• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does it mention Abraham twice in two different parables if he isn't literally in heaven?

nPeace

Veteran Member
The King James version has the begger being carried to a place refered to as "Abraham's bosom":

"16:22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom."

Apparently, the Bosom of Abraham was believed by some Jews of jesus's time to be a literal abode of the righteous dead:

"Bosom of Abraham" refers to the place of comfort in the biblical Sheol (or Hades in the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures from around 200 BC,"
The Jews seemed to have gone so far away from God, by the time the Messiah arrived, they had many of their own traditions and ideas.
There were, naturally, variations on each main theme. In Jewish Palestine, for example, there were three small but important religious parties that differed from each other in several ways: the Pharisees (numbering about 6,000 at the time of Herod), Essenes (about 4,000), and Sadducees (“a few men,” according to Flavius Josephus, in The Antiquities of the Jews 18.17). A largely lay group that had the reputation of being the most-precise interpreters of the law, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead. They also relied on the nonbiblical “traditions of the fathers,” some of which made the law stricter while others relaxed it. The Essenes were a more-radical sect, with extremely strict rules. One branch of the group lived at Qumran on the shores of the Dead Sea and produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. At some point in their history the Essenes were probably a priestly sect (the Zadokite priests are major figures in some of the documents from Qumran); however, the composition of their membership at the time of Jesus is unclear. Many aristocratic priests, as well as some prominent laymen, were Sadducees. They rejected the Pharisaic “traditions of the fathers” and maintained some old-fashioned theological opinions. Most famously, they denied resurrection, which had recently entered Jewish thought from Persia and which was accepted by most Jews in the 1st century.

Most Jews based their faith and practice on the five books of Moses (slightly modified by the passage of time) and rejected the extreme positions of the three parties. The Pharisees were respected for their piety and learning, and they may have exercised substantial influence on belief and practice. The Essenes were a fringe group, and those who lived at Qumran had dropped out of mainstream Judaism. Their interpretation of the Bible led them to reject the priests and the Temple as they existed in Jerusalem, and they looked forward to the time when they could seize control of the Holy City. To the degree that any of these parties had power, however, it belonged to the Sadducees. More precisely, the aristocratic priests and a few prominent laymen had power and authority in Jerusalem; of the aristocrats who belonged to one of the parties, most were Sadducees. According to the Acts of the Apostles (5:17), those who were around the high priest Caiaphas were Sadducees, which recalls the evidence of the Jewish priestly aristocrat, historian, and Pharisee Josephus.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Are you sure? Is Jehovah the God of the dead? Is it what is written in the book? Is the God of living different?
It says the God of the living. Not the dead... for they are all living to him (Luke 20:38). In other words, they are alive in his memory, since they will live again, by means of the resurrection. John 5:28
 
Last edited:

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
The Jews seemed to have gone so far away from God, by the time the Messiah arrived,

I'm sure they would think the same about you.

they had many of their own traditions and ideas

And apparently the idea of an afterlife called the Bosom of Abraham is one that Jesus of Nazareth approved of, possibly one that he believed in himself.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
And apparently the idea of an afterlife called the Bosom of Abraham is one that Jesus of Nazareth approved of, possibly one that he believed in himself.
Jesus wasn't very much in agreement with common belief of the Jews, and if it is an illustration, why are you taking it literal?
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Jesus wasn't very much in agreement with common belief of the Jews, and if it is an illustration, why are you taking it literal?
I'm not, I'm just pointing out that Jesus ( possibly) did.

(And I'm not talking about the parable I'm talking about the setting).

Edit: or put it this way: why would he use a parable to propagate an idea that, according to you if I'm following your line of reasoning correctly, he would have considered heretical?
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
I'm not, I'm just pointing out that Jesus ( possibly) did.
Possibly? Well, in that case, we can stop right there, because having a presupposition about the dead,, doesn't make it a possibility
Jesus did not believe what you may think, because some Jewish sects did.
Jesus always refered to the scriptures, so we need not look beyond them, for what he believed and taught.

(And I'm not talking about the parable I'm talking about the setting).
What was the setting?
Was the setting not the state of the common people, and the state the Pharisees and Scribes positioned themselves?
(Luke 16:14, 15) 14 Now the Pharisees, who were money lovers, were listening to all these things, and they began to sneer at him. 15 So he said to them: “You are those who declare yourselves righteous before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is considered exalted by men is a disgusting thing in God’s sight.

So, if that's the setting, and Jesus illustrates the setting, why bring in the state of the dead... unless you have a priori assumption, which led to that?
Fittingly, Jesus starts the illustration this way... (Luke 16:19) “There was a rich man who used to dress in purple and linen, enjoying himself day after day with magnificence..."
He then goes on to describe the contrasting conditions. The setting was not in relation to death.

Edit: or put it this way: why would he use a parable to propagate an idea that, according to you if I'm following your line of reasoning correctly, he would have considered heretical?
Having the presupposition that Jesus is "propagate an idea" about the dead, will cause you to believe that.
Are you saying that is what Jesus is doing, or are you saying that possibly isn't the case?
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Possibly? Well, in that case, we can stop right there, because having a presupposition about the dead,, doesn't make it a possibility

What presumption am I making? I'm pointing to the fact that he used the bosom of Abraham as the setting for one of his parables. How is that a presumption?

(Note: the above is a question. You have the habit of never answering those. How about breaking stride and actually answering that one)
Jesus did not believe what you may think,

You don't know that, and it would be just as valid (probably more based on all the evidence that we have) for me to say he didn't believe the things about himself that you believe.

because some Jewish sects did.
Jesus always refered to the scriptures, so we need not look beyond them,
for what he believed and taught.

I'm not suggesting we look beyond them I'm suggesting we look at them, and not just accept what other people have told us about them.

What was the setting?

The "Bosom of Abraham". This was the setting for the parable.
Was the setting not the state of the common people,

No, the setting is the "Bosom of Abraham". Read the parable again.

and the state the Pharisees and Scribes positioned themselves?
(Luke 16:14, 15) 14 Now the Pharisees, who were money lovers, were listening to all these things, and they began to sneer at him. 15 So he said to them: “You are those who declare yourselves righteous before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is considered exalted by men is a disgusting thing in God’s sight.

So, if that's the setting,

That's not the setting, that's the motivation for the parable.

and Jesus illustrates the setting,

No, parables aren't meant to illustrate the setting. Setting is just a device used within the parable.

Parables are meant to illustrate a point or a moral.

why bring in the state of the dead... unless you have a priori assumption, which led to that?

That's exactly the point: why would Jesus tell a story set in an afterlife that you say he didn't even believe in?
Fittingly, Jesus starts the illustration this way... (Luke 16:19) “There was a rich man who used to dress in purple and linen, enjoying himself day after day with magnificence..."
He then goes on to describe the contrasting conditions. The setting was not in relation to death.

I really don't think you understand what "setting" means.

Here:

"set-ting
the place or type of surroundings where something is positioned or where an event takes place.
"cozy waterfront cottage in a peaceful country setting"."

Having the presupposition that Jesus is "propagate an idea" about the dead, will cause you to believe that.

No, reading the story will lead any reasonable human being with their eyes open and unblinded by dogma to believe that.

Why? Because it's right there. No presumptions necessary.

I asked you a question previously. I'll ask it again: why would Jesus set his story in an afterlife that he doesn't believe exists if he considered that belief heretical?
Are you saying that is what Jesus is doing, or are you saying that possibly isn't the case?

I'm saying there was a belief in first century Judea that there was a place called The bosom of Abraham where the righteous dead were sent.

This isn't my opinion, this is historical fact.

Being a Jew in first century Judea it's quite likely, or at least possible, that Jesus himself believed in this.

Or, it could be he was just appealing to a crowd that he knew believed in this version of the afterlife.

In any case, he certainly didn't consider it heretical if he's using it as a device in one of his stories.
 

Frank Goad

Well-Known Member
Hmmm. Well I wouldn't have put it so bluntly... Not that you are wrong, of course.
Abraham is no more. Of course, that does not mean Abraham is forgotten, does it?
God remembers Abraham. Jesus explained it...
Matthew 22
31Regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, who said: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living.

Not a trick question... ;) So, is that verse saying that Abraham is not dead?
That means they are dead but God still remembers them as if they still existed.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
What presumption am I making? I'm pointing to the fact that he used the bosom of Abraham as the setting for one of his parables. How is that a presumption?

(Note: the above is a question. You have the habit of never answering those. How about breaking stride and actually answering that one)
Okay, let me do. I don't see how you arrived at the 'bosom of Abraham as the setting for one of his parables'
Perhaps, you can explain how you got there, because that's another of those presuppositions.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Okay, let me do. I don't see how you arrived at the 'bosom of Abraham as the setting for one of his parables'
Perhaps, you can explain how you got there, because that's another of those presuppositions.
It's not a presumption, that's the setting. That's where the parable takes place.

Have you actually read that part of the gospel?

Look, Google this: "What is the setting of the Rich man and Lazarus?"

Here's what you'll get:
"The setting of the Lazarus and rich man parable. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side" NWV

That's the New World Version. That version uses "Abraham's side". Older versions of the gospels, or those modern versions concerned with preserving literal accuracy, use the term "Abraham's Bosom".

Most versions say this: [22] And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; [23] And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom".

The meaning is the same though: the setting for the parable is a first cent. Judean version of the afterlife, ie. a pre-Christian version of both Heaven and Hell.

That's not a presumption, it's what the story says.

I think you're having a hard time processing this because it contradicts what you already believe.

But whether you want to accept it or not, the Gospels have Jesus sitting in first century Judea telling a story about an apparently already existent afterlife. This is a hard thing for a modern Christian to accept because it contradicts the typical Christian belief about an afterlife, that drawn from the writings of John of Patmos.

But then you should take into account that Jesus of Nazareth didn't have access to the Book of Revelation.
 
Last edited:

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
That means they are dead but God still remembers them as if they still existed.

That's probably not what that is supposed to mean.

Consider Matt: 17:2" And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. 3And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him".

How could Moses and Elijah appear to anyone if they only existed in God's memory?

Obviously the author of Matthew believed something else.



 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
The original Greek:

16:22 ἐγένετο δὲ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν πτωχὸν καὶ ἀπενεχθῆναι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων εἰς τὸν κόλπον Ἀβραάμ· ἀπέθανεν δὲ καὶ ὁ πλούσιος καὶ ἐτάφη.


2859 [e]κόλπον
kolpon
bosomN-AMS
11 [e]Ἀβραάμ·
Abraam
of Abraham.N-GMS

My guess (and this is just a guess), some newer translations have opted for terms like "Abrahams side" in order to downplay the fact that the "Bosom of Abraham" was meant to indicate an actual place where the dead still existed in some conscious state, given that (as I mentioned above) it contradicts what most modern Christians believe in regards to an afterlife.
 
Last edited:

DNB

Christian
Why does it mention Abraham twice in two different parables if he isn't literally in heaven?Luke 13:22-30. and Luke 16:19-31.In Luke 13:22-30 it says people will see Abraham in the kingdom of God and themselves thrown out. And in Luke 16:19-31 that is just what happens!Can someone explain this?:)
Luke 13:22-30 is referring to an eschatological period - when men are judged at the Great White Throne. No one who has lived on earth is currently in heaven except for Jesus, as he waits until the Father tells him to return.

The parable of Lazarus is an allegory - the entire plot is fictional, as nothing that it depicts about heaven is either reasonable or plausible. There will be no visual or oral communication between the parties or realms of judgement. Asking for a drip of water to alleviate one's suffering in hell is absurd, as the torment will not be physical but mental.

Neither parable necessitates Abraham's current existence in heaven, nor do they even imply it.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
It's not a presumption, that's the setting. That's where the parable takes place.

Have you actually read that part of the gospel?

Look, Google this: "What is the setting of the Rich man and Lazarus?"

Here's what you'll get:
"The setting of the Lazarus and rich man parable. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side" NWV

That's the New World Version. That version uses "Abraham's side". Older versions of the gospels, or those modern versions concerned with preserving literal accuracy, use the term "Abraham's Bosom".

Most versions say this: [22] And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; [23] And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom".

The meaning is the same though: the setting for the parable is a first cent. Judean version of the afterlife, ie. a pre-Christian version of both Heaven and Hell.

That's not a presumption, it's what the story says.

I think you're having a hard time processing this because it contradicts what you already believe.

But whether you want to accept it or not, the Gospels have Jesus sitting in first century Judea telling a story about an apparently already existent afterlife. This is a hard thing for a modern Christian to accept because it contradicts the typical Christian belief about an afterlife, that drawn from the writings of John of Patmos.

But then you should take into account that Jesus of Nazareth didn't have access to the Book of Revelation.
So you arrived at your conclusion from google.
That's even worst, because they don't give the setting. They gave a view on their focus.
You are trying to make this about me, but tell me something, do you know what a setting is? Do you think I don't know what a setting is?
What's a setting? You seem to have something in mind which I don't understand a setting to be.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
That's probably not what that is supposed to mean.

Consider Matt: 17:2" And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. 3And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him".

How could Moses and Elijah appear to anyone if they only existed in God's memory?

Obviously the author of Matthew believed something else.
You think the vision was a real event?
Peter was there, and he thought it was real too.
However, he realized his mistake. Hopefully, you realize that as well.

(Luke 9:28-36)
And as these were departing from him, Peter said to Jesus: “Instructor, it is fine for us to be here. So let us erect three tents, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” He did not realize what he was saying

(Matthew 17:9) Jesus commanded them: “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.”
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
The original Greek:

16:22 ἐγένετο δὲ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν πτωχὸν καὶ ἀπενεχθῆναι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων εἰς τὸν κόλπον Ἀβραάμ· ἀπέθανεν δὲ καὶ ὁ πλούσιος καὶ ἐτάφη.


2859 [e]κόλπον
kolpon
bosomN-AMS
11 [e]Ἀβραάμ·
Abraam
of Abraham.N-GMS

My guess (and this is just a guess), some newer translations have opted for terms like "Abrahams side" in order to downplay the fact that the "Bosom of Abraham" was meant to indicate an actual place where the dead still existed in some conscious state, given that (as I mentioned above) it contradicts what most modern Christians believe in regards to an afterlife.
That view contradicts the scriptures themselves.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
So you arrived at your conclusion from google.
That's even worst,

Why? Is Google being run by the devil these days? :D

because they don't give the setting. They gave a view on their focus.

You'll have to explain that sentence, I only speak earthling.
You are trying to make this about me,

How am I trying to make it about you? Just because the information I'm giving you is upsetting you doesn't mean it was meant as an attack.

but tell me something, do you know what a setting is?

Yes, and I explained that. I even gave you the dictionary definition.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what you think that word means.

Do you think I don't know what a setting is?

Either you don't know what the word means, or you're pretending that you don't in order to invalidate the rest of what I'm saying to you.

In literature, "Setting" is where the story takes place.

Now again: please tell me what you think that word means.

Or if you're applying your own meanings to words now, at least show me the definitions that you're using so that I can translate.
What's a setting? You seem to have something in mind which I don't understand a setting to be.

I don't know how many times or how many different ways I can explain it to you.

Let's try this: since you don't like Google, do you have access to a dictionary?

If so, go and look to see what your dictionary says "setting" means.

I'll wait.
 
Last edited:

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
You think the vision was a real event?

I was under the impression that the author meant it as a depiction of a real event.

But then I haven't read the gospels in a few years.
Peter was there, and he thought it was real too.
However, he realized his mistake. Hopefully, you realize that as well.

(Luke 9:28-36)
And as these were departing from him, Peter said to Jesus: “Instructor, it is fine for us to be here. So let us erect three tents, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” He did not realize what he was saying

(Matthew 17:9) Jesus commanded them: “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.”

Ah, Ok. I'll give you a point for that one.
 
Top