Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Hell: Will God see?, Will we?

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Veritas,
I want to applogize to you has a MOD on this forum. Your opening post kindly asked that we do not debate annihilation. I would have banned these members months ago, they did not listen then and they don't listen now.

I been away for six months, I come back and here we are still arguing over annihilation.. And here we are debating this in a thread that one of our members kindly asked us not too.

I have right mind to delete every post on here expect for that following the OP: request..
 
Thanks Atonement.

I wasn't suprised the thread would go that way considering I brought this up right after a conversation I had in a recent thread where annihilation was being debated. That said, I did hope my request would still be respected.

Anyways, Potluck, thanks for your thoughts. Especially:

Potluck said:
As apart as we are now from God in a physical world I believe we will be just as apart from the realms of Hell. Do we now see anyone in Heaven? Or Hell? Again, as apart as we are now so shall we be in Heaven.

That does seem to make alot of sense. So, would that mean that you believe that Luke 16 is more of a parable than actual reality? I think it might have been reality, but now with what Christ has done for us, things have changed.

Potluck said:
And as you know there are those that judge God using what is in us, again, the emotions, feelings of a physical world questioning His nature of love without acknowledging His nature of wrath.

Yeah. I agree, I think it's important to simply stick to what His Word says whether we "like" it or not.
 
If Luke 16 is reality then the rich man was judged to Hell before Christ rose from the dead. I think this one is a prophecy and illustration because first we see...

Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

...which focuses not on the Gospel but on the Law and the sayings of the prophets. I say prophecy for again Christ hasn't yet risen but demonstrates that some still will not believe even though "one rose from the dead."

And the verses confirm the reality of Hell as now or in the future. For if there is no Hell or ever will be then the parable is a lie.



Veritas said:
Yeah. I agree, I think it's important to simply stick to what His Word says whether we "like" it or not.

Absolutely.
 
Well since we are still discussing the rich man and Lazarus, I found out some interesting things while researching this.

It does appear to be historical in a sense. Jesus used a story and names that would have been familiar to the Pharisees. This story was adapted form a similar parable told in the Talmud (Gemara Babylonicum), written while Judah was exiled in Babylonia. I'll post some excerpts and the links. Hopefully this will shed some light on the subject and address the OP at the same time.

Sorry for the length, but this is a good read nonetheless.

The rich man and Lazarus. (Luke 16.19-31)

To understand this story, we must keep it in context with all that has come before.

It is important to keep in mind that Jesus was not attempting to lay out an entire theological statement about salvation, as so many evangelicals try to read into this story. He was attempting to impress on the Pharisees in particular, and the nation in general, the severity of their stubbornness and blindness to their true adulterous condition in light of His future, earthly, Messianic kingdom. They were apostate and DEAD! Even those who believed were dead to the kingdom in that day because the offer of the kingdom had to be withdrawn; consequently, they could not enter into the kingdom in that day. National rejection of the offer of the kingdom affected even those who accepted the offer in that day...

... Greek mythology.

In researching this story, I discovered an interesting fact. This parable was not something that originated with Jesus. Something similar was found in a document called Gemara Babylonicum. Actually, it was a pagan parable that the Jews had adopted. We must keep in mind that from Malachi to Christ, there was no voice of a prophet in Israel. There was only silence for four hundred years. During that time, the Pharisees and others had obviously adopted pagan mythology, particularly in relation to death and the unseen. The pagans believed in an after-life under the earth with compartments for the good and the evil, and some of the Jews began to hold such views, as well.

If this is true, then Jesus merely took a pagan parable that the Pharisees understood and used it to portray the death of Israel. He was in no way sanctioning such a belief; He merely used something that the Israelites understood and turned it on them. One with an open mind to the truth will search in vain for a theological statement in this story.

The question will arise as to why Jesus used something in which He did not believe. It was not unusual for Him to use common things of that day that the people understood, without making a statement that He believed in or was teaching on such things. For example, He referred to the god of mammon or the god of riches and to Beelzebub, the Philistine god of flies or filth (see Matthew 10.25; 12.24), as if they were personified. To believe that Jesus was teaching on these false gods in such a way as to support or sanction their existence or to create some new doctrine is most untenable.

It was the underlining message of this story that Jesus was conveying, not the pagan beliefs that some of the Israelites had adopted. If anything, the fact that they had adopted such paganism was a further indictment of their condition. It should have brought great shame on them, for the Son of God stood in their midst.

Figurative, not literal.

The next issue that needs to be addressed is whether this story is literal or figurative. At this point, it is almost too obvious for this even to be a question, since much of it is figurative and based on pagan beliefs. However, we need to be clear on this point, for many take it to be a literal story.

First, Abraham’s bosom is not literal, for no one could literally be in his bosom. It was figurative language referring to blessing and the promises.

Second, Abraham and Lazarus were in sight and hearing of the rich man in torment. What joy would it bring to saved ones to be able to observe and hear loved ones in torment? Some take this to mean that Abraham is in heaven and the rich man is in hell. This makes matters even worse, for all in heaven would continue to see the torment of hell every day for all eternity. This is nonsense. Further, how could there be communication between two places that are separated by a great distance (one above the earth and one in the earth)?...
Link ---> www.kingdomandglory.com/eon/eon16.htm+Gemara+Babylonicum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=35&gl=us]The rich man and Lazarus.[/url]
 
continued...

III. Contemporary Jewish Concept of "Abraham's Bosom"

It is evident, from Jewish writings, that the Pharisees and various others of Christ's day believed in the idea of consciousness after death. Their concept of hades had greatly changed since the days of the patriarchs and the close of the Old Testament canon. And in the time of Jesus they believed much as did the Greeks and others around them.

Reference is made, in the parable just noted, to "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22), an expression found no other place in Scripture. So far as the Bible is concerned, there is nothing to indicate where "Abraham's bosom" is, or what it signifies.

We find, however, that the expression appears in extra-Biblical literature, and that it was apparently a current concept, or tradition, of the Jewish people. Josephus, in his "Discourse Concerning Hades," states that they call "Abraham's bosom" the place of felicity to which the righteous go at death. The Talmud refers to it as "Abraham's lap" (Kiddushin 72b). It was evidently the common belief of many in the days of Jesus.

In fact, the description of hades, as given by Josephus, parallels very closely the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus. (Full statement quoted in additional note on p. 565.) There we read of the great gulf fixed, of the chamber of the righteous being within sight and speaking distance of the chamber where the wicked are tormented, and of other details referred to in the story as narrated by Jesus. Not only do these concepts appear in the writings of Josephus, but they are to be found in other Jewish literature.

Thus we read concerning hades: (1) that hades was composed of two chambers (2 Esdras 4:41); (2) that one of these chambers was for the righteous; the other for the wicked (Midrash, on Ruth 1:1); (3) that the righteous inhabit one chamber (Wisdom of Solomon 3:1); the wicked the other, where they are accursed, scourged, and tormented (Enoch 22:9-13; Talmud Erubin 19a); (4) that the inhabitants of one chamber are visible to, and within speaking distance of, the inhabitants of the other chamber (Midrash, on Eccl. 7:14); (5) that the righteous are welcomed into hades by companies of ministering angels (Talmud Kethuboth 104a; 4 Ezra 7:85-87, 91-95); (6) that the righteous are received into hades by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (4 Maccabees 13:17); and (7) that the righteous, as part of their reward, sit "in Abraham's lap" (Talmud Kiddushin 72 b)....

... IV. Obvious Lessons of the Parable

Important lessons are taught in this parable: (1) that earthly blessings at best are uncertain and transitory; (2) that rich men are responsible not only for what they do but also for what they do not do with their wealth; (3) that this present life is the only opportunity we will be given to make preparation for the future; (4) that selfish inhumanity, and the wrong use of riches, disqualifies one from a place in God's eternal kingdom; (5) that the clear teachings of Scripture are sufficient to make us wise unto salvation.

The rich man was not separated from Abraham because he was rich, for Abraham himself was a man of wealth, but because he had disregarded the fundamental teachings of the law and the prophets, which are love to God and love to man. Jesus said that on these two hang all the law and the prophets (Matt. 22:40)
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q43.htm
 
Important lessons are taught in this parable: (1) that earthly blessings at best are uncertain and transitory; (2) that rich men are responsible not only for what they do but also for what they do not do with their wealth; (3) that this present life is the only opportunity we will be given to make preparation for the future; (4) that selfish inhumanity, and the wrong use of riches, disqualifies one from a place in God's eternal kingdom; (5) that the clear teachings of Scripture are sufficient to make us wise unto salvation.
It is very interesting that one can take literal meanings from a teaching of Jesus Christ that has been truthfully or falsely determined to be a parable and get five "Important lessons" that are taught; with the fourth one declaring that selfishness and wrong use of riches disqualifies one from a place in God's eternal Kingdom while ignoring the alternative of the teaching that one will spend an eternity in torment as the rich man depicts. Why is that? Personal bias? Incorrect assumptions and interpretation?

I also find it a stretch to believe that Luke 16 depicts Jesus teaching a pagan parable to express truth over teaching the truth. To depict Luke 16 as a parable instead of literal truth is a choice that one has to make to match ones beliefs; and if ones beliefs are false, then the choice that one makes will be in direct correlation with that bias.
 
I guess you did read this part:

The question will arise as to why Jesus used something in which He did not believe. It was not unusual for Him to use common things of that day that the people understood, without making a statement that He believed in or was teaching on such things. For example, He referred to the god of mammon or the god of riches and to Beelzebub, the Philistine god of flies or filth (see Matthew 10.25; 12.24), as if they were personified. To believe that Jesus was teaching on these false gods in such a way as to support or sanction their existence or to create some new doctrine is most untenable.

It was the underlining message of this story that Jesus was conveying, not the pagan beliefs that some of the Israelites had adopted. If anything, the fact that they had adopted such paganism was a further indictment of their condition. It should have brought great shame on them, for the Son of God stood in their midst.

It doesn't matter anyway. You are going to believe what you want to believe, even if someone were to put the Talmud in front of you and said, "Here it is". :-?


Sorry Craig, I will refrain from posting in your thread, unless you specifically address me. I will say that I believe much of what Jesus taught in the Gospels was meant for the Jews. It was all before the Cross.
 
vic C. said:
I guess you did read this part:



It doesn't matter anyway. You are going to believe what you want to believe, even if someone were to put the Talmud in front of you and said, "Here it is". :-?


Sorry Craig, I will refrain from posting in your thread, unless you specifically address me. I will say that I believe much of what Jesus taught in the Gospels was meant for the Jews. It was all before the Cross.

Thanks for the referrences vic. Very nice.
 
vic C. said:
It doesn't matter anyway. You are going to believe what you want to believe, even if someone were to put the Talmud in front of you and said, "Here it is". :-?
Oh, but it does matter! To attribute the teaching of Jesus as a Pagan parable is very, very disgusting. It is interesting that most of the cults hold to this Arian idea including the Universalists and Christadelphians. Here is one website that is a Universalist full-Preterist site that agrees with your previous post: http://hellbusters.8m.com/spiritoftheword.html

The truth concerning Jesus' teachings is that it is Truth, not Fables; and it is Godly, not Pagan!

The Sadducees existed in Jesus' time, and the Neo-Sadducees exist in our time. The Neo-Sadducees are Arian and today's Arians are the Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Herbert Armstrong's World Wide Church of God, and Christadelphians to name a few.

What do these teach about Jesus' teaching in Luke 16 of the Rich man and Lazarus?
  • The idea that wicked "souls" are right now suffering torments ... is a pagan myth! (Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course Lesson 6, 1977)
    [/*:m:59d54]
  • Allegorical account: A consideration of the account of Lazarus and the rich man in view of other scriptures on the subject of death and the resurrection makes it clear that this is an allegory used to teach important spiritual lessons. It is not intended to be understood literally, nor is this a description of the actual events that take place after death or at the resurrection. (What Happens After Death?, United Church of God, an International Association)
    [/*:m:59d54]
  • On Luke 16: "The plot of the parable, the reversal of earthly fortunes after death, was familiar in popular Palestinian stories of Jesus' time. Hugo Gressmann cites a Greek parallel from a first-century Egyptian papyrus, and he says there are at least seven versions of the story in Jewish literature. One of the most famous involved a poor student of the Law and a rich publican named Bar Ma'jan. There are differences between these stories and Jesus', of course, and therein lies the Lord's uniqueness. But the basic plot was well-known folklore. Froom cites a discourse of Josephus concerning Hades which paints almost precisely the same picture found in Luke. He concludes that "Jesus was clearly using a then-common tradition of the Jews to press home a moral lesson in a related field." (The Fire That Consumes, Edward W. Fudge, Annihilationist, p. 204)Note: Edward W. Fudge is affiliated with the Churches of Christ.
    [/*:m:59d54]
  • The notion of hades as the place of torment for the wicked derives from Greek mythology, not Scripture. In mythology hades was the underworld where the conscious souls of the dead are divided in two major regions, one a place of torment and the other of blessedness. This Greek conception of hades influenced some Jews during the intertestamental period to adopt the belief that immediately after death the souls of the righteous proceed to heavenly felicity, while the souls of the godless go to a place of torment in hades. This popular scenario is reflected in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. (Immortality or Resurrection?, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist, Ch 5: State of the Dead)
    [/*:m:59d54]
  • A JEWISH FABLE. Paul told Titus to rebuke the Cretans sharply that they might be sound in the faith, "not giving heed to Jewish fables" (Titus 1: 14). It is one of these "Jewish fables" that Christ uses against the "covetous Pharisees" in the parable under consideration. ... There are other fables in the Bible (Christadelphian, Christendom Astray, p35)
    [/*:m:59d54]
  • His reference to their "fable" no more commits him to a belief in it than does his reference to "Beelzebub" (Matt. 12: 27) argue his belief in "The Lord of the Fly", which is the meaning of the name thus bestowed by the heathen upon an imaginary "Prince of the Demons".(Christadelphian, Christendom Astray, p35)
    [/*:m:59d54]
  • It may be asked, Why did Christ parabolically employ a belief that was fictitious, and thus give it his apparent sanction? The answer is that Christ was not using it with any reference to itself, but for the purpose of being able to introduce a dead man's testimony. He wanted to impress upon them the lesson conveyed in the concluding words of Abraham, "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead"; and in no more forcible way could he have done this, than by framing a parable based upon their own theory of the death state, which admitted of the consciousness of the dead, and, therefore, their capability to speak on the subject he wanted to introduce. This did not involve his sanction of the theory, any more than his allusion to Beelzebub carried with it a sanction of the reality of that God of the heathen (Matt. 12:27). (Christadelphian, Christendom Astray, Robert Roberts, p35)[/*:m:59d54]
Josephus is suggested by these to align with the thought that there was no such belief concerning a soul's existence after death in Sheol. Here is what Josephus wrote:
  • "Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the righteous and unrighteous are detained, it is necessary to speak of it. Hades is a place in the world not regularly finished; a subterraneous region, where the light of this world does not shine . . . This region is allowed as a place of custody for souls, in which angels are appointed as guardians to them. . . .the just are guided to the right hand, and are led with hymns sung by the angels appointed over that place, unto a region of light. . . with whom there is no place of toil, no burning heat, no piercing cold,. . . while they wait for that rest and eternal new life in heaven, which is to succeed this region. This place we call The Bosom of Abraham. But as to the unjust, they are dragged by force to the left hand, by the angels allotted for punishment, no longer going with a good will. . . Now those angels that are set over these souls, drag them into the neighborhood of hell itself; who, when they are hard by it, continually hear the noise of it, and do not stand clear of the hot vapour itself; but when they have a nearer view of this spectacle, as of a terrible and exceeding great prospect of fire, they are struck with a fearful expectation of a future judgment, and in effect punished thereby. . . even hereby are they punished; for a chasm deep and large is fixed between them; insomuch that a just man that hath compassion upon them, cannot be admitted, nor can one that is unjust, if he were bold enough to attempt it, pass over it." (Josephus Complete Works, trans. by William Whiston, p.637)
For a full lesson on the false teachings of the Neo-Sadducees, Arians, and others concerning Jesus' teachings of Luke 16 go to http://www.bible.ca/su-hades-luke16.htm#fable

PS Give me the Word of God over the Talmud any day!!!
 
I think you're suggesting that, because these explanations differ from your worldview and understanding, that therefore these explanations (your cites) can't possiblly be true.

That's exactly what you are saying.

But we know from the Bible that the Children of Israel left their faith and began accepting pagan doctrine and teaching so much that even the Kings of Israel (Jephthah) sacrificed their children to fire of Molech.

It would be inconceivable that if, over time, pagan culture and influenced the nation of the Jews, that these doctrines of foreign paganism would not have invaided and even supplanted the original teachings of the Hebrews.

To suggest that they, the Jews, could not have been influenced by paganism seems incrediably inconsistent with the entire message of the Old Testament.

To me, it seems more likely that the hierarchy of the Jewish religious leadership would have drifted even further and further away from the original teachings of Moses.
 
RND said:
I think you're suggesting that, because these explanations differ from your worldview and understanding, that therefore these explanations (your cites) can't possiblly be true.

That's exactly what you are saying.

But we know from the Bible that the Children of Israel left their faith and began accepting pagan doctrine and teaching so much that even the Kings of Israel (Japeth) sacrificed their children to Molech.

It would be inconceivable that if, over time, pagan culture and influenced the nation of the Jews, that these doctrines of foreign paganism would not have invaided and even supplanted the original teachings of the Hebrews.

To suggest that they, the Jews, could not have been influenced by paganism seems incrediably inconsistent with the entire message of the Old Testament.

To me, it seems more likely that the hierarchy of the Jewish religious leadership would have drifted even further and further away from the original teachings of Moses.
Once again you are arguing a point that makes absolutely no sense. I have never stated against some of the Israelites turning toward paganism. The Seventh Day Adventists have done it in our time. I am giving documentation that speaks against Jesus teaching paganism of which you and Vic are supporting. What a ludicrous position to be in.

My advice to you is that when you meet Jesus at the judgment, just tell him you had a moment of being stupid, but now that you have seen the light it will never happen again.
 
Solo said:
I am giving documentation that speaks against Jesus teaching paganism of which you and Vic are supporting. What a ludicrous position to be in.

I think myself and vic (not to speak for vic, he does mighty fine on his own) are suggesting that Jesus knew of the paganism believed and taught by the Pharisees and the scribes of His day. By relating on their level, regarding their beliefs, seems rather consistent with an omniprescent and omnipotent God.

My advice to you is that when you meet Jesus at the judgment, just tell him you had a moment of being stupid, but now that you have seen the light it will never happen again.

Well, according to scripture I will see that "light" upon His Second Coming. Evidently, I won't have to wait for the "judgment" to see it. He comes in Glory.
 
Vic
I do not agree with that doc at all...I do not believe Jesus would bite off someone else's story and use it...If Jesus did this, he would be accused of teaching using pagan commentaries...I simply do not see this....

I know I am pretty much alone in my belief atleast as far as this forum goes, but I see it as a true account....If it where a parrable, Jesus would have told us...

Luke 16:1 starts out with a parable...

Luke 16:18 and the Lord Jesus Christ says.....18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
A close look at verse 18 is a completely different subject....This could even be a different time period...There is no conjunction there to tie the two events together.....

Next we get to verse 19 and it starts off ''There was a certain rich man,''
Again there is no reason to believe that this is a part of the previous conversations..For all we know this conversation took place on a different day....There is no conjunction and Jesus goes on to include personal names...Why do this if it was a fable?....
 
RND said:
Well, according to scripture I will see that "light" upon His Second Coming. Evidently, I won't have to wait for the "judgment" to see it. He comes in Glory.
As a short side note......
If you have been born again you will see Jesus' return. When is judgement? At what point will you receive your rewards?
 
Solo said:
I am giving documentation that speaks against Jesus teaching paganism of which you and Vic are supporting. What a ludicrous position to be in.

I missed this as I must have been posting at the same time...But yes, I agree with this...
 
Solo said:
As a short side note......
If you have been born again you will see Jesus' return. When is judgement? At what point will you receive your rewards?

Let's try to say on topic shall we. That's a mantra that it seems certain the moderators are able to keep track of.

If you'd like these answers start another thread.

In the meantime, I find this discussion fascinating and appreciate dicussing vic's cites. I'm glad he chose to use them.
 
Here is a commentary by Macdonald....

16:19–21 The Lord concludes His discourse on stewardship of material things by this account of two lives, two deaths, and two hereafters. It should be noted that this is not spoken of as a parable. We mention this because some critics seem to explain away the solemn implications of the story by waving it off as a parable.
At the outset, it should be made clear that the unnamed rich man was not condemned to Hades because of his wealth. The basis of salvation is faith in the Lord, and men are condemned for refusing to believe on Him. But this particular rich man showed that he did not have true saving faith by his careless disregard of the beggar who was laid at his gate. If he had had the love of God in him, he could not have lived in luxury, comfort, and ease when a fellow man was outside his front door, begging for a few crumbs of bread. He would have entered violently into the kingdom by abandoning his love of money.
It is likewise true that Lazarus was not saved because he was poor. He had trusted the Lord for the salvation of his soul.
Now notice the portrait of the rich man, sometimes called Dives (Latin for rich). He wore only the most expensive, custom-made clothing, and his table was filled with the choicest gourmet foods. He lived for self, catering to bodily pleasures and appetites. He had no genuine love for God, and no care for his fellow man.
Lazarus presents a striking contrast. He was a wretched beggar, dropped off every day in front of the rich man’s house, full of sores, emaciated with hunger, and plagued by unclean dogs that came and licked his sores.
16:22 When the beggar died, he was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. Many question whether angels actually participate in conveying the souls of believers to heaven. We see no reason, however, for doubting the plain force of the words. Angels minister to believers in this life, and there seems no reason why they should not do so at the time of death. Abraham’s bosom is a symbolic expression to denote the place of bliss. To any Jew, the thought of enjoying fellowship with Abraham would suggest inexpressible bliss. We take it that Abraham’s bosom is the same as heaven. When the rich man died, his body was buriedâ€â€the body that he had catered to, and for which he had spent so much.
16:23, 24 But that was not all. His soul, or conscious self, went to Hades. Hades is the Greek for the OT word Sheol, the state of departed spirits. In the OT period, it was spoken of as the abode of both saved and unsaved. Here it is spoken of as the abode of the unsaved, because we read that the rich man was in torments.
It must have come as a shock to the disciples when Jesus said that this rich Jew went to Hades. They had always been taught from the OT that riches were a sign of God’s blessing and favor. An Israelite who obeyed the Lord was promised material prosperity. How then could a wealthy Jew go to Hades? The Lord Jesus had just announced that a new order of things began with the preaching of John. Henceforth, riches are not a sign of blessing. They are a test of a man’s faithfulness in stewardship. To whom much is given, of him will much be required.
Verse 23 disproves the idea of “soul sleep,†the theory that the soul is not conscious between death and resurrection. It proves that there is conscious existence beyond the grave. In fact, we are struck by the extent of knowledge which the rich man had. He ... saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. He was even able to communicate with Abraham. Calling him Father Abraham, he begged for mercy, pleading that Lazarus might bring a drop of water and cool his tongue. There is, of course, a question as to how a disembodied soul can experience thirst and anguish from flame. We can only conclude that the language is figurative, but that does not mean that the suffering was not real.
16:25 Abraham addressed him as son, suggesting that he was a descendant physically, though obviously not spiritually. The patriarch reminded him of his lifetime of luxury, ease, and indulgence. He also rehearsed the poverty and suffering of Lazarus. Now, beyond the grave, the tables were turned. The inequalities of earth were reversed.
16:26 We learn here that the choices of this life determine our eternal destiny, and once death has taken place, that destiny is fixed. There is no passage from the abode of the saved to that of the damned, or vice versa.
16:27–31 In death, the rich man suddenly became evangelistic. He want ed someone to go to his five brothers and warn them against coming to that place of torment. Abraham’s reply was that these five brothers, being Jews, had the OT Scriptures, and these should be sufficient to warn them. The rich man contradicted Abraham, stating that if one should go to them from the dead, they would surely repent. However, Abraham had the last word. He stated that failure to listen to the Word of God is final. If people will not heed the Bible, they would not believe if a person rose from the dead. This is conclusively proved in the case of the Lord Jesus Himself. He arose from the dead, and men still do not believe.
From the NT, we know that when a believer dies, his body goes to the grave, but his soul goes to be with Christ in heaven (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23). When an unbeliever dies, his body likewise goes to the grave, but his soul goes to Hades. For him, Hades is a place of suffering and remorse.
At the time of the Rapture, the bodies of believers will be raised from the grave and reunited with their spirits and souls (1 Thess. 4:13–18). They will then dwell with Christ eternally. At the Judgment of the Great White Throne, the bodies, spirits, and souls of unbelievers will be reunited (Rev. 20:12, 13). They will then be cast into the lake of fire, a place of eternal punishment.
And so chapter 16 closes with a most solemn warning to the Pharisees, and to all who would live for money. They do so at the peril of their souls. It is better to beg bread on earth than to beg water in Hades.
 
RND said:
Let's try to say on topic shall we. That's a mantra that it seems certain the moderators are able to keep track of.

If you'd like these answers start another thread.

In the meantime, I find this discussion fascinating and appreciate dicussing vic's cites. I'm glad he chose to use them.
I really did not think that you would answer the questions that I asked. It is not a surprise that you adhere to the doctrines of the cults of christendom. For those who are not mixed up in these cults and are true believers, they see the lies and misfortune of those who adhere to doctrines of devils.

I also find it an amazing thing that you are able to discuss anything else apart from the SDA mantra of "Sabbath Keeping" for salvation.
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top