Rich man and Lazarus

[WhiteWings]

Firstborn.

I wouldn't be suprised that you are able to debunk the whole 70 pages within an hour.
But for 'the litte ones' like me an DeeDee I think the document looks real solid.
Without TM and similar sites I probably NEVER have figured out that eternal actually means age.
Same for several things from this paper.

However one thing I noticed right away and asked indirectly to  a pastor.
If people are in the 2 compartments they are already judged.
Then the white throne judgement comes to rejudge them.
Just like Jesus is gonna say "Whoops, sorry mister Adam I accidently kicked you into hell 6000 years ago. Should have been paradise"
I don't have the answer at hand right now but it was similar to the white throne judgement isn't really judgement but merely a chance for the doomed to kneel/bow before they go from hell to LoF

Anyway. It's certainly not a document Garry would put on his site.
But perhaps he should and then debunk every letter of it.
If I look in the mind of DeeDee I think I see she believes everything Gary and the majority of the members wrote.
But a 'looks good' document like the one mentioned brings doubt.
Therefore I would welcome a thread where it's ripped to shreds.
You know UR can also be supported by burning ET documents...

[DeeDee]

Yes, thats a very good idea WhiteWings  :thumbsup:

Sorry Firstborn, I only saw your post now. My eyes just originally caught WhiteWings post about calling it debunked - I did not see your reply above his.

Blessings
Dee

[WhiteWings]

You can find the document here
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_Max_Younce/Hell/toc.htm

I compiled it into word and pdf document.
Nothing added/removed.
Just better layout.
Pagenumbering and a TOC

Knock if needed

[albertx46]

hv u read the article at "http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellArticles/RichManParable.htm"?

[WhiteWings]

I just did....

I've read several (very) similar articles.
And they look/are well founded rebutals to the classic interpretation.

[DeeDee]

Here is another Bible Parable website:

http://www.biblemeanings.info/Parables/


Blessings
Dee

[WhiteWings]

You can find the document here
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_Max_Younce/Hell/toc.htm

I compiled it into word and pdf document.
Nothing added/removed.
Just better layout.
Pagenumbering and a TOC

Knock if needed

Also UR related is the part about Gibrah on that site:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_Max_Younce/Hell/01.htm

This site claims Sheol doesn't mean grave.
Gibrah means grave.

Sheol is not the grave.  A mistranslation--"Sheol" is also translated as grave approximately 25 times in the Old Testament, which has caused much confusion concerning the Doctrine of Hell.  Jehovah's Witnesses utilize this translational error to the fullest, claiming Hell is the grave and nothing more.  When we look at the Hebrew we find that the word "gibrah" is properly used for "grave."  "Gibrah" is translated throughout the Old testament as "grave, burying place, and sepulchre," and properly so.  Sheol is never in any case in the Old testament ever referring to grave, burying place or sepulchre; but, rather a place located in the center of the earth.  The grave, burying place and sepulchre houses our dead bodies, but Sheol is the compartment that contains the souls and spirits that will never die and which were in those earthly bodies.

Separate therad on this document here: http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=3589.0

[martincisneros]

You can find the document here
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_Max_Younce/Hell/toc.htm

I thought that this might be the green cheese under consideration.  I bumped into it last night online.  If anyone wants to debunk that website then the "Arguments Against" board is pretty much the place to unroll this roll of toilet paper and (http://martincisneros.freeforums.org/files/martincisneros/smilies/toilet.gif) :cloud9:

[LaurieJo]

But what about the Lazarus and the rich man?
If it's not a parable then hell exists with real fire.

It's a parable that those Jesus was addressing understood----made sinners rejoice and the Pharisee murderously mad.

Some video on youtube that I think have an excellent explanation:

Part 1...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMPHAD-HKGM
Part 2... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w9yv81NNas&feature=channel
Part 3... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1gwuqeEfYg&feature=channel
Part 4...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmZ0KpXxruc&feature=related

[Tony N]

WhiteWings,
Yes Jesus used sheep, which are real to prove a point.
Jesus used a poor woman who lost a coin to prove a point.
He used a son who was a prodigal and a pig farm to prove a point.
He use Hades to prove a point.

Yes Hades does exist but Hades is the grave or tomb. If you were to open up any tomb in all of Israel would even one of them have fire in them tormenting the entombed? No.

Is there an inseperable gulf inside any of these Hades or tombs? No.
Is there water flowing in any of these Hades or tombs? Maybe.
Are there angels? Yes. Do angels carry the dead to Hades? No, pallbearers do that. Never have angels carried dead Jews to their Hades or tomb.
Did Abraham exist? Yes.
Do rich people exist? Yes.
Do poor people exist? Yes.
Do dogs exist? Yes.

Does this help?

[Cat]

Hi everyone,  this is an interesting thread and one I have been wondering about , for the very reason White Wings is 'bothered':  why use 'consciousness after death' to show a point?  If Jesus had used all the ingredients but maybe, the Richman on his deathbed having a vision, or something like that (keeping it within more realistic terms) .  I am still bothered by the imagery Jesus chose. 

regards  Catherine

[Tony N]

Hi everyone,  this is an interesting thread and one I have been wondering about , for the very reason White Wings is 'bothered':  why use 'consciousness after death' to show a point?  regards  Catherine

The same reason trees talk in the Old Testament parables. Trees don't really talk, but only in parables. Dead people aren't conscious after death except in parables.

[Craig]

Hi everyone,  this is an interesting thread and one I have been wondering about , for the very reason White Wings is 'bothered':  why use 'consciousness after death' to show a point?  If Jesus had used all the ingredients but maybe, the Richman on his deathbed having a vision, or something like that (keeping it within more realistic terms) .  I am still bothered by the imagery Jesus chose. 

regards  Catherine

I understand that concern.

Knowing how the Hebrews believed concerning the afterlife also included all your generations; in the otherwords it wasn't talking about your personal life it was talking about the legacy you left for your children.

Read the parable again in this light and understand what happened to these 'rich men' and you would recognize it was far better to be the poor man.

I will give you an example, I am having huge financial problems. Though I own a car, own a computer, own a big screen TV, own a PS3, own a Xbox360, own my furniture, own my bed, own three tv's, own an entire kitchen, etc. I lost my job 2 months ago and haven't been able to find a new job that pays. However, I am okay because I owe no debt. All I pay is my rent and my car insurance and so I have no stress. I can take my time and find the job that fits me.

Then there is one who lived beyond their means, has a car, has a computer, has a big screen TV, has a PS3, has a Xbox360, has furniture, has a bed,  etc. all on credit and make continuous payments to their debt. They lost their job 2 months ago unable to find a new job that pays. However they owe debt and so they need to make payments on their debt, as well as living expenses. They have to settle for any job and slave to what the choose.

Hopefully that helps understand that legacy is one of Israel's understanding of the afterlife. What if the legacy could speak and warn them of what was to come for them...etc.

[Cat]

Hi Tony,  I've read nearly all the OT (I skipped the genealogies a bit) and I can't remember trees talking?  It has been a while since I read it.  Which verses show this?  cheers.

Hi SOtW,  yes this has helped actually.  Thanks.

[Tony N]

Hi Tony,  I've read nearly all the OT (I skipped the genealogies a bit) and I can't remember trees talking?  It has been a while since I read it.  Which verses show this?  cheers.

Hi SOtW,  yes this has helped actually.  Thanks.

Ask and ye shall receive:

Jdg 9:8-15  The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.  (9)  But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?  (10)  And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us.  (11)  But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?  (12)  Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us.  (13)  And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?  (14)  Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.  (15)  And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.


Just as a parable using trees and vines and brambles talking, so also a parable is used in the New Testament concerning dead people talking but, in reality, they really can't because:

Ecc 9:5 "For the living know that they shall die, But the dead know nothing whatsoever; There is no further hire for them; Indeed remembrance of them is forgotten."

Ecc 9:10 "All that your hand finds to do, do with your vigor, For there is no doing or devising or knowledge or wisdom In the Hades where you are going."

[Cat]

Thanks Tony.  This is more understable than the 'talking' ass or donkey somewhere else.  I know I'm going off topic a bit, but 'talking' animals used in a real situation, not like the trees in Judges, do sound far fetched and like a 'fable'.  I wonder why?  Anyway, I think I'm ok with the Lazarus story now. 

regards

Catherine

[martincisneros]

Thanks Tony.  This is more understable than the 'talking' ass or donkey somewhere else.  I know I'm going off topic a bit, but 'talking' animals used in a real situation, not like the trees in Judges, do sound far fetched and like a 'fable'.  I wonder why?  Anyway, I think I'm ok with the Lazarus story now. 

regards

Catherine

Actually, animals are quite easy to understand 'cause whatever they say, whenever they choose to say it, it's always from the heart.  It's people that I'm still trying to figure out.

[Tony N]

Thanks Tony.  This is more understable than the 'talking' ass or donkey somewhere else.  I know I'm going off topic a bit, but 'talking' animals used in a real situation, not like the trees in Judges, do sound far fetched and like a 'fable'.  I wonder why?  Anyway, I think I'm ok with the Lazarus story now. 

regards

Catherine

Catherine, did you never see Mr. Ed the talking horse? LOL!

My friend has some Parrots and if they squak too much he or his wife will spray them with the water bottle. It's funny because when one of them starts squacking the others will tell the bird "You're gonna get the water bottle!" And if they walk by them in the morning without letting them out they get sad and say: "You don't love me?" I wonder if the animals lost their communicability with humanity right after getting kicked out of the garden and the animals saw God killing an animal to clothe them?

Glad to have been helpful.

Tony

[Craig]

God didn't kill any animal to cloth them. :)

[martincisneros]

I wonder if the animals lost their communicability with humanity right after getting kicked out of the garden and the animals saw God killing an animal to clothe them?

I don't have the book titles and additional authors names handy, but Alexander Hislop isn't the only one that's written on Babylon and Nimrod.  It was believed by the ancients that Nimrod introduced savagery to the animals and got them killing each other and people.  After Noah's flood, the animals were just fearful/leery of us.  But it's making increasingly more and more sense to me from the Scriptures, historical anecdotes and research that I bump into every once in a while, and personal experience with animals that the Tower of Babel shut down over 50% of our communication ability with animals.  Circuses beat animals into subjection and use electrocution to get what they want out of animals.  And you've got varying levels of communication ability that people diligently cultivate on their own all of the way from being Whisperers to something approximating the Dr. Doolittle phenomenon.  (The history of Catholic saints is full of these instances.)  But I'm convinced that things got jacked up at Babel.  Much of this is going to be corrected before the millenium, both because of Bible prophecy and the outpouring of God's Spirit, and because of the ingenuity of man.  Have you seen the microchips that they've experimented with for dogs?  They can put something tiny on top of their throat (i.e. external, unless they've gone more advanced with this since I last heard about it) and they're able to get the animals to have a very very basic human vocabulary 'cause the little computer chip makes up the difference on their ability to form words.

Limiting man's ability to communicate with animals was probably with the intent of keeping people from hogging all of the animals in one little spot of the world, and also to protect the animals from the occult and other abuses that people have gotten into with animals over the centuries.  There's probably a thousand different reasons for man's ability to communicate with animals having needed to be interfered with.  The way a passage or two are written in the Mosaic law, and you'll know what I'm talking about if you think about it for a sec., it was probably also to protect the animals from people with overly romantic ideas. :icon_jokercolor: Animals have the unique position of having had the breath of life breathed into them by Adam prior to the fall.  God formed them of the dust of the earth and brought them to the man to see what he would call them and whatever the man called them, that's what they were.  If Adam's pattern prior to the fall was the same as Jesus' pattern in John 8, then the only thing that Adam called the animals was what God told him to call them.

Craig, what were you referring to?  Were you referring to God having clothed man with snake skin, since snakes shed and it would have represented man's nature at the time as well as it being a glimpse of the Cross?  Some people try to insist that there was an animal offering at that time, but an animal offering in the modern expectation of the word didn't happen for centuries.  Abel didn't even kill in simply presenting animals to the Lord.  People read killing and/or burned sacrifice into the earlier chapters of Genesis, but it doesn't exist in the text.  Children were presented to Jesus.  Does that mean that their throats were cut and...? LOL!  Cain got into it with God because #1 he was moved by visible signs of God's approval instead of simply believing that God was with them per the promise of God bruising the head of the serpent, and #2 he offered his veggies to God when he got around to it, very likely after things were spoiling, and #3 because he had an attitude with his brother and wasn't reconciled to his brother before coming and offering his offering as Jesus later said in the Sermon on the Mount.  It wasn't for want of blood that Cain met with God's disapproval.

[reFORMer]

Since this story was about something happening in death, and we know everybody will be raised from the dead, it isn't about "hell" as the popular doctrine about it goes.  If the rich man dies and goes to hell, and as some have argued with me, this is an example of what it's like, then it would mean everybody will get out of hell.  Death will be abolished.  Nobody will stay in death.

I don't consider us to not be conscious after we leave our physical body in death either.  I should add, however, that as we sleep here, we may also sleep there.  I've been out of my body and was aware of experiencing things in several circumstances.  At least one time I didn't know if I was in the body or out of the body.  Experience is not irrelevant.  When Paul spoke of one possessed by God into the 3rd heaven he says several times, "in the body or out of the body, I know not."  He couldn't have said this if he taught that apart from the body we are without consciousness.  What I understand in the story about Elijah, what the words could mean, is that his spirit went out of his body and saw the wrong that his servant did in accepting money and clothes from Naamam the Syrian who had been healed of leprosy.  Even suggesting these things are are experienced through God's Spirit rather than our own, (though it is by means of God either way) it still seems on certain occasions like the spirit goes out.

This Lazarus and Dives story can be used as a parable; but, it has no direct bearing on the right or wrong of eternal torment versus universal salvation debate, even if taken as a literal description of things experienced by human spirits after disembodiment in physical death, because all will be resurrected.

As an explanation borrowed from Sadhu Sundar Singh of the fire or flames, consider someone who is a drunkard leaving his body in death.  As a spirit he has no means to quench his thirst for liquor.  That lust will burn him.  There probably will also be demons attached to him that torment him which he must overcome.  That's why I tell people that suicide is not an answer.  It may be more difficult without a body.  We must undergo whatever it takes to be formed into what aspect of the image and likeness of God that He has determined is our lot.  Go as far as you can now in this life.  Who knows, you may even mature sufficiently to prevent death from removing you.  Never the less, with or without this body you are in the hands of the potter and cannot escape.  You must be brought to perfection by whatever means necessary.

[martincisneros]

I agree.  Rich man and Lazarus parable is completely irrelevant to whether or not punishments would be eternal.  I would argue that being a Pre-Cross story that it's not even necessarily proof of afterlife punishment, although I'm leaning towards afterlife punishments again as likely happening in some instances, although I'm not dogmatic about it.  It's useful evangelistically, though, to the wicked, to newer disciples of the Lord, and to the Church.  I've not been able to get around the moral relativism issue that too easily tries to piggy back off of the no afterlife punishment whatsoever message.  I tried to minimize it for a while, but it's just gotten glaring over the last few days.  If nothing else, "Hell" is a useful metaphor for the hard headed so you can say to them that their nonsense ends or else, and God's loving arms will be waiting on you after you get out of the washer and dryer.  I don't think that having a pattern of parabolic ministry similar to our Lord's is a bad thing.  In some ways it'll demonstrate a greater level of maturity, grasp of the truth, and skillfullness in teaching.

Who knows, you may even mature sufficiently to prevent death from removing you.

Do you suppose that that's possible for this life/age?  If so, once one has gone through whatever "processing" do you think it comes down to "perspective" and "decision"?  I've known of both Catholics and Pentecostals that have had the full spectrum of experiences from bilocation and levitation/flight to walking through walls virtually at will, but in their bodies and even with witnesses.  Yet, whether I think of 20th century examples or people from previous centuries -- they're all ""dead""  ""Heaven"" is all that many, many have known of the Gospel and where their heart's yearning has been to where immortality and death being under foot GENUINELY hasn't appealed to most Christians in a Biblical sense to where you could give them all of the powers of Superman from any/all movies, comic books, and television programs you can imagine and if many of them had the alternative of being a deliverer here or of going on to heaven and they'd drop dead in a heart beat!!  Certain levels of death involve selfishness when one is sufficiently in charge of their power to bless, have mastered their humility, and aren't allowing disobedience to flow from their mouths.

[DeeDee]

Actually, animals are quite easy to understand 'cause whatever they say, whenever they choose to say it, it's always from the heart.  It's people that I'm still trying to figure out.

I soooooooooooooooooooo agree with you  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup: :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

Actually, animals are quite easy to understand 'cause whatever they say, whenever they choose to say it, it's always from the heart.  It's people that I'm still trying to figure out.

I soooooooooooooooooooo agree with you  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup: :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:

Woooof Woof  :laughing7:

If eternal torment (ET) is so real why was it never preached in the OT?
The only (??) hellisch verse in the OT shown below refers to a 'state' on earth. Not in eternity/afterlife.
But lets assume it refers to ET  then God 'forgot' to mention ET for 3630 years (4166 BC(Adam) - Isaiah 535 BC)
Paul never mentioned ET in his letters or in Acts.

Isaiah 66:24  And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
=> Parable that uses the valley of Hinnom as an example.

[Tony N]

God didn't kill any animal to cloth them. :)

Well, Yahweh killed an animal, ripped the skin off of it, made tunics for A & E and showed them how to do it.

They were clothed in glory at first and able to approach Yahweh. After they sinned they lost that glory and were afraid to approach.

Gen 3:21 And making is Yahweh Elohim for Adam and for his wife tunics of skin, and is clothing them.

The next step was for Yahweh to cloth them and in so doing, via sacrifice of the animal that was used to clothe them, He was propitiated. This sacrifice was a picture of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God to cover the sins of the world (see 1 John 2:2).

Cain and Able were carrying on this sacrificial system given to them by their parents who received it of Yahweh after they sinned. But Cain, as we know, rebelled and would not bring an animal sacrifice and so was told to leave the area and hence be out of God's presence.

But this is far afield of the intent of this thread concerning the rich man and Lazarus.

Love,
Tony