-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D
1. The Bible never calls the rich man and Lazarus account a parable. It certainly never does so in Luke 16. If it did, you would quote me the verse which said so. You couldn't, so you invented your own reasons why you think it should be considered a parable. You claimed that "Whenever vague wording of characters is used, it is logical to think it is a parable," then, as an example of such so-called "vague wording," you said "because the character isn't a real person, rather a description or characteristic that many people share. Like 'a certain rich men'." But this same kind of language is used all over the Gospel and does not imply anything figurative or symbolic at all. John 11:1 says "Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus." Surely you don't think the man Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead was a parable because it calls him "a certain man" - a description or characteristic that many people share. In fact, John 11 uses the same name as Luke 16:19-31, so if both have the same name and are described the same way, either both are parables or both are literal, and we know the Lazarus in John 11 was literal. In John 5:5 we read that "a certain man was there," but him being "a certain man" doesn't make him symbolic now does it? I could just go on and on with examples, but suffice to say these examples show this kind of language doesn't imply a parable is meant. So your first reason for calling this a parable falls to the ground upon close inspection.
2. You claimed that "Abraham would be mentioned in a parable, because EVERYONE knew him." So why then aren't well known people mentioned in any of Jesus' other parables? The fact that no names are mentioned in any of Jesus parables at all would suggest that it wasn't Jesus' practice to use names in his parables. Jesus used no less than 30 illustrations in the Gospels, and no names are mentioned in any of them. Do you think it was by accident? Or is Jesus careful to avoid using names so nobody would assume he was talking about specific real events? A name is unnecessary if the character is fictional. At least you admit that "Lazarus is interesting," I will give you that. If Abraham is mentioned because he was well known, then why is a not so well known person like Lazarus mentioned? It just shows you are speculating about the reason Jesus included names here to avoid the more obvious reason.
3. In response to my argument that Jesus used things that his disciples were familiar with, you said that "People were familiar with an underworld concept (Greek Hades). So it actually makes sense here that it could be a parable." But this makes little sense because the Jews, being in stiff opposition of the paganism of the Greeks, would not, and did not use their Greek myths as a basis for parables, or even folklore. Not even in the apocryphal Jewish literature, or Jewish historians like Josephus do we have parables including Greek gods, or mythical creatures the Greeks believed in. The Jews had parables of their own such as those in the Book of Abraham and the Book of Enoch that reflected their own Jewish beliefs and traditions, but these were very different from those of the Greeks.
Again, why would Jesus borrow a pagan myth in order to teach his disciples? Could you imagine Jesus using the relationship between Egyptian deities like Osiris and Set to illustrate the opposition between Yahweh and the Devil? Jesus would never compare the True God to Osiris, and so too, I find it hard to believe that Jesus would compare the state of the righteous to some false, pagan, Greek idea about the afterlife. Jesus putting this doctrine in Abraham's mouth only makes sense if it is true.
4. Amazingly, you said that "Jesus used a common belief to show how condemnation is NOT GOOD." But Jesus was speaking to Jewish listeners, so are you now saying that hellfire was a COMMON BELIEF among his Jewish disciples?
You encouraged me to "do a word study on the greek/hebrew words that make up hell, you find that it is simply the grave." You seem to be ignorant of the fact that words tend to have more than one meaning. Elohim means "God" in Genesis 1:1, but then it means "gods" in Exodus 12:12. So too, there are places where Sheol and Hades mean the grave, but in other places this is not the case. The rich man certainly didn't experience this torment in the Grave, and even if it were symbolic of people living on the earth, they too could not experience even spiritual or emotional torment in the grave; so in both cases Hades doesn't mean the grave in Luke 16. Let me share with you the comments of one scholar on this topic:
"SHEOL...First, the word means the state of death; "For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?" (Ps. 6:5; cf. 18:5) It is the final resting place of all men: "They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave (Job 21:13). Hannah confessed that it was the omnipotent God who brings men to Sheol (death) or kills them (1 Sam. 2:6). "Sheol" is parallel to Hebrew words for "pit" or "hell" (Job 26:6), "corruption" or "decay" (Ps. 16:10), and "destruction" (Prov. 15:11).
Second, "Sheol" is used of a place of conscious existence after death. In the first biblical appearance of the word Jacob said that he would "go down into the grave unto my son mourning" (Gen. 37:35). All men go to "Sheol" - a place and state of consciousness after death (Ps. 16:10). The wicked receive punishment there (Num. 16:30; Deut. 32:22; Ps. 9:17). They are put to shame and silenced in "Sheol" (Ps. 31:17). Jesus alluded to Isaiah's use of Sheol (Isaiah 14:13-15) in pronouncing judgment on Capernaum (Matt. 11:23), translating "Sheol" as "Hades" or "Hell," meaning the place of conscious existence and judgement. It is an undesirable place for the wicked (Job 24:19) and a refuge for the righteous (Job 14:13). Thus "Sheol" is also a place of reward for the righteous (Hos. 13:14; cf. 1 Cor. 15:55). Jesus' teaching in Luke 16:19-31 seems to reflect accurately the Old Testament concept of Sheol, one side of which is occupied by the suffering, unrighteous dead separated by a great chasm from the other side peopled by the righteous dead enjoying their reward." (W. E. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p. 227)
Now This dictionary was made by Greek Scholar W.E. Vine, Biblical Language Specialist William White Jr, and Professor Emeritus of Semitics and Old Testament Merrill F. Unger. Surely such men are more qualified to tell me the meaning of the words Sheol and Hades than you are. Surely, these men have done much more than a word study on these terms.
If the rich man and Lazarus is symbolic, who do you think the angles represent? Who do the rich man's five brother's represent? And how do you know? And if they don't represent anything, then why is all this additional information added about the man's family and the angels if this were a parable? Jesus never bogged down his parables with unnecessary details, but kept it all simple. It seems therefore this isn't a parable.
You go on to argue that the Bible says somewhere, you didn't say where, that the soul dies. I don't know how that shows hellfire isn't real. Again, you must not forget words have multiple meanings, and one must examine the context to see which meaning is being used. For example in Joshua 11:11, the word "soul" clearly means the body, because it it destroyed by the sword. The same may be true in Ezekiel 18:4; but, there are passages where the word "soul" means something other than the body. Jesus said in Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy BOTH soul AND body in hell." Here the body which they can kill is contrasted with the soul they cannot kill, and Jesus uses the word "BOTH" to show the soul and body are separate things. Genesis 35:18 talks about the souls departing from the body, and 1 Kings 17:17-23 speaks of it as returning to the body. I could just go on and on with examples.
One last question. What does the fire in Revelation 19:20 represent?
2. You claimed that "Abraham would be mentioned in a parable, because EVERYONE knew him." So why then aren't well known people mentioned in any of Jesus' other parables? The fact that no names are mentioned in any of Jesus parables at all would suggest that it wasn't Jesus' practice to use names in his parables. Jesus used no less than 30 illustrations in the Gospels, and no names are mentioned in any of them. Do you think it was by accident? Or is Jesus careful to avoid using names so nobody would assume he was talking about specific real events? A name is unnecessary if the character is fictional. At least you admit that "Lazarus is interesting," I will give you that. If Abraham is mentioned because he was well known, then why is a not so well known person like Lazarus mentioned? It just shows you are speculating about the reason Jesus included names here to avoid the more obvious reason.
3. In response to my argument that Jesus used things that his disciples were familiar with, you said that "People were familiar with an underworld concept (Greek Hades). So it actually makes sense here that it could be a parable." But this makes little sense because the Jews, being in stiff opposition of the paganism of the Greeks, would not, and did not use their Greek myths as a basis for parables, or even folklore. Not even in the apocryphal Jewish literature, or Jewish historians like Josephus do we have parables including Greek gods, or mythical creatures the Greeks believed in. The Jews had parables of their own such as those in the Book of Abraham and the Book of Enoch that reflected their own Jewish beliefs and traditions, but these were very different from those of the Greeks.
Again, why would Jesus borrow a pagan myth in order to teach his disciples? Could you imagine Jesus using the relationship between Egyptian deities like Osiris and Set to illustrate the opposition between Yahweh and the Devil? Jesus would never compare the True God to Osiris, and so too, I find it hard to believe that Jesus would compare the state of the righteous to some false, pagan, Greek idea about the afterlife. Jesus putting this doctrine in Abraham's mouth only makes sense if it is true.
4. Amazingly, you said that "Jesus used a common belief to show how condemnation is NOT GOOD." But Jesus was speaking to Jewish listeners, so are you now saying that hellfire was a COMMON BELIEF among his Jewish disciples?
You encouraged me to "do a word study on the greek/hebrew words that make up hell, you find that it is simply the grave." You seem to be ignorant of the fact that words tend to have more than one meaning. Elohim means "God" in Genesis 1:1, but then it means "gods" in Exodus 12:12. So too, there are places where Sheol and Hades mean the grave, but in other places this is not the case. The rich man certainly didn't experience this torment in the Grave, and even if it were symbolic of people living on the earth, they too could not experience even spiritual or emotional torment in the grave; so in both cases Hades doesn't mean the grave in Luke 16. Let me share with you the comments of one scholar on this topic:
"SHEOL...First, the word means the state of death; "For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?" (Ps. 6:5; cf. 18:5) It is the final resting place of all men: "They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave (Job 21:13). Hannah confessed that it was the omnipotent God who brings men to Sheol (death) or kills them (1 Sam. 2:6). "Sheol" is parallel to Hebrew words for "pit" or "hell" (Job 26:6), "corruption" or "decay" (Ps. 16:10), and "destruction" (Prov. 15:11).
Second, "Sheol" is used of a place of conscious existence after death. In the first biblical appearance of the word Jacob said that he would "go down into the grave unto my son mourning" (Gen. 37:35). All men go to "Sheol" - a place and state of consciousness after death (Ps. 16:10). The wicked receive punishment there (Num. 16:30; Deut. 32:22; Ps. 9:17). They are put to shame and silenced in "Sheol" (Ps. 31:17). Jesus alluded to Isaiah's use of Sheol (Isaiah 14:13-15) in pronouncing judgment on Capernaum (Matt. 11:23), translating "Sheol" as "Hades" or "Hell," meaning the place of conscious existence and judgement. It is an undesirable place for the wicked (Job 24:19) and a refuge for the righteous (Job 14:13). Thus "Sheol" is also a place of reward for the righteous (Hos. 13:14; cf. 1 Cor. 15:55). Jesus' teaching in Luke 16:19-31 seems to reflect accurately the Old Testament concept of Sheol, one side of which is occupied by the suffering, unrighteous dead separated by a great chasm from the other side peopled by the righteous dead enjoying their reward." (W. E. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p. 227)
Now This dictionary was made by Greek Scholar W.E. Vine, Biblical Language Specialist William White Jr, and Professor Emeritus of Semitics and Old Testament Merrill F. Unger. Surely such men are more qualified to tell me the meaning of the words Sheol and Hades than you are. Surely, these men have done much more than a word study on these terms.
If the rich man and Lazarus is symbolic, who do you think the angles represent? Who do the rich man's five brother's represent? And how do you know? And if they don't represent anything, then why is all this additional information added about the man's family and the angels if this were a parable? Jesus never bogged down his parables with unnecessary details, but kept it all simple. It seems therefore this isn't a parable.
You go on to argue that the Bible says somewhere, you didn't say where, that the soul dies. I don't know how that shows hellfire isn't real. Again, you must not forget words have multiple meanings, and one must examine the context to see which meaning is being used. For example in Joshua 11:11, the word "soul" clearly means the body, because it it destroyed by the sword. The same may be true in Ezekiel 18:4; but, there are passages where the word "soul" means something other than the body. Jesus said in Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy BOTH soul AND body in hell." Here the body which they can kill is contrasted with the soul they cannot kill, and Jesus uses the word "BOTH" to show the soul and body are separate things. Genesis 35:18 talks about the souls departing from the body, and 1 Kings 17:17-23 speaks of it as returning to the body. I could just go on and on with examples.
One last question. What does the fire in Revelation 19:20 represent?
I agree with you, and contrary to the ones below, Luke 16 is nothing like a parable and actually names 2 of the three men talked about and on top of that it would be rather stupid to teach about a place by using a place that does not exist! Hell is real and hell will one day be cast with death into the lake of fire which is also real and all who reject Jesus as prescribed by the word will be cast from the presence of God into the lake of fire where the smoke of their torment will ascend for ever before the throne of God!
D
Nobody said the rich man was punished for being rich or eating well. Nobody said Lazarus was taken to heaven for being a beggar either. In fact, I don't believe he was in heaven at all, he was on one side of Sheol/Hades with Abraham. That is where the Bible says these people were. Because Lazarus body was in the grave, you ASSUME the angels could not carry his soul or spirit to another place, but notice what Paul says: "Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home IN THE BODY, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be ABSENT FROM THE BODY, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Cor 5:6-8)
1) Paul says we need to be ABSENT FROM THE BODY to be present with the Lord. Now what part of Paul with be PRESENT WITH the Lord while it is ABSENT from the body? This is the part the angels carried to Abraham's bosom.
2) Paul says he is "WILLING RATHER" to be absent from his body. Now if death is a state of unconsciousness, why would Paul prefer to be out of existence rather than to remain IN THE BODY? This only makes sense if his being away from the body would bring him into the Lord's presence.
You also claim that a drop of water would not benefit the rich man, but you couldn't know that unless he had received the water. This isn't natural water like we have on the earth, nor is this normal fire. If the God I serve can make a bush burn on fire without getting consumed (Exo 3:2), he can make the kind of water that can cool the fires of hell. Maybe the problem here is that you don't trust the supernatural power of God. God also made a fruit that could make a sinner live forever. (Gen 3:22-24)
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be ABSENT FROM THE BODY, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Cor 5:6-8)1) Paul says we need to be ABSENT FROM THE BODY to be present with the Lord. Now what part of Paul with be PRESENT WITH the Lord while it is ABSENT from the body? This is the part the angels carried to Abraham's bosom.
2) Paul says he is "WILLING RATHER" to be absent from his body. Now if death is a state of unconsciousness, why would Paul prefer to be out of existence rather than to remain IN THE BODY? This only makes sense if his being away from the body would bring him into the Lord's presence.
You also claim that a drop of water would not benefit the rich man, but you couldn't know that unless he had received the water. This isn't natural water like we have on the earth, nor is this normal fire. If the God I serve can make a bush burn on fire without getting consumed (Exo 3:2), he can make the kind of water that can cool the fires of hell. Maybe the problem here is that you don't trust the supernatural power of God. God also made a fruit that could make a sinner live forever. (Gen 3:22-24)
D
He is a Jehovah's Witness? What puzzles me is how they can say that the lake of fire means eternal destruction. If the wild beast and the false prophet are destroyed forever in Revelation 19:20, how can they be destroyed AGAIN a thousand years later in Revelation 20:10? Even in their New Word Translation, after mentioning that the Devil was cast into the lake of fire where both the wild beast and false prophet were, it say "and THEY will be tormented day and night forever and ever." How can THEY be destroyed again if the previous destruction was eternal? Even the clause [already were] is put in brackets because the NWT translators knew it wasn't in the Greek text. And how can you eternally destroy someone "day and night"? The term "day and night" would suggest a repeatable action, like what the four beasts do in Revelation 4:8. Just a thought.
D
You said that "if this parable is direct teaching, then we are instructed to consult Moses and the Prophets. Are you doing that? Are you living by the Laws of Moses?" But if Jesus is simply giving a historical statement of what happened, of course Abraham would want the rich man's brothers to consult Moses and the Prophets because that law was still binding before Jesus came. In fact, it was still binding when Jesus gave this account. Jesus commanded a man in direct teaching to "offer the gift that Moses commanded." (Matt 8:4) Jesus commanded to keep the Ten Commandments, and this was direct teaching, it was no parable (Matt 19:16-19). Surely just because Jesus engaged in direct teaching while pointing to the law of Moses on these occasions doesn't mean we have to keep the law of Moses with its sabbath today, so Jesus pointing to Moses and the Prophets in Luke 16 wouldn't obligate us to keep it today either. These commands applied to a time when the law of Moses was still in force. In any case, the NT wasn't written yet while Jesus gave this account, so what other Scripture could he tell anyone to obey?
In fact, you presume too much, for Abraham didn't tell the rich man that his brothers should obey the law of Moses, only that he should LISTEN to Moses. Moses prophesied that Christ would come, and that we should listen to him. So by listening to Moses today, we would simply accept Jesus' teachings, one of which is that he fulfilled the law, and we no longer are bound to it anymore.
They can see each other, and carry on conversation, but because of the chasm, they cannot leave their abodes to cross over to one another. I looked carefully at the implications you suggested from taking this literally.
If this is not a parable but rather direct teaching then...
1) Saved mothers in heaven can see their lost children in hell being burned and tormented. Even worse still, saved fathers were commanded to kill their sons and vice versa before their very eyes. (Exo 32:27) Under the law of Moses, people died by the sword, by fire, and stoning, but for ALL who abandon the faith there exists a "SORER (worse) punishment." (Heb 10:28-29) Being asleep, or out of existence, is not a worse punishment than the cruel, painful deaths under the law of Moses, but hellfire is! Looking back at some of the cruel things God did in the Old Testament, I don't buy the argument that God is too loving to punish the wicked. Even in this life, God allows saved mothers to see their sons go through all kinds of torment, so why not back then in Sheol?
But I never said people in HEAVEN can see people in hell, and I also don't believe the righteous go to Sheol anymore, they go to heaven because Jesus came and opened the way for heavenly life. So today, no mother will see her son burning in hell, but it could have happened back then.
The angels also look down at the suffering on this earth, and I don't know if you are a Jehovah's Witness like the other guy on this site, but don't you guys also believe some of the 144 000 are in heaven? Can they too see their loved ones suffer on this earth? So your point is mute.
2) Saved mothers in heaven can hear their lost children in hell shrieking and screaming in the fire? Well, maybe once upon a time in Hades, but not in Heaven. Luke 16 wasn't talking about heaven. Your point is mute. And even if people in heaven could see people in hell, would they not also have the option of looking away and doing other things in heaven? No one is forcing them to go look.
3) Saved mothers in heaven are restricted from helping their children in hell suffering horribly. Is this coming from the same guys who believe that in 1914 those of the 144 000 who were already dead went to heaven? Won't some of them see, and be unable to hell their children who are suffering on the earth, who might not even be JWs? Or do you believe these guys come back as guardian angels? Its the same thing. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 speaks of parents who have to watch helplessly as their son is stoned to death, but it was God's law. God does not tolerate unrepentant sinners. Same is true in heaven and Sheol.
You ask: "So this is your idea of the way a loving God deals with His children for ALL ETERNITY?" It has nothing to do with my idea, it has to do with what Scripture says, and I don't reject what the Bible says just because I don't like it, or it sounds harsh. It sounded harsh for God to flood the world, or rain fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah. What about the children? What about the little five-year-olds? It sounded harsh when God commanded to kill women and children by the sword, even the suckling infant (1 Sam 15:3), but its Biblical. Truth is not what tickles our ears and sounds sweet to us, but truth is what God says. If God says he will torment them forever in the lake of fire, that is truth. (Rev 20:10) I suppose you must think every harsh act God committed in the OT was a parable, but I assure you that's not the case.
D
Ecc 9:5 says three things, all of which have a limited context. (1) the dead know nothing, (2) they have no reward (forever vs 6), and (3) the memory of them is forgotten. The context was verses 13-15 where the author (probably Solomon) relates circumstances where sometime a man could do great things, and be forgotten, and not rewarded for his work. But this was limited in its scope, because Scripture teaches that the dead do have a reward and they are not forgotten. Hebrews 6:10 "God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love." Even today, we remember Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, the world remembers them, they are not forgotten by us or God. And we don't suddenly forget our loved ones when they die. As for the reward, Matthew 5:12 and 2 Timothy 4:7-8 speak of the righteous inheriting the earth, and a crown of life, which we know will happen after the resurrection. So when Ecclesiastes says the dead have no reward and are not remembered, it only applies to specific situations. The same is true of its statement that the dead know nothing. This only applies to dead bodies in the grave, but does not apply to the spirit that returns to God when the body dies. (Ecc 12:7) In Revelation 6:9-11 John saw the souls of people who were already dead. Was it their physical bodies he saw in heaven? Hmmm...If they were asleep, how could they be carrying on conversation in heaven?
As for Jesus comparing death to a sleep, this is because a sleeping person doesn't cease to exist when he sleeps, so too a dead person doesn't go out of existence because his body sleeps. Just as a sleeping person can dream, and recall his dreams when he wakes up, there is also consciousness after the body dies, for they can kill the body, but not the soul. (Matt 10:28) And if sleep meant unconsciousness, surely torment, gnashing of teeth, and so forth does not, yet all these terms Jesus used to describe being in hell.
As for Jesus comparing death to a sleep, this is because a sleeping person doesn't cease to exist when he sleeps, so too a dead person doesn't go out of existence because his body sleeps. Just as a sleeping person can dream, and recall his dreams when he wakes up, there is also consciousness after the body dies, for they can kill the body, but not the soul. (Matt 10:28) And if sleep meant unconsciousness, surely torment, gnashing of teeth, and so forth does not, yet all these terms Jesus used to describe being in hell.
T
[h=3]Ezekiel 18:20[/h]King James Version (KJV)
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him
[h=3]Ecclesiastes 9:5-6[/h]King James Version (KJV)
5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
(Those were the verses you wanted)
Again I'd like to remind you I did say if this was the only section on hell in the bible, I would agree with you, but the rest of scripture doesn't support it.
Sheol can't mean two TOTALLY DIFFERENT concepts like that. I could see it meaning two similar ones, but one being a place where anyone goes (grave) and one being hell, a place only the unrighteous go, is the biggest justification of scripture there is. Every time sheol comes up you can replace it with grave or pit and it makes perfect sense, but you can't do that with the word hell. In hebrew and greek they had multiple words for one of out words. Ex. there are multiple words for love depending on the specific use of it. SO why on earth would there be a single word with contrasting meanings to this extent? It makes very little sense when a more logical meaning would be that everyone goes to the grave! There are other sections I wish I remembered where that talk about death like a sleep, not torture.
The definition's of sheol you gave were made purely so the concept of hell can be justified where if you look at it unbiasly, its clear sheol doesn't mean hell.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him
[h=3]Ecclesiastes 9:5-6[/h]King James Version (KJV)
5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
(Those were the verses you wanted)
Again I'd like to remind you I did say if this was the only section on hell in the bible, I would agree with you, but the rest of scripture doesn't support it.
Sheol can't mean two TOTALLY DIFFERENT concepts like that. I could see it meaning two similar ones, but one being a place where anyone goes (grave) and one being hell, a place only the unrighteous go, is the biggest justification of scripture there is. Every time sheol comes up you can replace it with grave or pit and it makes perfect sense, but you can't do that with the word hell. In hebrew and greek they had multiple words for one of out words. Ex. there are multiple words for love depending on the specific use of it. SO why on earth would there be a single word with contrasting meanings to this extent? It makes very little sense when a more logical meaning would be that everyone goes to the grave! There are other sections I wish I remembered where that talk about death like a sleep, not torture.
The definition's of sheol you gave were made purely so the concept of hell can be justified where if you look at it unbiasly, its clear sheol doesn't mean hell.
D
So you don't think a word can have two completely different meanings? Well, elohim means the true God in Psalm 90:2, but it doesn't mean "Creator." It says he was always God in the infinite past and will be God still forever "from everlasting to everlasting." Before creation began, he was God, so his being God predates all creation. So being God has nothing to do with creation, its about his inherent attributes. The things that make him who he is. This same word is used at Exo 12:12 for the gods of Egypt, and they are the complete opposite of him. So here we have two opposite meanings for the same word.
Ecc 9:5-6 says four things, 1, the dead know nothing, 2, they have no reward, 3, they will do nothing under the sun forever, 4 the memory of them is forgotten. If you apply this across the board as you are doing, without appreciating its context, it will lead to the conclusion that God has no reward for us after we die, and death is the end. But the Bible says God will never forget our work and love we showed for his name (Heb 6:10), so he doesn't forget us. I'm sure you don't forget your dead loved ones, and even today we remember outstanding men of God like Moses and Daniel, so the memory of them is not forgotten. Also, the meek will inherit the earth, that is their reward, and the crown of life. (Matt 5:12; 2 Tim 4:7-8) 1 Corinthians 5:10 says we must all be judged to receive our reward for how we lived our lives, so the dead do have a reward. And at the resurrection they will have things to do under the sun. So three out of four points in Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 cannot be taken so black and white. What these verses applied to was a situation mentioned later in the same chapter. Ecc 9:13-15 relates a situation Solomon saw, that a wise man saved a city but was not remembered, and it was stuff like that, very limited in its scope to which these two verses applied.. This was not a discussion about weather there is life after death.
Sure, these verses say that the dead know nothing, but that simply means a dead body in a grave doesn't know anything. It isn't meant to discuss rather we have a soul that lives on, and Jesus says we do in Matthew 10:28. My question to you is what is that soul that men "CANNOT kill" in Matt 10:28?
D
Soul sleep or annihilation or mortality of the soul or what ever you want to call it, is a satanic lie and I am surprised people fall for it.
Here Jesus states flat out that God is God of the living not the dead as God said from the burning bush, I am (present tense) the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. This is also proven as Jesus told a parable of Lazarus the beggar and the rich men being fully aware and awake after death. Why would Jesus tell this parable if that is false doctrine? Why would Moses and Elijah show up as Christ transfigured if it was not so?
Here Jesus states flat out that God is God of the living not the dead as God said from the burning bush, I am (present tense) the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. This is also proven as Jesus told a parable of Lazarus the beggar and the rich men being fully aware and awake after death. Why would Jesus tell this parable if that is false doctrine? Why would Moses and Elijah show up as Christ transfigured if it was not so?
T
Elohim has different meanings because it is a title of sorts. My faith looks at it as "Mighty ones" because sometimes its God, sometimes angels, sometimes moses, and even the judges in Israel. Its a title, one single deffiniton, that applies to many people. If you can think of a single deffiniton that can apply to both hell and grave go for it, but I can't.
Ecc 9:5-6 is talking about right after death. After death there is nothingness until Jesus comes back, then all who have heard the word will be judged. John 3:13 states that no man except Jesus is in heaven.
IN hebrews 11:40 it states that Great men of faith are still, to this day, not perfect until we are made perfect as well. (Talking about those judged righteous, not everyone). If they aren't in heaven and perfect, and not hell (obviously) where are they? Well the grave. There is no verse in the bible saying that RIGHT when you die you go to heaven/hell. Hebrews 11:40 shows that the judgement isn't now. 1 Corinthians 15 51-52 state
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
This shows that not all shall sleep but some will. The ones that don't are those who are alive when Jesus returns. Everyone else will sleep. At the last trumpet, or the 7th trumpet in Revelations, we shall be raised incorruptible and only then we will be changed.
Rather you agree the trumpet is referring to the 7th trumpet or not this section does show that we are all changed at the same time, just as Hebrews 11:40 states. Its not a right after death type thing.
Ecc 9:5-6 is talking about right after death. After death there is nothingness until Jesus comes back, then all who have heard the word will be judged. John 3:13 states that no man except Jesus is in heaven.
IN hebrews 11:40 it states that Great men of faith are still, to this day, not perfect until we are made perfect as well. (Talking about those judged righteous, not everyone). If they aren't in heaven and perfect, and not hell (obviously) where are they? Well the grave. There is no verse in the bible saying that RIGHT when you die you go to heaven/hell. Hebrews 11:40 shows that the judgement isn't now. 1 Corinthians 15 51-52 state
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
This shows that not all shall sleep but some will. The ones that don't are those who are alive when Jesus returns. Everyone else will sleep. At the last trumpet, or the 7th trumpet in Revelations, we shall be raised incorruptible and only then we will be changed.
Rather you agree the trumpet is referring to the 7th trumpet or not this section does show that we are all changed at the same time, just as Hebrews 11:40 states. Its not a right after death type thing.
D
You say if I can think of one definition that can apply to both hell and the grave go for it? Well, both mean "place of the dead," even though one takes the body and the other takes the soul.
You say Ecc 9:5-6 applies only to immediately after death, and yet verse 9 says they have nothing to do under the sun "forever." Does forever just mean "immediately" after death? Hmmm... It also says "the memory of them is forgotten," so will you forget your parents, wife, or friends "immediately" after they die? This is why I gave you a context for Ecc 9:5-6 in verses 13-15 but you ignored it.
What is the soul that they cannot kill in Matt 10:28?
You say Ecc 9:5-6 applies only to immediately after death, and yet verse 9 says they have nothing to do under the sun "forever." Does forever just mean "immediately" after death? Hmmm... It also says "the memory of them is forgotten," so will you forget your parents, wife, or friends "immediately" after they die? This is why I gave you a context for Ecc 9:5-6 in verses 13-15 but you ignored it.
What is the soul that they cannot kill in Matt 10:28?