Wages Of Sin?
- Thread starter Phoneman777
- Start date
- Status
They were in Hades not Hell.
Hi. I just wanted to quote the Scripture I think you are referring to. Yes the Word became flesh, but it also says many other things that make it clear He is not simply a man.
This is a parable. It is in a discourse that has gone on for three chapters. Hades is not the place of torment in fire that is Gehenna, the Lake of Fire. Take notice that nothing is said about either man being righteous or wicked. This is actually a parable to the Pharisees explaining how the priesthood is going to end. The details in this parable are significant, the rich man has 5 brothers, Levi had 5 brothers. The rich man is dressed in purple and fine linen, the priesthood, The rich man is a Jew as he calls Abraham father, the Jews expected to be in the kingdom of God with Abraham, however, here the rich man see Lazarus with Abraham and he himself cast out. Jesus had already warned them of this.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(Mat 8:10-12 KJV)
Also, if this parable was about the afterlife it doesn't fit the context of the rest of the succession
My understanding is it's the place where they go until rev 20:13, it's the same word in the Greek in both Luke 16:23 and Rev 20:13.
So we can conclude the rich man was not in torment? No, this is not a parable but an actual account. Show me any place in scripture that Jesus uses a persons name in a parable.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used to describe the realm of the dead is sheol. It simply means “the place of the dead” or “the place of departed souls/spirits.” The New Testament Greek equivalent to sheol is hades, which is also a general reference to “the place of the dead.” The Greek word gehenna is used in the New Testament for “hell” and is derived from the Hebrew word hinnom. Other Scriptures in the New Testament indicated that sheol/hades is a temporary place where souls are kept as they await the final resurrection.
Hi,
Actually I was referring to Hebrews 2
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Heb 2:17-18 KJV)
Paul says that Jesus being in the form of God emptied Himself.
5 For, let this mind be in you that is also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,
7 but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,
8 and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross, (Phi 2:5-8 YLT)
Being in the form of God He emptied Himself and became man.
It makes no difference as all three places are places of torment.
It is kinda like going from the county jail to a permanent prison.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Did Jesus claim to be the "Iam"? Did Jesus claim to be the Son of God? Did Jesus say, "if you see me, you see the Father"?
Did Jesus claim that he and his Father are one?
Jesus was fully man, and he was fully God. He was a God man.
Also known as God in the flesh.
Have you considered that He used a name in the parable because the name means something in the parable? It means, God help or God helps me. The question is who does Lazarus represent?
Saying it's not a parable because Jesus used a name doesn't mean it's not a parable. Jesus also didn't say that the rich man was wicked, or that Lazarus was righteous. If this is a literal account then don't we have to conclude that rich people suffer in flames and poor people go to be with Abraham?
If you look at chapters 14-16 and read them through it should be clear what Jesus is getting. He gives the parable of prodigal son, then the unfaithful steward, (who was that?) then He says the Law and the Prophets were until John but since that time the kingdom of God is preached, then He says anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and then He goes into the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. If you look at all of the parables there is a progression. In Chapter 16 there is the unfaithful steward who is about to have his stewardship taken away, the Jews where about to have the priesthood taken away. Jesus said, the Law and the Prophets were until John since that time the Kingdom of God is preached. Jesus is telling the Pharisees, it's over, your reign is over, the Law ended with coming of John. Then He says He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. Malachi accuses the priesthood of Jesus day of doing this. The priesthood was unfaithful with God's word and it was about to be taken from them. Then He goes into the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, notice where the rich man (priesthood) is, in Hades, the grave. The priesthood is dead, that's what He had been warning them of.
In chapter 14 Jesus gave a parable of a man giving a supper and he invites his guests (the Jews) but they don't come they make excuses so the man tells his servants to go out and invite the lame, the blind, and the poor. Look at chapter 16 who is with Abraham, the invited guest (the Jews) or the poor beggar?
This is one in a series of rebukes of the Pharisees.
Scripture doesn't say Jesus was fully God and fully man. Did you read the passages I posted? Paul said He was in the form of God and emptied Himself taking on the form of man. John said, the word "became" flesh. To become is a change of state.
Indeed anyone with the desire to see the truth can clearly see this! But some have been blinded by the god of this world from seeing the truth.
Very interesting points, brethren. I agree with the Bible that Jesus was loosed from death, but notice that it doesn't say that he was loosed from eternal torment.
Many, many respected scholars define "Aionios" to be the adjective form of "Aion", which simply means DURATION: either undefined but NOT endless, or undefined BECAUSE endless." "Aionios" simply means "pertaining to Aion", like Christlike is to Christ, or Edwardian is to Edward. So, we have to decide from the context whether the "not endless" or "because endless" applies. We can't impose "because endless" on hell fire simply b/c that's what we've always heard. Scholars generally agree that whenever the word applies to the affairs of God, it means "eternal", but when it applies to the affairs of men, it means "all the days of life". So, yes the smoke ascends up "all the days of life", and the devil and his followers are tormented day and night "all the days of life", until such time as they are blotted out of existence.
I put no man on par with God, but thank goodness God "condescends to men of low estate." I simply say that if the wages of sin is eternal torment, then that is what MUST be paid in order to satisfy the demands of broken law, whether we suffer it, or Jesus suffers it for us, that we may escape it. The fact that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient alone to pay the penalty does nothing to alter the required terms of satisfaction for the penalty of sin, and to contrast man's badness with His goodness in order to advance the idea that such goodness is the means by which Jesus is credited with having endured the penalty of eternal torment without actually enduring it is simply not in Scripture and not in the realm of reason, as well. No amount of mental gymnastics or Biblical speculation will change that. How can it be claimed that Jesus paid a debt equal to having been consigned to eternal suffering if He is not at this moment suffering eternally? If the penalty is eternal torment, then He did NOT pay that penalty.
The Rich Man and Lazarus is clearly a parable, regardless of the use of proper names. There are simply too many symbolic elements in it for it to be a literal story: Abraham's bosom, of which the Bible has nothing to say; Jesus' use of "hades" ("place of the dead" or "grave") as the location of the Rich Man, rather than the use of the fiery, burning, blazing "gehenna"; the dead men in possession of body parts though the Bible is clear that only in the resurrection at the end of days will the dead, whose bodies were buried at death, be reunited with a body when they are called forth from death by Jesus; human torches cannot hold conversations; human torches cannot be comforted with a single drop of water; dead are not able to converse with each other, etc. See my post on the Rich Man and Lazarus: Parable or Real Experience Part 1 and 2 for more detailed reasoning and also Jesus' interpretation of the parable.
Many, many respected scholars define "Aionios" to be the adjective form of "Aion", which simply means DURATION: either undefined but NOT endless, or undefined BECAUSE endless." "Aionios" simply means "pertaining to Aion", like Christlike is to Christ, or Edwardian is to Edward. So, we have to decide from the context whether the "not endless" or "because endless" applies. We can't impose "because endless" on hell fire simply b/c that's what we've always heard. Scholars generally agree that whenever the word applies to the affairs of God, it means "eternal", but when it applies to the affairs of men, it means "all the days of life". So, yes the smoke ascends up "all the days of life", and the devil and his followers are tormented day and night "all the days of life", until such time as they are blotted out of existence.
I put no man on par with God, but thank goodness God "condescends to men of low estate." I simply say that if the wages of sin is eternal torment, then that is what MUST be paid in order to satisfy the demands of broken law, whether we suffer it, or Jesus suffers it for us, that we may escape it. The fact that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient alone to pay the penalty does nothing to alter the required terms of satisfaction for the penalty of sin, and to contrast man's badness with His goodness in order to advance the idea that such goodness is the means by which Jesus is credited with having endured the penalty of eternal torment without actually enduring it is simply not in Scripture and not in the realm of reason, as well. No amount of mental gymnastics or Biblical speculation will change that. How can it be claimed that Jesus paid a debt equal to having been consigned to eternal suffering if He is not at this moment suffering eternally? If the penalty is eternal torment, then He did NOT pay that penalty.
The Rich Man and Lazarus is clearly a parable, regardless of the use of proper names. There are simply too many symbolic elements in it for it to be a literal story: Abraham's bosom, of which the Bible has nothing to say; Jesus' use of "hades" ("place of the dead" or "grave") as the location of the Rich Man, rather than the use of the fiery, burning, blazing "gehenna"; the dead men in possession of body parts though the Bible is clear that only in the resurrection at the end of days will the dead, whose bodies were buried at death, be reunited with a body when they are called forth from death by Jesus; human torches cannot hold conversations; human torches cannot be comforted with a single drop of water; dead are not able to converse with each other, etc. See my post on the Rich Man and Lazarus: Parable or Real Experience Part 1 and 2 for more detailed reasoning and also Jesus' interpretation of the parable.
Huntingteckel
Inactive
Keep fighting the good fight, sir. Maybe we can spread the truth about this enough that the new believers will avoid the brainwashing that people must undergo to believe in the traditional view.Very interesting points, brethren. I agree with the Bible that Jesus was loosed from death, but notice that it doesn't say that he was loosed from eternal torment.
Many, many respected scholars define "Aionios" to be the adjective form of "Aion", which simply means DURATION: either undefined but NOT endless, or undefined BECAUSE endless." "Aionios" simply means "pertaining to Aion", like Christlike is to Christ, or Edwardian is to Edward. So, we have to decide from the context whether the "not endless" or "because endless" applies. We can't impose "because endless" on hell fire simply b/c that's what we've always heard. Scholars generally agree that whenever the word applies to the affairs of God, it means "eternal", but when it applies to the affairs of men, it means "all the days of life". So, yes the smoke ascends up "all the days of life", and the devil and his followers are tormented day and night "all the days of life", until such time as they are blotted out of existence.
I put no man on par with God, but thank goodness God "condescends to men of low estate." I simply say that if the wages of sin is eternal torment, then that is what MUST be paid in order to satisfy the demands of broken law, whether we suffer it, or Jesus suffers it for us, that we may escape it. The fact that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient alone to pay the penalty does nothing to alter the required terms of satisfaction for the penalty of sin, and to contrast man's badness with His goodness in order to advance the idea that such goodness is the means by which Jesus is credited with having endured the penalty of eternal torment without actually enduring it is simply not in Scripture and not in the realm of reason, as well. No amount of mental gymnastics or Biblical speculation will change that. How can it be claimed that Jesus paid a debt equal to having been consigned to eternal suffering if He is not at this moment suffering eternally? If the penalty is eternal torment, then He did NOT pay that penalty.
The Rich Man and Lazarus is clearly a parable, regardless of the use of proper names. There are simply too many symbolic elements in it for it to be a literal story: Abraham's bosom, of which the Bible has nothing to say; Jesus' use of "hades" ("place of the dead" or "grave") as the location of the Rich Man, rather than the use of the fiery, burning, blazing "gehenna"; the dead men in possession of body parts though the Bible is clear that only in the resurrection at the end of days will the dead, whose bodies were buried at death, be reunited with a body when they are called forth from death by Jesus; human torches cannot hold conversations; human torches cannot be comforted with a single drop of water; dead are not able to converse with each other, etc. See my post on the Rich Man and Lazarus: Parable or Real Experience Part 1 and 2 for more detailed reasoning and also Jesus' interpretation of the parable.
The thread that got locked was my thread. Let's not respond to nonsense and this thread may stay open. Let's spread the truth!
Seriously? Brain washing? Come on and stop this nonsense of you against everyone.
You misunderstand the ATONEMENT!
Jesus didn't suffer eternal torment because His payment was the shedding of his innocent blood! The penalty for sin is eternal death (NOT annihilation, either, because spirit is immortal), and the converse is a reward of eternal life for receiving His payment.
God can not change himself, he emptied himself by choosing not to use his divine power as a means of comforting himself in his humanity or in his mission. He comforted others, but not himself.
- Status