Interpreting the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: It's Really Good News!

  • 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.
Feb 7, 2022
646
75
28
It's not correct theology. Our sins were paid for by the BLOOD of Jesus. The life was in the Blood and the Blood is what paid the price. Your logic is faulty. It was not the agony that paid the price it was the blood that was shed during the agony. The same with the stripes. It was not the number of stripes but the blood that was shed.
So, it was not the agony, but the loss of life ("blood"; for the life of the flesh is in the blood), yes?

Now, how will someone who does not accept that sacrifice of Jesus' shed blood (life), such as an unrepentant sinner, continue to live in the lake of fire when the penalty for transgression of God's law (which is treason against love without excuse), as you said is not about agony (torment), but paying the debt owed with one's own blood (life)? If all their blood is burned up, then all their life is gone, and eternal death, without possibility of resurrection, is paid in full.
 
Aug 3, 2019
3,744
507
113
It's not correct theology. Our sins were paid for by the BLOOD of Jesus. The life was in the Blood and the Blood is what paid the price. Your logic is faulty. It was not the agony that paid the price it was the blood that was shed during the agony. The same with the stripes. It was not the number of stripes but the blood that was shed.
:unsure:
"But God hath commended His love toward us in this: while we were yet sinners, Christ DIED for us".

The penalty for those who sin is they must "die". Sin condemns us to die. Jesus paid the penalty for us when He died. Again, if the penalty was "eternal torment", the only way Jesus could pay it is that He suffer eternal torment.
 
Aug 3, 2019
3,744
507
113
Doctrines in Scripture are progressive bother.
If the Cross changed anything about death, why is David "not ascended"? He's not going anywhere until Jesus' enemies are "made Thy footstool", right? Nothing changed.

The dead are as asleep in the grave today as they've been since time immemorial. They "will not awake nor be raised out of their sleep" until the resurrection and God will "hide them in the grave" and "keep them secret until Thy wrath be passed" when the 7 Last Plagues are done, followed by the loudest verse in the Bible, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 KJV.
 
Feb 7, 2022
646
75
28
ere are a handful of things in the Bible that I prefer weren't so. This is because I am flesh, incomplete, fallen, and with partial knowledge, journeying to comprehend the infinite wisdom of God. In Biblical study, what I cannot understand by intellect, I apprehend by faith. I have apprehended so many things I don't understand or don't prefer. This is the outworking of faith. I trust that God knows what He's doing and that his way is best.
That position assumes you're understanding on the topic to be correct.

I am saying that your position is not correct and provide ample evidence to substantiate it from scripture and historical Christianity.

I am saying you actually do desire beings to be eternally tortured because after I provided the evidence to show that it is not the case, and that you don't have to hold your position (whether you claim to fully understand your position or not, you really think God would play vague on this?), you reject that evidence upon your a priori position. Only a person who desires that beings be eternally tortured would continue to believe it (in spite of contrary information) after being over and over shown otherwise.

It's like a person raised in CCP (China) and believing it to be a properly good system of Governance, though they cannot seem to understand everything that goes on (torture, etc), but when shown a better way, a more just and properly good system, says, No the CCP system is better. They want their system inspite of their system and evidence contrary to it. They love the system they are in (including the torture).

So, Yes, you absolutely do want to see a being eternally tortured. Whether you understand that is irrelevant to its facts in evidence.

I am offerings again, to you, from scripture a way out of what you think is a good system, into a better way. We can go from Genesis to Revelation. Every text and passage. It's in the bible itself and throughout historical Christianity and present to thish very moment among many.

Do you want to see if there is a better way and understand more than you do now, or do you want to remain where you are?

If you want to remain where you are, I stand by my "Yes." to you.
 
Feb 7, 2022
646
75
28
If the Cross changed anything about death, why is David "not ascended"? He's not going anywhere until Jesus' enemies are "made Thy footstool", right? Nothing changed.

The dead are as asleep in the grave today as they've been since time immemorial. They "will not awake nor be raised out of their sleep" until the resurrection and God will "hide them in the grave" and "keep them secret until Thy wrath be passed" when the 7 Last Plagues are done, followed by the loudest verse in the Bible, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 KJV.
I always ask where David is, and they don't ever know.
 
Feb 7, 2022
646
75
28
It may take enteral to purify. I also, said it is not scriptural.
Like I said in question form, if it is eternal it is not actually purifying anything, because that which is eternally purifying (from impure) and never brought to purity is still eternally impure.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
:unsure:
"But God hath commended His love toward us in this: while we were yet sinners, Christ DIED for us".

The penalty for those who sin is they must "die". Sin condemns us to die. Jesus paid the penalty for us when He died. Again, if the penalty was "eternal torment", the only way Jesus could pay it is that He suffer eternal torment.
He shed his blood when he died.
Basic salvation theology. Rom 3:25

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

The sins of the past that they had not been punished for were atoned for by the shedding of His blood. Otherwise payday would have been required eventually. As it will be for those who do not appropriate the blood by faith.
 
Feb 7, 2022
646
75
28
Didn't you read about the rich man in Luke 16?

"The rich man also died"
"being in torments"
"he cried"
"I am tormented in this flame"
"this place of torment"
Sure did read that parable, and "the rich man" in context is the unrepentant nation of Judah, represented in that moment by the pharisees themselves.

Spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, tormented by their tribulations (Romans, themselves, Herod, devils, etc)
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
It should be clear that those who are unredeemed will enter into everlasting punishment characterized by everlasting fire where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

(Matthew 25:46; Matthew 25:41; Matthew 13:41-42, Matthew 13:49-50).
 
Aug 3, 2019
3,744
507
113
"
John Wycliffe and his followers produce full English versions of the Old and New Testament in the late 14th century. At the same period the Czechs have their own vernacular Bible, subsequently much improved by John Huss.








These translations are part of the radical impulse for reform within the church. Indeed the issue of vernacular Bibles becomes one of the contentious themes of the Reformation.

A complaint by an English contemporary of Wycliffe, the chronicler Henry Knighton, is a measure of how far the church of Rome has swung on this issue since Jerome's campaign against 'ignorance of scripture'. Knighton rejects translation of the Bible on the grounds that by this means 'the jewel of the church is turned into the common sport of the people'.







Erasmus, Luther and Tyndale: 1516-1536

By the 16th century the view is gaining ground that a personal knowledge of scripture is precisely what ordinary people most need for their own spiritual good. Erasmus, though he himself translates the New Testament only from Greek into Latin, expresses in his preface of 1516 the wish that the holy text should be in every language - so that even Scots and Irishmen might read it.

In the next decade this wish becomes a central demand of the Reformation. Fortunately writers with a vigorous style undertake the task. Notable among them are Luther and Tyndale. At a time of increasing literacy, their phrases have a profound influence on German and English literature.










Luther's interest in translating the New Testament from the original Greek into German has been stimulated, in 1518, by the arrival in Wittenberg of a new young professor, Philip Melanchthon. His lectures on Homer inspire Luther to study Greek. Melanchthon - soon to become Luther's lieutenant in the Reformation - gives advice on Luther's first efforts at translation.

Luther revives the task in the Wartburg. His New Testament is ready for publication in September 1522 (it becomes known as the September Bible). Luther's complete Bible, with the Old Testament translated from the Hebrew, is published in 1534.








Soon after the publication of Luther's New Testament an English scholar, William Tyndale, is studying in Wittenberg - where he probably matriculates in May 1524. Tyndale begins a translation of the New Testament from Greek into English. His version is printed at Worms in 1526 in 3000 copies. When they reach England, the bishop of London seizes every copy that his agents can lay their hands on.

The offending texts are burnt at St Paul's Cross, a gathering place in the precincts of the cathedral. So effective are the bishop's methods that today only two copies of the original 3000 survive.








Tyndale continues with his dangerous work (his life demonstrates the benefit to Luther of a strong protector, Frederick the Wise). By 1535 he has translated the first half of the Old Testament. In that year, living inconspicuously among English merchants in Antwerp, his identity is betrayed to the authorities. This city is in the Spanish empire, so Tyndale is unmistakably a heretic. He is executed at the stake in 1536.

In spite of the destruction of printed copies, Tyndale's words survive in a living form. His texts become the source to which subsequent translators regularly return once it has been decided - by Henry VIII in 1534 - that there shall be an official English Bible.








The first authorized translation in England is that of Miles Coverdale, whose Bible of 1535 is dedicated to Henry VIII. Soon Henry commissions another version, edited under the supervision of Coverdale, with the intention that every church in the land shall possess a copy. This is the Great Bible, the saga of which from 1539 provides an intriguing insight into the politics of reform.

The translation which becomes central to English culture, as Luther's is to German, is the King James Bible (also called the Authorized Version). Edited by forty-seven scholars between 1604 and 1611, it aims to take the best from all earlier translations. By far its major source is Tyndale."


Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac66#ixzz7Lk4v3r3a
Now, please do what most refuse to do: have a look at Bible developmental history from a PROTESTANT perspective which examines details, clues, evidence, history which is often dismissed as "insignificant" by those "wise in their own conceit"...much like the captain of the Titanic dismissed all warning and ended up taking the watery grave challenge.

 
Feb 7, 2022
646
75
28
Ar
Nobody. Jesus taught us about Hell. Do you think He would like to see you in Hell because you don't believe in the "everlasting fire" that He taught?
Arguing in a circle justifying your a priori by the same.

I believe in "everlasting fire" and showed you how.

If Jesus actually taught eternal torment (not the same as "eternal fire"), then Yes, Jesus loves watching eternal torment.
 

Diakonos

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2019
1,370
432
83
30
Anacortes, WA
Please re-read the very brief discourse between us so far and remember that I am not the people you have been talking with here in this forum.
That position assumes you're understanding on the topic to be correct. I am saying that your position is not correct and provide ample evidence to substantiate it from scripture and historical Christianity.
What do you mean by "that position"? I only said that I apprehend what I do not understand when I read Scripture.

I am saying you actually do desire beings to be eternally tortured because after I provided the evidence to show that it is not the case, and that you don't have to hold your position (whether you claim to fully understand your position or not, you really think God would play vague on this?), you reject that evidence upon your a priori position. Only a person who desires that beings be eternally tortured would continue to believe it (in spite of contrary information) after being over and over shown otherwise.
You assume I have read your posts to other people. I have not. You have not discussed any Biblical evidence with me concerning anything.
you absolutely do want to see a being eternally tortured.
On the contrary, my heart breaks for the lost. And I hate the eternal effects of sin.

Furthermore, I want to clarify something because it seems as though you made an assumption based on my original comment to you...
I said that I want to see Satan thrown in the lake of fire, not people. Now I'm confident that both will, but I understand that people can repent, while Satan cannot repent...so my attitude is different for both categories (angels and humans). For that reason, I can say that I want him there ASAP so that his evils will be stopped. I want justice for the one who has no option of escape. But for humans, I absolutely desire their salvation.

Please don't interpret my desire for the Devil as equal to my desire for mankind.
 
Feb 7, 2022
646
75
28
It should be clear that those who are unredeemed will enter into everlasting punishment characterized by everlasting fire where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

(Matthew 25:46; Matthew 25:41; Matthew 13:41-42, Matthew 13:49-50).
Yes all those texts and words of scripture are all absolutely true.

You simply confuse and conflate them together.

Eternal fire is not eternal torment.

Everlasting punishment is not eternal torment.

Weeping and wailing, etc is never said to be eternal or everlasting.

Death is never life or eternal life/living.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
So, it was not the agony, but the loss of life ("blood"; for the life of the flesh is in the blood), yes?

Now, how will someone who does not accept that sacrifice of Jesus' shed blood (life), such as an unrepentant sinner, continue to live in the lake of fire when the penalty for transgression of God's law (which is treason against love without excuse), as you said is not about agony (torment), but paying the debt owed with one's own blood (life)? If all their blood is burned up, then all their life is gone, and eternal death, without possibility of resurrection, is paid in full.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

If they are in the Lake of Fire, they have already been raised from the dead and judged and cast into the Lake of Fire to suffer eternal punishment.

But no one can be saved by paying with their own blood.
Only the blood of Jesus Christ can take away sin. Read the book of Hebrews.

I think you know this.
 
Feb 7, 2022
646
75
28
Please re-read the very brief discourse between us so far and remember that I am not the people you have been talking with here in this forum.

What do you mean by "that position"? I only said that I apprehend what I do not understand when I read Scripture.


You assume I have read your posts to other people. I have not. You have not discussed any Biblical evidence with me concerning anything.

On the contrary, my heart breaks for the lost. And I hate the eternal effects of sin.

Furthermore, I want to clarify something because it seems as though you made an assumption based on my original comment to you...
I said that I want to see Satan thrown in the lake of fire, not people. Now I'm confident that both will, but I understand that people can repent, while Satan cannot repent...so my attitude is different for both categories (angels and humans). For that reason, I can say that I want him there ASAP so that his evils will be stopped. I want justice for the one who has no option of escape. But for humans, I absolutely desire their salvation.

Please don't interpret my desire for the Devil as equal to my desire for mankind.
You moved the goalpost to justify your position. My "Yes" remains of you, and looks as if it will not be altered.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
Yes all those texts and words of scripture are all absolutely true.

You simply confuse and conflate them together.

Eternal fire is not eternal torment.

Everlasting punishment is not eternal torment.

Weeping and wailing, etc is never said to be eternal or everlasting.

Death is never life or eternal life/living.
***wishful thinking***
 

Diakonos

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2019
1,370
432
83
30
Anacortes, WA
You moved the goalpost to justify your position. My "Yes" remains of you, and looks as if it will not be altered.
I haven't stated any "positions" to you.

And there's no way you actually care to have a humane discussion if you respond to my thoughtful comments 30 seconds after I post them.
 
Feb 7, 2022
646
75
28
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

If they are in the Lake of Fire, they have already been raised from the dead and judged and cast into the Lake of Fire to suffer eternal punishment.

But no one can be saved by paying with their own blood.
Only the blood of Jesus Christ can take away sin. Read the book of Hebrews.

I think you know this.
I didn't say a man could pay the penalty and be saved. Yet a man can pay the penalty and be lost unto eternal death. He died (lake of fire to come, never to be raised algain) and satisfied justice of the law.
 
Jul 24, 2021
494
78
28
Yes indeed, if you remove Hell from His Book!
Here is the verse
Rev 20:14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death— the lake of fire.
Explain the one hell. Where is it? In death, hades, lake of fire? Let's see the fantastic gymnastics. Please use the Scriptures to support it. :)