It looks like you are condensing this a bit. That's fine, I'll move in that direction too:
Some of it necessary, I'll discuss it as we go and address it a bit more in depth at the end as well.*
1. The "rule of proper names" isn't scriptural, but it is stated in a footnote in the Scofield reference bible. Footnotes are not gospel.
3 & 11. Israel was well known for adopting pagan customs and ideas fast. Golden calves. Groves. Priests of Baal. Necromancers with familiar spirits. Abraham's Bosom has pagan roots. You won't find it from scripture. Seems the Jews weren't totally immune.
Some of it, however, from their own warping of their own theology. Even Baal, though I can give you any of these as outside of God and His directions to them for worship.
7. You weren't able to find any other bible passage that uses the Greek "hades" in relation to fire, were you? If death and hell were fire already, they wouldn't have to be thrown there in Revelation 20:14. Every other instance of hades and sheol (hell) is death, corruption, the worm, decay, the grave, the tomb. Far from proving a connection, you are.
And? I gave you the list. There WERE more in Revelation I didn't post. Regardless of what you say, Hades IS thrown into the Lake of Fire. You can question God on this, it has naught to do with me. I gave you the information, you are responsible for it, AND believing what God alone tells you to believe. I am not the mediator nor dictator of your faith. God is.
8. Your question is both irrelevant and confused. Lazarus and the rich man doesn't name Moses as a person, it is one of the ways the Jews referenced scripture. Not that it matters anyway, it wouldn't matter if Moses was personified in this parable as well.
:nono: You have a LOT of inane assertion to your rebuttals. You may not mean to be condescending but ALWAYS overstepping your actual prowess and ability. Remember, Other than JW's, 7th Day A, and apparently John Stott and other Liberal churches by individuals, rather than denomination, it is all the rest of us. "Irrelevant" and "Confused" is at the door of the church militant and you are hardly Martin Luther. "Rosenritter who? :rotfl: " I'm not being mean, I'm trying to show you that you have a LOT of vibrato and your position is the cult and extreme minority. Honestly, nobody is listening nor will they let you play with the big-boys. Not even semi-pro.
(Why don't you just switch to the name "Abraham" who is personified instead of trying to argue Moses, who was not?) It would be meaningless anyway, because any amount of actors are allowed in a parable. Arguing that it can't be a parable because if has symbolic actors is an exercise in circular logic.
Your comprehension problem not mine. Who 'wrote' Moses and the prophets? :think: You are straining a gnat. You don't like this one? Obvious. It doesn't topple simply because "Rosenritter who?!?" attempts to push a tractor trailer all by himself.
Go ahead and debate, but I recommend trying to stop one-upping or asserting. Example: I am very different in my interpretation of Hebrews, especially Hebrews 6:4. Low and behold, I found MAD agrees with me BUT, I am very timid and careful with my opposing view even though I'm fairly certain about it. I rather tell people, in thread: "Look, my view is assailable simply because I'm in the minority, but I'm just throwing this out there." Contrast that with your stance. You are entirely too arrogant and cocky against the whole church ESPECIALLY where only cultists and a few liberal denominations that pervert God's word are concerned. That said, Don't over react, I've said I think Annihilation a heterodox view, not a damnable heresy. I just personally believe it 1) Overtly concerned with people who are going to hell, regardless, and 2) a potentially damaging lie that actually would comfort an unbeliever and keep them from coming to God as well. IOW, I see no advantage in your view.
10. Do you disagree that the people of Christ's day would have heard of stories where people went to hell and back? Or do you disagree that the Jewish prophets of scripture spoke of death and hell as nothingness? Or do you disagree that they were inspired? You said you disagree. With which part?
Samuel came back to Saul, by example. "Where" he came from is 'what' you and I are debating. Did you think your interpretation was the only one on the table? That you are a supreme thinker and no contest? Again Rosenritter-Who? is going to topple 600 million? Rosenritter-Who? is going to try and challenge 600 to a cage match? Were you valedictorian of your class? Top 10% on the honor roll?
13. When Jesus addressed the Pharisees and the Sadducees over poor understanding, it was never because they took their understanding from scripture, but because of what they said and did and believed that went against scripture. Not once did he chide them for believing scripture as it was written.
Incorrect. In fact, the Lord Jesus Christ said to do as they said, not as they did. He told the Samaritan woman that 'we Jews' know what we are talking about.
2. Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) has no introduction of "He spoke this parable unto them"
4. Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) has no specifically stated application.
5. Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) has no specifically given explanation.
6. There isn't an honest Bible that calls the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) a parable. Why? It's not in the Greek Text.
14. In spite of all this the Parable of the Prodigal Son is well known as a parable. Many well known parables lack all your identifying characteristics. Yet only because the future of ECT depends on it, this one is denied as a parable,
So all of your bible's list it as a parable, but NOT the Rich man as a parable :think:
15. I would wager an electronic copy of Tyndale's English translation that you haven't a single scripture saying that the dead are currently in Paradise.
I win! Luke 23:43 Keep Tyndale. I'm fine.
And speaking of Tyndale, we still have his and my challenge to answer how Christ's answer to the Sadducees, specifically stated for the purpose of proving the resurrection, could have possible proven his point at all if "the dead are alive in any fashion" were the case. If the dead were alive at all, then they wouldn't need a resurrection to qualify God as the God of the Living.
Resurrection "stand up" "raise up" They will be brought up from hades, to heaven.
You can't answer this... not in any non-evasive way, without losing "the dead are conscious" which would be required for a "the dead or tormented or in bliss this side of the resurrection."
Nice try kid. Still 600 to 1. Still "Rosenritter-who?"
By the way, I'll put this out there because a friend of mine points this out. A Conservative Christian Evangelical friend, mind you, of which you said there would be none... that even if you believed "Lazarus and the rich man" were a literal story, there's nothing in there about an eternal duration. It's pre-resurrection, before the destruction of the wicked in the judgment.
Glad you are talking with friends. 1) What denomination does he belong to? He may not be allowed to teach in his church, if he is going against church doctrine. In today's church, some do not take their memberships seriously and lack integrity if they go against their church doctrine by teaching what is opposed to it. I always tell the pastor/congregation where I differ on their doctrinal statements. 2) That the man, for any length of time (2000 years now) is in anguish? LONG time. I've seen this objection and wonder if those who do, are really thinking through their postulation. 3) The Lord Jesus Christ made no apology, by relating truth or analogy about a real place, that the man was in torment. None. That means, the God of the Bible, is somehow all loving. No heathen will care, Rosenritter. You are making a movement, I think in love, but I also believe it is misplaced. We are to Love the Lord Our God, with ALL our heart, ALL our mind, ALL our Strength. When loving our neighbor causes friction and compromise from #1, we are NO LONGER keeping rule #1. We have to always be balanced. The Lord Jesus Christ, whom I love, said the rich man, was in torment. The Lord Jesus Christ, whom I love, said the rich man, was in torment. The Lord Jesus Christ, whom I love, said the rich man, was in torment.
.... as such, it sort of renders even a positive assumption moot for sustaining a belief in Eternal Conscious Torment. Logically and rationally it shouldn't be in one of your top three points because regardless one way or the other, it doesn't technically address the question at hand. Allowing death to not be death might allow ECT to survive to fight another day, but it doesn't discount total destruction to ash that the wicked be no more at Doomsday.
Not really sure the point you are making in this paragraph. I suppose I agree that these 15 or so can be prioritized for their importance. For me, if we are talking about the rich man, it is at the top. The Lord Jesus Christ, whom I love, said the rich man, was in torment.
If you won't answer my question to you because I am a "young pup" ... then will you at least acknowledge Tyndale, who asked the same question? By the way, I am probably not as young as you think.
I think I have addressed it. I may have answered it satisfactorily this post already.
If not satisfactorily, try this: "Lon, I think, from what I understand from you, you'd likely answer Tyndale thus....
...would that be correct or fair in assessment? Thanks"
It'll help me do a better job, as I think I've addressed Tyndale twice now, and if necessary, thanks for the help.
*I realize some condescension meets condescension here. Posturing tends to meet posturing. I'll likely start ignoring the vibrato, but I wanted to reflect it back to you so that you can see it in yourself in clarity. Russians tend to have this same kind of vibrato. I'm not sure what in their culture lends to it, but they carry a lot of false-vibrato and are blind to it being hollow, even among their Christians. I'm not meaning to be prejudice, but it is a trait that I think comes from their previous culture. Something has influenced/forced it.
