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

I hear you loud and clear and I think I understand you perfectly, but what you’re saying is there isn’t actually supported by Revelation 20:10 and verse 15. You’re using inference and deductive reason and that’s good sometimes, but it isn’t proof when the plain text is literally something different. That’s why doctrines require more than one or two verses to establish them.

All you need is a verse that says that all people who go to the lake of fire are tormented forever like the devil, beast, and false prophet are. This doesn’t exist bro. I’m sure you are seeing this plain and clear now.

The text only says they do not know about anything going on in our world, "under the sun". Isaiah 14 shows that they know about what is going on in their world, the grave. pray for me, throwing up today.

I knew that, thanks for reminding me.

As I understand it, he was backsidden for all but the last two verses where he started coming to his senses.

"
13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the duty of all mankind.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil. "

I never noticed that before, thanks brother.

Yes, I'll keep trusting prophet Solomon's unmatched wisdom and prophetic inspiration - you're free to disregard it...but remember: "Believe in the LORD your God, so shallye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper.”
Only those who love sin see the price of eternal punishment as a deterrent.
Those who love God will hate sin for the high price Jesus had to pay to save us.
What's in your wallet?
"Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him."

Don't you see? There can't be never-ending torment if there is no never-ending sinner and is why no where does the Bible say the torment is everlasting.

death is defined as seperation of body and soul-spirit, not ceasing from.... Isaiah 14 shows the dead are alert. Someone, showed that the dead are happy. One can not be happy unless they are awake.

You mean this verse:

Ecclesiastes 4:2 KJB - Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.

Ecclesiastes 4:2 HOT וְשַׁבֵּחַ אֲנִי אֶת־הַמֵּתִים שֶׁכְּבָר מֵתוּ מִן־הַחַיִּים אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה חַיִּים עֲדֶֽנָה׃

Ecclesiastes 4:2 HOT transliterated w'shaBëªch ániy et-haMëtiym sheK'vär mëtû min-hachaYiym ásher hëMäh chaYiym ádenäh

Three translations by Jews:

Ecclesiastes 4:2 (Sefaria): Then I accounted those who died long since more fortunate than those who are still living;

Ecclesiastes 4:2 (Chabad): And I praise the dead who have already died, more than the living who are still alive.

Ecclesiastes 4:2 (Mechon-Mamre): Wherefore I praised the dead that are already dead more than the living that are yet alive;

Some 'translations' have built in error like the one that Amanuensis cited. in other words, Amanuensis' 'translation is incorporating on purpose, immortal soul theology' when there is no justification in the Hebrew to do so.

Even using the one that Amanuensis provided, compare to Matthew 8:22; Luke 9:60. Therefore, there are 'living dead', real life 'zombies' (no, not hollywood, speaking scripturally, those that are yet physically alive and yet dead in trespasses and in sins, thinking they are happy that way).

Don't be so quick to assume your position just because someone posts something you already were looking for.

If what I am saying is supported by deductive reasoning; even if it cannot be counted as a proof, it ought to be at least considered by the hearer. Because banking on the opposite of what I am saying is surely a gamble.

Also, in Revelation 14:9-11, it is yet another place in scripture where more than the beast, the false prophet, and the devil, are placed in everlasting fire and the smoke of their torment ascends for ever and ever. Which means that they are never completely burned up.

You are gravely mistaken.

All scripture is given by the Holy Ghost (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21), and the person speaking through the Holy Spirit is 'Jesus'. The book of Ecclesiastes begins with:

Ecclesiastes 1:1 - The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

Ecclesiastes 1:12 - I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.

The real ""Preacher, the son of David", who is truly the "king over Israel in Jerusalem" is Jesus speaking through the Holy Ghost by Solomon (Son of David).

So, Ecclesiastes is not Solomon's backslidden state, but his re-converted state, after having experienced all those things, and wrote to tell us of those things experienced looking for all "wisdom" of Heavenly and Earthly.

The conclusion gives this away, as given by the "one shepherd", Jesus Christ, Lord of the congregation/church (a master of assembly):

Ecclesiastes 12:9 - And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs.

Ecclesiastes 12:10 - The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.

Ecclesiastes 12:11 - The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.

Ecclesiastes 12:12 - And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 - Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Ecclesiastes 12:14 - For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Thus when Solomon (by the Holy Ghost), in Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10, &c is writing, it is not in a backslidden state, or melancholy. It is written as "words of truth", "words of the wise" (Jesus is truth and wisdom), even "acceptable words", "upright" (without sin) words to be "admonished by" (to learn from about the things of nature around us), for the "preacher" is teaching true "knowledge" of the events of earth.

Ecclesiastes 9:3-10 reads:

3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

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.

7 Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.

8 Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment.

9 Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.

10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Notice, as you said, "under the sun", which means it is not speaking about Heavenly things here (and thus no immortal souls peaking down from heaven above are in these verses, so the text even works against your own position).

Vs. 3 states, "while they live, and after that they (the living when they die) go to the dead (ie buried with their fathers)
Vs. 4 states that "hope" only exists to "all the living", not to those who are dead, for he says that even a "living dog" is better than "a dead (not living) lion".
Vs. 5 states, "the living know", but "the dead know nothing"
Vs. 6 states "also their love", "hatred", "envy" is "now" (while dead, presently) "perished" (gone), and they which are dead do not have "anything" more to do with "any thing that is done under the sun" (on earth), because they are dead and buried and can no more act (Vs 10).
Vs. 7-9 refer to events that only he living can participate in, such as "eat", "drink", "works",, "labour", wearing "garments" (clothes), having a "head" to be anointed with "oil", and to be married to a "wife" in their "life" "under the sun". As we know, Jesus said that those who obtain the Heavenly kingdom never marry, nor are given in marriage.
Vs. 10 states that to do everything while alive, for when a person dies, they are "in the grave" (not heaven), and can no longer "work", have no "device", nor "knowledge", nor "wisdom". The passage does not say the 'body' goes to the grave, the Hebrew and English are clear, it is "thou" (the person themselves) that when they die, go "in the grave".

Ecclesiastes 12:5-7 reads:

5 Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:

6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.

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

So Solomon (by the Holy Ghost, so really Jesus), states:

Vs. 5 states that when a person dies they go to "their long home" (grave), their "desire" ceases, and those who live "mourn" over them.
Vs. 6 states the person becomes non functional, as a "bowl" "broken", or "cord" "loosed" (cut)
Vs. 7 states that the dust (which man was made of in the beginning; Genesis 2:7, a dead soul, until the breath of life of God was breathed into the nostrils of the dust) returns to the "earth" (not goes anywhere else), and the "spirit" (is not an immortal soul of a person, but is the breath of the living God, being His breath, His spirit, which animated the dust, gave consciousness and life to it, and when taken back (Job 34:14-15), simply returns to Himself as it began in Heaven with Himself.

Notice, that if as persons say that an immortal soul/spirit exists of the person, then even the wicked returns to God in Heaven, for the passages make no such distinction. It just states that the "spirit returns to God who gave it". If it is not simply God's animated breath, persons who believe in immortal soul/spirit theology have a serious problem, that even the occult understand and utilize, teaching that even Hitler, Pol Pot, etc are in Heaven by twisting (wresting) those scriptures.

Please think more carefully about Ecclesiastes. Thank you.

Not interested.

I see: Proverbs 18:13,17. I have been interested in what you have to say, why not reciprocate that to me? is there no love for me to at least give me the opportunity to present information that is pertinent to the subject, that you might consider and at least respond to, even if in disagreement? What have I done, so that what I present is not even heard at all?

Perhaps you might consider an historical approach?

Historical annihilationism and soul sleepism, from the earliest times to the present, in all Christian thought and theology.

State Of The Dead & Annihilation Hellfire Non SDA Quotes : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

What about these?

Doctrine - The Soul Sleepers - Chapter 4 The Major Seventeenth Century Advocates

Doctrine - Emmanuel Petavel Olliff - The Problem Of Immortality

Doctrine - Charles L Ives - The Bible Doctrine Of The Soul An Answer To The Question

Doctrine - Albert C. Johnson - Conditional Immortality

Doctrine - A Debate On The State Of The Dead - Nathaniel Field Vs Thomas P Connelly

Doctrine - Henry Grew (Baptist) - State Of The Dead &c Owned By Joseph Frisbie, With His Personal Markings

Stephen Bohr - Secrets Unsealed - State Of The Dead & Hellfire Sermons

Christian Mortalism From Tyndale To Milton By Norman T. Burns

Doctrine - William Tyndale - Tyndales Answer To Sir Thomas More

Doctrine - Wenham John - The Case For Conditional Immortality

Doctrine - Vladimir Baranozv - Sleep Of The Soul [18177565 Scrinium] “Angels In The Guise Of Saints” A Syrian Tradition In Constantinople

Doctrine - Life And Immortality By Basil Atkinson

Doctrine - Glenn A Peoples - Soul Sleep - Rethinking Hell Chapter 2

Doctrine - Dirk Krausmuller - Soul Sleep - [18177565 Scrinium] Christian Platonism And The Debate About Afterlife

Doctrine - Christopher M Date - Soul Sleep - 18. MJTM. 69 92 Date

Doctrine - Richard Whately - A View Of The Scripture Revelations Concerning A Future State

Doctrine - H H Dobney & John Milton - The Scripture Doctrine Of Future Punishment An Argument

Doctrine - George Storrs - An Inquiry Are The Wicked Immortal In Six Sermons Also Have The Dead Knowledge Which Is Prefixed An Extract On The Second Death By Archbishop Whately

SDA - D M Canright - A History Of The Doctrine Of The Soul Among All Races And Peoples, Ancient And Modern...; Carefully Brought Down To The Present Time

Doctrine - The State Of The Dead - John Milton (Paradise Lost)

Doctrine - F. Gavin - The Sleep Of The Soul In The Early Syriac Church

Doctrine - Bryan W. Ball - Sixteenth Century Continental Conditionalists

Doctrine - Aphrahat By J. Edward Walters - Sleep Of The Soul And Resurrection Of The Body

Hell & Mr Fudge - Edward Fudge

Doctrine - Death - LeRoy Edwin Froom - The Conditionalist Faith Of Our Fathers Volume 02

Doctrine - Death - LeRoy Edwin Froom - The Conditionalist Faith Of Our Fathers Volume 01

Secrets Unsealed - Stephen Bohr - Misunderstood Texts On The State Of The Dead : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Don't be so quick to assume a position on the accuracy of translations until after you have learned ancient Hebrew.

The verse is not hard to translate. If you understand the ancient Hebrew.

There are assumptions in the syntax of the ancient Hebrew sentences. Where we use words like "Happy" or "better off" this concept is assumed in the statement. Many, many examples of Hebrew sentence usage can be given of how words seem to be missing but no one who understands Hebrew thinks that such sentences are ambiguous, that is the way Hebrew works. There are assumptions based on context and the way you assume your audience understands you. You can read about this in any Hebrew Language course in Bible College. Saying you don't believe in Bible Colleges will not excuse you from being ignorant of Hebrew Language, you can learn about it by reading any Hebrew Language book.

Moving on from the way Hebrew language differs from English, the writer is stating that the dead are better off because they don't have to deal with the things he was saying that he found to be wrong under the sun. His point is not to explain what happens in the afterlife, for he certainly did not know. He is simply expressing his idea that the dead don't have to deal with this mess under the sun any longer. But what they did have to deal with he does not know, nor does he discuss it. He is not trying to deal with that theological subject he is still talking about vanity and things he found wrong under the sun and that is where we must focus to get his point.

Their thoughts about this life, their ambitions, and goals are over and there is no more thoughts of these in the grave. To interpret that as a scientific explanation of the consciousness is way off target of the intent of his expressed thoughts in the context. To say that writer has stopped talking about vanity of this life and is now talking about the science or theology of the after life and has changed subjects is horrible hermeneutics. But most of us get that intuitively.

One must violate his own common sense conscience to teach that he is now teaching the consciousness or unconsciousness of the dead.

You have already proven to be ineffective at proper hermeneutics so I am sure that your next "truth bomb" will be just another case of more of the same weak and biblically ignorant (tainted by your presuppositions taught by previous cult teachers in your movement) approach to exegesis. (ramblings about pagans and such like)

To keep it simple for you I will end what promises to be a long winded discussion where you attempt to shoehorn a thought in Paul's mind he did not intend by cutting straight to the statement that he made that is conclusive;

Romans 14: 7For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (Your idea that He is Lord of a spirit that no longer exists is a direct contradiction to the wisdom that Jesus used to speak to the Pharisees to tell them that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were Living, since God is not a God of the dead, (their own teaching that the dead no longer existed, similar to the SDA theology)

And Phil 1:20

I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. 21For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. 25Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith, 26so that through my being with you again your boasting in Christ Jesus will abound on account of me.


By these two passages it is obvious to the average reader that Paul taught believers to have an expectation of being with Christ if killed by the Romans for their faith. Since he taught this way, then we must also.

If Paul thought that believers slept until the resurrection he did not consider it important to the concept of being in one or two states. 1) Alive = on this mission to spread the Gospel, and 2) Dead (asleep) = With Christ.

Their bodies sleeping until the resurrection does not mean that they have no spiritual body. Moses and Elijah were not resurrected yet and they had a visible substance that John, James and Peter could see for a period of time in which they were speaking with Jesus on the Mount. This transfiguration event is proof enough to most people that we will enter into some kind of existence before the resurrection just as Moses.

But much of this is a mystery to us still and we only have been given enough information to have hope and expectation. The problem with SDA and others like them is that they try and teach things they can not know yet as if they were expert on the details.

And they are too proud to recognize that they could be wrong about their assumptions and suspect interpretations and therefore guilt of spending too much time building on the wrong foundation wood, hay, and stubble.

I don't expect to change your mind with these limited posts but maybe the discussion will help push back the darkness that threatens the weaker minds.

Proverbs 19:27.

Great Volumes of commentaries exist that you can read to help you "think more carefully about Ecclesiastes" and many of us have read some of them. Almost everyone knows how to read Ecclesiastes today and have known for centuries.

You seem to be the one that can't identify the voice of the writer and his honest expressions of his conclusions while searching for meaning and when to take his statements at face value and not read into them a theological revelation about the afterlife.

Isn't it obvious to you that the verses below are expressions of a man's view of what he thought about things and a testimony about statements that he concluded from his own search. Here in verse 5 (below) he says that the dead never get a reward.

But we know that is not true from the rest of the bible.

Therefore we MUST, you included, explain why his statements should not be used to teach that all the other scriptures about getting a reward in the after life are not true.

I think you understand that. So why depart from such common sense hermeneutics of explaining that he is just expressing what he thought at the time when he was searching for meaning in life and that later he acknowledges that there is a reward for the righteous and to live in the light of that knowledge is part of the meaning of life he discovered at the end of his quest. (12:13)



3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

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.

But then in Chapter 12 he says....

13The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.c 14For God will bring every deed into judgment, withd every secret thing, whether good or evil.

(The SDA form of Eccl Hermeneutics would be to say that there is no memory of them after they are dead, however this same writer then says that their words and deeds are remembered by God and rewarded accordingly)

Therefore the explanation is that one must not take what he says was his views when he tells us "this is what I thought when I was searching for meaning" and turn those statements into "this is the theological doctrine about the after life"

But most people already get that, so since the SDA act like they can't comprehend that it is highly suspect that they are being belligerently intellectually dishonest.

And when they choose SDA dogma over proper interpretation that is actually idolatry. They have set up an idol of SDA dogma in their heart and even when common sense and all the bible experts in the world try and teach them how to understand Eccl, they refuse to pull down that idol of SDA dogma in their heart. This is what God notices and it will be dealt with at judgment.

We do believe that the writer of Eccl was inspired by God but that does not mean he was an automaton. He was inspired to express what he wrote. He told us that he became a drunk for a while. It was not to be used to teach that scripture teaches one should be a drunk. He told us about how he tried to find meaning in sex. That he said that is not to be taken as the bible teaching that we should do that. He told us what he thought about things during this search for life. No one is saying that he was backslidden while he was writing this. He was telling us about a history of his life that was already past. He was giving a testimony. Like when I share about how I was in bondage to many sins and how Jesus delivered me. I could tell you what I use to think about how when I was in that condition I thought I came to the conclusion that the dead were better off than the living. But then you have to keep listening to me to find out how I changed my mind in the end and found that Live was worth living by following Christ.

This is how you are to read Eccl and it isn't really hard once you get the background information and structure of the book. That is why I always tell people to reference good commentaries to help them learn. There is SO MUCH ignorance in the church and from people who pretend to be bible teachers.

http://www.bestbiblecommentaries.com is a good place to find the top five commentaries on a book of the bible. None of them is perfect and you might have to wad through some mud at times but you will learn enough to be able to tell the good from the bad in hermeneutics as you educate yourself over time.

So Please think more carefully about Ecclesiastes.

Well, not that he was backslidden while writing it.

He was writing about his past history. I doubt that he was backslidden while writing it, but this is his testimony about his search for meaning in life and what he thought at those times he was trying to find purpose through, education, art, building, partying, drinking, sex, and then he keeps saying how in each of these episodes of excess like the drinking bouts, that his wisdom did not depart from him.

He started off with that supernatural gift of wisdom from God and when he was doing things he ought not like, sacrificing to the idols of his foreign wives his wisdom did not depart from him. He was amazed at that since some of the things he was doing would have led his smitten conscious to think that God would have taken back the gift of wisdom but instead it was always there screaming at him to repent to obey God.

And this is his testimony that when he decided to focus on obeying God he discovered the peace and joy in life that makes it worth living and also a sure revelation that both the wicked dead and the good would have all their secrets judged by God and rewarded accordingly IN THE AFTERLIFE.

But the SDA purposely miss that because they would have to give up their idol of SDA dogma and that will cost them. What's in their wallet? (@Phoneman-777 )

I can't read the Bible with your hermeneutics and come to any semblance of sound doctrine that mains theological consistency through the scriptures. Therefore I reject it. I'm justified by believing the literal text of the scripture, but I'm certain you'll give an account of why you think God wants to have all the wicked tormented forever when there isn't a verse that says that. All you have is inference and deductive reasoning.

Proverbs 28:4. Also, how can you cease, when you have not considered. Proverbs 19:27 is in the context of one who considers first and second, Titus 3:10; Matthew 18:16. Simply saying one is "not interested" is not fulfilling Proverbs 19:27 properly, especially when the opposing view is not considered carefully as presented (I am speaking from my own presented evidence, not others you already considered, as I am not them; for you cannot say you have considered me, by having considered them).