What's your view on Hell?

[Amanah]

@Coksiw

Okay. Sweeping generalizations are probably not fair.

[1 God]

Put it this way, Jesus is teaching if you are rich and you let people starve at your gates of your mansion. You will perish in hell. Looks pretty simple to me.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by 1 God

Put it this way, Jesus is teaching if you are rich and you let people starve at your gates of your mansion. You will perish in hell. Looks pretty simple to me.

So you read that parable as in a literal sense?

I mean the way I’m reading this post of yours is, there is no reason why Jesus would use specific name in this parable, something he usually didn’t do. And the fact he uses Abraham, Lazarus, which means Eleazar in the Hebrew, stats that the rich man had 5 brothers (as did Judah). And you say it basically means if your rich and people die of hunger at your gates, you’re going to hell?

[1 God]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

So you read that parable as in a literal sense?

I mean the way I’m reading this post of yours is, there is no reason why Jesus would use specific name in this parable, something he usually didn’t do. And the fact he uses Abraham, Lazarus, which means Eleazar in the Hebrew, stats that the rich man had 5 brothers (as did Judah). And you say it basically means if your rich and people die of hunger at your gates, you’re going to hell?

It was no more a parable than Mark 16:16 was.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by 1 God

It was no more a parable than Mark 16:16 was.

Was it a parable? I’m not sure if it was or wasn’t. The best way I know of to tell if it was would be to figure out who He was addressing. Because He was known to address the multitude and it seems, especially the Pharisees and Sadducees in parables.

[10] And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
[11] He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

So, He spoke to the disciples differently than He spoke to the masses and especially the religious elite.

[34] All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
[35] That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

So, it begs the question, to whom was He speaking?

Luke.16

[1] And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

So He begins speaking to the disciples in Luke 16. But then the Pharisees seemed to be eavesdropping.

[14] And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
[15] And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Then it seems that He is talking to the Pharisees and the context is that they are covetous, which is certainly a moral issue.

I believe that this is a parable. I believe it is concerning morality. Both the Old and New Testament are consistent in caring for the poor as a moral obligation.

So that’s my opinion, for now. Someone is welcome to provide scripture to change my opinion though. I’ll listen.

[1 God]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Was it a parable? I’m not sure if it was or wasn’t. The best way I know of to tell if it was would be to figure out who He was addressing. Because He was known to address the multitude and it seems, especially the Pharisees and Sadducees in parables.

[10] And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
[11] He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

So, He spoke to the disciples differently than He spoke to the masses and especially the religious elite.

[34] All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
[35] That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

So, it begs the question, to whom was He speaking?

Luke.16

[1] And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

So He begins speaking to the disciples in Luke 16. But then the Pharisees seemed to be eavesdropping.

[14] And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
[15] And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Then it seems that He is talking to the Pharisees and the context is that they are covetous, which is certainly a moral issue.

I believe that this is a parable. I believe it is concerning morality. Both the Old and New Testament are consistent in caring for the poor as a moral obligation.

So that’s my opinion, for now. Someone is welcome to provide scripture to change my opinion though. I’ll listen.

Every parable that I know in the Bible is obvious. You have to ask yourself, how come I do not know if it is a parable or not? Easy, because it is not. If there is any question if it is or is not you have to realize there’s no evidence that it is. Think about it.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Was it a parable? I’m not sure if it was or wasn’t. The best way I know of to tell if it was would be to figure out who He was addressing. Because He was known to address the multitude and it seems, especially the Pharisees and Sadducees in parables.

[10] And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
[11] He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

So, He spoke to the disciples differently than He spoke to the masses and especially the religious elite.

[34] All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
[35] That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

So, it begs the question, to whom was He speaking?

Luke.16

[1] And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

So He begins speaking to the disciples in Luke 16. But then the Pharisees seemed to be eavesdropping.

[14] And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
[15] And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Then it seems that He is talking to the Pharisees and the context is that they are covetous, which is certainly a moral issue.

I believe that this is a parable. I believe it is concerning morality. Both the Old and New Testament are consistent in caring for the poor as a moral obligation.

So that’s my opinion, for now. Someone is welcome to provide scripture to change my opinion though. I’ll listen.

Good post.

Some have pointed out here that the lesson of the story is rich go to hell and homeless go to heaven. This story has a context. Jesus has been to this point rebuking the Pharisees of lacking mercy and not doing alms for the poor. And now we are presented with this parable, which Jesus starts by illustrating a very sharp contrast between a rich man and a homeless man, and a rich man that doesn't comfort the homeless man. All of this in the context of the people of God, Israel, so they were both children of Abraham, basically brothers.
It is straight forward to realize what this parable means, which is what you said, the moral obligation to love your neighbor as your self, especially those in the family in the faith.

[coksiw]

I'm not surprised of such a discussion here about one of Jesus's parables. Parables and Apocalyptic have been the most abused genre in the Bible in the history of Christianity. They can be difficult. It can have many meanings.

Jesus himself said:

Luk 8:10 NKJV - 10 And He said, "To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest [it is given] in parables, that 'Seeing they may not see, And hearing they may not understand.'

So even back then, there was not an expectation of the parables to be fully understood by the original hearers.

[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.

[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