Eternal Hell, Annihilationism, or Universalism?

[garee]

The water the Rich faithless man as to what he sought after was not the gospel the fresh life giving water but that of salt the water of judgment. The faithless rich man simply was not given the faith that comes by hearing Moses and the prophets the two witnesses of God that make up one perfect witness, as it is written

James 3:12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

 

[Dino246]

It is a parable in a continuation or series . It speaks of the faith principle the true riches. Ultimately in conclusion no man can serve two Masters .One seen and the other not seen

Luke 16:1 King James Version (KJV) And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

The rich man in verse 1 is used in various parables representing those who have wordily riches but none that are unseen eternal.(no faith).

The discussion as a lesson to us. . how to hear is whether or not there are more than one way we could please the idea of a God not seen. Scripture speaks of one manner. Our unseen father as God.

The Rich man insisted even after being told it was impossible the idea of necromancy, sending a person as a worker with familiar spirit who they think is praise worthy or venerable like the Catholic patron saints receiving aid from the dead.

Jesus said to that kind of ideology if they hear not the perfect law of God the law and the prophets (sola scriptura ) called the gospel. he goes on to say. . . then neither will they believe when one rises from the dead . Faith comes by hearing not the after affect seeing. Seeing is seeing .The kingdom comes not by the temporal .

Luke 16:29-31 King James Version (KJV) Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, (the Bible) neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Not dead, or not suffering? Which?

 

[garee]

Not dead, or not suffering? Which?

Parables don't suffer or die.

According to the parable dead .Dead rich faithless man looking for a way out. . any other than the one way (Jesus) through the faith of the One not seen.

Not dead the result of dying. But rather dead asleep a term assigned to those who have been given a new born again Spirit through Moses and the prophets (sola scriptura) The gospel of our salvation. The later group will rise.

 

[Dino246]

Parables don't suffer or die.

According to the parable dead .Dead rich faithless man looking for a way out. . any other than the one way (Jesus) through the faith of the One not seen.

Not dead the result of dying. But rather dead asleep a term assigned to those who have been given a new born again Spirit through Moses and the prophets (sola scriptura) The gospel of our salvation. The later group will rise.

Was the rich man not suffering, or not dead?

 

[garee]

Was the rich man not suffering, or not dead?

Its a parable . The Rich man represents unconverted mankind.Mankind is suffering the pangs of hell. The wrath of God being revealed daily a corrupted creating dying.

 

[Dino246]

Its a parable . The Rich man represents unconverted mankind.Mankind is suffering the pangs of hell. The wrath of God being revealed daily a corrupted creating dying.

You are really having trouble with the simple act of answering the question.

Even if it's a parable, it must still be consistent with the reality. So, as you have claimed that there is no suffering after death, then the rich man is either not suffering or not dead. Which is it?

 

[garee]

You are really having trouble with the simple act of answering the question.

Even if it's a parable, it must still be consistent with the reality. So, as you have claimed that there is no suffering after death, then the rich man is either not suffering or not dead. Which is it?

OK now I understand .That parable does not indicate suffering after death or before. The context is the word of God's law as the one source of Christian faith as it is written opposed to necromancy the desire of the Rich man .

The Parable is consistent to the lesson of the whole series of parable beginning in verse 1. Teaching us no man can serve two Good Masters the things seen the temporal and the things not seen the eternal

The rich man is shown suffering just as he is shown seeing the unseen thing. Dead people that have no spirit can do neither. Corruption return to the dust.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

There is no suffering after death . Hell is defined "by reason of living suffering".

That suffering leads to death and the return of the flesh and blood to the clay. And the temporal spirit returns to the father who gave it temporally "subject" to the letter of the law "death" .

Neither the letter of the law death or those in whom suffer the wage of corruption will rise on the last day .The lefter of the law will never destroy another whole creation.

Those who do have the born again Spirit of Christ that gives us his sabbath rest do have a lighter load of suffering . We can cry out for strength as did Jonas and the Son of man Jesus. The father does strengthen us to finish the good work he began in to both will and do His good pleasure, freely giving us the confidence he will work with us giving us rest till the last day

 

[Ahwatukee]

You are really having trouble with the simple act of answering the question.

Even if it's a parable, it must still be consistent with the reality. So, as you have claimed that there is no suffering after death, then the rich man is either not suffering or not dead. Which is it?

Hello Dino246!

I'm sure that whomever you are responding to is on my ignore list, so I can't see who it is. However, this is always the case with the rich man and Lazarus in that, they must get rid of it as being information about a literal event and that because it destroys their position in regards to soul-sleep and in this case the torment of the spirit after the death of the body. The truth is that, the scripture clearly states that both Lazarus and the rich man died and since their bodies had died, then the spirit of Lazarus was in comfort and the spirit of the rich man was in torment in flame. To not believe this would be to completely ignore the context.

 

[Dino246]

Hello Dino246!

I'm sure that whomever you are responding to is on my ignore list, so I can't see who it is. However, this is always the case with the rich man and Lazarus in that, they must get rid of it as being information about a literal event and that because it destroys their position in regards to soul-sleep and in this case the torment of the spirit after the death of the body. The truth is that, the scripture clearly states that both Lazarus and the rich man died and since their bodies had died, then the spirit of Lazarus was in comfort and the spirit of the rich man was in torment in flame. To not believe this would be to completely ignore the context.

Agreed, which is why I'm challenging him... thus far, to no avail.

 

[Dino246]

OK now I understand .That parable does not indicate suffering after death or before.

You need to read it again! Here are three verses from the story, verbatim, from the KJV. Pay special attention to the words in bold:

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Now, are you going to continue with your imaginative and erroneous misinterpretations, or are you going to accept them for what they clearly state?

 

[garee]

Hello Dino246!

I'm sure that whomever you are responding to is on my ignore list, so I can't see who it is. However, this is always the case with the rich man and Lazarus in that, they must get rid of it as being information about a literal event and that because it destroys their position in regards to soul-sleep and in this case the torment of the spirit after the death of the body. The truth is that, the scripture clearly states that both Lazarus and the rich man died and since their bodies had died, then the spirit of Lazarus was in comfort and the spirit of the rich man was in torment in flame. To not believe this would be to completely ignore the context.

It is always the case when rightly dividing parable to look to the signified understanding or a person will miss the gospel hid in it.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

The context of that parable as the last in a series of parables that began in verse 1 has nothing to do with defining hell. But rather what is the the final authority for hearing God. He uses the rich and the poor to show no man can serve two interpretation masters.

Bodies without a spirit have no desire. They cannot see things because their fleshly eyes have corrupted and returned to the dust .

The context again is no man can serve two interpretation masters (1 ) the word of God as it is written and the other (2) necromancy desiring the venerable dead as a form of communing with a legion of spirits .

If men dead in their trespasses and sin without God in this present world will not get under the authority of all things written in the law and the prophets .Than neither would they believe if a person arose from the dead .Faith comes from hearing God before seeing. Faith does not come by seeing. seeing comes by seeing. Faith come by believing the unseen.

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets;(the word of God) let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, (the word of God) neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead Like 16: 29

 

[garee]

You need to read it again! Here are three verses from the story, verbatim, from the KJV. Pay special attention to the words in bold:

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Now, are you going to continue with your imaginative and erroneous misinterpretations, or are you going to accept them for what they clearly state?

The dead whose temporal spirit has returned to the father know nothing, see nothing, hear nothing nor speak.

Their bodies return to the lifeless spiritless clay it was formed from

It would seem neither of you are fond of parables. They take away the idea of some kind of literal understanding.

No one died. Its easy to see its a parable in a series using the Rich of this world to show they are bankrupt when it comes to the spiritual things not seen . No man can serve two masters for hearing our father in heaven . Law and the prophets(sola scriptura) or what that man was searching with "necromancy" send the dead? ..

Which master is the one we should hear?

You cannot isolate the two part parable beginning in verse one from the other.

If you are looking to define hell .The clearest place is found in Jonas 2 . Hell a living work of suffering done above ground and breathing. Called by reason of suffering. Men cry out in their suffering looking to have their faith strengthened by Him not seen. See how easy that is?

Jonas 2:2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

 

[Dino246]

The dead whose temporal spirit has returned to the father know nothing, see nothing, hear nothing nor speak.

Their bodies return to the lifeless spiritless clay it was formed from

It would seem neither of you are fond of parables. They take away the idea of some kind of literal understanding.

No one died. ...

I see no point in discussing this with you further, since you reject what the text tells you clearly and without any ambiguity.

 

[garee]

I see no point in discussing this with you further, since you reject what the text tells you clearly and without any ambiguity.

The signified text used in parables?

It would seem you are trying to make suffering past the last breath...flat line ? As if God was a God of eternal vengeance and not a God of mercy mixed with grace or favor .

No ambiguity at all if you rightly divide the parable beginning in verse one. Called the parable of : "No man can serve two Good Masters" .One is our Master, God not seen .

The context has nothing to do with defining the word "hell' ( by reason of suffering crying out for strength) reminded me of the verse below.

Philippians 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

 

[Dino246]

The signified text used in parables?

It would seem you are trying to make suffering past the last breath...flat line ? As if God was a God of eternal vengeance and not a God of mercy mixed with grace or favor .

No ambiguity at all if you rightly divide the parable beginning in verse one. Called the parable of : "No man can serve two Good Masters" .One is our Master, God not seen .

The context has nothing to do with defining the word "hell' ( by reason of suffering crying out for strength) reminded me of the verse below.

Philippians 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

When you're ready to accept what the text says, that the rich man DIED and was IN TORMENT, then I'll continue the conversation. Until then, I will not. There's no amount of "right dividing" when you have wrongly tossed the plain text in the trash.

 

[garee]

When you're ready to accept what the text says, that the rich man DIED and was IN TORMENT, then I'll continue the conversation. Until then, I will not. There's no amount of "right dividing" when you have wrongly tossed the plain text in the trash.

Hi thanks for the reply

What trash is that?

I accept what the text says and search out the spiritual meaning of that parable as he gives us ears his understanding hid from natural man. It began in verse one going through a series of parable . Like all parable a necessary tool to help us to lean how to walk by faith

Luke 16;1 King James Version (KJV) And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

Verse 13 of that same parable below reveals the intent. . the key to understanding the parable the whole context of that chapter. .

No man can serve two teaching masters .Even the Son of man Jesus refused to be called Good teaching master saying on not sen is. All things written in the law and the prophets and the lying signs and wonders of men who are receiving the strong delusion needed to go above that which is written (sola scriptura)

The self righteous Pharisees with Sadducee two sects that had no faith .They sought after necromancy disembodied workers with familiar spirits (like Rachel had.) Communing with the dead famous boastful men who lorded it over the faithlessness pew sitters

Luke 16 King James Version (KJV) 13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

The Holy Spirit informs us that those who have no faith coming from hearing God. That they would not believe God even if Jesus did rise from the dead . This show us faith does not come by seeing through the lust of the eyes . The hope of paganism sign and wonder seekers..

Luke 16: 30-31 King James Version (KJV) And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[Dino246]

If accept what the text says and search out the spiritual meaning of that parable as he gives us ears his understanding hid from natural man. It began in verse one going through a series of parable . Like all parable a necessary tool to help us to lean how to walk by faith

Luke 16;1 King James Version (KJV) And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

Verse 13 of that same parable below reveals the intent. . the key to understanding the parable the whole context of that chapter. .

Garee, you're mixing up the stories. Luke 16:1-13 is a parable with a specific lesson, summarized in verse 13. The "two masters" has nothing whatsoever to do with the rich man and Lazarus. That's a separate story beginning in verse 19. There are unrelated comments in beween, clearly separating the stories. Whether the rich man and Lazarus is a "parable" is a subject of much debate; if so, it's the only parable in all Scripture in which a character is named.

No man can serve two teaching masters .Even the Son of man Jesus refused to be called Good teaching master saying on not sen is.

No He didn't. Why are you so stubborn on this? You've conflated "serving" from Luke 16:13 with "teaching" from somewhere else and ended with a confused mess.

As for "his understanding hid from natural man", are you implying that I am a "natural man" and don't understand? Consider carefully before answering.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Garee, you're mixing up the stories. Luke 16:1-13 is a parable with a specific lesson, summarized in verse 13. The "two masters" has nothing whatsoever to do with the rich man and Lazarus. That's a separate story beginning in verse 19. There are unrelated comments in beween, clearly separating the stories. Whether the rich man and Lazarus is a "parable" is a subject of much debate; if so, it's the only parable in all Scripture in which a character is named.


No He didn't. Why are you so stubborn on this? You've conflated "serving" from Luke 16:13 with "teaching" from somewhere else and ended with a confused mess.

As for "his understanding hid from natural man", are you implying that I am a "natural man" and don't understand? Consider carefully before answering.

You are correct Dino. Actually, there are three characters (Abraham, Lazarus, Moses, the prophets, the rich man, his five brothers and his father, as well as the literal name of Hades. As you know and which Gary doesn't, parables don't use real names of people, but use symbolism to represent what is literal.

 

[garee]

Garee, you're mixing up the stories. Luke 16:1-13 is a parable with a specific lesson, summarized in verse 13. The "two masters" has nothing whatsoever to do with the rich man and Lazarus. That's a separate story beginning in verse 19. There are unrelated comments in beween, clearly separating the stories. Whether the rich man and Lazarus is a "parable" is a subject of much debate; if so, it's the only parable in all Scripture in which a character is named.

"Two masters" has everything to do with the rich man and Lazarus. Its the parable of two masters


Really, debate or refusal to properly divide the parable? What is the rich mans name? Or is it only one name required to take away the idea a parable is in view?

Lazarus (God is help, is a meaning) Why would you suppose a real name cannot be used in parables? Can the name Abraham be used in a parable? Elijah? Moses?

The parable in chapter 16 using two classes. Rich to represent those poor in spirit and poor to be rich. It begins using the rich to represent those who seek after another source of faith in verse one. It is carried through to the end of the chapter .In chapter 17 he takes the disciple aside and reveals what he has been saying . They again not understanding how to hear by faith asked to increase their faith or understanding . Christ again using parables.. If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed. It what parables do teach us how to hear God not seen.

Someone is simply trying to find a way to liberalize the signified understating. Ultimately as the parable it teaches no man can serve two teaching masters . In this case necromancy and the word of God.

No He didn't. Why are you so stubborn on this? You've conflated "serving" from Luke 16:13 with "teaching" from somewhere else and ended with a confused mess.

Because as it seems you try and literalize that parable you run into a mess

As for "his understanding hid from natural man", are you implying that I am a "natural man" and don't understand? Consider carefully before answering.

Only God can see into the hearts of all men.

I am applying natural man has no desire to rightly divide the parables using the temporal things seen to give us the gospel truth hid from natural man .

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 

[garee]

You are correct Dino. Actually, there are three characters (Abraham, Lazarus, Moses, the prophets, the rich man, his five brothers and his father, as well as the literal name of Hades. As you know and which Gary doesn't, parables don't use real names of people, but use symbolism to represent what is literal.

The context has nothing to do with defining hell in that parable. Jonas 2 gives us the definition as a law .

You must have some sort of a witness that could support the idea that real names are not used in parables? Israel is a real name used 2000 times. Does it have a meaning attached to it or can we just make one up? Why did God name Abram Abraham? Is the name Abraham used in a parable? Sounds like another of the ways those who literalize away the signified understanding will say. If the first sense makes sense do not scratch the surface.

What is the real names of the 5 brothers in that parable? Did they have pets?