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

[Quagmire]

Why do you think that's necessary? The poster is only saying what the Bible says.

John 3:13 - Jesus and Nicodemus

No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven--the Son of Man.

biblehub.com

I didn't actually mean to post that. After I typed it out I realized @DNB's post was a rule 8 violation so I just reported it.

I must have hit 'post reply" by mistake.

 

[Quagmire]

That view contradicts the scriptures themselves.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 - Death Comes to Good and Bad

For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing. They have no further reward, because the memory of them is forgotten.

biblehub.com

Ecclesiastes 9:10 - Enjoy Your Portion in This Life

Whatever you find to do with your hands, do it with all your might, for in Sheol, where you are going, there is no work or planning or knowledge or wisdom.

biblehub.com

Psalm 146:4 - Praise the LORD, O My Soul

When his spirit departs, he returns to the ground; on that very day his plans perish.

biblehub.com

No, you just proved that the scriptures contradict themselves.

 

[nPeace]

Why? Is Google being run by the double these days?

You'll have to explain that sentence, I only speak earthling.

You're very good at that.

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.

Doesn't appear I am the one who's upset... but there you go.

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.

You did. Okay, I'll look.
A setting.in this case, is the situation, or conditions... is what I was thinking of.
What did you have in mind? I'll still take a look back, for what you said.

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.

This is not about me. ...but like I said... you're good at that.

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

So you are thinking of location.
How does that relate to the 1% about Abraham's bosom inthe parable?

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

So, we are both using setting in different context. See above.

Or if you're replying your own meanings towards now, at least show me the definitions that you're using so that I can translate.

Definition of setting?
I had these in mind - situation, background, circumstance.

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?

This is not about me... but you're good at that.

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

I'll wait.

Wait over.

 

[nPeace]

No, you just proved that the scriptures contradict themselves.

The scriptures contradict those who insist they know what the scriptures are saying, when they know not.
For example, those who have presuppositions, or priori assumptions, and therefore take parables and visions, and try to make them literal event, so as to fit their beliefs.
The scriptures contradict those ideas. The scriptures do not contradict scripture.
Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[Quagmire]

You're very good at that.

Sorry, I'm using voice to text. What I meant to ask is, " so is Google being run by the devil these days"?

Anyway, most of the information in that post came from a site called Bible gateways.

Ironically, Google is actually using the same version of that passage that you're using, the one from the NWV.

Doesn't appear I am the one who's upset... but there you go.

Now you're upset because I accused you of being upset.

I'm not upset. I'm a little annoyed , but I always expect that when I get into a conversation with you.

You tend to engage in a lot of passive aggressive dissembling.

You did. Okay, I'll look.

Good idea. Looking makes reading a lot easier than, say, not looking.

A setting.in this case, is the situation, or conditions...

Those can be elements of a setting too, but they're secondary elements.

Time and location are the relevant aspects.

is what I was thinking of.
What did you have in mind? I'll still take a look back, for what you said.


This is not about me. ...but like I said... you're good at that.

And you're good at dismissing other people's points without considering them.

Taking things personally is a handy excuse for you to do that I guess.

So you are thinking of location.
How does that relate to the 1% about Abraham's bosom inthe parable?

It's relevant because that's where the story takes place.

Location is usually only mentioned at the beginning of a story. It isn't necessary to constantly remind the reader of where the story is taking place unless it's the setting changes.

The fact that the settings only mentioned once isn't a valid excuse for dismissing it as irrelevant.

So, we are both using setting in different context. See above.

Well, the real confusion stems from the fact that I'm talking about the setting within the parable. You were talking about the setting within the gospel itself.

You said:
"Was the setting not the state of the common people, and the state the Pharisees and Scribes positioned themselves".

In any case, the 'Bosom of Abraham" is the setting, it's where the story within the parable takes place.

It's a place where many first century judeans believed that the righteous went when they died.

Definition of setting?
I had these in mind - situation, background, circumstance.

View attachment 77379

This is not about me... but you're good at that.

Not quite as good as you are at playing the victim.

Wait over.

Great. How that turn out?

Are we talking about the same thing now?

 

[Quagmire]

The scriptures contradict those who insist they know what the scriptures are saying, when they know not.

I agree.

For example, those who have presuppositions,

Isn't your own faith based mostly on presumptions?

Anyway, as I've shown multiple times now, I'm not making any presumptions. I was just trying to get you to look at the facts.

(For my next trick, I will try to teach my dog to play the piano)

or priori assumptions, and therefore take parables and visions, and try to make them literal event, so as to fit their beliefs.

Lol! You score one point and now I'm never going to hear the end of it, huh?

Did you happen to notice I admitted my mistake?

The scriptures contradict those ideas. The scriptures do not contradict scripture.

Sure, just as long as you don't actually read them . . .

Sorry to disappoint you.

I'm not disappointed. Like I said earlier you're acting exactly as I always expect you to.

 

[Aupmanyav]

At the moment only Jesus is with God in the heaven. I do not know if Mother Mary is already there or not. No one else has reached heaven yet (i.e., before the judgment). All have to wait. The Honorable Court is not in session right now.

 

[nPeace]

At the moment only Jesus is with God in the heaven. I do not know if Mother Mary is already there or not. No one else has reached heaven yet (i.e., before the judgment). All have to wait. The Honorable Court is not in session right now.

There is a way to know if anyone has gone to heaven... from the Bible.
1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; 1 Corinthians 15:20-23
Even resurrection is carried out in an orderly way, since Jehovah is a God of order.
So, from the scriptures, yes, persons are raised to heaven before judgment day... including Mother Mary

 

[nPeace]

You said:
"Was the setting not the state of the common people, and the state the Pharisees and Scribes positioned themselves".

Yes. Jesus is telling the parable with the Pharisees and Scribes in mind.
Hence the analogy of the rich man - Pharisees and Scribes, and the beggar - the people looked down upon (the common people).
Jesus is showing exactly what he is saying, which is his custom - use illustrations to get his point across. The point :
(Luke 16:14-17) 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. 16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John. From then on, the Kingdom of God is being declared as good news, and every sort of person is pressing forward toward it. 17 Indeed, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to go unfulfilled.

The illustration is fitting.
The Pharisees and Scribes - the rich man, has God's disapproval. While the ones looked down upon - the beggars and Lazarus[es], who accept Christ, has God's approval.

In any case, the 'Bosom of Abraham" is the setting, it's where the story within the parable takes place.

I don't see how you arrived at the 'Bosom of Abraham being the setting, and so far, I haven't heard an explanation.
Why did Jesus give the illustration... to talk about Abraham's bosom?
Then what's the point of an illustration... and how would it be an illustration?

It's a place where many first century judeans believed that the righteous went when they died.

First of all, nowhere in the Bible do we read that.
Secondly, Jesus was not addressing the Jews about death, and where the dead are.
So, I can't see where else you would be pulling that idea from, except a priori assumption, based on presupposed beliefs.

 

[Quagmire]

Yes. Jesus is telling the parable with the Pharisees and Scribes in mind.
Hence the analogy of the rich man - Pharisees and Scribes, and the beggar - the people looked down upon (the common people).
Jesus is showing exactly what he is saying, which is his custom - use illustrations to get his point across. The point :
(Luke 16:14-17) 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. 16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John. From then on, the Kingdom of God is being declared as good news, and every sort of person is pressing forward toward it. 17 Indeed, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to go unfulfilled.

The illustration is fitting.
The Pharisees and Scribes - the rich man, has God's disapproval. While the ones looked down upon - the beggars and Lazarus[es], who accept Christ, has God's approval.

I don't see what the point of posting all that was.

Unless it's just a way of dancing around having to admit that you made a mistake about which story the setting was in reference to.

In any case, back to the conversation we were actually having . . .

I don't see how you arrived at the 'Bosom of Abraham being the setting,

I think I've covered all this as well as anyone possibly could, but just for the hell of it I'll say it again:

Translating from the Greek that the gospels were originally written in, Luke 16:22 says this: 22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s Bosom."

I explained all this pretty thoroughly in post #31.

I even gave you a word for word translation from the Greek ( see post #33).

If you still can't see it, I don't know what to tell you.

and so far, I haven't heard an explanation.

Well then take the fingers out of your ears.

Why did Jesus give the illustration... to talk about Abraham's bosom?

That's the question: did Jesus literally believe that the bosom of Abraham was a place where the righteous dead went when they died? Or was he just framing his story in that context because he was telling it to a crowd who held that belief?

It's likely one or both of those is true.

In any case, earlier I asked you, "why would Jesus set his story in an afterlife that he doesn't believe exists if he considered that belief heretical"?

At this point I don't expect you to answer (or even consider) the question so I'll answer it for you: he probably wouldn't.

Either jesus, his audience, or both believed that when righteous people died they immediately went to dwell in a paradise-like afterlife.

No waiting for Resurrection at the end times necessary.

Then what's the point of an illustration... and how would it be an illustration?

Could you rephrase the question?

First of all, nowhere in the Bible do we read that.

And you won't find any references to it in any Protestant Bible.

The concept was most likely drawn from the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha and pseudonymous scriptures are a group of writings composed sometime between the composition of Micah and the first century CE.

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha | Encyclopedia.com

APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHADefinitionApocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are two separate groups of works dating primarily from the period of the Second Temple. The name "Apocrypha" is applied to a collection of books not included in the canon of the Bible although they are incorporated in the canon...

www.encyclopedia.com

Many of these stories were and still are included in some non-Protestant versions of the Christian bible. In any case, it's certain that the authors of the New testament read and considered some of these stories scripture.

Secondly, Jesus was not addressing the Jews about death, and where the dead are.

Well, other than the fact that that's what the story is actually about . . .

So, I can't see where else you would be pulling that idea from, except a priori assumption, based on presupposed beliefs.

Ironic.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17;1 Corinthians 15:20-23

In none of the verses you quoted, is there any mention of people being resurrected before end of the days. Even Mary sleeps.
Only with the coming of the "Lord", with trumpets and probably waving of the palm leaves.

 

[nPeace]

In any case, earlier I asked you, "why would Jesus set his story in an afterlife that he doesn't believe exists if he considered that belief heretical"?

Why would Jesus talk about a camel going through the eye of a needle, unless he thought it possible?
Why did Jesus talk about a rafter, or log in one's, eye, unless he though a log could actually get in one's eye?
Did Jesus really believe in dismemberment - cutting one's arm off, or plucking one's eye out? Did the Jews believe in that?

As is Jesus' custom, he used things that people could understand.
In the illustration, he used a rich man, and a beggar; a great chasm; being in the bosom; etc. All things the Jews were very familiar with.
Focusing on a presumed belief, such as afterlife, could cause one to think that is what Jesus had in mind, when he did not.

Similar to persons who think Jesus was promoting cannibalism, at John 6:35-65.
It's as easy as that, to miss the real point Jesus is making.

 

[nPeace]

In none of the verses you quoted, is there any mention of people being resurrected before end of the days. Even Mary sleeps.
Only with the coming of the "Lord", with trumpets and probably waving of the palm leaves.

What did you get from those scriptures?

 

[Quagmire]

Why would Jesus talk about a camel going through the eye of a needle, unless he thought it possible?

Because it actually was possible:

"The "Eye of the Needle" was indeed a narrow gateway into Jerusalem. Since camels were heavily loaded with goods and riders, they would need to be un-loaded in order to pass through. Therefore, the analogy is that a rich man would have to similarly unload his material possessions in order to enter heaven".

I recently read that one of the gates into Jerusalem was named "The Eye of the Needle," and was quite tricky to negotiate, since it was quite small. Does this mean that when Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle tha

www.theguardian.com

Why did Jesus talk about a rafter, or log in one's, eye, unless he though a log could actually get in one's eye?

Sometimes people use exaggeration or expansive language in order to make a point. Jesus is obviously doing that here.

That's not the same thing as endorsing heresy.

So I'll ask you again:
Why would Jesus offer his audience a parable based on a heresy?

Answer: because the belief in an afterlife abode for the righteous called The "Bosom of Abraham" wasn't considered heretical in first century Judea.

In fact, the fact that Jesus is using it as the setting for a parable he's telling to a first century Judean audience, in public, pretty strongly suggest that it was probably a fairly widely held belief.

Not to mention the fact that if it was heretical he probably would have been arrested on the spot.

Did Jesus really believe in dismemberment - cutting one's arm off, or plucking one's eye out? Did the Jews believe in that?

He was suggesting that his followers give up whatever they needed to give up in order to stay on the path.

Again: not the same thing as endorsing heresy.

As is Jesus' custom, he used things that people could understand.

Yes, and they obviously understood and were familiar with the idea that the righteous dead went immediately to a place called The bosom of Abraham.

Thank you for pointing that out.

In the illustration, he used a rich man, and a beggar; a great chasm; being in the bosom; etc. All things the Jews were very familiar with.

Focusing on a presumed belief, such as afterlife, could cause one to think that is what Jesus had in mind, when he did not.

"22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire."

So in other words, in the parable Jesus has a dead man suffering, seeing, and talking, but you're saying the parable isn't about an afterlife.

Interesting.

Similar to persons who think Jesus was promoting cannibalism, at John 6:35-65.

Have you ever met anyone who actually believed that?

It's as easy as that, to miss the real point Jesus is making.

Well, you just proved that beyond any doubt.

 

[nPeace]

Because it actually was possible:

"The "Eye of the Needle" was indeed a narrow gateway into Jerusalem. Since camels were heavily loaded with goods and riders, they would need to be un-loaded in order to pass through. Therefore, the analogy is that a rich man would have to similarly unload his material possessions in order to enter heaven".

I recently read that one of the gates into Jerusalem was named "The Eye of the Needle," and was quite tricky to negotiate, since it was quite small. Does this mean that when Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle tha

www.theguardian.com

There are two reasons why that is incorrect.
1. Strong's Greek: 4476. ῥαφίς (rhaphis) -- a needle
2. Matthew 19:25 - The Rich Young Man
You lean too heavily on assumptions, and preconceived ideas.

Sometimes people use exaggeration or expansive language in order to make a point. Jesus is obviously doing that here.

As in the case of Luke 16.

That's not the same thing as endorsing heresy.

He wasn't. That your take, remember.

So I'll ask you again:
Why would Jesus offer his audience a parable based on a heresy?

Answer: because the belief in an afterlife abode for the righteous called The "Bosom of Abraham" wasn't considered heretical in first century Judea.

In fact, the fact that Jesus is using it as the setting for a parable he's telling to a first century Judean audience, in public, pretty strongly suggest that it was probably a fairly widely held belief.

Not to mention the fact that if it was heretical he probably would have been arrested on the spot.

You got an answer more than once.
You can't blame me if you just want to hear your answer, can you?

He was suggesting that his followers give up whatever they needed to give up in order to stay on the path.

Again: not the same thing as endorsing heresy.

You seem stuck on that.

Yes, and they obviously understood and were familiar with the idea that the righteous dead went immediately to a place called The bosom of Abraham.

Thank you for pointing that out.

According to Martha.. No.
(John 11:24) . . .Martha said to him: “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day. . .

Maybe the Jews you have in mind were a sect, but certainly they weren't the majority.
In fact, the reason the Jews mourned the dead, is as mentioned earlier... in scriptures the Jews read. Psalms 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10... etc.

Even Jesus knew this. John 5:28, 29

"22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire."

So in other words, in the parable Jesus has a dead man suffering, seeing, and talking, but you're saying the parable isn't about an afterlife.

Interesting.

Right. It's not.
You seem to want it to be.

Have you ever met anyone who actually believed that?

You didn't read the verses?
Look no farther.
(John 6:52) . . .Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
(John 6:60) . . .When they heard this, many of his disciples said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?”

Some here have said the same.

Well, you just proved that beyond any doubt.

Not just. I proved it, quite a few posts back. You confirmed it, as well... by repeatedly demonstrating it.

 

[Quagmire]

There are two reasons why that is incorrect.
1. Strong's Greek: 4476. ῥαφίς (rhaphis) -- a needle

So what? A lot of places have metaphorical or theatrical names.

For instance: you think Hells Kitchen is actually a kitchen and actually in hell?

Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Eye of the Needle" is still the name given to one of the gates in
Jerusalem.

No need to take it literally.

2. Matthew 19:25 - The Rich Young Man

I don't know what you think re-posting the verse proves.

You lean too heavily on assumptions, and preconceived ideas.

I realize you need to believe that, but it just isn't true.

Truth is I'm just pointing out what scholars, historians, and even most religious leaders would tell you. Not to mention tour guides since it's still there.

As in the case of Luke 16.

Again: this goes against everything we know about first cent Judea, not to mention common sense and logic.

He wasn't. That your take, remember.

Apparently you don't understand the question.

I'll repeat it again just for the hell of it:

In Luke 16:19 Jesus is telling a parable about two men dying. After they die, one goes to hell, one goes to a place called The Bosom of Abraham, a place where the righteous dead are rewarded.

Since one is in hell, and one is in something comparable to Heaven, and since one is portrayed as suffering, seeing, and talking (all things that you pretty much have to be conscious and in one way, shape, or form, still existing in order to experience), the parable is obviously set in some sort of afterlife.

@nPeace is trying to make the case that the parable isn't in any way a refence to an afterlife, since supposedly there is no afterlife atm, and won't be until the Resurrection at what's usually referred to as the second coming.

I pointed out that since Jesus is using the Bosom of Abraham, a place of afterlife, as the setting for a parable that he's telling the crowd, it should be fair to conclude that the idea is one that the crowd is familiar with.

So this begs the question: did Jesus literally believe that the bosom of Abraham was a place where the righteous dead went when they died? Or was he just framing his story in that context because he was telling it to a crowd who held that belief?

To me, it seems likely that one or both of those is the case.

@nPeace is claiming that Jesus and/or his followers/audience didn't or couldn't have held this belief because it contradicts accepted, modern Christian beliefs about the afterlife, which means that the idea that the dead went immediately to a place of afterlife that doesn't even exist in Christian theology would be heresy, or at least, a contradiction of what modern Christens like to suppose Jesus himself believed. .

In any case, earlier I asked, "Why would Jesus set his story in an afterlife that he doesn't believe exists? Why would he expect his audience to accept or be able to relate to the story if they had never heard of the setting (the Bosom of Abraham) or were unfamiliar with the idea that the dead went immediately to their reward or punishment in some sort of afterlife?

I'm still waiting for an answer.

You got an answer more than once.

Really? Can you show me where? All you would have to do is link to the post where you answered it.

And in any case, even if you had answered it (which you didn't) why not just repeat the answer here, or point out where you had?

Other than the fact that you never did, I mean.

You can't blame me if you just want to hear your answer, can you?

I can blame you for dancing around the question.

You seem stuck on that.

No worries, I can repeat my points just as often as you can ignore them.

I know, usually when you're being intentionally obtuse like you're being here people eventually just throw up their hands and say "OK, you win. Stay misinformed".

It's kind of sad that you actually do consider that a win.

According to Martha.. No.
(John 11:24) . . .Martha said to him: “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day. . .

Yes, as I demonstrated there are contradictions in the Bible.

Maybe the Jews you have in mind were a sect, but certainly they weren't the majority.

Doesn't matter, they were obviously the audience on that particular day for that particular parable.

In any case, we don't really know what the masses believed or didn't believe at the time. We have a fairly clear idea about some of the more prominent sects, but the Essenes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees were were all religious minorities.

To claim any certainty in regards to what the common people generally believed is just a bit presumptuous.

In fact, the reason the Jews mourned the dead, is as mentioned earlier... in scriptures the Jews read. Psalms 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10... etc.

Even Jesus knew this. John 5:28, 29

They mourned the dead because that's what people do when other people die.

Right. It's not.
You seem to want it to be.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not emotionally invested in any particular conclusions about any of this so I'm free to look at things for what they are.

You didn't read the verses?
Look no farther.
(John 6:52) . . .Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
(John 6:60) . . .When they heard this, many of his disciples said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?”

I asked you if you've ever met anyone who actually believed that. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you've never met anybody who was alive in first cent Judea (sorry, there's one of those perky "presumptions" again) but I'll take it a step further and tell you that I highly doubt that you've ever heard anyone anywhere make those claims unless they were being sarcastic. ,

Some here have said the same.

Really? where?

Not just. I proved it, quite a few posts back.

Yes, you proved that it's easy to misinterpret the Gospels. You prove that pretty consistently in the majority of your posts.

You confirmed it, as well...

Yes, I confirmed the fact that you were misinterpreting your own religious texts.

by repeatedly demonstrating it.

And repeatedly demonstrated it, in this thread and others.

And will probably continue to do so.

 

[nPeace]

So what? A lot of places have metaphorical or theatrical names.

For instance: you think Hells Kitchen is actually a kitchen and actually in hell?

Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What are you rambling about?
The Greek word shows clearly, its a sewing needle.
The Jews got the point of Jesus hyperbole... and no amount of ramblings on your part, will change that fact.

"Eye of the Needle" is still the name given to one of the gates in
Jerusalem.

So what? Lazarus is the name of a number of Jews. So what?
These has nothing to do with the fact that Jesus wasn't referring to a gate in Jerusalem.

No need to take it literally.

No need to insist on your belief. Just take it as it is.
Don't feel bad about admitting you are wrong. Ignorance doesn't hate you.

I don't know what you think re-posting the verse proves.

I though you wouldn't.
The verse shows that Jesus used an exaggeration to make the point. You said so yourself.
So exaggerated was it, the disciples got the point. They were astonished.
Not the response one would expect of a gate that people actually pass through everyday... even if a few minutes are lost offloading.
They reached the city anyway.

Jesus was more on about, nigh impossible... if even possible.

I realize you need to believe that, but it just isn't true.

I don't need to believe anything. So you are wrong.
Oh wait a minute. I do need to believe in God. Otherwise, it's impossible to please him well.

Truth is I'm just pointing out what scholars, historians, and even most religious leaders would tell you. Not to mention tour guides since it's still there.

Appeal to authority? That a fallacy, dude. What... you haven't ran out of air, have you?

Again: this goes against everything we know about first cent Judea, not to mention common sense and logic.

Oh. You haven't ran out of air.
I'm sorry, but appealing to authority won't change what's glaring you in the face.
Nor will the Ad hominem fallacy.

Apparently you don't understand the question.

I'll repeat it again just for the hell of it:

In Luke 16:19 Jesus is telling a parable about two men dying. After they die, one goes to hell, one goes to a place called The Bosom of Abraham, a place where the righteous dead are rewarded.

Since one is in hell, and one is in something comparable to Heaven, and since one is portrayed as suffering, seeing, and talking (all things that you pretty much have to be conscious and in one way, shape, or form, still existing in order to experience), the parable is obviously set in some sort of afterlife.

So you didn't make a mistake? It's not a parable?
Please let me know if you make up your mind. It's a parable, right?

If it's a parable, everything you just said there is moot, because they would all represent something other than what is mentioned.
For example, death would refer to a condition, rather than death.

@nPeace is trying to make the case that the parable isn't in any way a refence to an afterlife, since supposedly there is no afterlife atm, and won't be until the Resurrection at what's usually referred to as the second coming.

It's a parable. Not a literal event.
You aren't confused, I hope.

I pointed out that since Jesus is using the Bosom of Abraham, a place of afterlife, as the setting for a parable that he's telling the crowd, it should be fair to conclude that the idea is one that the crowd is familiar with.

So this begs the question: did Jesus literally believe that the bosom of Abraham was a place where the righteous dead went when they died? Or was he just framing his story in that context because he was telling it to a crowd who held that belief?

To me, it seems likely that one or both of those is the case.

@nPeace is claiming that Jesus and/or his followers/audience didn't or couldn't have held this belief because it contradicts accepted, modern Christian beliefs about the afterlife, which means that the idea that the dead went immediately to a place of afterlife that doesn't even exist in Christian theology would be heresy, or at least, a contradiction of what modern Christens like to suppose Jesus himself believed. .

In any case, earlier I asked, "Why would Jesus set his story in an afterlife that he doesn't believe exists? Why would he expect his audience to accept or be able to relate to the story if they had never heard of the setting (the Bosom of Abraham) or were unfamiliar with the idea that the dead went immediately to their reward or punishment in some sort of afterlife?

I'm still waiting for an answer.

Now, I'm confused. Are you talking to someone else?
What do you mean, you are still waiting for an answer? Are you so focused on you beliefs and assumptions, that you don't hear anything that doesn't agree with what you believe?
You don't want me to keep repeating myself, do you?

If you drop - let go of, the priori assumption, you would grasp it.
The Jews understood this.

Isaiah 40:11
Like a shepherd he feeds his flock; in his arms he gathers the lambs, Carrying them in his bosom, leading the ewes with care.

The Jews are well aware of what being in the bosom position means.
They would easily grasp the meaning of the parable, provided, the latter of these conditions applied.

Really? Can you show me where? All you would have to do is link to the post where you answered it.

I'm not going back.
All you have to do is answer... Did I explain why Jesus gave the parable, and why that particular setting?
If you say no, then it proves you are listening to yourself, and looking only for what agrees with your focus.

And in any case, even if you had answered it (which you didn't) why not just repeat the answer here, or point out where you had?

Because you dismissed it with words similar to, but not exactly... "This is nonsense. I don't know why you posted it."

Other than the fact that you never did, I mean.

Yeah. I did, actually.

I can blame you for dancing around the question.

You are an interesting person.

No worries, I can repeat my points just as often as you can ignore them.

Lol. I haven't ignored anything.
What game are we playing now?

I know, usually when you're being intentionally obtuse like you're being here people eventually just throw up their hands and say "OK, you win. Stay misinformed".

It's kind of sad that you actually do consider that a win.

Huh?
Ah. I know. It's distraction time right.
Since you are proving to be wrong every turn, you resort to this.

Yes, as I demonstrated there are contradictions in the Bible.

No sorry. You demonstrated there are contradictions between what people say, and what the Bible says.

Doesn't matter, they were obviously the audience on that particular day for that particular parable.

In any case, we don't really know what the masses believed or didn't believe at the time. We have a fairly clear idea about some of the more prominent sects, but the Essenes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees were were all religious minorities.

To claim any certainty in regards to what the common people generally believed is just a bit presumptuous.



They mourned the dead because that's what people do when other people die.



I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not emotionally invested in any particular conclusions about any of this so I'm free to look at things for what they are.



I asked you if you've ever met anyone who actually believed that. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you've never met anybody who was alive in first cent Judea (sorry, there's one of those perky "presumptions" again) but I'll take it a step further and tell you that I highly doubt that you've ever heard anyone anywhere make those claims unless they were being sarcastic. ,

No. Right here on RF. People who challenge the Bible.
Seems it may surprise you what people actually say. I mean... look at your posts, for example.

Really? where?

You want me to break RF rules?
Have you ever listened to Spiderman... the one on RF, I mean.

 

[Quagmire]

What are you rambling about?

Oh, now you're going to get nasty.

Did I touch a nerve?

The Greek word shows clearly, its a sewing needle.

Uh huh, and reality tells us that sometimes people use symbolism when naming things.

That's the case here.

The Jews got the point of Jesus hyperbole... and no amount of ramblings on your part, will change that fact.

I never said they didn't. I'm saying you're the one who's missing the point.

So what? Lazarus is the name of a number of Jews.

Point?

So what?
These has nothing to do with the fact that Jesus wasn't referring to a gate in Jerusalem.

Of course he was.

No need to insist on your belief. Just take it as it is.

My "belief" is based on the information we actually have, and I am taking it as is.

"Eye of the needle". That's the name of an entry point in the walls of Jerusalem. In fact if you think about it, and read the link that I gave you you'll see exactly how the reference fits in the context of the surrounding verse.

I realize in this case that's a pretty big "if" though.

Don't feel bad about admitting you are wrong.

I have no problem admitting when I've made a mistake. I showed you that a few posts back.

Guess you missed that too, huh?

Ignorance doesn't hate you.

Maybe not, but ignorant people usually do. Especially when I'm trying to get them to take another look at some of their cherished, if silly, beliefs.

I though you wouldn't.
The verse shows that Jesus used an exaggeration to make the point. You said so yourself.
So exaggerated was it, the disciples got the point. They were astonished.
Not the response one would expect of a gate that people actually pass through everyday... even if a few minutes are lost offloading.
They reached the city anyway.

Or it could be they were astonished at the idea that a rich man would give up everything he had, which is what uses a suggestion here.

It is a pretty radical suggestion after all.

Jesus was more on about, nigh impossible... if even possible.


I don't need to believe anything. So you are wrong.

I disagree. To me it seems like most of your beliefs come from need rather than conviction.

But that's your business not mine.

Oh wait a minute. I do need to believe in God. Otherwise, it's impossible to please him well.


Appeal to authority? That a fallacy, dude.

So you're saying we should just completely disregard everything that history tells us because it would be an "appeal to authority".

Even if you want to call it a fallacy you have to admit it's not nearly as big a fallacy as appeal to wishful thinking.

What... you haven't ran out of air, have you?

Nope, I'm good.

Oh. You haven't ran out of air.

Lol! I know huh? Most people give up trying to reason with you long before this, don't they.

I'm sorry, but appealing to authority won't change what's glaring you in the face.

Which would be what?

Nor will the Ad hominem fallacy.

I see. So in your world even mentioning reason and logic is an insult?

So you didn't make a mistake? It's not a parable?

It is a parable. That's why I've been calling it that all through this conversation.

Please let me know if you make up your mind. It's a parable, right?

Uh huh (?)

If it's a parable, everything you just said there is moot, because they would all represent something other than what is mentioned.
For example, death would refer to a condition, rather than death.

So in other words, in order for the parable to fit with your beliefs, you pretty much have to rewrite the whole parable.

It's a parable. Not a literal event.
You aren't confused, I hope.

No, in spite of your best efforts.

Now, I'm confused.

Now?

Are you talking to someone else?
What do you mean, you are still waiting for an answer?

I mean I asked you a question and you haven't answered it.

Are you so focused on you beliefs and assumptions, that you don't hear anything that doesn't agree with what you believe?

Nope. Now quit stalling.

You don't want me to keep repeating myself, do you?

No need. Like I said: if you did answer the question and I missed it, why not just go back and find that post and link me to it?

(I know why, but I figured I'd ask anyway)

If you drop - let go of, the priori assumption, you would grasp it.
The Jews understood this.

Isaiah 40:11
Like a shepherd he feeds his flock; in his arms he gathers the lambs, Carrying them in his bosom, leading the ewes with care.

Yes, like most words, the word "bosom" has more than one meaning.

In the parable, the "Bosom of Abraham" is meant as a reference to what some believed to be an actual place.

The Jews are well aware of what being in the bosom position means.
They would easily grasp the meaning of the parable, provided, the latter of these conditions applied.

That's right, and they would also be aware that according to some of current beliefs there was a place called The Bosom of Abraham where righteous souls went when they died.

That's the definition of bosom that's relevent to the story.

(relevancy matters)

I'm not going back.

Because you know it isn't there.

All you have to do is answer... Did I explain why Jesus gave the parable, and why that particular setting?

You didn't need to explain, I already knew what message the parable was meant to convey, and as far as setting goes, the only explanation you gave me there was based on your misunderstanding of what the word setting is in reference to in literature.

You still havent acknowledged that the parable takes place in an afterlife setting.

In fact, in order to avoid having to you actually went and changed the definition of the word setting.

If you use the the definition of "setting" that the rest of us are using, you'd pretty much have to go back and reassess your whole argument.

Which I suppose is why you insist on using your own definition, even though it's mostly just something you made up for your own convenience.

If you say no, then it proves you are listening to yourself, and looking only for what agrees with your focus.

Go back and read what I said.

Because you dismissed it with words similar to, but not exactly... "This is nonsense. I don't know why you posted it."

So you're refusing to link back to that post because, supposedly, I said something mean about it.

You're refusing to link back to it because it isn't there. Prove me wrong.

Yeah. I did, actually.

Prove it.

You are an interesting person.

Thanks, and I find you fascinating.

Lol. I haven't ignored anything.

Except reality.

What game are we playing now?

I don't know it's your game, you tell me what we're supposed to call it.

Huh?
Ah. I know. It's distraction time right..

Since you are proving to be wrong every turn, you resort to this.

To what? The truth?

Yes, I know it's a last resort for a lot of people when patience, tolerance, and courtesy doesn't seem to be having any effect.

No sorry. You demonstrated there are contradictions between what people say, and what the Bible says.

No, I demonstrated that the Bible contradicts itself.

Would you like some more examples? I've got some good ones.

No. Right here on RF. People who challenge the Bible.

Are you seriously telling me that you've seen people here on RF claiming that Jesus was advocating literal cannibalism?

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I very much doubt that's ever been said in here unless it was by somebody who was being snide.

Seems it may surprise you what people actually say. I mean... look at your posts, for example.

Lol!
I'd just be happy if I could just get you to look at my posts.

You want me to break RF rules?

No need, all you would have to do is link to a post.

Have you ever listened to Spiderman... the one on RF, I mean.

Now you actually are breaking a rule. you need to tag someone if you're going to mention them in a post.

 

[nPeace]

Oh, now you're going to get nasty.

Did I touch a nerve?

Nasty. Dude, I'm saying what is. I see you're rambling.
rhaphis: - a needle
from rhaptó (to sew)
You haven't addressed that. You're rambling instead.

Uh huh, and reality tells us that sometimes people use symbolism when naming things.

That's the case here.

What are you talking about?

I never said they didn't. I'm saying you're the one who's missing the point.

Point?

You said...
"Eye of the Needle" is still the name given to one of the gates in Jerusalem.
The point is, so what? Since Jesus refers to a sewing needle, whether or not there is a gate in Jerusalem called "Eye of the Needle", has nothing to do with what Jesus said.

My "belief" is based on the information we actually have, and I am taking it as is.

"Eye of the needle". That's the name of an entry point in the walls of Jerusalem. In fact if you think about it, and read the link that I gave you you'll see exactly how the reference fits in the context of the surrounding verse.

I realize in this case that's a pretty big "if" though.

If you actually read the text in the Bible, and use common sense, as you suggested... and honesty, and humility, you would realize that on all terms you are wrong.
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Jesus did not say, the eye of the needle, but rather, the eye of a needle... as in the case of one out of many.
Seems to me you are clutching at straws.

Or it could be they were astonished at the idea that a rich man would give up everything he had, which is what uses a suggestion here.

It is a pretty radical suggestion after all.

Seems you not only think the Bible contradicts itself, but that its words can be twisted to whatever you want it to be.
That would explain this...

So you're saying we should just completely disregard everything that history tells us because it would be an "appeal to authority".

Which history? ...and I'm saying appeal to authority is a fallacy that should never be used to circumvent any 'argument'.

Even if you want to call it a fallacy you have to admit it's not nearly as big a fallacy as appeal to wishful thinking.

Play with words if you wish. A fallacy is a fallacy. ...and the parable is not literal.

 

[Quagmire]

Nasty. Dude, I'm saying what is. I see you're rambling.

Yes, that's what things looks like when you put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la I'm not listening".

rhaphis: - a needle
from rhaptó (to sew)
You haven't addressed that. You're rambling instead.

Asked and answered.

And you know it.

I don't know who you're trying to fool here. Yourself I guess.

What are you talking about?


You said...
"Eye of the Needle" is still the name given to one of the gates in Jerusalem.
The point is, so what?

The point is that's what Jesus was referring to when he said that "it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. . .'

He wasn't talking about a literal sewing needle.

Since Jesus refers to a sewing needle,

whether or not there is a gate in Jerusalem called "Eye of the Needle", has nothing to do with what Jesus said.

It has everything to do with it.

If you actually read the text in the Bible, and use common sense, as you suggested...

Which I have and do. You should try it yourself.

and honesty, and humility,

Sorry but you aren't anyone to be schooling anyone on those points.

you would realize that on all terms you are wrong.

So in other words you consider yourself a humble, honest person who uses common sense.

I guess we can add three more terms whose definitions you seem confused about.

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

That's right. In other words, for a camel to pass through the Eye of the Needle it has to unload it's burden.

For a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven he has to do the same thing, ie., give up all of his possessions.

Pretty straightforward.

Jesus did not say, the eye of the needle, but rather, the eye of a needle...

Can you offer the original Greek and it's translation? I be interested in seeing what the authors of the gospels actually wrote.

I agree the article makes a difference, potentially.

as in the case of one out of many.
Seems to me you are clutching at straws.

Only desperate people do that. I'm only passively interested in this topic, so it would be hard to come up with some aspect therein that I could possibly be desperate about one way or another.

On the other hand, you being a Christian, and a fundamentalist if I'm reading everything right here, you definitely have a lot invested in seeing things from one particular, narrow perspective.

You have a horse in this race, I don't.

In other words I'm free to see things as they are, not as I wish they were.

Maybe try attacking my arguments instead of me and see how things go?

Or is that too risky for you?

Seems you not only think the Bible contradicts itself,

Which is certainly does, and like I said I'll give you a few examples if you'd like.

but that its words can be twisted to whatever you want it to be.

That's certainly true. And nobody's more guilty of that than religious people.

That would explain this...

You're not looking for explanations. You're looking for excuses.

Which history?

The one that actually happened.

...and I's saying appeal to authority is a fallacy that should never be used to circumvent any 'argument'.

Not at all. The appeal to authority fallacy reminds us that we should scrutinize individual testimony from any single scholar or groups of scholars or schools of thought.

That doesn't mean we should just completely disregard scholasticism whole cloth.

If you throw out everything every scholar has ever said on the subject, what are we left with?

No need to answer that question, you show us what we're left with.

Play with words if you wish.

If by "play with words" you mean use terms in accordance with their actual definitions, okay I will.

It would be nice if you would play by the same rules.

A fallacy is a fallacy. ...and the parable is not literal.

That's right, a parable isn't literal.

That doesn't mean the setting is something that the author just made up out of thin air.

In this case we know it isn't.