholars, if I can't see how you can suggest that all parables are labeled by the Lord to be parables (when I showed He did not by three examples), if I cannot get even a comment from you about the PURPOSE of the Lazarus of the Lord about that parable....than I ask and wait. So far....I'm not convinced of your theories.

Appealing to "every one could agree as reasonable": is a fallacy argument called "Appeal to Popularity"...a dangerous form of religious assumption, IMO.

You shut the door here:


You have made up your mind and therefore there is not reason for me to engage you on this subject, is there?
Click to expand...

Not really.
 
calvin said:
OK, some questions Mr. Darby. Arguing that there really was this rich guy that ignored a poor guy named Lazarus (as I'm sure there have been plenty similar throughout the ages). Arguing that they were both dead and Lazarus was up there sipping cocktails while the former rich guy was being toasted. Arguing that Jesus would never give false details of the after life.

How do you reconcile the vision that He gave John as recorded in Rev 20:4,5. Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.
It seems clear enough that the rich guy was not invited to the first resurrection. So...he must be part of the subset of the dead that won't come to life till the time of the second resurrection. How, he being dead and all, could he whinge to Abraham about the climate?
Clearly something does not add up, if we want to understand Jesus' teaching about Lazarus and the rich guy as a factual account. But as a parable teaching about pig headedness in rejecting the Christ who was staring them in the face, no problems.
Click to expand...

The reconciliation is that the events in Luke 16 relate to the state of the dead in the OT, prior to the death of Christ, and the Revelation passage relates to saints who die under the Anti-Christ 2000+ years later. He could 'whinge' to Abraham about the climate because he was conscious and in torment. Sleep of the body does not equate sleep of the soul.
 
You have of course irrefutable scriptural proof that post 'death of Christ' deaths are all attributable to the AntiChrist?
What about those saintly souls who just plain die of old age or heart disease, not to forget Cancer? What about those saintly souls that die in plane crashes or get sklished on our roads? Have you scripture to cover all these poor unfortunates? Can you see that your reasoning does not stretch the distance?
Really Mr. Darby, if you were not arguing from a false position, you would find more support. Have you noticed any such support? I don't bring this point up to rub in your face, just want you to be prepared to see that there are other and different understandings that stand the litmus test of comparison with the Scriptures, and common experience.
 
Rusty said:
I am certain it was a parable.
The term "Abraham's bosom" is found NOWHERE in the OT. To suggest a "holding tank" for some saints in a dark place without water before the Cross is a odd kind of purgatory teaching, and I know no Baptist agrees with Catholic ideas...at least last time I checked!

Generally speaking, Abraham’s side was descriptive among Jews as the place of rest, comfort and joy, i.e. heaven*. And Jesus’ discourse in Luke 16 was intended to communicate justice and retribution in the judgment that will be served to all after death, even the rich and powerful will be helpless before the Lord.

Again....the point of this parable...the fact that even if someone (or even Christ) were raised from the dead, the Jews He was speaking to would ignore them/Him...which historically is what happened.

I find it odd that those who claim this is a fact and not parable ignore commenting on that reality and instead ping-pong other less important matters.

*“I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8:11)
Click to expand...

Matt. 8:11 was taken from Psalms 107. In Matt. 8:11, Jesus is referring to the gathering in of the Gentiles through the preaching of the gospel, ending in the final gathering at the Second coming. That is very clear for we see in verse 13, "the children of the kingdom" refers to those to whom the kingdom really belongs.

Rusty, I do not accept Luke 16 (Abraham's Bobsom) as a parabel neither do I understand it to be about purgatory either.
I am unaware of Catholic teaching using Luke 16 as the basis for purgatory. It may very well be the case, I just do not know about it.

I am however aware of the Protestant/Baptist teaching of Sheol as the place where the souls of the wicked dead are kept until judgment day at the Great WHite Thrown Judgment.

When the thief came to Christ, Christ said "Today you will be with me in Paradise". Paradise had to be the side of Sheol which Abraham was in because Jesus did not assend to heave until 3 days later.

The wicked lost in Sheol/Torments ARE NOT GOING TO SET LOOSE. There is no 2nd chance for them so purgatory is simply not in view here as a Baptist teaching.

2nd........It is not a parabel because Jesus uses proper names in Lazarus and Abraham. If it was a "story" or "allagogy"
and there was no Lazarus or Abrahm then Jesus would be guilty of lieing and the Bible says thqat God can not lie.
 
Whenever Jesus told a parable, He usually started by saying, "Behold I show you a parable..." or something similar, but in Luke 16 He didn't follow that pattern. The cultural format of a parable didn't use proper names, which Christ used in this passage. Many times parables had a lesson that was given in the context, like in Luke 18, "Men ought always to pray and never to faint" but that "lesson" is absent here. So there is some evidence that this was a literal story such as Jesus told of the Tower that fell killing eighteen or Pilate mingling the blood of Galileans with the blood of their sacrifices.
But whether or not this is a parable is missing an important point. In none of the parables of the Lord Jesus did He ever use unreal imagry. When He spoke a parable to farmers, He talked about the sowing of seed and when He gave a parable to shepherds, He used the image of sheep, flocks, and porters. So, I think it highly unlike that the scene of Luke 16 could be imaginary as He described the horrors of hell.
 
calvin said:
You have of course irrefutable scriptural proof that post 'death of Christ' deaths are all attributable to the AntiChrist?
What about those saintly souls who just plain die of old age or heart disease, not to forget Cancer? What about those saintly souls that die in plane crashes or get sklished on our roads? Have you scripture to cover all these poor unfortunates? Can you see that your reasoning does not stretch the distance?
Really Mr. Darby, if you were not arguing from a false position, you would find more support. Have you noticed any such support? I don't bring this point up to rub in your face, just want you to be prepared to see that there are other and different understandings that stand the litmus test of comparison with the Scriptures, and common experience.
Click to expand...

I think you totally missed the point of what I was saying. I certainly did not say that all deaths since the time of Christ are attributable to Anti-Christ. I did say that those specific saints in Revelation are tribulation saints who die under the Anti-Christ. The point is that two different dispensations are in view, one before the cross, one after. The state of the righteous dead has changed, no longer going to Abraham's bosom, but going to be with Jesus until they are reunited with their body at the Rapture. Those saints who die in the Tribulation will be raised at Christ's return.
 
Jack Williamson said:
Whenever Jesus told a parable, He usually started by saying, "Behold I show you a parable..." or something similar, but in Luke 16 He didn't follow that pattern. The cultural format of a parable didn't use proper names, which Christ used in this passage. Many times parables had a lesson that was given in the context, like in Luke 18, "Men ought always to pray and never to faint" but that "lesson" is absent here. So there is some evidence that this was a literal story such as Jesus told of the Tower that fell killing eighteen or Pilate mingling the blood of Galileans with the blood of their sacrifices.
But whether or not this is a parable is missing an important point. In none of the parables of the Lord Jesus did He ever use unreal imagry. When He spoke a parable to farmers, He talked about the sowing of seed and when He gave a parable to shepherds, He used the image of sheep, flocks, and porters. So, I think it highly unlike that the scene of Luke 16 could be imaginary as He described the horrors of hell.
Click to expand...

Exactly my brother!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top