Now that you mention it, I was thinking that it didn't sound like Josephus. The Josephus who only made an indirect reference to Christ when he mentions
"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[ ...
And your objection of "doesn't apply" likewise doesn't apply to the story setting of a parable. You keep getting ahead of yourself on this one.
It doesn't apply. The Lord Jesus Christ gave Luke 16:19-31
Pharisees weren't being warned of Eternal Conscious Torment. First, you haven't yet shown a source (biblical or otherwise) to evidence that any Pharisees believed that death was a conscious expereince, second, there is no "eternal" in the story, as the judgment is not yet and the end effect of the punishment of judgment is described as destruction into ash from both Jesus and John the Baptist.
I didn't dismiss it. In fact, I said if it were a parable, it makes the problem worse, if it were to the Pharisees, He is warning them of ECT.
So if "no such acknowledgement exists" then please explain why Matthew Henry, John Gill ,and Albert Barnes all identified the passage as a parables within their Bible commentaries? I'm not going to do the copy and paste a second time. Fairness of rational discussion means that you need to at least provide a reason if you are going to ignore evidence. Just saying "not so" is what Way 2 Go does, which is why I largely ignore him.
:nono: No such acknowledgement exists. Rather, they acknowledge it has some things in common with parables, but a lot of differences as well.
Again, if a parable, to me, it makes it doubly problematic.
Lon, numbers or what is thought to be majority aren't a valid measure in this sort of question. When Elias was in the minority, and thought he was the only one left, God assured him that there were seven thousand men who had not yet bowed the knee to Baal. Yet even those seven thousand of minority were thought to be much less, if at all, because they were persecuted by the majority.
It may be that many who intuitively can tell there is something wrong with "Eternal Conscious Torment" may not be properly armed with scriptures, or attempt a proper "on the scripture only" request for review and/or confrontation. However, I have personal first-hand experience witnessing abominable behavior that is railed upon those that do question, especially if on the basis of scriptures. So much that I started a collection documenting all the variety of bad behavior, from those that supposedly are supposed to be representatives of God and who with their mouths, at least, profess that "scripture only" and to "prove anything if asked."
Not everyone is like that. But it's fairly common. You likely have more of Christendom that believes similarly but you won't ever hear from them for a variety of reasons, including that they don't want to be attacked. They may not be equipped to answer every question that might be put to them, but even you aren't able to answer every question put to you, and you have the benefit of an official bible education.
My model is up for debate, HOWEVER, mine isn't far from Christendom at large. Only a few from our camp, then cults believe as you do.
I'm not necessarily trying to talk you out of anything here, just give you perspective as well as give you feedback on a few of your thoughts here, that I and most of the rest of the Church believe are incorrect.
You haven't yet shown me how "Abraham was alive in Paradise" is compatible with Jesus proving the resurrection of the dead by "God is the God of the Living." If Abraham was in Paradise, he doesn't need to be raised for God to be the "God of the Living." Until and unless you manage to reconcile that, in a way that at least makes reasonable sense to someone such as myself (I try to be fair) please realize that your assumption isn't a settled point yet.
I was agreeing with a point you had made by the example. You had said:
You can come up with passages of your own, instead of Samuel/Saul. I was simply acquiescing the point, not trying to get off topic.
Sorry, I have trouble understanding what you mean with the super short responses sometimes.
Two assumptions: 1) that bodies lie in the ground dead, until resurrection as per your and a few Jews like the Sadducees believed.
Correction, and an important one. Sadducee did not believe that bodies lay in the ground dead until the resurrection. Sadducees denied that there was
ANY resurrection. This is described as the dividing point between Pharisee and Sadducee.
Rather, "the dead lay silent in the dust until the resurrection" is what the Pharisees believed. No mention is made of a dispute between these factions as to the state of death, only whether the dead would be raised from death. Look at verses that you have already posted, it says as much.
Acts 23:6-8 KJV
(6) But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren,
I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
(7) And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.
(8)
For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
Why do you say the Sadducees believed we were dead until the resurrection?
2) The orthodox view (and mine): Jesus corrected the Sadducees: "God of the Living, NOT the dead." Clearly Jesus said Abraham was alive at the time.
Which brings us back to Tyndale's question to Sir Thomas More. Any assumption that the dead were conscious means that Christ's answer does nothing to prove the resurrection. Given that Jesus said that this was to prove the resurrection, specifically and for no other purpose, and nothing else was said to offer proof, ergo his statement does NOT mean that the dead are alive, but requires that the dead are dead in every sense of the word.
Jesus corrected the Sadducees, but he corrected them about the resurrection, not anything else.
Please, the text says exactly that!
Matthew 22:31-32 KJV
(31)
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
(32) I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Do you see where Jesus says "
As touching the dead, that they live in Paradise..." or anything like that there? I don't.
If you do, please point them out to me and underline or use color or something.
2 Timothy 2:15
Again, today 'orthodox' means "what the vast majority of us holds in common.' You might have had something of a point when Rome was the only one on the block.
Today's churches aren't that different from when they were officially under Rome. Some of the people changed, for a bit, a few of the customs, but the same base human attributes that brought corruption in the first case are still present and reassert themselves. Who was it that said that the tree of liberty must continually be refreshed with the blood of patriots? One attempt at reformation doesn't fix everything at once, and before you know it a new generation has entirely different objectives.
Unless it is 'logically' unassailable, but it'd have to be mutual as well. As far as 'orthodox' these are what the 'majority' (and VAST majority) believes is biblical.
I was hoping for a more enthusiastic commitment to "scripture only." Not tradition first, and interpreting all scripture in the light of that tradition. If one isn't willing to attempt to put aside preconceived ideas and let the scripture naturally build itself up
in the order God gave them to us, and then compare the results, you will never have a fair comparison.
You say that "the majority of Christianity believes..." but Lon, how much of this "majority of Christianity" do you think has read the whole Bible at cover to cover (at least) maybe once? The first ECT quote in James Wallace list was from a person who said that the souls of the wicked are immortal.... yet scripture tells us that Jesus only hath immortality, and that immortality is only given as a gift to those who believe in Jesus Christ, something that the blessed saints in Christ only put on in the resurrection. Yet this so-called "Father" is accepted as Orthodox when he blatantly denies the scripture.
Something is wrong with this picture...
Yes, I read it. Yes I saw that the first half could go either way. Did you keep reading? :think: That is the more important question
I had a "discussion" with Jim Wallace some years back about less-than-accurate posting of those lists. For example, he was listing Justin Martyr as being a proponent of "Eternal Conscious Torment" and "immortal souls." Most people believe those lists because they don't suspect someone will flat-out lie to them. For example, he had Justin Martyr in the middle of his list, who also has these clear statements in his writings:
"... why do we any longer endure those
unbelieving and dangerous arguments, and fail to see that we are retrograding when we listen to such an argument as this:
that the soul is immortal, but the body mortal... this we used to hear from
Pythagoras and Plato, even before we learned the truth."
" ...
and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from
death those those who repent of their wickedness and believe in him..."
"
the fire of judgment would descend and utterly dissolve all things, even as formerly the flood left no one but him only with his family who is by us called Noah..."
A good half of his list (the earlier half) was filled with bogus claims as to early Christian Fathers. Since I persisted on attempting to talk with him on it, he finally removed Justin Martyr only (who I was using as my prime example) and stopped responding. Point being, don't trust lists from James Wallace without first verifying the information yourself.
I didn't really care who the guy was, but rather the list of quotes. NewAdvent.org also had the same list.
It's not the person I care about either, but rather the dishonesty of those lists. More so about the unwillingness of the authors to make corrections when (presumed) mistakes or oversights are brought to their attention. I am reminded of how state-sponsored textbooks continue to use arguments and evidences that have been proved false or fake hoaxes, but their response is that they won't update the textbooks because they need to have some sort of evidence for evolution.
The link I gave were quotes. Simply citing a source isn't helpful, rather we'd want to read what each of them wrote rather than taking it from Dr. Roller's mouth.
You can ask him for a copy. He has materials he shares on request. Or ask me and I'll share the copy I got from him. But the list you gave incorrectly listed authors with annihilation language as ECT, without any mention of "immortal soul" or "torment without end" when he said that the result of eternal fire was "death."
... and this is getting longer. To be continued.
