hell

[Vivian]

ps. Reece1984,

I came across an argument that might better assist your idea for eternal torment which is an improvement on the tired old arguments...

A 7th Day Adventists blog notes ...

"it is written in Hebrews 10: 26-27, “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgement and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.” If the fire consumes them, then afterwards they no longer exist. I would answer this in the following way...

In the Greek, the present continuous infinitive is used. The author writes, “εσθιειν μελλοντος,” which means, “it will be consuming them” – as a continuous state. Annihilation could have been indicated by using the aorist infinitive, “φαγειν μελλοντος,” meaning, “it will eat them up.” This is not what the author wrote."

For our God is a consuming fire...

Hebrews 12

25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, 26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.” 27 Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain.
28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Indeed, what is consumed by the fire is what is shaken. What is not shaken will remain.

If you read the verses before in Hebrews 12, you will find the author speaking of approaching God from two different perspectives...

18 For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, 19 and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. 20 (For they could not endure what was commanded: “And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned or shot with an arrow.” 21 And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I am exceedingly afraid and trembling.”)
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

And before that the author tells us since our experience of drawing near to God can one or the other, how we ought to live so that it will be the latter...

12 Therefore strengthen the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees, 13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be dislocated, but rather be healed.
14 Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: 15 looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled; 16 lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright. 17 For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears.

Shalom and may each of our approach's to God be so that we might see Him.

Viv

[apostoli]

YOu qoted Matt 15:10-12, but that is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH! No food at all can defile man spiritually, it is the things he says that will defile him. The problem was ceremonnial uncleanness. ALso, food that is properly cooked does not defile a person. Jesus knew the law of Moses was comming to an end.

Like the apostles you appear to have trouble understanding Jesus' meaning. They had to ask him to explain...which he did (Mt 15:15-19). It is not what you do but why you do it, your hearts inclination (motivation).

You of all people should know that Moses never gave an instruction to wash your hands before eating. This was a tradition of the Jewish elders (Mark 7:3-4). Thus Mt 15:20, eating without washing the hands isn't an offense.

While Christians aren't subject to Moses dietry laws, there are still parts of the world where it is sensible to follow them for your physical health (to avoid worm infestation, dysentery and/or food poisoning).

There is no indication in Matthew 15 that Jesus had Moses in mind, but he did have the Pharisees attachment to their traditions firmly in mind. He calls them blind leaders of the blind (vs14)

[reece1984]

Hi reece1984,
There is no threat to the doctrine of eternal torment for the wicked in realizing that Lazarus and the Rich man is a parable. To recognise it as a parable and extract the full symbolism in it is, imo, far more uplifting.

Note below why none of the arguments you present show that the rich man and Lazarus is a parable and is not literal.

Why Lazarus and the Rich man is a parable...

1. It is not indicated why the rich man is in torment, nor why Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom.

So according to you, if we are not given a reason for something happening, then it didn't happen? God does not tell us for what sin he killed the people mentioned at 2 Samuel 24:17, therefore, it was a parable? It didn't really happen? The fact that Jehovah pnished them shows that they had done some evil deserving of death, just like the rich man in Luke 16. I trust the justice of God, and if he decides to punish or reward someone I trust that it is rightly deserved, but apparently, God has to answer to apostoli? I don't thjnk so! This is a lame excuse for not accepting what the Bible palinly says. Jesus says, "There was a man..." (Luke 16:19). If he didn't exist, then Jesus was lying. Jesus was no teller of tall tales, he always spoke the truth.

1a. Both the rich man and Lazarus are obeying the Levitical law. The rich man could not invite Lazarus to his table even if he wanted to.

So, because they were obeying levitical law that proves it didn't really happen? In Acts 21:22-26 Paul obeys Levitical law, thus, it was only symbolic? It didn't really happen? I don't see how obeying Levitical law means that an event is a parable an didn't really happen. Please explain this. Further, obeying Levitical law in one respect doesn't mean you are obedient to God in other respects; so this in itself doesn't make the rich man on the same footing as Lazarus.

1b. We are not told whether the rich man had had pity on Lazarus and provided food for him or not. Lazarus' expectation was that he would at least get access to the scraps from the rich man's table. As Lazarus was unclean he had to remain outside the gate, and it is presumed that the habit of the houshold was to throw the left overs out into the street for the stray dogs to eat (a practice that continues in some countries even today).

So what? How does this lack of information prove that the information we do have is ot about a real life event? We are told that Abraham did not have pity on the rich man, Lazarus did not come to his aid with water. So if not being told that the rich man had pity on Lazarus proves that it is a parable, then being told that Abraham and Lazarus had no pity on the rich man should tell you that it is aparable. This merely shows that your argument makes no sense!

2. Jesus never preached that there was any comfort to be found in Abraham. Worth having a read of John 8:33-40 to get an idea of the Jews over reliance on Abraham.

And he doesn't do so in Luke 16 either. Being Abraham's bosom was simply referring to the position the rich man saw Lazarus in at the time, which proves only that believers can find Abraham and others like him in the kingdom of God as mentioned at Matthew 8:11. And even if he was teaching in Luke 16 that we could find a measure of confort in Abraham, this would not contradict nothing in the Bible. It would just be another one of God's many blessings. Jesus doesn't have to teach it anywhere else; he only needs to say something once before I believe it!

3. The rich man thinks Abraham can mediate for him (but he can't). See 2.

So what? How does that prove it didn't really happen? Pharoah thought he was greater than the God of Israel, that he could keep them in slavery, he couldn't! That doesn't make the exodus a parable, does it? I don't see how having foolish intentions makes the rich man's experience in the flames of hades any less real that Pharoah's drowning in the Red Sea! Just another irrelevant excuse.

4. The rich man thinks Abraham can raise the dead (it doesn't say whether he can or can't). See 2.

It says that he won't! Case closed. Does it have to say that he can raise the dead to mean that it isn't a parable? How so? This is irrelevant to determiining if it is litereral or not. Fact is, the Bible doesn't tell us it is a parable; that's just your unsbstantiated opinion.

5. The tale is full of pseudonyms eg: the father and the five brothers, may be a reference to Annas & his sons. If so, the rich man is a pseudonym for Caiaphas who was still alive at the time of the telling. Many a commentator remarks on the apparel described in Luke 16:16 as describing the high priests garb.

First you say that it is full of sseudonyms, then you say may be, and if...hmmm. You don't sound to sure. Scripture explains itself. Maybe the reason you're not so sure is because Jesus nowhere tells us that that is what the rich man and Lazarus means. This is just your own trmped up interpretation, or one you got from some other uninspired man. Maybe Luke 16:16 was describing high priest garb becase that is what the rich man was wearing! If the Bible says it, I believe it.

6. Luke 16:31 describes the viewpoint of the Saduccees, which indicates the rich man, his father and brothers are Sadducees. See 5.

And the Sadducees are the only people who could believe this? Wow, what lack of imagination you have. But, so what if he was a Sadducee? The Sadducees were real people. I don't see how being a Sadducess makes the rich man a figment of the imagination. A man can be rich and be a Sadducee. None of this shows the account is not literal. In fact, it shows that it was, because it is using things that the diciples are familiar with, which goes back to my claim that since the parables of Jesus are drawn from real life experience, that they represent real people and places and experience. You yourself are proving this by showing the elements in the account to be referring to very real things like the high priests official garb, the Sadducess, etc. So too, the flames of hades came from reality. So even if it were a parable, which the Bible never says it was, the hellfire mentioned in it must still be as real as Abraham and the angels.

7. The Sadducees didn't believe in an after life and therefore didn't believe in a resurrection, yet the rich man finds himself in an after life, so we have irony and satire.

Acts 12:22-23, the people thought Herod was god, and just as they proclaimed him a god, the angel of the Lord killed him, so we have an irony here, a satire. Does that mean it idn't happen? Hmmm...Many real life accounts are full of satire. Many believed that the Messiah would come in glory in kingly raiment but he came in a manger, without any royal display, so we have another irony here. Means it didn't happen? A parable? Nope! Irony doesn't make an account figurative.

8. The Pharisees who did believe in an after life, believed you could only get the benefits from obedience to the law. The rich man and Lazarus were obeying the law but received different outcomes.

Which shows that righteousness is not by means of the law, but due to faith. (Rom 3:20-24) And it doesn't say they both had faith in Christ, does it? Also, the account doesn't say they were obeying the whole law, only mentions a few aspects of it that they obeyed. I don't see how obeying part of the law means that their experiences were ane less real. Please explain, cause I don't get it.

9. Both the Sadducees & Pharisees believed that the sick, lame etc were sinners and being punished by God. So would have assumed, if there were partitions in hades, Lazarus would go to the compartment that had torments, whilst the pious rich man (in their eyes) would experience bliss. The opposite outcomes are related.

They also beleived Jesus was a blashpemer and had a demon. His resrrection proved them wrong. Talk about opposite outcomes. Because things worked out the opposite way the Pharisees and Sadducees expect, that means its a parable? Well, things will work out the opposite way many expect on the day of Christ's coming; but I asure you his coming will be a literal one.

10. The rich man is not named.

Wow....I'm in shock!!! Because the rich man is not named, the account is not real, its a parable; but since Abraham and Lazarus are named, this must mean that it is! Did you forget that Jesus never uses names in his parables? The fact that Jesus parables never contain names is proved from an examination of all his so-called parables. I say so-called because the only ones I believe are parables are the ones which the Bible tells me are parables. But since you assert that they are all parables, I will list them all: the weeds among the wheat (Matt 13:24-30), the two debtors (Luke 7:41-43), the woser (Matt 13:3-8; Mark 4:3-8; Luke 8:5-8), the mustard grain (Matt 13:31-32; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18-19), the leaven (Matt 13:33), the hidden treasure (Matt 13:44), the merchant seeking pearls (Matt 13:45-46), the dragnet (Matt 13:47-50), the unmerciful slave (Matt 18:23-35), the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37),the persistent friend (Luke 11:5-8), the unreasonable rich man (Luke 12;16-31), the unproductive fig tree (Luke 13:6-9), the evening meal (Luke 14:16-24), the one lost sheep (Luke 15:3-7), the lost drachma coin (Luke 15:8-10), the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), the unrightoeus steward (Luke 16:1-8), the good-for-nothing slaves (Luke 17:7-10), the widow and the judge (Luke 18:1-8), the tax collector and the Pharisee (Luke 18;9-14), the workers paid a danarius (Matthew 20:1-16), the minas (Luke 19:11-27), the two children (Matt 21:28-31), the murderous cultivators (Matt 21:33-44), the marriage feast for the king's son (Matt 22;1-14), the ten virgins (Matt 25:1-13), the talents (Matt 25:14-30) and the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:31-46).

In all of the above accounts which you believe all of them to be parables, they all have one thing in common - no names are mentioned. We can safely conclude that Jesus does not mention names in his parables. Since the rich man and Lazarus account names Abraham and Lazarus, we can safely reason that it isn't a parable. Also, all the above parables are drawn from everyday life. They speak of things that do literally happen. Hence, even if Luke 16:19-31 were a parable, the flames of hades would still be a reality, no less real than Abraham or the angels, which we do know that Abraham and the angels do exist.

11. Lazarus was a common name in the era. In Hebrew the name is Eleazar. What is of more importance than the name is the meaning of the name = "God is my help". Which suggests that Lazarus received his reward because he trusted in God.

So because Lazarus is a common name and means "God is my help" that proves his experience in Abraham's bosom wasn't literal? Well, in John 11 Jesus raises someone names Lazarus from the dead. Since Lazarus is a common name and means "God is my help" can we conclude that his resurrection in John 11 is a parable? I don't think so; similar comments could be made about the Lazarus of Luke 16.

12. The rich man is often depicted by commentators as trusting in his riches. Thus we have a contrast with Lazarus who trusted in God. See 11.

The account in Luke 16 doesn't mention them trusting in anything. I don't go by what commentators say, I go by the word of God. Hmmm,,,,are you providing a reason why one went to hell and the other didn't?

13. In Jesus' parables he uses everyday observable things as an example. The scenario (or similar) given at Luke 16:19-22 would have been observable in that day and age.

This proves my point further. It was based on reality, not fictitious myth.

14. In Jesus' parables he uses ideas familiar to the Jews. The scenario (or similar) given at Luke 16:23-23 are known to have been taught by the Pharisees. Also there were the tales brought over from babylon and similar Greek/Roman ideas that were popular at the time.

Can you show me one example of Jesus utilizing a myth from any pagan or false religion that was not literally true? Luke 16:19-31 seems to be the only exception in all of Scripture, and this rasies question marks. Jesus was not in the business of borrowing tall tales that never happened.

15. Jesus mentions the law and the prophets several times in Luke 16. The law and the prophets do not speak of divisions in hades/sheol, nor that the righteous dead are in bliss and the unrighteous dead are in torment, nor that there is conscious existance after death (the exact opposite actually).

Wow, well, the law and the prophets do not say it was Christ who was with the Israelites in their journey but the NT confirms it. (1 Cor 10:4) If Jesus says that there is concisousness after death, I believe him. It's that simple. Jesus tells us, "fear not them who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul." (Matt 10:28) Then he mentions "both soul and body," showing that the soul is not the body, but is something else which survives the death of the body.

Revelation 6:9-11 tells us that the sould of men who have died are in heaven still alive. Philippians 1:21 tells us that to die is gain. Unconsciousness, a gain? No, not unconsciousness, but the departing to be with Christ (vss 22-24). While in the flesh we are absent from the Lord, but when we loose this physical body we will be present with him. (2 Cor 5:6-8)

Those cast into the fire suffer consciously
Matt. 13:41-42, "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” See also Matt. 13:50. If hell is just the grave, then there can be no weeping and nashing of teeth there. This clearly refers to a place of conscious torment.

Cast into a tormenting fire
Rev. 14:9-11, "And another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."” See also, Rev. 21:8. If they are totally unconscious, how is it that they have no rest day or night? How is it they are tormented?

16. Jesus was preaching the kingdom (vs16), and because the religious leaders didn't hear the law and the prophets they wouldn't hear him, and rejected his teachings, especially the ones that criticised them

He wasn't preaching about the kingdom in the following verses after 16. In fact, when speaking of the kingdom, Jesus is plain to say things like "the kingdom of heaven is like." He makes no such preface to the rich man and Lazarus account. You are speculating.

Jesus didn't explain the prodigal son tale in Luke 15, for its climax the last verse explained the point of the tale. Same with Luke 16, its climax in the last verse explained the point of the tale.

The point being, llisten to the law and the prophets of end up in this place of fire. (Luke 16:28, 30)

In anycase, you seem to have ignored Jesus' self attestation that he spoke in parables to cloud things for the general listener (they hear but never understand, and see but never perceive) - Mt 13. Also regularly Jesus has to, in private, explain his parables to his disciples. Often they didn't have a clue what he was on about...

Pay particular attention to Matthew 13:34 "Jesus said nothing to the crowds without a parable". In Luke 16, Jesus is addressing the crowds, not having a private discussion with his disciples.

So everything Jesus said to crowds were all parables? You can't be serious! You don't believe the whole sermon on the mount is a parable, do you? It was addressed to crowds. Is Matt 5:45-47 a parable? It was addressed to crowds. And like I say, even if it is, its taken from real life experiences. So it still happened.

Have a look at the story of the fig tree at Mt 21:19-22, it is never introduced as a parable nor an illustration, but it has a significant symbolic meaning to most christians. All the disciple saw was it had suddenly withered and were bewildered, and Jesus starts talking about the power of faith. Jesus concludes " whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith." We know the how, but not the why Jesus cursed the fig tree? The answer is implied, not stated.

And you agree that the fig tree was a literal tree and it literally withered when Jesus literally cursed it, right? As for having symbolic meaning, Hagar, Sarah, and their relationship to Adraham also is packed with symbolic meaning, but they are vey real, and the casting out of the slave girl (though packed with symbolic meaning) is a literal event. (Galatians 4:22-31) Though this is an allegory, it is based on a literal event. Which backs up my point that even if the rich man and Lazarus carries symbolic meaning that does not mean it didn't happen.

Hebrews 8:9 says that the taberbacle comparments and priestly service were a figure (parabola, a parable) of the time now present. Now, though these were parables, the taberbacle and its preistly service were very much real. Througout th NT we see that parables are based on real life events. Therefore, even if Luke 16:19-31 were a parable, it still happened. Thing is, Scriptre doesn't call it a prable; that's just your opinion!

[apostoli]

Hello Reece,

So according to you, if we are not given a reason for something happening, then it didn't happen?

Nope. According to you, Jesus always used ideas his listeners were familiar with...a first century Jew would have been focused on the justice of the situation...Lepers were deemed sinners, as being punished by God, so his twist in his listeners expection would have intrigued them. It is the last verse that is important the rest is just a lead in.

God does not tell us for what sin he killed the people mentioned at 2 Samuel 24:17

Actually the reason is given why God sent his angelSee 2 Samuel 24:1,9,11-15 compare 1 Chronicles 21. It was because the David trusted in the might of Israel more than God. God was chastening David. Basically, God was demonstrating that what he had provided he could take away.

therefore, it was a parable? It didn't really happen?

Best you pay attention to what is written in scripture and not chuck tantrums. Just makes you look silly. Try using your reasoning powers and attach yourself to the biblical instruction "O man of God...pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness. (1 Tim 6:11).

The fact that Jehovah punished them shows that they had done some evil deserving of death, just like the rich man in Luke 16.

The scriptures tells us the penalty of sin is death. Both Lazarus and the rich man died...

I trust the justice of God, and if he decides to punish or reward someone I trust that it is rightly deserved...

In Ezekiel 18, YHWH says that if an unrighteous man turns to righteousness he forgets their transgressions and remembers only their righteousness, whereas if a righteous man becomes unrighteousness he forgets their righteousness and remembers only their transgressions. vs25 says, that man says "The way of YHWH is not equal" but YHWH states It is man's way that is not equal.

Jesus says, "There was a man..." (Luke 16:19).

Actually Jesus says "There was a certain rich man..." A prime indication that he was using pseudonym to refer to someone his audience knew, and who was still alive, and a thinly disguised one given the description of the rich man's garb.

So, because they were obeying levitical law that proves it didn't really happen? In Acts 21:22-26 Paul obeys Levitical law, thus, it was only symbolic? It didn't really happen? I don't see how obeying Levitical law means that an event is a parable an didn't really happen. Please explain this.

That there are everyday elements in the beginning of the tale that were familiar to Jesus' audience on a daily basis, evidences that the text is a parable, from which they could learn a lesson.

Further, obeying Levitical law in one respect doesn't mean you are obedient to God in other respects; so this in itself doesn't make the rich man on the same footing as Lazarus.

I'm confident that you had not consider that lepers had to stay outside the camp. Thus the rich man was not uncharitable to Lazarus by not bringing him to his table. Presumably, the rich man had disdain for the leper, as everyone else in Israel would have. All trusted in Moses law to keep them safe, and so all forget mercy.

1b. We are not told whether the rich man had had pity on Lazarus and provided food for him or not. Lazarus' expectation was that he would at least get access to the scraps from the rich man's table. As Lazarus was unclean he had to remain outside the gate, and it is presumed that the habit of the houshold was to throw the left overs out into the street for the stray dogs to eat (a practice that continues in some countries even today).

So what? How does this lack of information prove that the information we do have is ot about a real life event?

You are missing all the information that Jesus provided his audience. It was the type of scene they may have seen everyday. Another indication the text is a parable.

We are told that Abraham did not have pity on the rich man, Lazarus did not come to his aid with water.

Well whether they wanted to or not, there was that great gulf that seperated them. Just as there is a great gulf in everyday life between the righteous and unrighteous. Everyone listening would have understood the concept. Another bit of symbolism to indicate the tale is a parable.

So if not being told that the rich man had pity on Lazarus proves that it is a parable, then being told that Abraham and Lazarus had no pity on the rich man should tell you that it is a parable. This merely shows that your argument makes no sense!

Or it demonstrates you are blind to what was obvious to Jesus' audience in his symbolism, of what they were familiar with in their everyday life.

2. Jesus never preached that there was any comfort to be found in Abraham. Worth having a read of John 8:33-40 to get an idea of the Jews over reliance on Abraham.

And he doesn't do so in Luke 16 either.

Recommend you do some study to understand the Jewish conception of being in Abraham's bosom means. Imu, it was considered to be that part of sheol wherein the righteous sleep and waiting the ressurection.

Being in Abraham's bosom was simply referring to the position the rich man saw Lazarus in at the time, which proves only that believers can find Abraham and others like him in the kingdom of God as mentioned at Matthew 8:11.

According to scripture Jesus the Christ is our hope, not Abraham.

And even if he was teaching in Luke 16 that we could find a measure of comfort in Abraham, this would not contradict nothing in the Bible. It would just be another one of God's many blessings. Jesus doesn't have to teach it anywhere else; he only needs to say something once before I believe it!

Again in your rashness you miss what is being said. Note the rich man calls Abraham father and Abraham calls the rich man son, recognising him as being of his seed. There is no redemption in being of the seed of Abraham. As John the baptist put it "do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones".

3. The rich man thinks Abraham can mediate for him (but he can't). See 2.

So what?

The Jews put their faith in Abraham and Moses. Note John 8:31-40 "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, 'You will be made free'?...I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you...."

4. The rich man thinks Abraham can raise the dead (it doesn't say whether he can or can't). See 2.

It says that he won't!

Actually it doesn't say that he won't, nor does it say whether he could or couldn't. Abraham avoids the request and says even if someone did rise from the dead his father and five brothers wouldn't believe. Another instance of psuedonyms that point to the identity of the rich man. Another indication that we have a parable. Jesus point is in the last verse.

5. The tale is full of pseudonyms eg: the father and the five brothers, may be a reference to Annas & his sons. If so, the rich man is a pseudonym for Caiaphas who was still alive at the time of the telling. Many a commentator remarks on the apparel described in Luke 16:16 as describing the high priests garb.

First you say that it is full of pseudonyms, then you say may be, and if...hmmm. You don't sound to sure.

Jesus was using pseudonyms because the rich man in the story was alive and kicking in this world, and known to his audience. Whether he was refering to Caiaphas or one of his brothers is anyone's guess. At some stage they were all high priests, and two had been before Caiaphas ascended. Note Acts 4:6 "Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest".

6. Luke 16:31 describes the viewpoint of the Saduccees, which indicates the rich man, his father and brothers are Sadducees. See 5.

And the Sadducees are the only people who could believe this?

In the context of Jesus' audience, only the Sadducees denied there was an after life so disparged the Pharisees who said there was and if one was obedient to the law there would be a resurrection.

A man can be rich and be a Sadducee.

Indeed! And the Sadducees because of their hereditary right to control the temple and the sacrifices were the richest people in Israel.

None of this shows the account is not literal. In fact, it shows that it was, because it is using things that the diciples are familiar with, which goes back to my claim that since the parables of Jesus are drawn from real life experience, that they represent real people and places and experience. You yourself are proving this by showing the elements in the account to be referring to very real things like the high priests official garb, the Sadducess, etc. So too, the flames of hades came from reality.

That Jesus provides information that was common knowledge to his audience concerning a living person who they knew well, it is not perculiar that he used a pseudonym. And demonstrates that Jesus was giving a parable with a message (see last verse).

7. The Sadducees didn't believe in an after life and therefore didn't believe in a resurrection, yet the rich man finds himself in an after life, so we have irony and satire.

Acts 12:22-23, the people thought Herod was god, and just as they proclaimed him a god, the angel of the Lord killed him, so we have an irony here, a satire.

Nope. To the Jewish mind, especially if one was familiar with the teachings of the prophets, we have an inevitablity. In a tale when a situation is not within the anticipation of the audience it is called irony. Ironies are used to teach a lesson or moral. When the irony causes amusement we have a satire.

8. The Pharisees who did believe in an after life, believed you could only get the benefits from obedience to the law. The rich man and Lazarus were obeying the law but received different outcomes.

Which shows that righteousness is not by means of the law, but due to faith.(Rom 3:20-24)

We agree on that. But it wasn't the viewpoint of Jesus' listeners at the time.

And it doesn't say they both had faith in Christ, does it?

Why would it! The whole point of the tale is in the last verse. We know what happened, and it was future to the time of the tale. Even the night before Jesus' execution his apostole's hadn't anticipated his death and resurrection. They were in disbelief until he appeared to them.

Also, the account doesn't say they were obeying the whole law, only mentions a few aspects of it that they obeyed. I don't see how obeying part of the law means that their experiences were ane less real. Please explain, cause I don't get it.

See Luke 16:10 "He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much..."

9. Both the Sadducees & Pharisees believed that the sick, lame etc were sinners and being punished by God. So would have assumed, if there were partitions in hades, Lazarus would go to the compartment that had torments, whilst the pious rich man (in their eyes) would experience bliss. The opposite outcomes are related.

They also beleived Jesus was a blashpemer and had a demon.

Not all them. Some of Jesus' disciples were rulers of the Pharisees. Jesus' tale is well constructed and challenges his audiences preconceptions. A sure indication the text is a parable.

10. The rich man is not named.

Wow....I'm in shock!!!

You make a big thing out of Jesus naming Abraham and Lazarus, and Jesus doesn't elsewhere give names to his characters. If it was a real event, with real people, why didn't he named the rich man? Didn't he know it? The simplest answer is he was using someone still alive as his focus of the moral he delivers in the last verse..

11. Lazarus was a common name in the era. In Hebrew the name is Eleazar. What is of more importance than the name is the meaning of the name = "God is my help". Which suggests that Lazarus received his reward because he trusted in God.

So because Lazarus is a common name and means "God is my help" that proves his experience in Abraham's bosom wasn't literal?

Nope. The Jews then and now understand to be in Abraham's bosom is to have the pomise of the resurrection.

All the Christian churches have taught that Lazarus trusted in God and the rich man trusted in his riches and so their fate. This explanation, with which I agree, gives the justification for the fates.

Well, in John 11 Jesus raises someone names Lazarus from the dead. Since Lazarus is a common name and means "God is my help" can we conclude that his resurrection in John 11 is a parable?

Luke 13:31-33 indicates that Jesus told the tale in the last three days of his life. Lazarus was alive and kicking about when Jesus told the tale. Another indication that the tale is a parable.

There is a chance that Jesus had Lazarus, brother of Martha, in mind when he had told the tale. John 12:10-11 tells us that "the chief priests plotted to put Lazarus to death because on account of him many of the Jews went away and believed in Jesus." Many commentators suggest it would be peculiar for Jesus to further endanger one whom he loved (Jn 11:5) by directly mentioning him in the tale. They conclude that the name was so common few would have made the association. I don't think it matters either way, for from John 11:21-26 we can be sure Lazarus was gauranteed the resurrection of the just = "Jesus said to [Martha], "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live."

many Christian scholars believe that the naming of the poor man is just a Lukan embellishment (or an embellishment by his sources). A possible reason that Jesus may not have named Lazarus in the original telling of the tale is often proposed = it deflected from Jesus and his message. John 12:9 "...a great many of the Jews knew that He was there [at Lazarus' home in Betany]; and they came, not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might also see Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead". Now, in the tale Jesus doesn't have Lazarus as being raised from the dead and it is traditional in all the Christian churches to understand the last verse of the tale as a reference to Jesus' future resurrection.

12. The rich man is often depicted by commentators as trusting in his riches. Thus we have a contrast with Lazarus who trusted in God. See 11.

The account in Luke 16 doesn't mention them trusting in anything. I don't go by what commentators say, I go by the word of God. Hmmm,,,,are you providing a reason why one went to hell and the other didn't?

They both went to hades/sheol as do all men when the die, even Jesus did so! And yes, I am giving the reason why there was such a wide gulf between the righteous and unrighteous, as the tale depicts.

13. In Jesus' parables he uses everyday observable things as an example. The scenario (or similar) given at Luke 16:19-22 would have been observable in that day and age.

This proves my point further. It was based on reality, not fictitious myth.

It offers nothing to your opinion, unless of course you believe everyone of Jesus' parables depicted a real event, as opposed to a common day senario.

14. In Jesus' parables he uses ideas familiar to the Jews. The scenario (or similar) given at Luke 16:23-23 are known to have been taught by the Pharisees. Also there were the tales brought over from babylon and similar Greek/Roman ideas that were popular at the time.

Can you show me one example of Jesus utilizing a myth from any pagan or false religion that was not literally true? Luke 16:19-31 seems to be the only exception in all of Scripture, and this rasies question marks. Jesus was not in the business of borrowing tall tales that never happened.

But he was in the habit of correcting the tall tales of the Pharisees. It is worth observing that this tale was directed at the Pharisees (Luke 16:14-31) whereas the previous tale was directed at his disciples (Luke 16:1-13), albeit both groups were listening in when the two tales were taught.

15. Jesus mentions the law and the prophets several times in Luke 16. The law and the prophets do not speak of divisions in hades/sheol, nor that the righteous dead are in bliss and the unrighteous dead are in torment, nor that there is conscious existance after death (the exact opposite actually).

Wow, well, the law and the prophets do not say it was Christ who was with the Israelites in their journey but the NT confirms it. (1 Cor 10:4)

Hmmm. As Calvin, Luther and all churchmen before them taught, Jesus is the messenger of YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, the Logos.

If Jesus says that there is concisousness after death, I believe him.

It seems to have escaped your attention that Lazarus is totally inactive while in Abraham's bosom. Undoubtedly asleep in death. The rich man is awake in his torments. A common enougth scenario in the prophets, where the kings of the earth awake to greet and scorn another king brought down to sheol. You invoked a point I had previously missed (no. 17), the only people every mentioned as coming to consciousness in the prophets are the rulers of the world.

It's that simple. Jesus tells us, "fear not them who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul." (Matt 10:28) Then he mentions "both soul and body," showing that the soul is not the body, but is something else which survives the death of the body.

Haven't a problem with the soul seperating from the body.

Revelation 6:9-11 tells us that the soul of men who have died are in heaven still alive.

Rev 6:11 tells them to go back to sleep and wait a little while longer.

Rev 6:9 tells us that they are "under the altar", thus not in the presence of God.

Philippians 1:21 tells us that to die is gain. Unconsciousness, a gain? No, not unconsciousness, but the departing to be with Christ (vss 22-24). While in the flesh we are absent from the Lord, but when we loose this physical body we will be present with him. (2 Cor 5:6-8)

Romans 8, those who have the spirit of Christ are already with him, and dead to the world. No need to die to be with Christ.

Those cast into the fire suffer consciously Matt. 13:41-42, "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Have a look at Mt 13:40 to get the context. "...as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age". It would have been observable to Jesus' audience that when the tares burn they are turned to ash. To imagine being thrown alive into the fire would invoke thoughts of screams, not weeping and gnashing of teeth. "in that place" refers to the kingdom mentioned in the previous verse, and the gathering of "all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness". These knowing their judgement weep and gnash their teeth as they anticipate their destruction.

Elsewhere Jesus uses the phrase "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" for those thrown into the darkness and await their judgement (eg: Mt8:12)

See also Matt. 13:50. If hell is just the grave, then there can be no weeping and nashing of teeth there. This clearly refers to a place of conscious torment.

As Jesus is teaching about the end times and the seperation of the just and unjust (vs49-50) the "furnace of fire" in vs50 is figurative of the lake of fire in Rev 20. It definately isn't a reference to hades/Sheol, the abode of the dead.

Rev. 14:9-11, "And another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." See also, Rev. 21:8. If they are totally unconscious, how is it that they have no rest day or night? How is it they are tormented?

I'm sure you know that sulphur (brimstone) has been used as a disinfectant from ancient times. There is significance in fire and sulphur being associated with the wrath of God, in the OT his wrath is described as a consuming fire.

If you have a read of Rev 21:25; 22:5 there is no night when the kingdom comes. So how do you explain "they have no rest day or night"?

At Gen 8:22 after the flood, YHWH says "While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease." Now notice Rev 21:1-4 where we have a new heavens and a new earth, and there will be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.

The usual explanation for "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever", is that it illustrates a one off event that has a perpetual result.

16. Jesus was preaching the kingdom (vs16), and because the religious leaders didn't hear the law and the prophets they wouldn't hear him, and rejected his teachings, especially the ones that criticised them

He wasn't preaching about the kingdom in the following verses after 16. In fact, when speaking of the kingdom, Jesus is plain to say things like "the kingdom of heaven is like." He makes no such preface to the rich man and Lazarus account. You are speculating.

I was careless in my phrasing. Luke 16:16 says "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached..."

The point of the tale is in its last verse "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead". Jesus preached the kingdom to come not the law and the prophets, but it was the law and the prophets that made witness of him. Because the Pharisees preferred their oral traditions they ignored the law and the prophets (vs17-18), so couldn't hear him or receive him (though some did)...

I trust you are aware that the Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch as scripture, rejecting all other writings, especially the prophets. This would have been commonly known to all of Jesus' audience. The Pharisses did accept the Law and the prophets, but added their oral traditions to them. One of their ideas was anyone that claims to be the Messiah, isn't the Messiah - one of the reasons Jesus never directly revealed himself as the Christ to any Jew (though he did to a woman of Samaria - Jn 4:25-26). Even the disciples had to come to the conclusion by revelation (Mt 16:17).

So we have a double wammy in the last verse. The Sadduceees were blind because they rejected the prophets, the Pharisees were blind because they added to the Law & the Prophets. Neither would accept his resurrection.

Pay particular attention to Matthew 13:34 "Jesus said nothing to the crowds without a parable". In Luke 16, Jesus is addressing the crowds, not having a private discussion with his disciples.

So everything Jesus said to crowds were all parables? You can't be serious! You don't believe the whole sermon on the mount is a parable, do you?

Nope. The sermon on the mount was a series of sayings.

A parable is a succinct story, in prose or verse, that provides a lesson that the listeners have to discern (ie: the lesson isn't always obvious).

__________

May the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, guard your heart and mind through Christ Jesus. (Phil 4:7)

[apostoli]

Rev 24 is talking about conditions in the new heavens and new earth. Death (physical death) will not exist there. But the lake of fire is not in the new heavens ot earth, but elsewhere!

The scriptures describe God as a consuming fire (Deut 4:24; Hebrews 12:29). So why wouldn't the lake of fire be God himself?

Psalm 21:9 pedicts "You shall make them as a fiery oven in the time of Your anger; The LORD shall swallow them up in His wrath, And the fire shall devour them".

[reece1984]

Like the apostles you appear to have trouble understanding Jesus' meaning. They had to ask him to explain...which he did (Mt 15:15-19). It is not what you do but why you do it, your hearts inclination (motivation).

You of all people should know that Moses never gave an instruction to wash your hands before eating. This was a tradition of the Jewish elders (Mark 7:3-4). Thus Mt 15:20, eating without washing the hands isn't an offense.

While Christians aren't subject to Moses dietry laws, there are still parts of the world where it is sensible to follow them for your physical health (to avoid worm infestation, dysentery and/or food poisoning).

There is no indication in Matthew 15 that Jesus had Moses in mind, but he did have the Pharisees attachment to their traditions firmly in mind. He calls them blind leaders of the blind (vs14)

I never said anything about Jesus having Moses in mind, did I? The point I was making is that Jesus spoke the truth, and he wasn't being symbolic about it! What u eat doesn't defile u! Period! Mark 7:15-19, not verse 19 "he declared all foods clean." That is, food eaten with washed or unwased hands, foods mentioned in the law, any food, all foods, Jesus declared them clean. Eating with nwahsed hands doesn't make u unclean. There was nothing symbolic about it!

[apostoli]

Hello Reece,

YOu qoted Matt 15:10-12, but that is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH! No food at all can defile man spiritually, it is the things he says that will defile him. The problem was ceremonnial uncleanness. ALso, food that is properly cooked does not defile a person. Jesus knew the law of Moses was comming to an end.

Like the apostles you appear to have trouble understanding Jesus' meaning. They had to ask him to explain...which he did (Mt 15:15-19). It is not what you do but why you do it, your hearts inclination (motivation).

You of all people should know that Moses never gave an instruction to wash your hands before eating. This was a tradition of the Jewish elders (Mark 7:3-4). Thus Mt 15:20, eating without washing the hands isn't an offense.

While Christians aren't subject to Moses dietry laws, there are still parts of the world where it is sensible to follow them for your physical health (to avoid worm infestation, dysentery and/or food poisoning).

There is no indication in Matthew 15 that Jesus had Moses in mind, but he did have the Pharisees attachment to their traditions firmly in mind. He calls them blind leaders of the blind (vs14)

I never said anything about Jesus having Moses in mind, did I?

You certainly implied it! See your post #47 which I've quoted above.

The point I was making is that Jesus spoke the truth, and he wasn't being symbolic about it! What u eat doesn't defile u! Period!

Jesus doesn't even mention food in his teaching except in vs19 where he associates it with excrement.

There are plenty of foods and liquids that will physically hurt you, and even kill you, if taken in excess. Likewise there are substances you might ingest that can destroy you spiritually if you develop a dependency on them.

Jesus says, it isn't what we take in that defiles us, it is what comes out of us that defiles you, and he doesn't confine his statement to one's spirituality. (Mk 7:15) The principle extends to your reputation, peoples reaction to you and how you interact with other people. In vs21 he explains "out of the heart of men, proceed[s] evil..."

Mark 7:15-19, not verse 19 "he declared all foods clean.

No mention of it in Mark. He does suggest that because the impurities in food are extracted and then excreted, what remains in the body is purified. (vs19)

His main point is of course is that what enters your heart is what defiles you. What enters your stomach is ultimately excreted. (vs19) Pay attention to vs20 and the play on words...


Mark 7:14-23

When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear Me, everyone, and understand: There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!

When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. So He said to them, Are you thus without understanding also? [color=red]Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated[/b], thus purifying all foods?

And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man."

That is, food eaten with washed or unwased hands, foods mentioned in the law, any food, all foods, Jesus declared them clean.

Not a word about it in matthew or Mark.

Eating with unwashed hands doesn't make u unclean.

But it could make you sick, especially if your hands have fecal contamination. Have a read of Mark 7:1-23, Jesus not once says the disciples shouldn't have washed their hands before eating. He criticised the Pharaisees for requiring wands be washed "in a special way" (vs3). "The Pharisees and scribes asked Him: Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders..."
(vs5) This is the issue Jesus is addressing! In vs9 Jesus says of them "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition..."

There was nothing symbolic about it!

If Jesus' meaning was obvious, then why did the disciples need it explained?

If you hadn't stopped reading at vs19, and continued to vs23 you would have received Jesus' message.

[apostoli]

i am intrigued by ur responses on "hell"...i would like to have a privat debate with u, not on hell itself, but on the sate of the dead, (wheather they are conscious or not, that is, do the spirit and (or) soul survive the death of the body) and the lake of fire, Gehenna.

i think u make a lot of assumptions, and i wonder about ur method of interpretation when it comes to them. for example, when jesus says that x happened, how do u know when it is NOT a parable? or do u just ASSUME they are ALL parable? we can have it here if u prefer, but i would prefer via my email, daleyveneita@live.com

Hi reece1984,

I'm not fussed, here or privately we can discuss. I've sent you a reply to your email address, but thought it needful to repeat my reply to you here as well, so the viewers don't think you have ignored my last post...and so if anyone else is interested to open the discussion...
______________

Actually I don't make any assumptions. I attempt to take what scripture says (in the original languages) without adding to it. Scripture, both OT & NT, whenever the dead are spoken of are said to be as asleep, totally inactive, knowing nothing. The Roman/Greek/Babylonian speculations that we have inherited are just that, speculations. And those speculations are based on man's idea of justice, not Gods', thus I cited to you Ezekiel 18.

You seem not not understand the difference between Jesus' sayings, teachings and parables. Luke 14-17 gives us a series of teachings & parables. Every Christian scholar recognises Luke 15-16 as a group of five interconnected parables directed at correcting the Pharisees and the Scribes viewpoint (Luke 15:1&2 make that obvious). In the interpretation of the second parable in Luke 16 (the 5th in the series) you'd do well to read Luke 17:1 "He said to His disciples: It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!" (NASB). This is a direct reference to the parable and the teachings of the Pharisees.

on the state of the dead, (whether they are conscious or not, that is, do the spirit and (or) soul survive the death of the body) and the lake of fire, Gehenna.

I presume something of us survives death, even if it is only God's memory of us. It is something the bible doesn't define, and only discusses in poetic terms, so I don't worry about it! What happens to those not in the book of life is not my concern, so I don't worry about it!

All of Jesus' references to Gehenna and the furnance, depict images of complete destruction. So that is a possibility. Revelation 21 says the former things pass away, and I take that literally. Revelation 21:7&8 are worth considering...

[apostoli]

I thought it useful to our general community to review the initial conversation between Reece1984 and myself. Reece so far has demonstrated in my opinion a very infanitle perspective. I'd appreciate input from a mature christian...

____________

As I consistantly repeat: I have no problem with the idea that something of us is preserved after death, even if that something is simply the memory of us in the book of life (memory of God). Albeit, there is nothing in scripture that supports the idea that we are comprised of multiple substantialities. And more importantly, there is nothing in scripture that supports the idea that a part of us has unconditional immortalitly (Mt 10:20 indicates the soul can die). The scriptures do tell us, the penalty of sin is death, and that all of mankind sins. Until the resurrection, in scripture, there is no indication of reward or punishment of the dead, let alone consciousness of some substantiality that seperates from us on death.

Matt 10:28 mentions a part of us called the soul that men cannot kill.

But it doesn't define what the soul is! As rhetoric it could simply refer to faith, though I conceive it as faith in the promise of the resurrection. Personally I have no time for superstition: Scripture says God created man from the dust and breathed into him and he became a living soul. I have faith that God will recreate or reconstitute me from my scattered atoms, in whatever form he desires...A.Paul says that as we are is like a seed, we will receive another form...

In the OT it says God gave the first man breathe (lifeforce), and man became a living soul (nephesh). In the KJV nephesh is translated soul 475 times (67%) or life 117 (15%). In the OT nephesh is simply a reference to a person, and is not distinct from the person.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Concerning Mt 10:28 you'd do well to understand Jesus' words. As Ezekiel put it "the soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ez 18:4,20). In simple terms: it is God that gives life to a person, and only God can remove from you the promise of a resurrection.

The words in the Hebrew (nephesh) & Greek (psychē) both mean breathe (lifeforce). In the OT & NT they are variously translated spirit or soul. There is not a single scripture that indicates that there is a distinctive substantiality (hypostasis) that survives us after death.

This part [the soul] is said to be in heaven after the bodies of the faithful are dead in Revelation 6:9-11,

You really should learn to pay attention to what is written in scripture.. Rev 6:9-11 makes no mention of heaven! It does mention the vision of the alter! Pointedly, the lifeforces (tas phychas) mentioned, are only that of those "slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held". More pointedly, these are not in the presence of God but under the alter (thysiastērion). The symbolism is significant! That these are under the alter indicates their sacrifice/s have not as yet been received by God! In the symbolism of this vision these souls are told to sleep (anapauō=cease from all activity) for a little while longer.

[quote=reece1984]and they were depicted as beign very conscious.

In the OT, in the prophets, we have the rulers of the earth welcoming another ruler thrown down by God into Sheol. No one else is ever said to be active in death. In Revelation we have the future rulers active, those who have earned their thrones by having been killed for their faith. No one else in this poetic illusions are said to be active in death. At Rev 6:11 those under the alter are told to cease their complaining and sleep (anapauō=cease from all activity)!

You're not gonna tell me that is a parable, are you?

I really wish you would make an attempt to act with Christian maturity...

The Revelation of John is not a teaching, saying, parable or a proverb, it is a vision (Rev 1:10). As a vision its contents are not literal but symbolic, and being symbolic it has to be interpretated. I'm sure you and I would agree that the Lamb is a reference to Jesus Christ (?)

In fact, Moses was seen talking to Jesus on the mount of transfiguration long after Moses had died and was buried, and the OT records no resurrection for Moses, so this must have been his spirit or soul talking to Jesus. (Matt 17:3-4)

More important than Moses in the vision of the transfiguration is Elisha's appearance. Because of your dogmatic focus, I presume it has totally escaped you why it is only Moses & Elisha that are seen in the vision of the glorified Christ (?) And because of your dogmatic focus, I presume it has totally escaped you the especial significance of the selection (mention) of the three deciples who received the vision (?)

It is worth comparing Matthew's account with Luke's (and/or Mark's). Luke has the disciples "heavily asleep" while Jesus prays (Lk 9:28-32) and the transfiguration of Jesus occurs and Moses & Elisha "appeared in glory and spoke of the decease" Jesus would "accomplish in Jerusalem". If you have a knowledge of the OT and Jesus teachings you might get something from this vision the disciples experienced, that apparently escapes you at this moment...

In Mt 16, Peter declares that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus says no man had revealed this to Peter but his Father (Mt 16:13-17). Despite this and his witnessing the transfiguration, Peter denied Jesus three times. Have a think upon that...

You claim that the lake of fire represents complete destruction.

I'm open on the matter. If the lake is to be equated with gehenna or the furnance into which the tares are thrown then complete destruction of current form is indicated. The reality though is that nothing is ever completely eliminated from existence. Things that are burnt are merely transformed (non-metals usually into ash, metals are purified).

Well, if those thrown into it were annihilated out of existence in Revelation 19:20, then how is that that 1000 years later (Rev 20:13) they are still to be tormented further? "THEY will be tormented." (Rev 20:10) How can you torment someone who does not exist? If they are annihilated out of existence, they cannot be tormented day and night forever and ever! All this teachs consciousness after death, and both reward and punishment after death.

In Revelation it is only the beastie, false prophet and the devil that are said to be tormented. As I suggested previously, those not in the book of life have the same fate as the death and hades out of which they were resurrected (Rev 20:13-15). The elimination of death and hades is called the second death (vs14). Rev 21:8 says "[various classes of sinners]...their place will be in the the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." The imagery of burning sulfur is one of cleansing - sulfur having been used as a disinfectant for thousands of years.

Daniel 12:2 says that some will rise in the resurrection to everlating life, so their experience of life will be everlasting; but others will rise to everlasting contempt, so their experience of contempt will also be everlasting! They will surely be alive if they are to experience this everlasting contempt!

Daniel 12:2 also indicates that not everyone will be resurrected. Some in Daniel obviously remain dead. In Revelation we have the equivalent in what is called the second death (Rev 20:6,14; 21:8).

May you find the peace in Christ, that his Father has granted us...

[James-Scott]

I believe in litral hellfire and the survival of the spirit and soul after the body dies. Anyone care to debate the opposite view? email me daleyveneita@live.com

I do have an opposite view. I believe eternal hellfire is the negative experience of the love of God. I don't know what happens after a person dies, and I don't think anyone really knows for sure. However, I do dogmatically "look for the resurrection of the dead, and the Life of the Age to come."
I probably wouldn't debate these views because I don't see how any good could come from it.

[Glad-iator]

Please do not be deceived, God has prepared a place for the wicked of eternal torment.

Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.