| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Universalism | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 23 2006, 04:45 PM (2,909 Views) | |
| dinosaur | Oct 23 2006, 04:45 PM Post #1 |
|
Advanced Member
  ![]](http://209.85.122.85/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
Note from Wil: This topic is being pinned to provide the evidence for all to see concerning this doctrine which has always been rejected by traditional christianity. Please, new believers especially, take the time to read thru the evidence here so you'll be able to have greater discernment while reading anything by anybody, no matter how right they may be in other areas, that teaches this erroneous doctrine. ... Original post deleted by Dinosaur. |
 |
|
| NickJH | Oct 24 2006, 10:27 PM Post #2 |
|
Member
|
My dearly beloved Dinosaur: This is the good news of the gospel of the grace of God: for atonement and eternal peace is God's GIFT unto all his precious creatures. You were sent into the world and clothed with skin for the purpose of experiencing the knowledge of good and evil: for to know it, you must experience it; and also to be refined unto perfection: for your making is directed by your Maker. In other words, The pot has no say-so in the manner which the Potter chooses to fashion his vessel (the crude spirit): it is the righteous work of the Creator/Maker: for you are not your own being. My beloved, you have no power over good and evil, hence, your sins are not imputed unto you, as you are inspired to do that which you do, whether good or evil. Is not the blood of Christ sufficient? This is the good news of that which your Creator has been doing for himself in you since the beginning of time, fashioning you (himself), and teaching you (himself) knowledge, unto the finished product, even that which you are to become, a Holy Ghost, which rebirth is now at the door. Glory to God: for he is righteous; and all are one with him. Eternal love! Nick |
|
|
|
| pjbaby | Oct 26 2006, 01:38 PM Post #3 |
|
Advanced Member
|
hmmmm, So the Answer to Dino's question would be yes?? you do beleive ALL who are in Different faiths are destined for Salvation? Even if those Reject vehemently the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ? Can you clarify yourself? Also, if this is the case of what you believe, do you also believe that Every individual withen each faith will recieve salvation? Thanks PJ |
|
|
|
| julieann | Oct 26 2006, 02:57 PM Post #4 |
|
Advanced Member
|
I think that as God states in Isaiah 44, man is basically ignorant/stupid and unable to deliver himself from deceptive practices. God says, man doesn't even think, realize, that he uses wood to warm himself, cook his food, and then fashions a god out of it and worship's it? He doesn't understand that it cannot save, walk, talk, see, or answer prayer. God has to enlighten the mind of everyone who comes to believe in Him. Salvation is a miracle! The Lord has come to set the captives free....free from false teachings, false worship, false idols, false gods, false teachers, etc.... everything that's false. The scriptures say that the Holy Spirit will set us free, He will teach us what is true. He will lead us into ALL TRUTH and show us what's to come. We are helpless without God/Jesus/Holy Spirit as teacher. I didn't save myself, nor did I teach myself the truth. Jesus saved me. He CHOSE me. He set me from following after false gods. All glory and honor and praise belong to him forevermore. |
|
|
|
| pjbaby | Oct 28 2006, 06:00 AM Post #5 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Hello Nick, Don't worry about what others think about your attitude, people misunderstand intents all the time on these kinda boards. Oh, How about answer for my question?  pjbaby |
|
|
|
| Wil | Oct 28 2006, 08:48 AM Post #6 |
Administrator
|
I think one can understand not liking to be called dearly beloved by someone that doesn't know them though, God, apostles, parents I can accept it from, anybody else it does sound "uppity", even if that wasn't the intent meant. Julieann I may be mistaken but it sounds like you agree with Nick on his apparent belief that all will eventually be saved? |
|
|
| Jagger Rose | Oct 28 2006, 09:15 AM Post #7 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Perhaps Nick is an advocate of this teaching? Dr.Stephen E. Jones "If God Could Save Everyone Would He?" http://dimensionsoftruth.org/stephen_jones/jones8.html |
|
|
|
| Jagger Rose | Oct 28 2006, 09:41 AM Post #8 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Have you all checked this one out yet? What do you think? Dr.Stephen E. Jones "If God Could Save Everyone Would He?" http://dimensionsoftruth.org/stephen_jones/jones8.html |
|
|
|
| julieann | Oct 28 2006, 12:09 PM Post #9 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Julieann I may be mistaken but it sounds like you agree with Nick on his apparent belief that all will eventually be saved? I believe all that God has called will be saved. |
|
|
|
| NOTADOC | Oct 28 2006, 08:51 PM Post #10 |
Advanced Member
|
Blessings All, Re: "Fan Clubs": Let it be known that one of the methods that Loveroftruth uses to try to "get my goat," is to insinuate that I worship "Dr. Jones." And of course it's very easy to develop this presumption, seeing that I frequently post his writings, probably more than any other "teacher." Now she does this in jest, and to intentionally bug me like the typical sibling would. (If she doesn't stop, I'm going to tell Mom!). Actually, the "teacher" that has really influenced me the most was Bob Mumford , but his pre-1974 teachings aren't readily available to copy and paste, and many are not relevant to today's discussions. I started reading Dr. Jones on the Internet about three or four years ago, and found great insight into a couple of areas. Primarily the areas regarding the "Law" along with his knowledge of history which parallels the Scriptures. He also has some "intriguing" teachings concerning the "timing" of God. But as we all should know, none of us should be following any personality, except Jesus. Everybody else, including me, will eventually fail you. This has been a major problem prior to the church, and will continue until the Lord returns. 1Cr 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 1Cr 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? ================== 1Cr 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal? 1Cr 3:5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 1Cr 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 1Cr 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 1Cr 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 1Cr 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building. ============================================ Blessings JR, Re: "if God Could Save Everyone Would He?" I've noticed that twice you have inquired of us our opinion regarding this "teaching" of Dr. Jones. It would probably be best for you to simply present "his" teaching on a separate thread with your comments, so that we all might respond. (Only a suggestion.). But obviously, you are looking for something! I read this article over three years ago, and my "gut reaction" was that he made many excellent points, but it was too contrary to everything I believed. But over the years reading many of his other articles, some covering this same basic topic, I have learned that most of what he presents has some very strong scriptural/historical backing. At this time, "I doubt" that every human being will eventually "be saved", but I cannot prove it. One thing you can really say about Dr. Jones, is that he follows his "theories/teachings" through to their full conclusion. Dr. Jones has a "web log" that he posts on five or six times a week (for about one year now). From September 11 to September the 26th of this year, he covered this topic in depth. Here is his post for September 26, 2006 which contains many of the things you need to consider when debating/discussing whether or not everybody will eventually be saved. Personally, I am willing to witness the final outcome firsthand, unless the Lord determines that I am in need of a revelation on this topic. Enjoy, notadoc ======================== Dr. Jones' Entry from 09/26/2006 http://www.gods-kingdom.org/WebLog/WebPosting.cfm?LogID=341 Will Satan be Saved? No It was the belief of many in the early Church that the devil and his angels would be "saved" in the end. They based this view on the biblical statements that all of creation would be "reconciled" to God, whether things in heaven or things in earth. This view is advocated today as well in many Universalist circles. But I want to make the record clear that this does not reflect my own view, and I want to explain my position in this web log. First, for those who may not have read the earlier studies, this very idea may come as a shock, for who could possibly believe such a thing? Well, let me start by quoting from Church historians. In Donald Attwater's book, Saints of the East, page xvii, he writes, "Origen and Gregory of Nyassa and many others among the Eastern Fathers believed that He came to SAVE all spiritual creatures, not men only. He did not shed His blood on earth at Jerusalem for sin alone; He offered Himself as a gift on the high altar of Heaven to SAVE the angels and all the universe, of which this little corner of earth is the smallest part." A second historian is Robert Payne, whose book, Fathers of the Eastern Church, says on pages 145 and 146, "So always, Gregory [of Nyassa] celebrates the grandeur and nobility of men, with such charity that he could bring himself to believe that even the Prince of Darkness would once more be RESTORED to his seat beside the throne of God. For Gregory, as for Origen, there is universal SALVATION." In the year 399 A.D. those who objected to this teaching finally found their opportunity to put forth their case. Up to that time, no bishop or archbishop even attempted to rank this doctrine among the heresies, for it had been openly taught for centuries--at least as far back as Clement of Alexandria in the early second century. In his commentary on 1 John 2:2, Clement wrote: "He, indeed, saves all; but some He saves converting them by punishments; others, however, who follow voluntarily He saves with dignity of honour; so that 'every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, of things on earth, and things under the earth'--that is, angels and men." It is unfortunate that Clement and, it appears, all of the early Church leaders, made no distinction in their terminology between salvation and reconciliation. It is equally unfortunate that those who opposed the salvation of Satan manifested such anger, bitterness, self-interest, and greed, for their carnally-minded reactions ultimately buried the truth of the salvation of all mankind. Paul says in Col. 1:16 that God created all things, whether they be in heaven or in earth or under the earth, visible, invisible, thrones, dominions, etc. Yes, God is the Creator, and He did so by His own sovereign will. Paul then says in Col. 1:20 that He has RECONCILED all things by the blood of His cross. The "all things" of creation have also been "reconciled," and Paul also defines this for us: "having made PEACE." Essentially, reconciliation has to do with making PEACE and establishing harmony, as opposed to discord and opposition. As for SALVATION, Paul also tells us in 1 Tim. 4:10 that He "is the Savior of all MEN, especially of believers." Likewise in 1 Tim. 2:4 he says that "He wills [Greek: thelo] all men to be saved." He says nothing about saving fallen angels or Satan. As for JUSTIFICATION, Paul tells us in Rom. 5:16 that even as Adam brought condemnation to all men, so also did Jesus Christ bring justification to all men. He says nothing about justifying fallen angels or Satan. As for PROPITIATION, John tells us in 1 John 2:2 that "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole WORLD." John was talking about people, the world of mankind, as distinct from us as believers. He does not tell us that Christ became the propitiation for fallen angels or Satan. As for RESURRECTION, Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor. 15:22, 23 that "as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive, but each in his own order." The context shows that he is clearly talking about mankind. He says nothing about resurrecting fallen angels or Satan. Each of these terms has a different meaning and application, and while they are often related and apply to the same groups of people, they are not precisely the same. Salvation has to do with one's health and well-being, which has been compromised by the death sentence upon Adam and his descendants. Justification is a legal term and has to do with a court case and how to be declared innocent in view of one's past sins. Resurrection has to do with being raised from death to life, or from mortality to immortality. Insofar as mankind is concerned, all of the above are applicable. But back in 1981, while I was speaking at a camp in Arizona, a friend posed a very good question to me: "Will bugs be saved?" His wife was horrified and embarrassed at the question, but it was really a very good question, because it raised a much larger issue. The simple answer is: No, bugs will not be saved. Bugs will, however, be reconciled, because they are a part of God's creation. This does not mean that bugs will be justified, for we have no biblical teaching that any bug will appear before the judgment seat of Christ or before the Great White Throne. Nor will bugs be resurrected from the dead. I don't want to be narrow minded, but I cannot see how every mosquito and fly in history will be raised from the dead. The earth would then be thick with such creatures in the Kingdom. Taking this further, the Bible never says that Satan will be saved, justified, or resurrected. It only says that the reconciliation will include things in heaven as well as on earth. Thus, even if Clement was correct in interpreting this to mean "angels and men," the outer limits of that statement refer only to reconciliation. But if bugs will be reconciled, but not saved, then why must we say that Satan and his angels will be saved? Frankly, I do not believe that Satan will be "saved." Now for those who do not believe in a "personal" devil, but equate it with the carnal mind, this problem is not even relevant. We understand that the carnal mind will not be saved, but replaced with the mind of Christ, thus reconciling all things. When the mind of man is reconciled, there will be peace and harmony between God and man. So what does it mean to be "reconciled"?? Paul chooses his words carefully by the anointing of the Holy Spirit. To reconcile creation means to bring creation into subjection to the rule of Christ, because all things [ta panta, "the all"] must be put under His feet (1 Cor. 15:27). Peace will then be restored, not because He rules by fear forcing all to worship Him, but because all will submit themselves by Love and by full agreement. If we take Isaiah 11:6-9 literally, where "the wolf will dwell with the lamb," we can see in verse 9 that these animals will no longer be predatory or dangerous. There will be harmony among the animals as well as between man and animals. But there is no statement that animals which have lived and died in the past will be raised again to immortality. There will certainly be animals in the Kingdom of God, because these were created for the enjoyment and benefit of mankind. Furthermore, I see no particular reason why God would not permit a child of God to raise his pet dog from the dead in order to enhance life in the Kingdom. Resurrection on that limited scale is not denied in the Bible. Likewise, plant life will be reconciled, in that it will again be lush and disease-free. Pollution will be abolished, and the earth restored to its pristine state. This is all part of the reconciliation process, but has little or nothing to do with salvation, justification, and resurrection. So whereas reconciliation applies to all creation, it cannot feasibly "save" every creature that ever lived, nor justify every rock and tree, nor resurrect every mosquito. Such a teaching would reduce the Scripture to an absurdity. Even the early Church qualified their statements to include only every rational creature, but they drew the line in a different place from where I draw the line. Where they included Satan and his angels as part of the rational creation, I see no compelling reason to do so. I believe that God will treat angels differently. In Matt. 25:41 Jesus spoke of "the aionian fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels." I believe that men are purified or purged in the fire, because God is a consuming fire. The fire consumes "the flesh," leaving only what is good. As for the devil and his angels, God is also a consuming fire to them. The question is whether there is anything good in the devil that is NOT consumed and which may remain in the end. I do not believe there is, and hence, it is my belief that the devil and his angels will be utterly consumed by God. To consume is to eat or assimilate. God can "eat" in this sense without violating His character. For this reason, God told the disciples that if they drank any poison, it would not hurt them, and if a serpent bit them, it would do them no harm (Mark 16:18). Where did this ability come from? Obviously, from God Himself, because as a consuming fire, He too is able to consume "the flesh" along with Satan and his angels without violating His sanctity. All vice will simply be assimilated by the all-consuming fire of God. of God to raise his pet dog from the dead in order to enhance life in the Kingdom. Resurrection on that limited scale is not denied in the Bible. Likewise, plant life will be reconciled, in that it will again be lush and disease-free. Pollution will be abolished, and the earth restored to its pristine state. This is all part of the reconciliation process, but has little or nothing to do with salvation, justification, and resurrection. So whereas reconciliation applies to all creation, it cannot feasibly "save" every creature that ever lived, nor justify every rock and tree, nor resurrect every mosquito. Such a teaching would reduce the Scripture to an absurdity. Even the early Church qualified their statements to include only every rational creature, but they drew the line in a different place from where I draw the line. Where they included Satan and his angels as part of the rational creation, I see no compelling reason to do so. I believe that God will treat angels differently. In Matt. 25:41 Jesus spoke of "the aionian fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels." I believe that men are purified or purged in the fire, because God is a consuming fire. The fire consumes "the flesh," leaving only what is good. As for the devil and his angels, God is also a consuming fire to them. The question is whether there is anything good in the devil that is NOT consumed and which may remain in the end. I do not believe there is, and hence, it is my belief that the devil and his angels will be utterly consumed by God. To consume is to eat or assimilate. God can "eat" in this sense without violating His character. For this reason, God told the disciples that if they drank any poison, it would not hurt them, and if a serpent bit them, it would do them no harm (Mark 16:18). Where did this ability come from? Obviously, from God Himself, because as a consuming fire, He too is able to consume "the flesh" along with Satan and his angels without violating His sanctity. All vice will simply be assimilated by the all-consuming fire of God. |
|
|
|
| Geo | Oct 29 2006, 12:02 AM Post #11 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Notadoc -- thisiswhatyousaid: [At this time, "I doubt" that every human being will eventually "be saved", but I cannot prove it.] the book of life: Exodus 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. Psalms 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous. Revelation 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. is there any salvation that is outside the book of life? I doubt it, too. Not for us. |
|
|
|
| Wil | Oct 29 2006, 12:18 AM Post #12 |
|
Administrator
|
Yeah there are a number of scriptures like the above that seem to tell me that not all will be saved, they do seem pretty clear to me. |
|
|
|
| Jagger Rose | Oct 29 2006, 12:22 AM Post #13 |
|
Advanced Member
|
"Love is not suspicious." I come in love Doc...and will be straightforward. To avoid a potentially long discussion on predestination and free will I would rather not take up the invitation to dissect the article.For anyone interested in discussions on the arguments of predestination and free will they are extremely well documented especially on the net. I raised this teaching by Dr.Jones because a brother on the board is being pressed for answers about his stance on universal salvation. My concern is...anyone who holds to the teaching Dr.Stephen E.Jones puts forth in his article "If God Could Save Everyone Would He?" will likely bring themselves under suspicion of being at best delusional...at worst a heretic/false brethren..not necessarily by anyone posting here,but that attitude is out there across the Body.. The injustice of it is..once that judgment is made,then the brother along with everything of truth God has invested in him,including the genuineness of his relationship with God is brought into question or even discredited. I believe however that it is possible for a sincere man of God to teach falsehoods ..there is a danger when we make deception/bad fruit a simplistic black and white issue.. there are many reasons for a true believer to be walking in areas of deception and displaying what appears as bad fruit....I accept that this is true of myself as with all other sincere followers of Christ. Dr. Jones States:
I believe both of these statements to be false. I see clearly in scripture that God has given man the right to free will, and Hell is a literal place reserved for all those who use their God Given Right to reject Him. I believe my brother in Christ Dr.Jones is teaching a potentially dangerous falsehood here. I personally reject Dr.Jones teaching on this as false, but not the man. Some would argue (and I've witnessed this argument on other Christian boards) that this type of teaching undermines the foundational truths of our faith..therefore is bad fruit worthy only of a heretic/false brethren.This argument of bad fruit..false brethren etc is as I said is very complex and should be handled with great care. |
|
|
|
| NOTADOC | Oct 29 2006, 12:32 AM Post #14 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Rev 20:11 ¶ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. ....................... Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. ......................... Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. ========================================================================= Dr, Jones: "In Matt. 25:41 Jesus spoke of "the aionian fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels." I believe that men are purified or purged in the fire, because God is a consuming fire. The fire consumes "the flesh," leaving only what is good. As for the devil and his angels, God is also a consuming fire to them. The question is whether there is anything good in the devil that is NOT consumed and which may remain in the end. I do not believe there is, and hence, it is my belief that the devil and his angels will be utterly consumed by God."------------------------------- IS THE "FIRE" LITERAL OR FIGURTIVE? NOTADOC |
|
|
|
| NickJH | Oct 29 2006, 04:10 PM Post #15 |
|
Member
|
My dearly beloved PJ Baby: All things are possible with God: for God is love. The self righteous and ignorant condemn their brethren to an eternal hell because they lack the compassion and the essence of Christ: hence a need for a second coming, to restore truth unto the oracles of God: for the churches lack the love they were commanded to have for their brethren and enemies, seeing they would love to see their fellows burn in hell rather than be granted mercy unto life. The body of Christ is not limited to Christians only, as man supposes to limit God; but constitutes the entire human race for whom atonement was made; even as you were told in 1 John 2: 2, Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours (Christians) only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Therefore he that says he is in the light (enlightened: Christian), yet he hates his brother (a non-Christian), is in darkness even until now; and he that is in darkness knows not where he is going. Ask the self righteous church: Who is going to hell? And as they answer you, they shall condemn themselves; but ask one who abides in the righteousness of God, and they shall justify themselves: for they shall cover their brethren and their enemies in love. Know this my beloved brethren: They that worship God worship him in spirit and in truth; and not according to man's self-righteous statutes; thus they that were cast into the fiery furnace (Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego), symbolic of they that the church (religiosity) condemn to eternal travail in the lake of fire for not worshiping according to their self-righteous precepts, in subscription to their hypocrisy, were redeemed in all righteousness by the Son of God, as denoted in Daniel 3: 25. And if you suppose that one or more of Gods creatures, as precious as each one is, shall be condemned to eternal hell, then you know not the source of your being, neither do you understand his righteousness. I implore you then to discern this word spoken in Jesus to the Pharisees in Matthew 21: 31: I assure you this, The publicans and the harlots (which the self-righteous condemn as sinners) go into the kingdom of God before you. For which God said to you in Isaiah 65: 5, They provoke me to anger continually to my face, which say to their brother, Keep your distance, do not come near me: for I am holier than you. www.myspace.com/nicolashelez |
|
|
|
| pjbaby | Oct 29 2006, 04:53 PM Post #16 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Well, I am totally sure it is possible that God Can do anything He wishes and that He has ALL POWER. But I suggest to that Unless a man be Born again he shall not enter the Kingdom of God. Because the Church beleive there are those who go to Hell is not and indication of Sef righteousness. That is presumption on your part to assume this. It is by Gods Grace that we are saved! We do not Deserve Salvation. God made the Eternal Life a FREE GIFT!! But it is a NARROW WAY, not BROAD. Be Aware that you are offering FALSE HOPE to some of the brethren whose Families who have Rejected the Truth! There are FEW who Enter into this LIFE! Jesus is the WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE and there is no other Way to the Father and have Eternal Life but through HIM! The one Mediator between man and God. God's Love is so Great that He GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON!! to Reject Him is Death! I do not Presume to say this man is hell bound and this man is Heaven bound. That is between the Man and God. I do no that God is more Merciful than we can imagine. I would like to ask you about the Rich man in Torments. Is he now in Paradise with the Poor man Lazarus? pjbaby |
|
|
|
| bscott30 | Oct 29 2006, 05:55 PM Post #17 |
|
Member
|
All you had to do was ask, the stuff is out there...setting the scriptures straight. Lazarus and the Rich Man [A Scriptural Journey Through the Intriguing Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man] L. Ray Smith Before reading my opening statement there will be many who will find fault with this paper. "What parable?" they will ask. Contrary to all the Scriptural proof that Luke 16:19-31 is indeed a classic example of a parable, there are many who deny this fact. The reason for so many desiring to take this parable literally is an attempt to add credence to the heretical teaching that God Almighty is going to torture the vast majority of all humanity who has ever lived by burning their flesh with real fire in a hellhole of insane pain for all eternity. But even if we take this parable literally, it still does not support such an absurd and evil teaching. When the truth is seen, the Rich man is overcome with great emotional torment by whatever "this flame" represents, but he is not physically being burned or barbecued in this flame.. That the Rich man is in a most distressful situation, there is no argument. But he is not "burning in eternal hell fire." That Lazarus is being comforted, there is also no argument, but neither is he presently basking in the sunshine of heaven. The two main figures in this parable represent whole nations of people who are either being shown the spiritual things of God or are being blinded to the spiritual things of God. The situation looks particularly grim and bleak for the Rich man, but certainly not hopeless as is taught in the pulpits of mainstream Christianity. Unfortunately, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man has become a sort of theological passport to the annihilation of hundreds of plain and exact verses of Scripture. Next to the gross error in translating the Greek aion (a period of time with a beginning and an end) into an English eternity (no time at all, neither having a beginning nor an ending), I know of no greater misrepresentation of any section of Scripture than this parable. I will be using both the KJV and the Concordant Literal New Testament when quoting Scripture in this paper. Can those who teach that Luke 16 is not a parable, prove their position? No, they can not. Can it then be proved by the Scriptures that this is a parable? Yes, it can. Quite easily, I might add. PARABLE DEFINED Let me give you a technical definition of a parable followed by a more simple definition: (1) "Parable: [Greek, para bole’= BESIDE CAST]--A statement ‘cast beside’ or parallel to its real spiritual significance, a figure of likeness in action." GREEK-ENGLISH KEYWORD CONCORDANCE p. 216. (2) "A short and simple tale based on familiar things meant to convey a much deeper and profound moral or spiritual truth," WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY. In Old English it was called a "near-story." Jesus spoke in parables throughout His whole ministry. In Matthew chapter 13 we are given seven different parables. No parable is literal or historical. The second we make a parable literal, it ceases to be a parable. Jesus spoke ONLY in parables (not true life or historical stories) among the masses of people who followed Him wherever He went. I am going to some length to demonstrate the absolute absurdity of teaching this parable of Lazarus or any other parable as a literal and historical event. PARABLES MAY MENTION IDENTIFIABLE PERSONS Is Luke 16:19-31 a "parable?" Many in orthodoxy say that it absolutely is not a parable because a person is mentioned by name and identified as a specific and particular person. The mention of an identifiable person is not, however, the test of a parable. Besides other parables do mention identifiable persons, but they are still parables: Mark 4:15 Mentions Satan Matt. 13:37 Mentions The Son of man Matt. 13:39 Mentions The devil Matt. 15:13 Mentions God the Father II Sam. 12:7 Is said to be King David Ezek. 23:1-4 Mentions Aholah and Aholibah Luke 4:23 Jesus applies ‘Physician’ to HIMSELF JESUS SPEAKS TO THE MASSES IN PARABLES ONLY Jesus spoke to the Pharisees and multitudes in parables: "And He begins to speak to them in parables." (Mk.. 12:1). Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables ONLY: "All these things Jesus speaks in parables to the throngs, and apart from a parable He spoke nothing to them..." (Mat. 13:34). Jesus spoke in parables so that his listeners would not understand Him: "Wherefore art Thou speaking in parables to them? ... To you has it been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, yet to those it has NOT been given." (Matt.. 13:10-11). Not even the apostles understood these parables (Lk, 16:14)! Jesus had to explain their meaning to them in private (Mat. 13:18, 36), (Mat. 15:15), etc. The fact that Jesus spoke to the masses in parables only, ought to be sufficient Scriptural evidence to anyone that Lazarus and the Rich man is indeed a parable. There are, however, many many more proofs. A FIVE-PART PARABLE What is the setting of this Lazarus parable? Actually it is the last of a five-part parable beginning in Chapter 15 of Luke. Here is the reason for these five parables in a row: "Now ALL the tribute collectors and sinners were coming near Him to be hearing Him. And both the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying that ‘This man sinners is receiving, and is eating with them!" (Luke 15:1). Verse 2: "Now He told them [the tax collectors, sinners, Pharisees, and scribes] THIS PARABLE, saying..." Jesus then gives them FIVE parables, one after the other. The phrase "THIS parable" certainly is not limited to the next, one, parable only! These are ALL parables and most scholars recognize them as parables. My Oxford KJV even has at the top of the page over the parable of the prodigal son, these words: "The parable of the prodigal son." The text does not call it a parable, but certainly it follows that it IS the third part of a five-part parable. Notice the transition that Jesus uses between the lost sheep and the lost coin? He says, "Neither..." Some translations have "Or..." This word certainly connects it to the previous parable! Now notice Chapter 16 first verse, "And He said ALSO unto his disciples..." "Also" refers back to all that went before in this five-part parable, and now Jesus is continuing with the same train of thought with the fourth of this five-part parable. Notice next the introduction of the third, fourth, and fifth parables: "A CERTAIN MAN..." (15:11) "There was A CERTAIN RICH MAN..." (16:1). "There was A CERTAIN RICH MAN..." (16:19). Again, it is clear that these are THREE parables of a five-part parable! PARABLES MUST ALWAYS BE INTERPRETED Parables are not to be taken literally. They are to be understood "figuratively." The real meaning is not in what they literally say, but in what the symbols and figurative language represent. That’s why they are called "parables." This is axiomatic! Let us turn to some parables for proof of this point: The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:32) "...this thy brother was dead..." Comment: He wasn’t literally "dead." He came home again "alive." God did not resurrect him from the dead. The Resurrection is yet future. So the prodigal was NOT literally dead, but from the perspective of his father, he was as good as dead or he could have been considered Spiritually dead. Parable of the Sower (Matt. 13:3-23) "And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side; and the fowls came and devoured them up." Comment: This parable isn’t teaching horticulture. It’s about "the word of the kingdom" and how different people receive it! Birds don’t literally devour the words of God. Sowing Ideal Seed (Matt. 13:24) "Yet, while the men are drawsing, his enemy came and sows darnel..." Comment: The enemy "came." Past tense. Is this, therefore, an historical fact? No. Read verse 39: "Now the harvest is the conclusion of the eon." This eon hasn’t come to an "end" yet. And the "harvest" is people not grains and vegetables. Parable of mote in brother’s eye (Lk. 6:39-42). "Now why are you observing the mote in your brother’s eye, yet the beam in your own eye your are not considering?" Comment: A beam is a long piece of timber. How is it possible to have a long piece of timber in one’s eye?I know people who could fit it into their mouth, but eye, never. This parable is about morality, not body organs and building materials. Is it not obvious that the literal, physical language in all parables must be interpreted as a higher, spiritual lesson? If the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is both literal and an historical fact, then it contradicts not only the laws of physics and logic, but also literally hundreds of plain verses of Scripture. People are taught that the parables are real stories that Jesus told to help the people understand His teaching better. That’s partly due to the fact that with many of the parables we are also given the INTERPRETATION! How many would understand these parables if we were not given the interpretation of them? Who would have known Who the sower of seed is? Who would know what the stony places are? Who would understand what the birds represent? Who would know what the good soil represents? Sure, it’s easy now, Jesus TOLD US THE ANSWERS! But He ONLY told His disciples the answers, NOT THE MULTITUDES to whom He spoke! THE PARABLE OF LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN According to the popular teaching of this parable, the Rich man is in an eternal Hell of torture and Lazarus is in eternal Heavenly bliss. Well let’s be sure then to pay special attention to those traits of character that have separated these two individuals into two entirely different realms. Below is listed in each column the exact "literal" facts regarding each man’s character, virtue and deeds that is the reason for a supposed fate of either eternal Hell or eternal Heaven: THE RICH MAN LAZARUS He was RICH ... Ver 19 He was POOR ... Ver 20 He wore PURPLE & CAMBRIC ... Ver 19 He made MERRY (Gk: cheerful, & glad) SPLENDIDLY [like Angels-Acts 10:30] DAILY ... Ver 19 Probably CRIPPLED ("was laid") Ver 20 DISEASED ("full of sores") Ver 20 He had a nice HOUSE ("his gate") Ver 20 He gave Lazarus FOOD [Gk. psichion, "a particle of food left over"-scraps] Ver 21 HUNGRY ("desiring to be fed") Ver 21 He DIED and was [Gk. entombed] Ver 22 He DIED Ver 22 He lifts up his eyes in [Gk. hades "the UNSEEN or IMPERCEPTIBLE] Ver 23 Is "carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom" Ver 22 He is in TORMENTS ... Ver 22 He's ALIVE with a BODY, "eyes,' Ver 23 He's ALIVE with a BODY, "finger "Ver 24 He desires a drop of WATER ... Ver 24 In life he got GOOD things ... Ver 25 In life he got EVIL things ... Ver 25 He is respectful toward authority ("FATHER Abraham") Ver 24 He was TORMENTED ... Ver 25 Was COMFORTED [Gk. parakaleo = "to comfort when in distress"] Ver. 25 He could not cross the GULF ... Ver 26 He could not cross the GULF ... Ver 26 Exhibits LOVE toward his family even while in torment ("I have five brothers") Ver 28 PLEADS for their welfare ("Nay..") Ver 30 Examine these two columns closely. Is it not obvious that what is literally revealed here does not lend itself to an eternal life of torture for the Rich man or an eternal life of heavenly bliss for the poor man? Where else in Scripture do the character traits in the left column come under eternal condemnation? And where else in Scripture do the character traits in the right column bring a promise of salvation in Heaven? Seriously, WHERE? From what is literally stated about these two individuals it is hard to find condemnation or praise for either party. We know for sure that the Rich man is in a state of condemnation and that Lazarus is in a state of consolement, but there is nothing in the narrative to tell us why this is so. If taken literally, this parable consists of statements that are illogical, unscriptural, contradictory, and impossible. But, when we understand the symbolism of this parable, it opens up our understanding to God’s dealing with all peoples on earth! We must know the real identity of these two individuals before we can know that their treatment is a just treatment based on their lives and based on God’s grace. The Rich man received "good things" in life and Lazarus received "evil things" in life. That is obviously true. However, neither of those is Scriptural grounds for either being rewarded or condemned. Where? Present a Scripture. Christ said that it is difficult for a rich man to inherit the Kingdom, for example, and that certainly is true. But it is not the fact of being rich that makes this so, but rather the power that wealth has over the soul to keep one from pursuing spiritual things. Some people are "rich" and are right with God. Other people are "rich" and are not right with God. But the bottom line is how God has constituted the person himself that makes the difference, not the fact that he is wealthy. Don’t suppose that I am siding with the Rich man at the expense of Lazarus. I am not. I am merely showing how ludicrous it is to insist that this parable is "literal." A VERSE BY VERSE ANALYSIS Verse by verse now we will see if this parable can possibly be taken literally. Luke 16:19: DOES A WELL-DRESSED WEALTHY MAN SPELL SIN? "Now a certain man was rich..." Many reading these words immediately conclude that being rich must be a sin. This is the one outstanding feature of this man--he is RICH. Is that a sin? Abraham, just talking distance away here, was very rich (Gen. 13:2). Isaac was rich, Jacob was rich, Joseph was rich, David (a man after God’s own heart) was rich. Job was the richest man in all the East (Job. 1:3). And it was God Who blessed them, that’s why they were rich. Being rich is no character flaw or sin. Besides, the Scriptures say: "...God is not to be sneered at, for whatsoever a man may be sowing, this shall be reaping also..." (Gal. 6:7) And "...who is sowing sparingly, sparingly shall be reaping also, and who is sowing bountifully, bountifully shall be reaping also..." (II Cor. 9:6-7). "...he dressed in purple and fine linen (cambric) [Gk bussos = COTTON] probably of a fine quality, perhaps a cloth with cotton in the warp and flax in the woof. Why should we care what color or what fabric of clothing he wore? Fine clothing are not a sin. What does that have to do with a man’s character, virtue, or deeds? If taken "literally," nothing. But since this is "symbolic" it then is THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE WHOLE PARABLE! The description of the Rich man’s clothing and the position of Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom are the two vital keys in understanding this whole parable. "...daily making merry [Gk. cheerful & glad] splendidly..." Is having a cheerful and glad spirit a sin? I don’t think so. Paul says: "...that I may be of good cheer..." (Phil. 2:19). David’s heart was "glad" ( Acts 2:26). And the angels dressed "splendidly" (Acts 10:30). IS POVERTY AND SICKNESS A VIRTUE? "Now there was a certain poor man..." Being poor is no virtue! In fact the Scriptures have a lot to say about poverty: "...a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come..." (Prov. 6:10-11). "He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand..." (Prov. 10:4). "...The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing..." (Prov. 13:4). Many Scriptures show poverty to be the direct result of sin. Again, Gal. 6:7, II Cor. 9:6-7. It is God Who makes both rich and poor (I Sam. 2:7). "...named Lazarus..." [Heb: helpless] Why should we know his name if this is literal? Lazarus was a common name. And who would ever want to be named "Helpless?" We are not given the name of the Rich man. What does it matter one way or the other what his name is if this is a literal story and we don’t know which Lazarus this was anyway. Ah, but since this is a "parable" it does matter, and we CAN know which Lazarus this really is and who the rich man really is. "...who had been cast at his portal (gate)..." Being thrown out into the street is no virtue. "...having sores [Gk. elkos = DRAWER] (ulcers)..." Being sick and diseased is not a virtue. Diseases associated with "the botch, open sores, boils and ulcers" are very often a direct curse from God in the Scriptures. See: Ex. 9:2, Job 2:7, Deut. 28:27, 35, Rev. 16:2, and many others. "...yearning to be satisfied from the scraps (not crumbs) [Gk. psichion = SCRAPS--A particle of food which is left over after eating] which are falling from the rich man’s table." It is no virtue to be begging for bread. "Crumbs falling from a table" is an idiom, not literal. I have eaten at "Rich men’s tables" myself, from $25,000 a place setting of China from the Ming Dynasty, and I assure you that scraps of food were not falling from that table--Rich people do not eat like pigs! A few "crumbs," is possible, but crumbs are not enough to feed a hungry ant, let alone a grown man. Besides, if Lazarus is a godly man why is he begging food? Read Psa. 37:25: "...Yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, NOR HIS SEED BEGGING BREAD"! There is absolutely nothing in the discription of Lazarus that would indicate he was a godly man. But when we identify him, there is much to show that he was a godly man, and that his poverty and sickness was not that of a literally diseased beggar in the street. "But the curs (wild dogs) also, coming, licked his ulcers." It is a dog’s nature to "lick sores," but they didn’t come to this man’s house for that purpose. They came there to get "scraps" of food as well. However, think for a moment. What does this bit of information add to our understanding of this story if it is to be taken "literally?" Nothing! I mean Jesus could have told us that, "the sky was cloudy" or "the cock was crowing" or "there were holes in the street." So what? What do "wild dogs" add to our understanding, if it’s literal? But we learn in Scripture that "dogs" represent something totally different from four-legged animals that bark and bite. Here is a real clue as to who Lazarus and his dog companions really represent. And as this is a parable it was not physical scraps of literal food that Lazarus and the dogs desired. Who then is this Rich man, who being tormented, nonetheless, possessed and disseminated (albeit it small portions) of life-giving food to the poor? The Rich man, regardless of his character or lack thereof, was obviously blessed of God: "The Lord shall make thee plenteous in goods..." (Deut. 28:11). And "...bless all the work of thine hand" (Ver 12). As he sewed, so he reaped (Gal. 6:7, II Cor. 9:6-7). He got "good things in life" and the Scripture plainly tells us that "Every GOOD gift is from above..." (Jas. 1:17). Lazarus was obviously cursed of God: "...thou shalt. not prosper" (Deut. 28:16). The "botch and scab" (Ver. 27 & 29). He obviously sewed sparingly and reaped even more sparingly. When one is homeless, hungry, and diseased in the street; it doesn’t get much worse than this. CONTRADICTIONS OF A LITERAL INTERPRETATION If this parable is taken literally, we will find more than a few hundred major problems with the rest of God’s revealed Word. One will have to use a black marker or cut from the Bible most verses dealing with spirit, soul, body, death, resurrection, immortality, grave, hades, sheol, sin, punishment, chastisement, firstfruits, rewards, justification, reconciliation, prophecy, grace, salvation and the sovereignty of God, just to name a few! All of these contradict the idea that this parable can be literal. All of them. "Now the poor man came to die and he is carried away by messengers into Abraham’s bosom." Impossible. This statement if taken literally is neither historical nor Scriptural. Many say this represents Lazarus in Heaven. How, pray tell, could Lazarus be in Heaven while his Lord was still on the earth? "Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the firstfruit of those who are reposing." (I Cor. 15:20). Abraham wasn’t the "firstfruit." Lazarus wasn’t the "firstfruit." JESUS CHRIST WAS THE FIRSTFRUIT OF THEM THAT SLEPT! The latter fruit, Paul tells us, "are [still] reposing." Jesus plainly said, not only had David not ascended into the heavens, but that "NO MAN has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven."(John 3:13). Teaching that this parable is a literal historical fact makes Christ out to be a liar. When our Lord was alive on this earth giving us this parable, He said: "...NO MAN HAS ASCENDED UP TO HEAVEN..." So how can it be said that at the same time our Lord was telling us that no man has ascended up to heaven, that Lazarus and Abraham are already up in heaven? This is not just an interesting sidelight or opinion of Ray Smith. THIS IS ABSOLUTE, INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURAL PROOF THAT WHEN JESUS GAVE THIS PARABLE THERE WAS NO MAN NAMED LAZARUS LIVING IN HEAVEN WITH ABRAHAM OR ANYONE ELSE!! So here then is just one of the hundreds of problems with the Scriptures if we insist this parable is literal. There are many Scriptures that tell us where a person goes when he"dies." The Scriptures say he "returns" from where he "came." So if he goes to Heaven, then he "came" from Heaven; if he goes to Hell, then he "came" from Hell. But Scriptures do not teach that people "RETURN" to heaven or hell when they die. Read these plain and simple verses that tell us exactly where man came from and where he goes when he dies: "...till you return [Hebrew, shub] unto the ground; for out of it were you taken: for dust you are, and unto dust shall you return" (Gen. 3:17-19). "Remember I pray you that as clay you did make me, and unto dust you will cause me to return" (Job 10:9) "You cause man to return unto dust..." (Psa. 90:3). "His spirit [the Hebrew word here is ruach, spirit, not neshamah, breath] goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish" (Psa. 146:3-4). "...you gather in their spirit [Hebrew ruach, spirit] they expire [Hebrew gava, breathe out, gasp, expire], and return to their dust" (Psa. 104:29). "For that which befalls the sons of men befalls beasts; ... as the one dies, so dies the other; yea, they have all one spirit; and man has no preeminence above the beasts [in death]: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all return to dust again" (Ecc. 3:18-21). Will any of my readers seriously contend that BEASTS return to either heaven or hell when they die? Have we not just read in Ecc. 3:18-21 that "ALL [both men and beasts] go unto ONE PLACE?" And aren’t "heaven AND hell" TWO PLACES rather that "ONE PLACE?" Am I going too fast for anyone? For sure our Saviour’s words are so true--the babes in Christ (minors) can understand these spiritual things, but the wise in the wisdom of this world cannot understand them. Here is irrefutable Scriptural proof that when a person dies he returns to the dust. Messengers or angels don’t take dead people anywhere when they die. If this is literal, then they would have had to carry a "dead" Lazarus into the ancient cave of a "dead" Abraham. The "resurrection" is yet future (I Thes. 4:16:18). Remember how Paul told us of Hymeneus and Philetus who "...swerve as to truth, saying that the resurrection has ALREADY OCCURRED [as defenders of a literal interpretation also contend] subverting the faith of some." (II Tim. 2:18)? Lazarus was carried (in the parable) into Abraham’s bosom. Abraham’s bosom is not the reward of the saved. Abraham’s bosom is not Heaven. Furthermore, no more than one person could fit into Abraham’s bosom. It’s a parable. When Jesus gave this parable was Abraham alive in heaven or dead in his grave? First notice what Gen. 25:8-9 says: "Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died ... and his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in a cave..." When Jesus was teaching these parables Abraham was still dead. "Abraham IS DEAD" (John 8:52)! After Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection (nearly 30 years after) Abraham was still dead. "By faith Abraham ... sojourns in the land of promise ... he waited for the city having foundations, whose Artificer and Architect is God ... In faith DIED ALL THESE [Abraham included], being not requited with the promises ... for He [God] makes ready for them a city" (Heb. 11:8,9,10,13,16). Abraham had not yet as of the writing of the book of Hebrews received the promises God made to him. Besides Abraham was not promised Heaven, but this earth along with King David (Jer. 30:9) and the Twelve Apostles who will be ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel on this earth (Rev. 5:10). And the "City," New Jerusalem, comes down from heaven to the New Earth. By the way, after Christ’s resurrection, we read that King David as well was also still dead. "...David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day..." "For David is NOT ascended into the heavens..." (Acts 2:29 & 34). So consider: At the time Christ taught this parable, Abraham was STILL DEAD, David (a man after God’s own heart) was STILL DEAD and the Scripture specifically tells us that David DID NOT ASCEND INTO HEAVEN. Then to remove all doubt and speculation regarding heaven, Christ plainly stated that, "NO MAN HAS ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN!" Which part of the word "NO" is it that theologians do not understand? "Now the rich man also died, and was entombed. And in the unseen [Gk: hades], lifting up his eyes..." (Ver. 23) Impossible. He died, was entombed, and lifted up his eyes? Where did he get a body in hades, seeing that they just sealed his body in a tomb? Have you never heard of exhuming a body from a grave? Six days, six months, six years after death, when they open a grave, the body is still there. And it’s usually rotten and the "eyes" are decayed away. "...was entombed...and in the unseen [hades], lifting up his eyes..." If, as theologians teach that the grave is one place and hades is another place, then no man can have his body "entombed" while at the same time the eyes of his body can be lifted up in a place called "hades." And we know his body was still in the tomb, so how can he be simultaneously in hades with a new body? And how could this man "literally" lift up his eyes in "hell" seeing that hell is the translation of the Greek word hades which means the UNSEEN or IMPERCEPTIBLE? To "see" one can’t be in the UNSEEN, nor can it be a place of NO perception. The parable says that he "died" and was entombed, but that he "lifts up his eyes" in hades. He can’t be literally dead and literally alive at the same time and in two different locations. Hades is a Greek word (and is synonymous with Sheol in the Hebrew O.T.) and it has a meaning. The elements are "UN-PERCEIVED." It can be properly translated into English as "unseen" or "imperceptible." Now how can one "see" in the unseen?" It’s ridiculous. How can anyone have "perception" in the "imperceptible?" The dead can’t "see," It’s a parable. There is no consciousness in [Heb: Sheol] or [Gk: Hades](Psa. 146:4)--none. "Sheol" and "Hades" are synonymous in Scripture. In Acts 2:27 hades is translated from the Hebrew word sheol. Look carefully at these two verses: "His spirit [ruach] goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish" (Psa. 146-3-4). And "...there is no works, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in sheol where you go" (Ecc. 9:10). "Device" [Heb. mchesh- bown--contrivance, intelligence, reason]. Do these two verses in Ecclesiasties sound like "dark sayings?" or "tricky proverbs?" or "difficult parables?" or "deep mysteries?" They are plain, simple statements of facts that any child can understand! But notice how they absolutely contradict the "consciousness in hades" theory. One more Scriptural proof on this point. "And it came to pass, that the beggar DIED ... the rich man also DIED..." (Luke 16:22). So from verse 22 onward, the beggar and the rich man are IN DEATH! Now Psalm 6:5 "For IN DEATH THERE IS NO REMEMBRANCE OF THEE [The LORD], in THE GRAVE who shall give thee [The LORD] thanks?" So, is it possible to take this parable literally without violating Scripture after Scripture after Scripture? I think not. WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IN HADES? According to many, these literally happen in Hades: But according to GOD, nothing happens in Hades: Do these things literally take place in hades or only figuratively? "lifting up his eyes" "existing in torments" "is seeing" "he shouting, said" "cool my tongue" "I am pained" "you are in pain" "No work" "No device" No contrivance No intelligence No reason "No knowledge" "No wisdom" "Not anything" "No thoughts" In the center column we have seeing, feeling, hearing, talking, and reason. In the right column we have nothing. The center column is based on one parable that should never be taken literally while the right column is quoted right from the Scriptures. DEATH IS LIKE SLEEP I have heard many jeer the idea that souls "sleep" in death. Although the phrase "soul sleep" itself is unscriptural, the idea that the dead are "sleeping" is most Scriptural. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers..." (Deut. 31:16). "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou [David] shalt sleep with thy fathers. (II Sam. 7:12). "David slept with his fathers..." (I Ki. 2:10). "Solomon slept with his fathers..." I Ki. 11:43). Job said, "...for now shall I sleep in the dust..." (Job 7:21). Get this one: David said "...lest I sleep the sleep of DEATH..." (Psa. 13:3). "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep [are dead]" (ICor.. 11:30). "Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep ... the dead shall be raised..." ( I Cor. 15:51-52). "...the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep" (I Thes. 4:14). "...My daughter is even now dead ... the maid is not dead, but sleepeth." (Mat. 9:18 & 24). "For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption." (Acts 13:36). It is said even of our own Lord: "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruit of them that slept" (I Cor. 15:20), etc., etc. Now I believe all of these Scriptures. Either Abraham is dead, buried and sleeping with his fathers, just as Moses, David, etc., or these Scriptures can’t be trusted. By the way, where do we read of "heaven" in this parable? There is not the slightest hint of the word heaven in this parable! Abraham’s "bosom" is no more heaven than my bosom is heaven. Interestingly, not only did all these patriarchs go to sleep, but they went to sleep with their fathers, and many of their fathers were idolaters! So there we have a dozen Scriptures stating that God likens death to sleep. In what way is being conscious and tortured in the flames of Hell analogous to "sleep?" God says death is "sleep." Now in what way is conscious torture in Hell fire analogous to "sleep?" In what way is a blissful life in Heaven analogous to "sleep?" Well, of course, it’s not analogous at all. Yet God plainly says, many times, that death is "sleep" God awakens dead people out of sleep. Therefore, the teaching that the dead Rich man and dead Lazarus are not asleep is wrong and unscriptural. It is only in the figurative language of a parable can it be said to be different. Let me give you a Scripture that will "lay to rest" (pun intended) this issue once and for all. What happens after one dies: "If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change comes. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands." (Job 14:14-15). When a person dies, he must: WAIT ... FOR APPOINTED TIME ... TILL CHANGE COMES ... GOD CALLS ... WE LIVE AGAIN... When Jesus taught this parable there were no Greek Scriptures. So when this "rich man died" he went to Sheol [Heb. the unseen or imperceptible, the abode of the dead, the grave] It’s the same sheol that Christ’s soul went to at death: Psalm 16:10--"For Thou will not leave my soul in the unseen [Sheol]." This verse is quoted in the New Testament Greek: Acts 2:27--"For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen [Gk. Hades]." Sheol and Hades are synonymous. The Old Testament says Christ’s soul went to "Sheol," the New says His soul went to "Hades." We know that Christ was the "firstfruit" of them that slept (I Cor. 15:20, 42, 43, 52, 53, 55, I Thes. 4:16-18). The "dead in Christ" are now "ASLEEP" according to the Scriptures. WHERE DID CHRIST GO WHEN HE DIED? Read I Cor. 15 again. "Christ died for our sins," "He was buried," "He rose again the third day." All right, let’s be Scripturally exact. SPIRIT: When Christ "died," where did His "spirit" go? Scripture -- Luke 23:46: "Father, into thy hands am I committing My spirit." Comment: Do other Scriptures verify this truth that at death man's spirit returns to God Who gave it? Yes. "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return to the God Who gave it" (Ecc. 12:7). BODY: Where did Christ's "body" go at death? Matt. 27:59-60: "And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb ... " Comment: Do other Scriptures verify this truth that dead bodies are normally buried or entombed? Yes. " ... David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day." (Acts 2:29) Do dead bodies normally begin to decay and stink after a few days? Yes. "Martha ... Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days." (John 11:39). Would Christ's body have started to decay had not God miraculously prevented it? Yes. " ... nor was His flesh acquainted with decay." (Acts 2:3). Was Christ (Himself) said to be where His body was? Yes. "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre ... " (Acts 20:2). Comment: Do other Scriptures verify this truth that the "person" or "personality" if you will, or whatever you want the pronoun "He" to represent, is where the body is? Yes. " ... David ... he is buried ... " (Acts 2:29) It's "his spirit" and "his soul" but it's "he" that is said to be buried with the body. It was "The Son of man" who was entombed in the earth (Mat. 12:40 & I Cor. 15:3-5). "Christ [he] died ... [he] was buried ... [he] rose again ... SOUL: When Christ died, where did His soul go? "For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen [hades]" ( Acts 2:27). Comment: Do other Scriptures verify this truth that at death the soul goes to the unseen (hades)? Yes. Psa. 49:15 " ... redeem my soul from the power of the grave [Heb. sheol]." Now, back to the parable: NOT ALL PAIN IS PHYSICAL "...being in torments..." What are these "torments" that the Rich man is experiencing? Is it physical pain from having his skin burned off of his body by real flames of fire? What a marvelous thing it is that we can have access to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from which our modern language bibles have been translated. We can check every word that has been translated into our English bibles. And now, dear readers, we shall do just that. In verse 23 we have the word "torments" In verses 24 and 25 we have the word "tormented." These three words are not translated from the same Greek word, however. And there is a great reason why. This one point alone will demolish any such theory that this Rich man is actually and literally having his flesh burned by real fire. Let us now see if Jesus gives us any indication whether or not this Rich man will ever come out of this place of torments and what these torments really are: The Greek word translated "torments" in verse 23 is basanos. From Friberg’s Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, we are told that basanois which is a form of the noun basanos, means, "strictly, a touchstone for testing the genuineness of metals by rubbing against it..." In secular Greek literature this word (basanois) was used figuratively to extract information from a person by torture or punishment. From the Greek-English Keyword Concordance we read this, torment, literally a touchstone, used to test metals for alloys, [and] then the examination of persons by torture (Page 307). Though the Rich man may, indeed, be suffering discomfort or pain, it is not from fire burning his flesh, but rather from being tested and proved through chastisement. . It is an interesting fact of Scripture that except for Paul "punishing" the church, there is only ONE SCRIPTURE in the whole new testament that uses the word "punishment." All others use the word "chastisement" which always carries the connotation of correction and bringing things back to what is right again. Chastisement by it’s very definition CANNOT be eternal. There is always a purpose and goal in mind with the use of the word chastise. In Verses 24 and 25 we will likewise see that the word translated "tormented" does by no means carry a meaning of being physical pained or physically tortured. "...he is seeing Abraham from afar..." Impossible. The man is enveloped in "flames" and can clearly identify two personalities from "afar" across a great chasm? Not with human eyes. "And he shouting, said..." Impossible. Proof: Psalm 31:17--"...let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave [Heb. SHEOL]. There it is! There is no talking and no shouting in sheol. If anyone can literally "shout" in hades or sheol they make God a liar. "...send Lazarus that he should be dipping the tip of his finger in water and cooling my tongue..." Impossible. If someone were in a literal fire they would not be asking for a drop of water for their tongue. Their skin and eyes would be in much greater pain than their tongue! The tongue is at least somewhat protected in the mouth cavity. Now if anyone is so silly as to debate me on this issue, let them jump into a fire and see for themselves which burns most--the eyes and skin or the tongue? Besides a drop on the tip of one’s finger would be less than useless. It would have no effect. None. It's a parable. This language is figurative. "...I am tormented [pained] in this flame." Impossible. Yes, it is possible to be "tormented [pained] in flame," however, it is impossible to calmly talk about it while it is happening! If his body were human so as to have a nervous system and feel pain, then of necessity that same body would burn up. It is the destruction of the skin cells that is causing the pain. Within seconds the skin no longer pains (it’s dead). Now it is the deeper flesh that pains. But by then the man would pass out and soon die. I mean really, these are things that people completely unversed in the Scriptures understand. It is not literal fire that is causing him this pain or torment. What kind of "torment" is God talking about in this parable? Is this physical pain from the flames burning his flesh as is taught in Christendom? Not at all! Note that he does not say "flames," but rather "flame," singular! The Greek word translated "tormented" in verses 24 and 25 is a totally different Greek word than is used for "torments" in verse 23. The Greek word here is odunao and it means to be sorrowful or pained, but not physically, but rather EMOTIONALLY! We can easily see how the Holy Spirit of God used this word in Scripture. Adunao is used only two other times in all Scripture and both times it has absolutely nothing to do with physical torture, but rather with emotional sorrow or pain. "And when they saw Him, they were amazed: and His mother said unto Him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing [Greek: adunao, same word translated "tormented" in Luke 16:24 & 25]" (Luke 2:48). "Sorrowing [Greek: adunao, same word translated "tormented" in Luke 16:24 & 25], most of all for the words which he spoke, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him into the ship" (Acts 20:38). Now then, does anyone believe that they were physically tortured when Paul departed? Does anyone believe the parents of Jesus were physical tortured in their flesh while they searched for Jesus? Had the KJV translators been consistent they should have translated Luke 16:24 & 25 the same way. He was emotionally "pained" or "sorrowed" and not physically tormented or tortured! The same word cannot mean both "emotionally sorrowed" and "physically tortured." The Rich man was emotionally pained or sorrowed by the flame (the testing and trials), not tortured, and that’s why, as we shall see later, he wanted a drop [a symbolic drop of water] for his tongue and not a barrel of water to cool his body. Let’s not be guilty of adding to the Rich man’s woes. "Now Abraham said, Child, be reminded that you got your good thing in your life, and Lzarus likewise evil things." If this Rich man is really being pictured literally in a hellhole of eternal torture, why then didn’t Abraham say to him something like this: "Scoundrel, be reminded that you were a liar, cheat, robber, blasphemer, drunkard, murderer, ungodly, unholy, unrepentant, incorrigible, piece of slime in your life,so burn in Hell for ever." But no, the Rich man is accused of no such things. Most governments do not sentence people to cruel and unusual punishment for minor crimes. Christian theologians would sentence this Rich man to all eternity in Hell fire and I don’t see where according to what this parable "literally says" he did anything bad. He lived a life of "good things!" In the literal language of this parable no sin is attributed to him. Not ONE! The rich man got good things, and for that we are told he will have his flesh barbecued with real fire in an eternal hellhole of insane torture? Lazarus got evil things, and for that we are told he will spend eternity in Heaven? Is anyone in this parable said to be literally good or bad? THE RICH MAN LAZARUS By all appearances and descriptions, the Rich man was an educated, well-dressed, well-groomed and well-mannered person who gave food to the poor, fed the stray dogs, had a merry heart and cheerful disposition, and loved his family. By all appearances and descriptions, Lazarus was poor, diseased, probably uneducated, poorly dressed, poorly groomed, hungry, a homeless person in the streets. We know that God blessed him, because he "received GOOD" And Jas. 1:17 says, "Every good gift ... comes down from the Father." He was obviously not blessed of God. According to TBN this man just didn't have faith to be healed. And wasn't blessed because he didn't obey God. He wasn't very thankful. He never did say: "Oh, by the way, Mr. Rich man, Thank you for all the food you always gave me," Did he? And notice carefully what this parable does not say: It doesn't say Lazarus was good, kind, faithful, righteous, or loved God. It doesn't say that he was an evil man, ever hurt anyone, stole, murdered, cursed God, didn't believe in God, or ever did anything bad. It says nothing negative about the Rich man. In fact, it really doesn’t say one, single, positive, anything about him what--so--ever! So we are to take this parable literally? As an historical fact? Okay then, what does it "literally" say? Not what we might think it means but what it actually SAYS: If one is healthy, happy, prosperous, gives to the poor, is respectful of authority, loves his family, is concerned for the welfare of others and is enormously blessed of God, and has a life of "good" things, he will go to Hades and be tormented in flames of fire without water and without mercy. If one is poor, diseased, homeless, a beggar, shows no thanks for even the little he does receive, has not the faith to be healed, and is not blessed of God, but only has a life of evil things, he will go to Abraham’s bosom where he is consoled and comforted in his distress [Gk: parakaleo]. Quite frankly neither one is a pretty picture. That’s because this is figurative and symbolic language, so of course it doesn’t make sense literally! It’s a parable. Here then is the bottom line of the Christian interpretation of this parable: Live a life of good things now, blessed of God, and you’ll burn in the flames of Hell forever. Live a life of evil things now, cursed of God, and you’ll live forever in Heaven. Doesn’t make much sense when we look at it literally, does it? You know, if this parable is literal, Abraham is on the wrong side! Abraham possessed many more of the qualities of the rich man than he did of Lazarus (not actually, but if we take this parable literally)! Abraham was very rich, loved his family, was concerned for the welfare of others, provided for his servants, was respectful of authority (especially of God), was tremendously blessed of God and had a life of many good things. According to the majority of Christendom’s interpretation of this story, Abraham should be in Hell! Actually Abraham is in hades (sheol), as are all the "fathers." And all the dead ungodly people are there as well. They don’t know it, however. It’s very quiet in hades, no thoughts, no praise, no anything--it’s "imperceptible" and "unseen." Back to the parable: "Yet now here he is being consoled, yet you are in pain [adunaoI]." If Lazarus is in heaven, where are all the saints? Where is there a reward? Where is Christ? Where is the happiness and joy? Lazarus is "consoled." This word in Greek is used in conjunction with someone who is "in distress." So Lazarus is being "consoled in his distress." Doesn’t sound like much of a Heaven to me. And the rich man is "in pain." Why? It doesn’t say he did anything wrong, or evil, so why is he in pain? Who judged him? When? For what? DOES GOD SENTENCE BEFORE HE JUDGES? When theologians insist that this is a literal story, they place a huge blotch on the character of God! According to the Christian interpretation, this man is spending eternity in Hell fire, but has never had his day in court. He has been sentenced without being judged! This man could not have been judged, because when our Lord spoke this parable, "The Judgment" was yet future. "Verily, I am saying to you, More tolerable will it be for the land of Sodom and the land of Gomorrah in that DAY OF JUDGING than for that city." (Matt. 10:15) Now I never was good at grammar, but I don’t think "will be" is in the "past tense," is it? And again, "Men, Ninevites, will be rising in the judging with this generation and will be condemning it..." (Mat. 12:41) The "evil" men of Sodom have not yet been judged. The "righteous" men of Nineveh have not yet risen or been judged. What are we to do? Get the scissors out and clip more verses from the Bible so that theologians can be at liberty to turn a parable into an historical event? Besides, judging has to do with doing right or setting things right. Punishment is meted out according to the degree of the crime. Punishment is never eternal. And how does eternal torture in Hell fire equate to the punishment for "having good things in your life?" I have heard theologians say, "No, he’s in Hell for rejecting Christ’s sacrifice." But it doesn’t say that. And it is the theologians that demand that this parable be taken literally. Honestly, it doesn’t literally say anything about rejecting Christ’s sacrifice, does it? Well, okay, let’s look at that premise anyway. I heard a world famous evangelist say regarding the Rich man in this parable, "You go to Hell for rejecting Christ’s sacrifice." But, he does err not knowing the Scriptures or history! Not only didn’t the rich man literally reject Christ’s sacrifice, but it was literally impossible for him to literally do so. When Christ taught this parable (Luke 16) HE WAS NOT AS YET SACRIFICED (Luke 23)! So how, pray tell, could the Rich man have "rejected a sacrifice" Who had not yet even been sacrificed? It is an amazing thing to hear world famous evangelists with audacity teach millions of people that our Merciful God has already sent millions of fellow human beings to an eternal burning hell to suffer indescribably in torturous agony, and horrifying pain without mercy, all without a "hearing" or "trial" or "just judgment" and for rejecting a Sacrifice Who had not yet even been sacrificed? MILLIONS OF GALLONS OF WATER IN HELL "And in all this, between us and you a great chasm has been established, so that those wanting to cross hence to you may not be able, nor yet those thence may be ferrying to us." Impossible. "Thus also is the resurrection of the dead ... It is sown a soulish body; it is roused a spiritual body" (I Cor. 15:42 & 44). If Lazarus has a spiritual body in heaven, how can a gulf or chasm keep such a spiritual being from crossing it? Notice this phrase, "...those wanting to cross hence to you..." What? Do you think that is translated correctly? I assure you it is translated correctly. So why, oh why, would anyone in Heaven be "WANTING" TO GO TO HELL? Isn’t it is time that we concede that this is indeed a parable! The last part of verse 26 should read as follows: "Nor yet those thence may be ferrying to us." King James uses "pass" twice in this verse. They are different words, however. The first "pass" is [Gk. diabaino = THROUGH-STEP or cross]. But the second "pass" is [Gk: .Diaperao = THROUGH-OTHER-SIDE, and is used of passage over WATER] hence, "ferrying." Here is water. Since there is water separating Lazarus from the rich man in this chasm, why doesn’t the rich man just jump into the water? And the word "ferrying" also presupposes "ferry boats." Even if the Rich man can’t swim it would be better to drown than burn. DID THE RICH MAN EVEN KNOW WHO MOSES WAS? "Yet Abraham is saying to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them!’" Impossible. The rich man recognized Abraham on sight. Even called him "Father." How could someone who knows Abraham "...hear Moses...?" Moses didn’t live until hundreds of years after Abraham? How could the rich man’s "brothers" hear Moses? Moses didn’t live until far into their future? You see these are just some of the dozens of problems and contradictions we face when someone insists that this parable be taken literally! And where in Moses and the Prophets does it warn that if one is rich and blessed of God that when he dies he will go to some eternal hellhole of fire and torture? Or that a poor man cursed of God will go to an eternal heaven of bliss? Now I have a few concordances, but I can’t find any such verse. If this parable is literal, then somewhere in Moses and the Prophets it must warn of such a fate for being rich and also promise a heaven of bliss if one is sickly and poverty stricken. But where is there such a teaching in Moses and the prophets? There is no such teaching in Moses and the prophets. This is a parable. "No, father Abraham, but if someone should be going to them from the dead, they will be repenting." Impossible. If Lazarus isn’t dead. if he’s alive in heaven, why didn’t the rich man say, "No ,father Abraham, but if someone should be going to them from HEAVEN, they will be repenting?" How could Lazarus, who is alive, go "...to them from the dead?" "...neither will they be persuaded if someone should be rising from among the dead." The rich man is now persuaded. Why wouldn’t they also be persuaded? Because it will take more than Moses and the Prophets and more than one returning from the dead to persuade them. DECLARE UNTO US THE PARABLE ... I heard Matt Crouch say on international television that since the Jews were prophesied to not understand, Christ spoke in parables so that this prophecy would be apparently voided and they would understand. The Scriptures show just the opposite: "Declare unto us the parable..." (Mat. 13:36) "declare unto us this parable" (Mat. 15:15) "...the twelve asked of Him the parable" (Mk. 4:10) "Know ye not this parable" (Mk. 4:13) "...His disciples asked Him concerning the parable" (Mk. 7:17) "And His disciples asked Him saying, what might this parable be?" (Lk. 8:9) "Now the parable is this: The seed is..." (Lk. 8:11). This is so simple a child can understand it. It wasn’t Christ’s explanations that none understood, it was his "parables" that none understood. The multitudes did not understand Christ’s parables: "This parable spake Jesus unto them; but they understood NOT what things they were which He spake unto them." (Jn 10:6) If, as Matt Crouch suggests, Christ taught in parables so that the the masses would understand, then the Scriptures themselves would prove that He failed utterly. Christ’s own disciples did not understanding His parables when he spoke them anymore than the multitudes did! "Therefore speak I to them in parables; because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand" (Mat. 13:13) "Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower" (Ver. 18) "Then answered Peter and said unto him, DECLARE UNTO US this parable. And Jesus said, ‘Are ye also [like the multitudes] yet without understanding?’" (Mat. 15:15-16) |
|
|
|
| bscott30 | Oct 29 2006, 05:56 PM Post #18 |