I LIKE x 3 your comment.
re: Lazarus, the parable of the rich man and the beggar
- Thread starter C1oudwatch3r
- Start date
I LIKE x 3 your comment.
I'll do m' best, brother.
- Rev 14:11 "for ever" is translated from "aionios" which does not mean "eternity", but according to Strong means:
- ["Duration" - either undefined but NOT endless, or undefined because endless.]
- Rev 20:10 (see "aionios")
- Jude 13 (see "aionios")
- 2 Thess 1:9 "Eternal destruction" speaks of the result, not the process, just as "eternal judgment" does not mean God will pound His gavel continuously and say 'Order in the court, order in the court' for all eternity, and also in the same way as we are to understand that "eternal redemption" does not mean Christ will redeem us and redeem us and redeem us again and again. All these speak of result, not process.
- Properly understood, a quenched fire is one that was put out by external means, such as by water, Halon 1301, CO2, or PKP that would continue to burn if otherwise left alone. No one will be able to put out hellfire. However, when it has completed its work of burning up everything that can burn, it will cease to burn, and the righteous shall go forth from the city and "trample down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet."
I say this in Christian love and respect for you: The doctrines of Conditional Immortality and Annihilation are not new; they have been argued by some of the finest minds in Christendom. Consensus may be to the contrary but consensus doesn't determine truth. The reason for the ascendancy of "eternal torment" is that the Medieval Church dragged in this pagan doctrine early on in church history. She kept the vast majority of believers from the Bible and in complete ignorance until such time as her false doctrines had so infested the church that even the mighty Protestant Reformation wasn't able to fully purge Christianity from her errors. Consider these quotes from renowned Greek scholar Dr. R F Weymouth:
"My mind fails to conceive a grosser misrepresentation of language than when five or six of the strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying to destroy or destruction, are explained to mean `maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence.' To translate black as white is nothing to this."
In his book in a note on 1.Corinthians 15:18 ("Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.") he says:
"By `perish' the Apostle here apparently means `pass out of existence'."
On Hebrews 9:28 we read: "The use in the N.T. of such words as `death', `destruction', `fire', `perish', to describe Future Retribution, point to the likelihood of fearful anguish, followed by extinction of being."
The Scriptures themselves are perfectly clear that there will be no eternal torment:
- Obadiah 16: "They shall be as though they had not been."
- Ezekiel 28:19 "Never shalt thou (Satan) be anymore."
- Psalms 37:10 "Yet a little while and the wicked shall not be."
- Revelation 21:4 "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."
Last edited:
Ok, I looked up Strong's Greek 165- aion,
- for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
- the worlds, universe
- period of time, age
2 Thess 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
We see the punishment is a continual destruction and separation from his presence. Your idea would mean they are annihilated away from the Lord's presence. This makes no sense. The punishment is a separation and destruction forever from the Lord.
Brother, I love you dearly, even a blind man with only one ear can see that Luke 16 is so filled with symbolism that it is not to be taken literally.
I'll address each point briefly:- Are we to believe that when Jesus said "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man" that a literal event where Jesus is elongated and stretched out like some celestial escalator between heaven and earth for the angels to ride will take place because it "transcends the realm of the earthly"? Of course He is speaking in symbolism.
- Again, His use of "Lazarus" and "Abraham" is to warn the "children of Abraham" of the fate that would befall them should they continue in unbelief - and - to demonstrate that their hardened hearts would not allow them to believe "though one rose from the dead" when the literal Lazarus was raised from the dead and they plotted both the deaths of him and Jesus. No law of hermeneutics demands that the use of proper names renders a passage literal.
- See 2.
- Since the dead "know not anything" and "the memory of them is forgotten", as well as "their love, envy, hatred is perished" and that "their is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom IN THE GRAVE." What more evidence do we need to show that the same Jesus Who inspired Solomon to write these truths would not contradict Himself by declaring that dead people can talk to each other?
- "Moses and the Prophets" simply means "the Word of God". Abraham is simply saying to the Rich Man that if his brothers refuse to believe the Scriptures, they won't believe otherwise.
- It does not describe where the "dead" go, only where the Rich Man and Lazarus went. Job says plainly that he'll wait in the "house of the grave" for his "change" when he receives his immortal body and Peter says that David "is not ascended to heaven" but is in his grave as well.
- Can't see how the mentioning of angels demands that we take the entire story literally, including a dead man completely engulfed in fire having the ability to carry on a thoughtful conversation about his brothers that he remembers are still alive when, as I've already said, the Bible plainly declares of the dead that "the memory of them is forgotten."
- "Hades" cannot be your place of torment because Revelation says that after the wicked are judged it will be cast along with the wicked into the very place that is claimed to be the "place of eternal torment - the Lake of Fire". Besides, Peter says that the Lord knows how to "reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment TO BE punished" which clearly means that the punishment of the wicked is not currently happening right now, but will be administered at a future point in time! "Hades" is translated as "the place of the dead" or "grave", not some fiery torture chamber, for Job said he would wait for God's wrath to pass their and none dare suggest that Job will be suffering in the "flames of Hades".
It's not a smokescreen, it's the whole crux of the issue. If it's a literal story, then we can build a doctrine upon it, which is what many do. But, if it can be shown to be a parable - a story that employs symbolism to emphasize a point - then we CANNOT build a doctrine on an uninterpreted parable, but we must first interpret the symbolism before we can correctly understand what truth is meant to be conveyed to us.
Vine's defines "aionios" as I stated above and it so happens that my Strong's Exhaustive concordance uses Vine's Greek Lexicon. So, it is Vine that translates "forever" as "undefined but not endless" and I'm too tired at the moment to research whether Strong says the same, but I will later.
Yes, the wicked are punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God, but my question is what is the punishment? What is the punishment? It is DEATH! An eternal, extinction-of-being death from which there will be no resurrection. Again, why do we seek to make "eternal punishment" refer to a never ending process instead of a permanent result when every one of us agree that "eternal judgment" and "eternal redemption" has nothing to do with a never ending process but can only refer to a permanent result?
The question to answer then becomes, why would Jesus use a false analogy in a parable to teach a lesson? Seems to me if we accept this teaching
- then Jesus was misleading His audience.
Why can't a story be parabolic and literal at the same time? Is there a commonly understood but unwritten rule to this effect? ...just curious
Last edited:
Thank you for your considerate and respectful post. I do understand the doctrine you are putting forth here is not new and has been contemplated by Christians in ages past. We both agree this doctrine is in the minority camp of Christianity, and I would like to affirm to you as well that minority consensus may be to the contrary of what I understand to be true, but minority consensus (simply by being minority) does not determine truth either.
I have more in your post to respond to, but my "secular" day is getting started and I must delay my response.
I hope to be back this evening...
But in the meantime...please tell me which Bible version (or versions) you are using and consider to be the best translations, in your view? Thank you for your input.
BUT.....if you approach Luke 16 with the pre-conceived belief of annialationism, then you are forced to MAKE Luke 16 an allegory. You really have no choice but to do that. You see my brother, you are not taking the Word of God as it is written for man but you are forcing it to support what you want it to say. If not, it destroys your whole concept of eternal torments or the lack thereof.
The debate is therefore a side line of the real problem you have which is the total destruction of the body and soul of the lost man after judgment.
That makes this debate a "smoke screen" from the reality of your point.
Though any story may contain some elements that are literal and others that are symbolic, the story itself cannot be both literal and symbolic at the same time any more than light and dark can be at the same time. In the case of Luke 16, there is and overwhelming amount of symbolism being employed by Jesus and those elements must be interpreted to get what He intended to teach, not redefined as literal elements so that we can substantiate a doctrine. Hades, where the Rich Man is said to be, is not the flaming Gehenna, the dead don't get bodies until after the resurrection, dead folks can't talk, think, know, possess memories, or sit in "Abraham's bosom" praising God, nor carry on conversations while fully engulfed in flame, nor reason that a single drop of water on their tongue can effectively assuage their immense pain . All these are symbolic elements that do not occur in real experience and must be interpreted, which is exactly what we must do to parables to get their true meaning. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's not a rooster
Last edited:
Though any story may contain some elements that are literal and others that are symbolic, the story itself cannot be both literal and symbolic at the same time any more than light and dark can be at the same time. In the case of Luke 16, there is and overwhelming amount of symbolism being employed by Jesus and those elements must be interpreted to get what He intended to teach, not redefined as literal elements so that we can substantiate a doctrine. Hades, where the Rich Man is said to be, is not the flaming Gehenna, the dead don't get bodies until after the resurrection, dead folks can't talk, think, know, possess memories, or sit in "Abraham's bosom" praising God, nor carry on conversations while fully engulfed in flame, nor reason that a single drop of water on their tongue can effectively assuage their immense pain . All these are symbolic elements that do not occur in real experience and must be interpreted, which is exactly what we must do to parables to get their true meaning. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's not a rooster
What you are giving here is pure speculation and opini0ns Phoneman. You have rejected the Bible story but now you want us all to accept your opinions.
You stated...............
"Hades, where the Rich Man is said to be, is not the flaming Gehenna, the dead don't get bodies until after the resurrection, dead folks can't talk, think, know, possess memories, or sit in "Abraham's bosom" praising God, nor carry on conversations while fully engulfed in flame, nor reason that a single drop of water on their tongue can effectively assuage their immense pain".
Now.....under what authority are you able to make such an assumption? WHY do you think such things?????
You have none! You are telling us what you WANT it to be like in Hades because you have already rejected the doctrine of eternal torments and have bought into the none Biblical assumption of annialationism. Therefore you have no other choice than to reject Luke 16 as a real, literal story.
You see my friend, you are in the middle of the most classic error of mis-understanding the Scriptures. You are working to make them say what YOU ALREADY BELIEVE instead of allowing them to say what they are really saying.
And you are exactly right......If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck.......IT IS A DUCK!
You can not make a rooster out of a duck. It is what it is and my encouragement to you is to take a literal approach to the Word of God unless it tells you it is symbolic or an allegory.
Brother, the Bible is the authority that says the dead are not capable of possessing or performing those things. The lack of familiarity of the proof texts on your part doesn't constitute speculation on my part.
I know what you mean about "secular" work days and sometimes I wish God would've commanded we work 5 and rest 2 rather than commanded us to work 6 and rest 1. BTW, I didn't know there was such a thing as "minority consensus" LOL
Brother, here's a test to see if we have accepted the Bible:
- I believe that "the dead know not anything", but you claim the dead possess knowledge while in death based on Luke 16.
- I believe "the memory of them is forgotten" but you say they retain their memories based on Luke 16.
- I believe that "their love, envy, and hatred is perished" but you claim they are capable of emotions and feelings based on Luke 16.
- I believe it is not until "the last trump...this corruptible shall put on incorruption and this mortal shall put on immortality" but you claim the dead receive their bodies before the resurrection based on Luke 16.
- I believe that "the dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence" but you claim that the dead can sit in "Abraham's bosom" fully conscious in death and no doubt have the ability to lift up their voice in praise that they have not shared in the same fate based on Luke 16.
- I believe that in the flames "there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth" but you claim that the dead can use some kind of Jedi mind trick to block out the immense pain in order to start a thoughtful conversation with others based on Luke 16. Something like this: "Hey, Ahab, hot enough for ya?" "Shut up, Saul, before I come over there and smite thee upside yo head with this huge chunk o' brimstone."
phoneman~
My Strong's Exhaustive Concordance lists "aionios" as DEFINITELY meaning eternal.
Neither of us are Greek scholars. There are many exceptions, proofs, and meanings of the same word; depending on the noun, adjective, verb, and context of the passage.
I did not get an answer from you regarding which Bible translation you view as the best.
Ah, well....but you know what I meant that a minority of people believing the same thing does not mean that because they are the minority they must have the truth....right?
...straw man arguments abound!