Immortality or Resurrection, William West [best romance books of all time txt] 📗
- Author: William West
Book online «Immortality or Resurrection, William West [best romance books of all time txt] 📗». Author William West
according to the way Revelation 6:9-10 is used, those on the shore would be asking God to torment them more.
If it were a true story it is the one place in the Bible where the veil is drawn aside and we can see what it is like after death. We can even hear the conversation of those on the other side, and it was given to unbelievers, the Pharisees and Scribes. Luke 15 and 16 is a discourse to them, not to the Apostles.
If this were a true story we have a biblical example of praying to a Saint and to a person as if he were God, which we are forbidden to do. If after death anyone can pray to Saint Abraham, why do most why are orthodox teach we cannot pray to Saint Abraham or any other saint?
THIS PARABLE HAS ELEMENTS
THAT COULD NOT BE TRUE IN A TRUE STORY
[1] If this is not a parable, and if the rich man and Lazarus are real people, THEN ABRAHAM IS ALSO A REAL PERSON, BUT HE IS NOW IN THE PLACE OF A GOD. Is he a God? No, for this is a parable, not a true story. IF IT WERE A TRUE STORY IT WOULD MAKE ABRAHAM, NOT GOD THE SOURCE OF REWARD AFTER DEATH. GOD OR CHRIST IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE PARABLE. Coffman said the element of Abraham presiding over paradise forces one to seek an analogy. "Commentary On Luke" Page 385. Lazarus in the bosom of the God Abraham can have no parallel in reality; it is a parable, not a true story. It cannot be both. It cannot have both an allegorical and a literal meaning. If it did, how would one be different than the other? If taken literally, Abraham is put into a position of being a God, which he never was, is not, and never will be.
• Abraham is NOT a God. This is figurative language, not a true story.
• Abraham's bosom is NOT a place. This is figurative language, not a true story.
• Abraham's bosom is NOT literally the home of the saved after death. This is figurative language, not a true story. Many died before Abraham was born. They could not have gone to Abraham's bosom, a place where Abraham presided over before Abraham was born, before Abraham’s bosom could have existed; but those who believe in Abraham's bosom view believe all the saved in the Old Testament went to it, therefore, Abraham's bosom could only be symbolic language.
[2] MANY REGARD THIS AS A PARABLE, BUT THEY REASON AND DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM IT AS THOUGH IT WERE A LITERAL TRUE STORY. They go both ways as it suits them. "No reason why Luke 16:19-31 should be viewed only as a parable" Csonka, Guardian Of Truth, January 5, 1995, Page 16. This article says it is a parable, but it’s author thinks it is also a true story both at the same time! It could not be both, and the article says it is a parable. It cannot, as many say, "mean the same thing" if it is a parable that it would if it is a true story. IT MUST BE 100% A TRUE STORY OR 100% A PARABLE. It cannot be a mixture of the two. IF IT IS A LITERAL TRUE STORY, EVERY DETAIL MUST BE TRUE AND HAVE A LITERAL TRUE MEANING. Those who say it is a true story find parts of it that will not fit into their views [what they believe]; and always try to make these parts be a metaphor or parable. Abraham's bosom had literally turned to dust long before Jesus gives this parable. If his bosom is used symbolical and is not his literal bosom, the rest of the account must also be symbolic and it is not the literal experience of the two men after they died. Part of it cannot be a symbolic parable, and part of it literal. It must all be a parable or all literal. In a metaphor, one part of it is never figurative with another part literal. If Abraham's bosom is figurative, then Lazarus in his bosom must also be figurative and not a real person, otherwise, a real person would be in a figurative bosom. We cannot make any part of a metaphor be a literal statement just because we want it to be, or we need it to be to prove something we want to prove. If "Abraham's bosom" is a real place, where is Abraham? In his own bosom!
“We want to know if this was a real experience, and if it teaches the condition of the dead. Let it be remembered, then, according to the philosophy that they are ‘spirits.’ Will you tell me how you reason that a ‘spirit’s tongue’ can be cooled with water? ‘Oh’ you say, ‘that represents’—HOLD ON, NO REPRESENTATIONS GO IN A REAL CIRCUMSTANCE. If you say it is real, stay with it. This policy of making it half literal and half figurative, just because there is an end to gain, is a nature ‘fakir’ in theology. It, therefore, represents nothing it is a real circumstance, as you affirm. How could Lazarus carry a drop of water on his ‘SPIRTUAL’ finger? You say, ‘Oh, that doesn’t mean literal water.’ Well sir, it does or you do not mean what you say, I care not who you are. But reason with me. How could a spiritual tongue be cooled with a drop of water? ‘Oh,’ you say, ‘that must not be pressed too literal.’ NO, NOT TOO LITERAL, BUT JUST A LITERAL AS IN ANY REAL CIRCUMSTANCE. If it was a literal fact, then the details, which make it up are literal fact also. And to deny that it to deny your position. Here is a stubborn fact. The narrative say the rich man did call on Abraham to send Lazarus. That he wanted Lazarus to dip his finger in water. And he wanted Lazarus to put that water on his tongue. And the reason was that he was tormented in the flame. That very portrait, if it be read circumstance, will compel every one of you to admit that the torment of the intermediate state is produced by fire. How do you like it? Then stop saying it is a sort of compunction of conscience. For understand, conscience was never known to call for water to cool it. Get that? It will no doubt be granted willingly, that for a real circumstance, the peculiar incidents connected with it here make this the most remarkable and phenomenal case on record. For we would be forced to concede that the spirit craved water, that it gets thirsty or feverish, and that it asked a favor of Abraham instead of God, that it was God who rendered the verdict and cast him in prison, that Abraham has no right or jurisdiction in the matter, and a hundred other things that make this narrative an absolute mystery, if it be a real circumstance .” E. D. Slough, “The Indictment Of Eternal Torment—The Self-negation Of A Monstrous Doctrine,” Page 262, F. L. Rowe, Publisher, 1914, evangelist, church of Christ.
[3] This is the only parable in which some try to make an allegory literal, but only the parts of it they want to be literal for they do not want the whole story to be literal. It would teach things they do not believe. It would teach that the many [the poor] will be saved, and that few [the rich] will be lost. What about Abraham? He was very rich. It is not said the rich man was evil or sinful, just rich; but those who teach innately immortal have a real person in torment before the judgment, before he is judged and found guilty. It is not said Lazarus was good and faithful, or even that he knows of God, just that he was poor, as are millions; but being rich is not sinful, and being poor will not save. NOT ONE GOOD THING IS SAID ABOUT LAZARUS AND NOT ONE BAD THING ABOUT THE RICH MAN. There is nothing negative said about the rich man and nothing positive about Lazarus in their lifetime, but they have Lazarus who they say is a real person being rewarded before being judged.
[4] It would teach that the rich man, who would then be in a supernatural state [not of this earth] and therefore, most likely have a much greater knowledge of supernatural things than we now have, that he would believe or know that the dead could come back to earth and teach the living. This is not what most believes, but it would greatly support the spiritualist who says they can call the dead back.
[5] What bodies would the rich man or Lazarus have when their earthly body was still in the grave? They will not have a "spiritual body" unto the resurrection [1 Corinthians 15:44]. Do disembodied spirits that have no body and are "immaterial, invisible" have human body parts? The rich man has "eyes" and "tongue." Lazarus has a "finger." Abraham has a "bosom." Is there a third kind of body, which has these earthly parts? What would a "spirit" or "soul" which does not have an earthly body want with water? Only in speaking in a metaphor can it be said that God or any spiritual being has a human part, or to want water. How could an "immaterial, invisible part of man" have body parts or want water if this were a true story and not a parable? It would make this "immaterial, invisible part of man" very material.
[6] If the rich man were a real person in torment, God would be unjust to be tormenting him without his knowing why. If he knew why he was being tormented, he would have known that Lazarus could not come to take his torment away by bring him water.
[7] The rich man wanted Lazarus to go to his brothers "from the dead." How could Lazarus "go to them from the dead" [Luke 16:30] or "rise from the dead," [Luke 16:31] if he were not dead but were alive in Heaven or Abraham's bosom?
Al Maxey: "To fabricate a theology of disembodied spirits and Hadean holding cells and everlasting torture of the wicked from this passage is an unconscionable abuse of biblical interpretation and should be rejected by all disciples intent upon discerning and declaring Truth rather than perpetuating the tedious tenets of paganistic Tradition" Reflections, Issue #28, April 4, 2003.
Adam Clarke: " Let it be remembered that by the consent of all (except the basely interested), no metaphor is ever to be produced in proof of a doctrine. In the things that concern our eternal salvation, we need the most pointed and express evidence on which to establish the faith of our souls" Note on Matthew 5:26.
R. C, Trench: "The parables are not to be made first sources of doctrine. Doctrines other wise grounded may be illustrated, or even further confirmed by them; but it is not allowable to constitute doctrines first by their aid. For from the literal to the figurative, from the clearer to the more obscure, has ever been recognized as the law of Scripture interpretation. This rule, however, has been often forgotten, and controversialists, looking around for arguments with which to sustain some weak position, often invent for themselves supports in these" Notes On The Parables Of Our Lord, Page 17,1948.
Luke 16:19-32 -- Very
If it were a true story it is the one place in the Bible where the veil is drawn aside and we can see what it is like after death. We can even hear the conversation of those on the other side, and it was given to unbelievers, the Pharisees and Scribes. Luke 15 and 16 is a discourse to them, not to the Apostles.
If this were a true story we have a biblical example of praying to a Saint and to a person as if he were God, which we are forbidden to do. If after death anyone can pray to Saint Abraham, why do most why are orthodox teach we cannot pray to Saint Abraham or any other saint?
THIS PARABLE HAS ELEMENTS
THAT COULD NOT BE TRUE IN A TRUE STORY
[1] If this is not a parable, and if the rich man and Lazarus are real people, THEN ABRAHAM IS ALSO A REAL PERSON, BUT HE IS NOW IN THE PLACE OF A GOD. Is he a God? No, for this is a parable, not a true story. IF IT WERE A TRUE STORY IT WOULD MAKE ABRAHAM, NOT GOD THE SOURCE OF REWARD AFTER DEATH. GOD OR CHRIST IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE PARABLE. Coffman said the element of Abraham presiding over paradise forces one to seek an analogy. "Commentary On Luke" Page 385. Lazarus in the bosom of the God Abraham can have no parallel in reality; it is a parable, not a true story. It cannot be both. It cannot have both an allegorical and a literal meaning. If it did, how would one be different than the other? If taken literally, Abraham is put into a position of being a God, which he never was, is not, and never will be.
• Abraham is NOT a God. This is figurative language, not a true story.
• Abraham's bosom is NOT a place. This is figurative language, not a true story.
• Abraham's bosom is NOT literally the home of the saved after death. This is figurative language, not a true story. Many died before Abraham was born. They could not have gone to Abraham's bosom, a place where Abraham presided over before Abraham was born, before Abraham’s bosom could have existed; but those who believe in Abraham's bosom view believe all the saved in the Old Testament went to it, therefore, Abraham's bosom could only be symbolic language.
[2] MANY REGARD THIS AS A PARABLE, BUT THEY REASON AND DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM IT AS THOUGH IT WERE A LITERAL TRUE STORY. They go both ways as it suits them. "No reason why Luke 16:19-31 should be viewed only as a parable" Csonka, Guardian Of Truth, January 5, 1995, Page 16. This article says it is a parable, but it’s author thinks it is also a true story both at the same time! It could not be both, and the article says it is a parable. It cannot, as many say, "mean the same thing" if it is a parable that it would if it is a true story. IT MUST BE 100% A TRUE STORY OR 100% A PARABLE. It cannot be a mixture of the two. IF IT IS A LITERAL TRUE STORY, EVERY DETAIL MUST BE TRUE AND HAVE A LITERAL TRUE MEANING. Those who say it is a true story find parts of it that will not fit into their views [what they believe]; and always try to make these parts be a metaphor or parable. Abraham's bosom had literally turned to dust long before Jesus gives this parable. If his bosom is used symbolical and is not his literal bosom, the rest of the account must also be symbolic and it is not the literal experience of the two men after they died. Part of it cannot be a symbolic parable, and part of it literal. It must all be a parable or all literal. In a metaphor, one part of it is never figurative with another part literal. If Abraham's bosom is figurative, then Lazarus in his bosom must also be figurative and not a real person, otherwise, a real person would be in a figurative bosom. We cannot make any part of a metaphor be a literal statement just because we want it to be, or we need it to be to prove something we want to prove. If "Abraham's bosom" is a real place, where is Abraham? In his own bosom!
“We want to know if this was a real experience, and if it teaches the condition of the dead. Let it be remembered, then, according to the philosophy that they are ‘spirits.’ Will you tell me how you reason that a ‘spirit’s tongue’ can be cooled with water? ‘Oh’ you say, ‘that represents’—HOLD ON, NO REPRESENTATIONS GO IN A REAL CIRCUMSTANCE. If you say it is real, stay with it. This policy of making it half literal and half figurative, just because there is an end to gain, is a nature ‘fakir’ in theology. It, therefore, represents nothing it is a real circumstance, as you affirm. How could Lazarus carry a drop of water on his ‘SPIRTUAL’ finger? You say, ‘Oh, that doesn’t mean literal water.’ Well sir, it does or you do not mean what you say, I care not who you are. But reason with me. How could a spiritual tongue be cooled with a drop of water? ‘Oh,’ you say, ‘that must not be pressed too literal.’ NO, NOT TOO LITERAL, BUT JUST A LITERAL AS IN ANY REAL CIRCUMSTANCE. If it was a literal fact, then the details, which make it up are literal fact also. And to deny that it to deny your position. Here is a stubborn fact. The narrative say the rich man did call on Abraham to send Lazarus. That he wanted Lazarus to dip his finger in water. And he wanted Lazarus to put that water on his tongue. And the reason was that he was tormented in the flame. That very portrait, if it be read circumstance, will compel every one of you to admit that the torment of the intermediate state is produced by fire. How do you like it? Then stop saying it is a sort of compunction of conscience. For understand, conscience was never known to call for water to cool it. Get that? It will no doubt be granted willingly, that for a real circumstance, the peculiar incidents connected with it here make this the most remarkable and phenomenal case on record. For we would be forced to concede that the spirit craved water, that it gets thirsty or feverish, and that it asked a favor of Abraham instead of God, that it was God who rendered the verdict and cast him in prison, that Abraham has no right or jurisdiction in the matter, and a hundred other things that make this narrative an absolute mystery, if it be a real circumstance .” E. D. Slough, “The Indictment Of Eternal Torment—The Self-negation Of A Monstrous Doctrine,” Page 262, F. L. Rowe, Publisher, 1914, evangelist, church of Christ.
[3] This is the only parable in which some try to make an allegory literal, but only the parts of it they want to be literal for they do not want the whole story to be literal. It would teach things they do not believe. It would teach that the many [the poor] will be saved, and that few [the rich] will be lost. What about Abraham? He was very rich. It is not said the rich man was evil or sinful, just rich; but those who teach innately immortal have a real person in torment before the judgment, before he is judged and found guilty. It is not said Lazarus was good and faithful, or even that he knows of God, just that he was poor, as are millions; but being rich is not sinful, and being poor will not save. NOT ONE GOOD THING IS SAID ABOUT LAZARUS AND NOT ONE BAD THING ABOUT THE RICH MAN. There is nothing negative said about the rich man and nothing positive about Lazarus in their lifetime, but they have Lazarus who they say is a real person being rewarded before being judged.
[4] It would teach that the rich man, who would then be in a supernatural state [not of this earth] and therefore, most likely have a much greater knowledge of supernatural things than we now have, that he would believe or know that the dead could come back to earth and teach the living. This is not what most believes, but it would greatly support the spiritualist who says they can call the dead back.
[5] What bodies would the rich man or Lazarus have when their earthly body was still in the grave? They will not have a "spiritual body" unto the resurrection [1 Corinthians 15:44]. Do disembodied spirits that have no body and are "immaterial, invisible" have human body parts? The rich man has "eyes" and "tongue." Lazarus has a "finger." Abraham has a "bosom." Is there a third kind of body, which has these earthly parts? What would a "spirit" or "soul" which does not have an earthly body want with water? Only in speaking in a metaphor can it be said that God or any spiritual being has a human part, or to want water. How could an "immaterial, invisible part of man" have body parts or want water if this were a true story and not a parable? It would make this "immaterial, invisible part of man" very material.
[6] If the rich man were a real person in torment, God would be unjust to be tormenting him without his knowing why. If he knew why he was being tormented, he would have known that Lazarus could not come to take his torment away by bring him water.
[7] The rich man wanted Lazarus to go to his brothers "from the dead." How could Lazarus "go to them from the dead" [Luke 16:30] or "rise from the dead," [Luke 16:31] if he were not dead but were alive in Heaven or Abraham's bosom?
Al Maxey: "To fabricate a theology of disembodied spirits and Hadean holding cells and everlasting torture of the wicked from this passage is an unconscionable abuse of biblical interpretation and should be rejected by all disciples intent upon discerning and declaring Truth rather than perpetuating the tedious tenets of paganistic Tradition" Reflections, Issue #28, April 4, 2003.
Adam Clarke: " Let it be remembered that by the consent of all (except the basely interested), no metaphor is ever to be produced in proof of a doctrine. In the things that concern our eternal salvation, we need the most pointed and express evidence on which to establish the faith of our souls" Note on Matthew 5:26.
R. C, Trench: "The parables are not to be made first sources of doctrine. Doctrines other wise grounded may be illustrated, or even further confirmed by them; but it is not allowable to constitute doctrines first by their aid. For from the literal to the figurative, from the clearer to the more obscure, has ever been recognized as the law of Scripture interpretation. This rule, however, has been often forgotten, and controversialists, looking around for arguments with which to sustain some weak position, often invent for themselves supports in these" Notes On The Parables Of Our Lord, Page 17,1948.
Luke 16:19-32 -- Very
Free e-book «Immortality or Resurrection, William West [best romance books of all time txt] 📗» - read online now
Add a comment
Comments (0)