What's your view on Hell?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by 1 God

What do the 1st 3 words say? Now, are these 3 words in the rich man/Lazarus explanation of Jesus?

To answer your question. Mark 4:11-12

No you didn’t answer my question, you just dodged it. You gave me a definition based on whether it was hidden to the “hardened hearts”. I showed you a counter-example and asked you if you could explain it. If you can’t then your definition is wrong, and then you truly don’t know what a parable is, so you are not in the position to keep saying that the Lazarus story is not a parable.
I hope this thread makes you go and read more and learn.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

As I previously posted, the Old Testament clearly and unequivocally teaches there is no consciousness in death. This is the BIBLICAL doctrine of "the intermediate state" up to and including Jesus' time.

Then Jesus, in the middle of a series of parables directed against the scribes and Pharisees, attacking their notions of their own self importance, suddenly has a boomer moment and drifts off into a reverie about some dead beggar named Lazarus and some unnamed rich guy and their adventures in the afterlife?

Let's assume that is true. A few questions naturally arise.

1. Why was nobody startled about this clearly unbiblical portrayal of the afterlife? There is no denying the OT description of the after-death state and the Rich Man and Lazarus story are contradictory and incompatible, if both are actually describing what happens after death. If the Pharisees believed the Bible, they would have said Jesus was introducing Greek myths to the people. The disciples should have been like "Wait, huh? Where did all this stuff come from?" Because try as one might, there is no Abraham's bosom, angels carrying away the dead, a great chasm, separated compartments, crying whining tormented wicked, and righteous saints getting pats on the head from Father Abraham, in the Old Testament (the Bible in the first century). So why does everyone take it in stride? Nobody is startled by the description of the after death state? Almost like they are familiar with the description already? Almost like they heard it before? How is that?

2. Why does the story sound exactly like the kind of stories common among pagan Greeks, and so unlike the Bible's prior teaching on the subject?

3. Why is the story simply a slight variation of several rabbinic/talmudic stories regarding a dead rich guy and a dead beggar/poor person who die and go to separate-but-close compartments in hades?

4. Why did pharisees already believe in two compartments in hades for the dead, one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous, separated from each other by a chasm or gulf, yet close enough for the inhabitants to converse? Where did they get that idea from?

5. Why do the rabbinic pharisee versions of the same story serve a literary purpose of illustrating the importance of certain moral values and ethical behaviours regarding "social justice" and are NOT used to teach about the cosmology of hades/sheol or the literal characteristics of the intermediate or after-death state?

There are more questions, of course, and none of these are for Sean/Rene, but I'll stop here for now.

I've been meaning to read this one. Do you have the rabbinical primary sources for the material you referred to here?

I have this: https://www.sefaria.org/The_Antiquit...h=all&lang2=en

and this:

https://www.sefaria.org/The_War_of_t...h=all&lang2=en

[1 God]

Originally Posted by coksiw

No you didn’t answer my question, you just dodged it. You gave me a definition based on whether it was hidden to the “hardened hearts”. I showed you a counter-example and asked you if you could explain it. If you can’t then your definition is wrong, and then you truly don’t know what a parable is, so you are not in the position to keep saying that the Lazarus story is not a parable.
I hope this thread makes you go and read more and learn.

The Lazarus story is not a parable. Only a small minority of new age believers are teaching that hell is not a place of torment and the story of Lazarus is a parable. This originated in the teachings of Charles Russell. It is just reaching into faux apostolic circles now. We can believe what we want, but I will always believe that Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot etc. went straight to hell. And no, the Pharisees did not understand the spiritual teachings of Jesus. They only heard them and parts of them were vaguely understood. Note, when Jesus said destroy this temple and I will raise it in three days. The Pharisees heard it but they distorted it. This was their MO.

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

[Amanah]

So, it's not a parable, but, we can't understand it because it's a parable????

[1 God]

No, you understood it the first time you heard it in your life. Some over the years talked you into believing it was a parable.

[Amanah]

I thought of you when I read this quote from "Conditional Immortality & Hell: A Biblical Response to Traditional Teaching" by D. Barry -

"What about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16? The teaching of "conditional immortality" means that the soul of man is finally destroyed on the 'Day of Judgment' - at the end of this age. Therefore, technically speaking, this scripture has no bearing on this doctrine. However, as a side note, there is sufficient reason for understanding this passage of scripture as a parable.

1) The previous four stories were all parables (Luke 15:4, 15:8, 15:11, 16:1) so this story is obviously in a long string of parables.

2) The parable in Luke 16:1, which He just told them, also began with the exact same words "There was a certain rich man," (Luke 16:1). That story, 'the parable of the shrewd accountant', is clearly a parable (though not labeled as such). These two stories both have to do with "mammon" (money) and the misuse of it. If the first is clearly a parable, why not the second, for it is in the exact same section of scripture?

3) The point of the parable is at the end, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:31). He told them this parable to make the point that, "No matter what anyone tells them (i.e. the Pharisees), they will never believe in me because they refuse to believe even Moses and the prophets." Jesus just said money was their god (verse 14). He made a point and backs it up with a parable. The ultimate point of this parable is that their unbelief is due to money – not lack of evidence.

4) Matthew tells us, "and without a parable spake he not unto them:" (Matthew 13:34)

5) The Greek word used in this passage is not Gehenna (hell), but it is Hades (temporary abode of the dead). It is a different Greek word. A word that most translators mistranslate as "hell". (note: for an excellent study on this passage and Hades – visit www.sheol-know.org ) Remember, Hades will be itself emptied and destroyed one day (Revelation 20:13 – Hades in Greek).

6) The great nineteenth century Hebrew Christian scholar Alfred Edersheim flatly states it is a parable…. "The Parable itself is strictly of the Pharisees and their relation to the 'publicans and sinners' whom they despised...their Pharisaic righteousness, which left poor Lazarus at their door to the dogs and to famine, not bestowing in him aught from their supposed rich festive banquets..... it will be necessary in the interpretation of this Parable to keep in mind, that its Parabolic details must not be exploited, nor doctrines of any kind derived from them, either as to the character of the other world...." (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah: Alfred Edersheim, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody Mass., 1993, p. 667.)

7) Inter-Varsity Press scholar Craig Keener and many other conservative commentators also call it a parable. "Some Jewish parables, including the rabbinic one mentioned at the beginning of this section, named a character or two.... But this parable specifies only economic inversion...." (Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, Downers Grove, Inter Varsity Press, 1993, p. 236) The list could go on and on, but suffice it to say that there are sufficient grounds for looking at this as a parable. Either way, let it be said again, that the teaching of "conditional immortality" means that the soul of man is finally destroyed on the 'Day of Judgment' - at the end of this age (Revelation 20:14). Therefore, technically speaking, this scripture has no bearing on the doctrine of conditional immortality, the destruction of the lost.

Start reading this book for free: https://a.co/e4g3zUV

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1 God

No, you understood it the first time you heard it in your life. Some over the years talked you into believing it was a parable.

That's funny. I don't recall EVER believing it was anything but a parable.

Have you ever posted on this forum with the username "Sean"?

[1 God]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I thought of you when I read this quote from "Conditional Immortality & Hell: A Biblical Response to Traditional Teaching" by D. Barry -

"What about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16? The teaching of "conditional immortality" means that the soul of man is finally destroyed on the 'Day of Judgment' - at the end of this age. Therefore, technically speaking, this scripture has no bearing on this doctrine. However, as a side note, there is sufficient reason for understanding this passage of scripture as a parable.

1) The previous four stories were all parables (Luke 15:4, 15:8, 15:11, 16:1) so this story is obviously in a long string of parables.

2) The parable in Luke 16:1, which He just told them, also began with the exact same words "There was a certain rich man," (Luke 16:1). That story, 'the parable of the shrewd accountant', is clearly a parable (though not labeled as such). These two stories both have to do with "mammon" (money) and the misuse of it. If the first is clearly a parable, why not the second, for it is in the exact same section of scripture?

3) The point of the parable is at the end, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:31). He told them this parable to make the point that, "No matter what anyone tells them (i.e. the Pharisees), they will never believe in me because they refuse to believe even Moses and the prophets." Jesus just said money was their god (verse 14). He made a point and backs it up with a parable. The ultimate point of this parable is that their unbelief is due to money – not lack of evidence.

4) Matthew tells us, "and without a parable spake he not unto them:" (Matthew 13:34)

5) The Greek word used in this passage is not Gehenna (hell), but it is Hades (temporary abode of the dead). It is a different Greek word. A word that most translators mistranslate as "hell". (note: for an excellent study on this passage and Hades – visit www.sheol-know.org ) Remember, Hades will be itself emptied and destroyed one day (Revelation 20:13 – Hades in Greek).

6) The great nineteenth century Hebrew Christian scholar Alfred Edersheim flatly states it is a parable…. "The Parable itself is strictly of the Pharisees and their relation to the 'publicans and sinners' whom they despised...their Pharisaic righteousness, which left poor Lazarus at their door to the dogs and to famine, not bestowing in him aught from their supposed rich festive banquets..... it will be necessary in the interpretation of this Parable to keep in mind, that its Parabolic details must not be exploited, nor doctrines of any kind derived from them, either as to the character of the other world...." (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah: Alfred Edersheim, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody Mass., 1993, p. 667.)

7) Inter-Varsity Press scholar Craig Keener and many other conservative commentators also call it a parable. "Some Jewish parables, including the rabbinic one mentioned at the beginning of this section, named a character or two.... But this parable specifies only economic inversion...." (Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, Downers Grove, Inter Varsity Press, 1993, p. 236) The list could go on and on, but suffice it to say that there are sufficient grounds for looking at this as a parable. Either way, let it be said again, that the teaching of "conditional immortality" means that the soul of man is finally destroyed on the 'Day of Judgment' - at the end of this age (Revelation 20:14). Therefore, technically speaking, this scripture has no bearing on the doctrine of conditional immortality, the destruction of the lost.

Start reading this book for free: https://a.co/e4g3zUV

Were parables fictitious stories or were they actual accounts that Jesus was speaking of? Could they have actually happened? Were they all too outlandish to be real events?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by 1 God

Were parables fictitious stories or were they actual accounts that Jesus was speaking of? Could they have actually happened? Were they all too outlandish to be real events?

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus can't be true because . . .
after death no one is conscious until the resurection of the just and then the resurection and annihilation of the unjust in Revelation 20.

People are not lying around dead looking at each other and requesting upgraded accommodations. That is totally fictitious.

Not to mention that Abraham can't hear and answer prayer.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus can't be true because . . .
after death no one is conscious until the resurection of the just and then the resurection and annihilation of the unjust in Revelation 20.

People are not lying around dead looking at each other and requesting upgraded accommodations. That is totally fictitious.

Not to mention that Abraham can't hear and answer prayer.

Amanah,
You are imposing a belief onto the text in order to redefine what the parable genre is. Parables are every day stories. Whether it happened or not it is not relevant for that genre.

Parables as used in ancient times are stories that can be made up but are true to life, i.e. they can potentially happen. Parables are all over the Bible. Jesus wasn't the first time to use them. If the story uses things that are not true to life, then it is a fable. Jesus didn't use fables.

That being said, parables can contain figures of speech, for example, Abraham's bosom was a well known metaphor of the place of rest of the souls of the righteous, like a father has his children in his bosom to make them rest.

For example, this is another parable with a figure of speech:

Matthew 25:24 (NKJV) 24 "Then he who had received the one talent came and said, 'Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed.

Literary Genres are language conventions set by those that speak it that sets the expectations of how to understand messages. For example, the people that hear a legal text being read know what to expect. The same when they listen to a poem, or a narrative. The parable genre sets clear expectations of its content and function. The content is true to life, and the function is to help you gain wisdom or understanding of some truth. Modern scholar didn't set it, the people that spoke the language did. They do not expect things not true to life in them, yet figure of speech are OK, which makes sense since we all use it in our day to day communication. Nevertheless, figures of speech don't make them fables.

Saying it is a parable because is not "true" because it doesn't fit a specific already formed theology, it is not an accurate statement, but rather even incorrect.