14 IRRESOLVABLE CONTRADICTIONS WHICH RESULT FROM A LITERAL RICH MAN AND LAZARUS

[Grailhunter]

So then you believe CHRIST is GOD . THE FATHER , THE SON , THE SPIRIT are one .
WELL of course that is true .
SO if one denies JESUS is the CHRIST , GUESS WHO that means THEY JUST DENIED . GOD HIMSELF . just a friendly reminder .

Nope......three in unity.....not three in one.

 

[amigo de christo]

Nope......three in unity.....not three in one.

GOD is his SPIRIT . GOD is HIS word .
You do realize JESUS CHRIST is the actual essence of GOD himself . As the FATHER SPOKE
HIS WORD HIS SPIRIT , HIS OWN ESSENCE created .
So lets not argue over unity are one . JUST KNOW THIS .
IF a man or any denies JESUS IS THE CHRIST , THEY DO DENY GOD HIMSELF who TESTIFIED OF THE SON .
THEY call GOD a fat liar . HE who believes not the TESTIMONY that GOD gave of the SON
calls GOD A LIAR . lets do keep that in mind and not be as the many
who try and give the unbelievers a pass in any religoin . ALL other religoins
from the root to they fruit are CORRUPT . From the root to to the tip of the fruit they CORRUPT .
sounds harsh . but true it is . Be encouraged now .

 

[amigo de christo]

Nope......three in unity.....not three in one.

I Will not leave you alone , I WILL COME TO YOU . the comforter .
I WILL COME TO YOU .
ME and MY FATHER will abode with that man . HIS SPIRIT . the SPIRIT OF GOD is the same SPIRIT OF CHRIST .
that too is a fact . but i know and do understand this can be a complicated subject.
So i dont call any man an anti christ just cause they do not fully understand .
An anti christ is , HE WHO DENIES JESUS IS THE CHRIST . THAT BE YA LIAR , that be ya anti christ .
and john KNEW This to be true . SO interfaith IS OF ANTI CHRIST . oh it surely is .

 

[Grailhunter]

GOD is his SPIRIT . GOD is HIS word .
You do realize JESUS CHRIST is the actual essence of GOD himself . As the FATHER SPOKE
HIS WORD HIS SPIRIT , HIS OWN ESSENCE created .
So lets not argue over unity are one . JUST KNOW THIS .
IF a man or any denies JESUS IS THE CHRIST , THEY DO DENY GOD HIMSELF who TESTIFIED OF THE SON .
THEY call GOD a fat liar . HE who believes not the TESTIMONY that GOD gave of the SON
calls GOD A LIAR . lets do keep that in mind and not be as the many
who try and give the unbelievers a pass in any religoin . ALL other religoins
from the root to they fruit are CORRUPT . From the root to to the tip of the fruit they CORRUPT .
sounds harsh . but true it is . Be encouraged now .

I believe all three are Gods just as I said in post 117. All Gods but there is a hierarchy. God described himself as Father and as Christ said, “The Father is greater than I.” Yahweh, God Almighty and Creator of Heaven and Earth. And Christ sits on a throne to the right of God Almighty. God describes Himself as Father and Yeshua as His Son, but as always the Father is senior to the Son.

Christ is a God, but nothing about that dethrones His Father.

 

[David in NJ]

Nah, 100% parable - because of the many contradictions which arise by making it literal.

Don't you guys care at all about hermeneutical consistency?

i have not diagnosed your post as yet since i have been 'under the weather'

Maybe tomorrow if i get better

SHALOM

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

If you understood a "soul" is the "whole" that results from the union of its two parts - "body" and "breath of life" - then you'd know the "whole" ceases to be when the parts return to from whence they came at death.

Correct.

Correct.

Wrong, because a "soul" isn't an "ghost" that inhabits a body - a soul is a "whole" comprised of its "body" and "breath" parts. At death, when the body rots and the breath returns, the "soul" ceases to be.

Yes, bring forth in our image and rule over dominion - two gifts He shared with no other order of being, not even the angels.

Sorry, but angels have all that, as well - yet we rank higher than angels.

No, but "bring forth" and "rule over dominion" sure do apply.

If only people like you who think "in God's image" means "immortal" would read 1 Corinthians 6:16 to find out just how "immortal" we are.

Ahhh, the "possessive pronoun" argument. Look, "my soul" is identical to "my life" which means "my whole person" - not some "ghost" that inhabits a body and flies off at death. THAT COMES FROM PAGANISM.

The fact that God has a soul and He is invisible refutes your concept of a soul.
Mstt. 10:28 differentiates from the body and soul. “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

1 Thessalonians 5:23 identifies three parts if the human: “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

1 Peter 1:22 says “Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,”
Your fleshly body cannot be purified.


Here are some verses that refute soul sleep:
Job 10:21-22 > The land of darkness and deep shadow is not a description of a grave.
Job 11:7-8 > The depths of God are compared to the depths of Sheol - obviously deeper than 6 feet.
Job 26:5-6 > Hades also means hidden and unseen from us. The description of departed spirits " trembling under the waters" suggests under the crust of the earth's aquifers. "Abaddon has no covering". Abaddon is the angel of the Abyss, the Destroyer released during the Apocolypse (Rev. 9:11).
So we can see that Abaddon is not in a burial grave or tomb with the bones of a dead person!!!
Job 38:17 > This reveals that death is a doorway, it has gates. Jesus made a reference to the gates of Hades in (Matthew 16:18)
Deuteronomy 32:22 > *** Here a "fire is kindled" in God's anger "and burns to the lowest part of Sheol and consumes the earth with its yield and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains". ***This is a key verse that actually describes a super volcanic eruption that will take place in the end.
" Do not hold back discipline from the child, although you strike him with a rod, he will not die. You shall stike him with a rod and RESCUE his soul from SHEOL." Proverbs 24:13-14 Now obviously discpline does not save us from physical death and the grave. No, this is talking about saving the child's soul from Sheol.
Jonah 2: 1-7 > describes Jonah crying out from the "depth of Sheol". The belly of the whale was not a grave. No, Jonah died and cried out to God. "Water encompassed me to the point of death ... I descended to the roots of the mountains, the earth with its bars (gates) was around me forever, but You have brought up my life FROM THE PIT, O LORD my God."
Ezekiel 26:20-21 > Here again, the lower parts of the earth, " the pit" are mentioned. God says, " I will make you dwell in the lower parts of the earth ... I will bring terrors on you ..." Does that sound like sleeping in the grave?
Ezekiel 32:24 > During the Great Tribulation, inhabitants_ on the earth _ when it splits opens _ will fall into these fissures, the pit, and some will try to climb out in terror and be snared.
Psalm 140:10 " burning coals fall on them ... cast into fire into deep pits from which they cannot arise."
Hades is deeper than six feet!

 

[keithr]

And you know this how? Jesus did not reveal it as a parable, it does not contain comparative language. Jesus is God and He would have known of that "certain man".

Jesus is not God, but that's a topic that we're not supposed to discuss in these forums.

Jesus didn't always tell people up front that he was going to tell them a parable - he just told a parable. The people were not so dumb as to not realise that it was a parable. For example, Luke 8:4-11 (WEB):

(4) When a great multitude came together, and people from every city were coming to him, he spoke by a parable.​

(5) “The farmer went out to sow his seed. As he sowed, some fell along the road, and it was trampled under foot, and the birds of the sky devoured it.​

(6) Other seed fell on the rock, and as soon as it grew, it withered away, because it had no moisture.​

(7) Other fell amid the thorns, and the thorns grew with it, and choked it.​

(8) Other fell into the good ground, and grew, and produced one hundred times as much fruit.” As he said these things, he called out, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”​

(9) Then his disciples asked him, “What does this parable mean?”​

(10) He said, “To you it is given to know the mysteries of God’s Kingdom, but to the rest in parables; that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’​

(11) Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.​

...​

This is this mans opinion and not Scripture. there is nothing in the account of Lazarus and the rich man to tell us it is not to be taken literally.

There is nothing said in the parable about whether either the rich man or the beggar were sinners or Christians. So why in the story do they end up in different places? Was Jesus teaching that in order to go and be with the dead Abraham after we die, we must live lives of absolute poverty? Why did Jesus tell this story/parable? The context was, Luke 16:13-16 (WEB):

(13) No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You aren’t able to serve God and Mammon.”​

(14) The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they scoffed at him.​

(15) He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts. For that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.​

(16) The law and the prophets were until John. From that time the Good News of God’s Kingdom is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.​

The parable was told to highlight that the Pharisees' wealth and respectability would not save them, whereas the poor who heard the Good News and believed it would be saved. Barnes' Notes says:

The “design” of the narrative is to be collected from the previous conversation. He had taught the danger of the love of money Luk_16:1-2; the deceitful and treacherous nature of riches Luk_16:9-11; that what was in high esteem on earth was hateful to God Luk_16:15; that people who did not use their property aright could not be received into heaven Luk_16:11-12; that they ought to listen to Moses and the prophets Luk_16:16-17; and that it was the duty of people to show kindness to the poor. The design of the parable was to impress all these truths more vividly on the mind, and to show the Pharisees that, with all their boasted righteousness and their external correctness of character, they might be lost. Accordingly he speaks of no great fault in the rich man - no external, degrading vice - no open breach of the law; and leaves us to infer that the “mere possession of wealth” may be dangerous to the soul, and that a man surrounded with every temporal blessing may perish forever.​

 

[Rockerduck]

Jesus is not God, but that's a topic that we're not supposed to discuss in these forums.

Jesus didn't always tell people up front that he was going to tell them a parable - he just told a parable. The people were not so dumb as to not realise that it was a parable. For example, Luke 8:4-11 (WEB):

(4) When a great multitude came together, and people from every city were coming to him, he spoke by a parable.​

(5) “The farmer went out to sow his seed. As he sowed, some fell along the road, and it was trampled under foot, and the birds of the sky devoured it.​

(6) Other seed fell on the rock, and as soon as it grew, it withered away, because it had no moisture.​

(7) Other fell amid the thorns, and the thorns grew with it, and choked it.​

(8) Other fell into the good ground, and grew, and produced one hundred times as much fruit.” As he said these things, he called out, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”​

(9) Then his disciples asked him, “What does this parable mean?”​

(10) He said, “To you it is given to know the mysteries of God’s Kingdom, but to the rest in parables; that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’​

(11) Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.​

...​

There is nothing said in the parable about whether either the rich man or the beggar were sinners or Christians. So why in the story do they end up in different places? Was Jesus teaching that in order to go and be with the dead Abraham after we die, we must live lives of absolute poverty? Why did Jesus tell this story/parable? The context was, Luke 16:13-16 (WEB):

(13) No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You aren’t able to serve God and Mammon.”​

(14) The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they scoffed at him.​

(15) He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts. For that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.​

(16) The law and the prophets were until John. From that time the Good News of God’s Kingdom is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.​

The parable was told to highlight that the Pharisees' wealth and respectability would not save them, whereas the poor who heard the Good News would be. Barnes' Notes says:

The “design” of the narrative is to be collected from the previous conversation. He had taught the danger of the love of money Luk_16:1-2; the deceitful and treacherous nature of riches Luk_16:9-11; that what was in high esteem on earth was hateful to God Luk_16:15; that people who did not use their property aright could not be received into heaven Luk_16:11-12; that they ought to listen to Moses and the prophets Luk_16:16-17; and that it was the duty of people to show kindness to the poor. The design of the parable was to impress all these truths more vividly on the mind, and to show the Pharisees that, with all their boasted righteousness and their external correctness of character, they might be lost. Accordingly he speaks of no great fault in the rich man - no external, degrading vice - no open breach of the law; and leaves us to infer that the “mere possession of wealth” may be dangerous to the soul, and that a man surrounded with every temporal blessing may perish forever.​

Jesus is God. Jesus mentioned, by name, Lazarus and Abraham. Both of these are known by God. No parable names people. I Corinthians 8:3 - But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.
Is this so hard to understand. If you are a Christian, God knows you and your name is in the book of life. If you are standing in a parking lot and someone asks you the time, then "two will be in parking lot, one will be taken "and the other left behind at the rapture. God doesn't know the other person. God knew Lazarus and Abraham, God didn't know the rich man.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I prefer to let doctrines - not professions - be the the test as to whether we're on the right track.

14 contradictions ain't enough proof for you?

Well your watchtower writers call them contradictions, but the SCriptures do not!

Once again why would god inspire His word, be very careful to show parables by calling them parables or using comparative terms, and let Lazarus go without them?

You and the Watchtower use the lame excuse that Jesus was speaking to them in the false doctrine they understood (that their is conscious life after death). But Jesus would never entertain false doctrine nor use it to explain things. YOu spend so much time focused on the old and forget that there are many things not revealed in the old, trhatr you neglect what teh New TEstament teaches

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Jesus is not God, but that's a topic that we're not supposed to discuss in these forums.

Jesus didn't always tell people up front that he was going to tell them a parable - he just told a parable. The people were not so dumb as to not realise that it was a parable. For example, Luke 8:4-11 (WEB):

(4) When a great multitude came together, and people from every city were coming to him, he spoke by a parable.​

(5) “The farmer went out to sow his seed. As he sowed, some fell along the road, and it was trampled under foot, and the birds of the sky devoured it.​

(6) Other seed fell on the rock, and as soon as it grew, it withered away, because it had no moisture.​

(7) Other fell amid the thorns, and the thorns grew with it, and choked it.​

(8) Other fell into the good ground, and grew, and produced one hundred times as much fruit.” As he said these things, he called out, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”​

(9) Then his disciples asked him, “What does this parable mean?”​

(10) He said, “To you it is given to know the mysteries of God’s Kingdom, but to the rest in parables; that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’​

(11) Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.​

...​

There is nothing said in the parable about whether either the rich man or the beggar were sinners or Christians. So why in the story do they end up in different places? Was Jesus teaching that in order to go and be with the dead Abraham after we die, we must live lives of absolute poverty? Why did Jesus tell this story/parable? The context was, Luke 16:13-16 (WEB):

(13) No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You aren’t able to serve God and Mammon.”​

(14) The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they scoffed at him.​

(15) He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts. For that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.​

(16) The law and the prophets were until John. From that time the Good News of God’s Kingdom is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.​

The parable was told to highlight that the Pharisees' wealth and respectability would not save them, whereas the poor who heard the Good News and believed it would be saved. Barnes' Notes says:

The “design” of the narrative is to be collected from the previous conversation. He had taught the danger of the love of money Luk_16:1-2; the deceitful and treacherous nature of riches Luk_16:9-11; that what was in high esteem on earth was hateful to God Luk_16:15; that people who did not use their property aright could not be received into heaven Luk_16:11-12; that they ought to listen to Moses and the prophets Luk_16:16-17; and that it was the duty of people to show kindness to the poor. The design of the parable was to impress all these truths more vividly on the mind, and to show the Pharisees that, with all their boasted righteousness and their external correctness of character, they might be lost. Accordingly he speaks of no great fault in the rich man - no external, degrading vice - no open breach of the law; and leaves us to infer that the “mere possession of wealth” may be dangerous to the soul, and that a man surrounded with every temporal blessing may perish forever.​

Jesus is not God the Father but He is just as much god in nature as His Father.

And this parable is clearly designated as a parable.

Lazarus and the rich man are not.

And it is your problem that you can't accept Lazarus ends in a different place than the rich man. Jesus said they did so they did!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

"Body" and "Spirit" are what comprise the "soul". Paul's saying he wants the parts as well as the entire whole blessed in like manner when mom used to say when we were kids, "When I get back I want the bathroom, the bedrooms, the entire house, cleaned top to bottom".

He taught no such thing. Paul merely was expressing his preference ("Therefore, we are confident and willing rather to be absent...")

Hungry saints often would "rather be absent from the church pew and to be present at the Cracker Barrel" - does this preference allow them to skip the drive there or do they still have to fight traffic?

Paul's preference was to be absent from the body, skip lying "naked" and "unclothed" without a body, dead, in the grave, awaiting the resurrection, and just go on to be with the Lord in his resurrection body.

Not on the subject of what happens when we die.

Not on the subject of death or the reward of the wicked. Didn't Malachi say the punishment of the wicked "shall leave them neither root nor branch"?

This was a proverb among the Hebrews to indicate "complete and total destruction - nothing left". Not my words, but the words of the best Hebraists in history (the honest ones, at least).

Even the NT says "there shall be NO MORE DEATH nor SORROW nor CRYING, neither shall there be any more PAIN, for the former things are passed away".

Let's not pretend the NT says anything differently about death than the OT - the evidence simply doesn't support this popular yet erroneous idea.

I just don't know if I can deal with you anymore. You rip apart the Scriptures and retranslate them. You talk about preferences and have no clue what you are talking about.

Have the last word. TTFN

 

[keithr]

Jesus is God. Jesus mentioned, by name, Lazarus and Abraham. Both of these are known by God. No parable names people. I Corinthians 8:3 - But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

This parable does name a person! The parable doesn't say that either the beggar or the rich man loved God.

Is this so hard to understand. If you are a Christian, God knows you and your name is in the book of life.

If you are not a Christian God still knows your name. Matthew 10:29-31 (WEB):

(29) “Aren’t two sparrows sold for an assarion coin? Not one of them falls on the ground apart from your Father’s will,​

(30) but the very hairs of your head are all numbered.​

(31) Therefore don’t be afraid. You are of more value than many sparrows.​

God cares even for sparrows, and he cares even more for all people, whether they love Him or not. 2 Peter 3:9 (WEB):

(9) The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some count slowness; but is patient with us, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

1 Timothy 2:4 (WEB):

(4) [God] who desires all people to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth.​

 

[keithr]

And it is your problem that you can't accept Lazarus ends in a different place than the rich man. Jesus said they did so they did!

What was the point of Jesus telling the story, and why do you think he told it?

 

[Rockerduck]

This parable does name a person! The parable doesn't say that either the beggar or the rich man loved God.


If you are not a Christian God still knows your name. Matthew 10:29-31 (WEB):

(29) “Aren’t two sparrows sold for an assarion coin? Not one of them falls on the ground apart from your Father’s will,​

(30) but the very hairs of your head are all numbered.​

(31) Therefore don’t be afraid. You are of more value than many sparrows.​

God cares even for sparrows, and he cares even more for all people, whether they love Him or not. 2 Peter 3:9 (WEB):

(9) The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some count slowness; but is patient with us, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

1 Timothy 2:4 (WEB):

(4) [God] who desires all people to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth.​

Meh

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What was the point of Jesus telling the story, and why do you think he told it?

What was the point of Jesus telling the story, and why do you think he told it?

Simply?

1. Wealth does not = righteousness.
2. Physical death is not the end ( a slap at the sadducees)
3. divine justice has eternal rewards and eternal punishments.
4. The rich man was sorrowful and fearful for His family.
5. Jesus declared if they will not accept the word as written, they will not believe even if one rose from teh dead ( though the rich man asked for Lazarius to rise, Jesus was referring to His physical resurrection)

 

[Phoneman777]

Now you are shooting in the dark because you know that you are wrong.

The only way to obtain God's intended message is through accurate hermeneutics.

 

[Phoneman777]

i have not diagnosed your post as yet since i have been 'under the weather'

Maybe tomorrow if i get better

SHALOM

May God grant you the healing you need, my friend.

 

[Phoneman777]

The fact that God has a soul and He is invisible refutes your concept of a soul.

"My" concept? It's from Genesis 2:7 KJV, not me.

As for "God has a soul" - I already dealt with that. "Soul" not only means "whole person" but also means "life" - it doesn't mean what you and paganism say it means.

 

[Phoneman777]

Well your watchtower writers call them contradictions, but the SCriptures do not!

I'm not JW.

Once again why would god inspire His word, be very careful to show parables by calling them parables or using comparative terms, and let Lazarus go without them?

I've shown you that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus uses the very comparative terms you speak of.

You and the Watchtower use the lame excuse that Jesus was speaking to them in the false doctrine they understood (that their is conscious life after death).

It's no secret that Hellenized Jews were confused about many things, including the subject of what happens when we die. So, Jesus drew from their thinking elements for use in His parable to get the point across. Paul did the same thing, drawing on popular notions as a means to communicate - NOT CORRUPT - the truth.

But Jesus would never entertain false doctrine nor use it to explain things.

He did so in the Rich Man and Lazarus...because parables can contain elements that cannot and do not happen in real experience.

YOu spend so much time focused on the old and forget that there are many things not revealed in the old, trhatr you neglect what teh New TEstament teaches

You spend too much time criticizing what I do and NOT ANY TIME AT ALL ADDRESSING THE 14 CONTRADICTIONS. Are you afraid you might lose a debate with me? Then get rubutting!

 

[Phoneman777]

I just don't know if I can deal with you anymore. You rip apart the Scriptures and retranslate them. You talk about preferences and have no clue what you are talking about.

Have the last word. TTFN

Your frustration is not with me, but with your inability to disprove my position.

Paul clearly says he'd "rather" to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord" in his resurrection body so that he wouldn't be "naked" and "unclothed" dead in the grave. Is there any other explanation for "naked" and "unclothed" that can be except this one? No.