Have priests, preachers, and other church leaders become a modern day version of the

[ugthemc]

Pharisees,Sadducees, and Scribes that Jesus rebuked in the New Testament?

http://bible-truths.com/lake16-C.html


Here’s a brief summary of the argument for this

They perpetuate the false claim that hell is literal.. a belief that was borrowed from pagan Egyptian religions

They use things like the " Parable of the rich man hell(translated from the greek hades)

And in hell [Gk: ‘hades’] he [the Rich man] lift up his eyes, being in torment, and sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom" (Luke 16:23).
The Egyptians called their place of punishment in the underworld, amenti. When the Greeks borrowed most of the Egyptian myths surrounding this place called amenti, they called it by the name hades.

Thomas Thayer supports Professor Stuart, Greppo's Essay, and Spineto, that: "The Amenti of the Egyptians originated the classic fables of Hades and Tartarus." (Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, Chapt. 3, P. 7).
Did Jesus believe that when people die, they are consciously alive and tormented in the pagan hell of the Greeks named after their pagan god, hades?
Why would Jesus use pagan religious doctrines and beliefs to teach spiritual truths of God? Haven’t these things deceived the Church and caused the many different denominations of Christendom? Yes, of course they have, and so have all the parables which Jesus taught that virtually no Church understands. The Church does not even understand the few parables that Jesus explained!
How many theologians believe and understand that all the parables are the same parable? Tis true:
"And He [Jesus] said unto them, Know you not this parable? And how then shall you know all parables? (Mark 4:13).
All parables are the same parable. I know: it boggles the mind. It takes the Spirit of God to understand these spiritual teachings.
And just as when Jesus said: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," no one understands what He meant until it was fulfilled. Everyone thought he meant the literal physical stone temple rather than His own body.
Likewise, only the "Chosen few" can understand the parables as they are fulfilled in their own lives, generation by generation, until the parables are fulfilled.
The Jews of Jesus’ day learned these pagan teachings referred to above, plus many more, but from where did they learn them? For a fact they did not learn them from Moses, the Prophets, or Hebrew Scriptures. Who taught these pagan doctrines? Can we trace back such doctrines as "the immortality of the soul," "reincarnation," "consciousness and everlasting punishment after death?" Yes, we can.

They constantly contradict the bible, each other, and themselves in a way that causes people to lost their faith

http://bible-truths.com/kennedy2.htm

[Mililalil XXIV]

That link you gave gives a very faulty argument.

It says that the Bible never warns Cain of punishment. So what? It already tells that before any man had sinned, GOD warned Adam of death. Adam obviously must have mentioned this to Cain at some point before the Narrative about Cain's place in time. Thus, Cain already knew that death would follow on sin being let through the door. We are not told what else was taught.

Cain to some degree was more of a man-slaughterer than a first degree murderer. No man had ever before bodily died. If any one now was to attack Cain, having knowledge of how he had effected his brother's death, they would be planning death to be the sure outcome of their violent outburst. Give a coherant explanation of what being aveanged sevenfold would actually mean.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Have priests, preachers, and other church leaders become a modern day version of the Pharisees,Sadducees, and Scribes that Jesus rebuked in the New Testament?

http://bible-truths.com/lake16-C.html

Here’s a brief summary of the argument for this

They perpetuate the false claim that hell is literal.. a belief that was borrowed from pagan Egyptian religions

They use things like the " Parable of the rich man hell(translated from the greek hades)

ugthemc, are you saying that the Pharisees,Sadducees, and Scribes that Jesus rebuked in the New Testament claimed that hell is literal? Are you sure the Sadducees did? JESUS HIMSELF sure did. It is HE and HIS Disciples that we see stating this, with the Pharisees merely indicating their agreement with this in their lack of argumentation against it.

There is no " Parable of the rich man hell(translated from the greek hades)" - the relevant Passage is not headed in the Narrative as a Parable, as are the many Parables, one by one. Why would HE use elements in HIS illustrations that are not real? When he typifies GOD by a king, though the king here is but a type, the type itself is absolutely a real sort of thing.

You have to prove what ohase of Egyptian history an Egyptian belief existed by. Where is your proof? Some have taken certain secondhand statements about ancient Egypt's ideas of the "afterlife", though these are misrepresentations to begin with, and have had an ignorant field-day casting out into more uncertain waters.

Here is a general example:
Some "scholar" reads a portion of a religious text of Egypt that says that good and bad alike go to a realm of the dead - the very thing the Old Covenant Prophets wrote concerning the time up to CHRIST - and they say that "going to Heaven" was believed in by pagan Egyptians long before Christians had the belief. Some gullible reader sees this misinterpretation of the actual statement of the original Egyptian text, and spreads it willy-nilly to the masses of those that do not carefully check orinal statements for themselves. Then it ends up on Wikipedia!

Could it be that the original Knowledge of She`ol, the place of the dead mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, was common to all the human race at one time?

[Stanislaw]

For the acnient egyptian belief:

The egyptians believed that when a person was mumified, and they reunited with there body (the two spirits of a person) that they would be taken infront of a panel that would judge the persons life, they panel would weigth heart of the spirit against a feather, and if it were weighed down with sin a monster that was a cross between a crocodile hippo, would devour the heart, and the person would go to a sort of hell, if they passed the weighing they would go to their version of heaven...te stars, now from there they could aid or curse the humans on earth.


not to mention, that several pagan cultures believed in a heaven, to say the christians stole this idea is rather week.

[Whifflingpin]

If I remember correctly:
The Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife.
The Pharisees did. They derived the belief, as their name suggests (cf modern Parsee,) from the religion that prevailed in Persia, i.e. a form of Zoroastrianism. The concepts of Best Existence and Worst Existence and a judgement, and, for that matter, a Saviour, were all present in Zoroastrianism, passed into Judaism (at the time of the Jews' captivity in Babylon?) and thence to Christianity.

[ugthemc]

It says that the Bible never warns Cain of punishment. So what? It already tells that before any man had sinned, GOD warned Adam of death. Adam obviously must have mentioned this to Cain at some point before the Narrative about Cain's place in time. Thus, Cain already knew that death would follow on sin being let through the door. We are not told what else was taught.

Cain to some degree was more of a man-slaughterer than a first degree murderer. No man had ever before bodily died. If any one now was to attack Cain, having knowledge of how he had effected his brother's death, they would be planning death to be the sure outcome of their violent outburst.

Please provide biblical passages to supports your claims, if possible


Give a coherant explanation of what being aveanged sevenfold would actually mean.[/qoute]

I am not the author of the contents on the website... you'd be better off going to the forum on the www.bible-truths.com

[QUOTE=Mililalil XXIV]ugthemc, are you saying that the Pharisees,Sadducees, and Scribes that Jesus rebuked in the New Testament claimed that hell is literal? Are you sure the Sadducees did? JESUS HIMSELF sure did. It is HE and HIS Disciples that we see stating this, with the Pharisees merely indicating their agreement with this in their lack of argumentation against it.

alright, first of all I should make it clear that I'm not claiming anything... I merely read the contents on the website I posted, and re posted it here to start some discourse on the topic..

as for your question.. no I'm not, its just that the parallel between the Scribe, Pharisees etc., and modern day religous teachers, teaching false interpretations struck me as being profound,... if true..

Also, because there's are so many present day christian rituals( Christmas, the etymology of the word Easter, Seing the Virgin Mary as "mother of god" etc.) with roots in pagan practises... I'm a little suspicous of said modern day religious teachers... preaching of a literal hell


There is no " Parable of the rich man hell(translated from the greek hades)" - the relevant Passage is not headed in the Narrative as a Parable, as are the many Parables, one by one.

what are you referencing? and where can I look at it?


Some gullible reader sees this misinterpretation of the actual statement of the original Egyptian text, and spreads it willy-nilly to the masses of those that do not carefully check orinal statements for themselves. Then it ends up on Wikipedia!

Then did, what is the actual statement of the original text?


Could it be that the original Knowledge of She`ol, the place of the dead mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, was common to all the human race at one time?

that is possible..

[ugthemc]

Words in the bible that are translated into "hell"

sheol in the old testament, which according to (http://www.answers.com/hell) was believed to be "a shadowy existence to which all were sent indiscriminately" by early Jews

also

"Sheol may have been little more than a poetic metaphor for death, not really an afterlife at all: see for example Sirach. However, by the third to second century B.C. the idea had grown to encompass a far more complex concept."

"The Hebrew Sheol was translated in the Septuagint as 'Hades', the name for the underworld in Greek mythology and is still considered to be distinct from "Hell" by Eastern Orthodox Christians...

"The New Testament uses this word(Hades), but it also uses the word 'Gehenna', from the valley of Ge-Hinnom, a valley near Jerusalem originally used as a location in which human sacrifices were offered to an idol called "Molech" "

It later goes on to say that the word Gehenna was a REAL place, which(among other things) led the author of many of the contents on www.bible-truths.com to conclude that hell was not in fact literal...

To put it plainly, I think most of what is written on www.bible-truths.com will hold its own against most scrutiny.. However, I would really like to hear your case for a literal hell

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Against most scrutiny from the already-convinced, to the rest of us it's just laughable.

[Mililalil XXIV]

If I remember correctly:
The Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife.
The Pharisees did. They derived the belief, as their name suggests (cf modern Parsee,) from the religion that prevailed in Persia, i.e. a form of Zoroastrianism. The concepts of Best Existence and Worst Existence and a judgement, and, for that matter, a Saviour, were all present in Zoroastrianism, passed into Judaism (at the time of the Jews' captivity in Babylon?) and thence to Christianity.
While I agree that those elements were in Zoroastrianism, if assessments of its earliest form be correct, I see no reason to say that it alone possessed those beliefs from its inception, and that these were not universally known facts merely retained in Zoroastrianism.

[Whifflingpin]

I did not say that Zoroastrians alone had those beliefs, only that it was probably from them that the beliefs passed into Judaism, rather than from Egypt. This is indicated, at least, by their own use of the term "Persian" or "Pharisee" for those who believed in an afterlife. In belief, Jesus was very close to the Pharisees.

The fact that the original poster included Sadducees and Pharisees together shows that he/she does not know what first century Jews believed, since the Sadducees had no belief in the afterlife. Scribes, moreover, were people who fulfilled a function, rather than people who had any particular belief.

The criticism that Jesus made of these various groups was that they had too great a sense of their own importance, and, in the case of the Pharisees, too great a reliance on ritual and outward show. In this respect, rather than in respect of the ill-digested gobbets of doctrinal nonsense that he serves up, I think that the answer to Ugthemc's original question is "Yes."

Interestingly, but probably without significance, Zoroaster, like Jesus, also rejected the rituals and outward show of the priests of his day, substituting a religion which emphasized the direct relationship between God and each person. By the first century, priests had re-established their pre-eminence in Zoroastrianism, as the ritualists had in Judaism and as the clergy have in most Christian denominations.

[Stanislaw]

Judaism had existed before any meeting between the jews and the zoroastrians.

[Whifflingpin]

"Judaism had existed before any meeting between the jews and the zoroastrians."

Hebrews/Jews had existed before any meeting between Hebrews/Jews and Zoroastrians.

Judaism was and may still be an evolving religion that tolerates a number of differing doctrines.

Earlier Hebrew (and Sadducee?) belief seems to be more about reward & punishment in this life, rather than any afterlife. Crudely it may be stated as "Abide by the Covenant and you will prosper in children, flocks, health etc." (With the unfortunate corollary that the poor and ill must also be ungodly - a belief that few would now admit to, but many act upon.)

I think (but I am not adamant) that:
a)the Pharisees believed in an afterlife in which the good were rewarded and the bad punished;
b)these beliefs of the Pharisees derived from Zoroastrians, rather than anyone else that held similar beliefs;
c) they may have entered Jewish thought during one of their periods of captivity;
d) they strongly influenced Jesus' teaching and hence Christian belief.


(Edit - It would be easy to show me to be wrong, if I am. Provide a different [correct] derivation of the name "Pharisee." Or show texts, agreed by the scholars to precede the Captivity, that indicate a Hebrew belief in an afterlife. I would not be upset if proved wrong in this matter.

In any case, I still think that bishoprics, priesthoods, rituals, dogmatism of all kinds etc. are more likely to lead to the sort of behaviour that Jesus condemned in the Pharisees, than they are to the sort of life and belief that Jesus was teaching.)

(Second edit - Commonly accepted derivation of Pharisee is a Hebrew word meaning "separated," meaning separated from profane things. Apparently they preferred to call themselves Chasidim (righteous.) Some argue that they date back to the post-captivity time of Ezra, others that they emerged later. There you go - amazing thing Google.)

[ugthemc]

"
d) they strongly influenced Jesus' teaching and hence Christian belief.


Thats a point of contention.. because according to this link

http://forums.bible-truths.com/viewtopic.php?t=77

"the rich man in hell"(luke 16:23) was headed "parable" in King James; and was not meant to be taken literally... which supports the claim that the idea of a hell where billions are tortured for eternity, was borrowed from pagans.

which begs the question, why would Jesus use pagan teachings to rebuke Sadduccess/ Pharissees( whichever it was)?.... but the people in the link would probably give a better answer then me.....

[Mililalil XXIV]

Judaism had existed before any meeting between the jews and the zoroastrians.


Hebrews/Jews had existed before any meeting between Hebrews/Jews and Zoroastrians.

Judaism was and may still be an evolving religion that tolerates a number of differing doctrines.

Earlier Hebrew (and Sadducee?) belief seems to be more about reward & punishment in this life, rather than any afterlife. Crudely it may be stated as "Abide by the Covenant and you will prosper in children, flocks, health etc." (With the unfortunate corollary that the poor and ill must also be ungodly - a belief that few would now admit to, but many act upon.)

I think (but I am not adamant) that:
a)the Pharisees believed in an afterlife in which the good were rewarded and the bad punished;
b)these beliefs of the Pharisees derived from Zoroastrians, rather than anyone else that held similar beliefs;
c) they may have entered Jewish thought during one of their periods of captivity;
d) they strongly influenced Jesus' teaching and hence Christian belief.


(Edit - It would be easy to show me to be wrong, if I am. Provide a different [correct] derivation of the name "Pharisee." Or show texts, agreed by the scholars to precede the Captivity, that indicate a Hebrew belief in an afterlife. I would not be upset if proved wrong in this matter.

In any case, I still think that bishoprics, priesthoods, rituals, dogmatism of all kinds etc. are more likely to lead to the sort of behaviour that Jesus condemned in the Pharisees, than they are to the sort of life and belief that Jesus was teaching.)

(Second edit - Commonly accepted derivation of Pharisee is a Hebrew word meaning "separated," meaning separated from profane things. Apparently they preferred to call themselves Chasidim (righteous.) Some argue that they date back to the post-captivity time of Ezra, others that they emerged later. There you go - amazing thing Google.)

As to what Stanislaw wrote, Judaism is strictly what related to the Religion of the Kingdom of Judah, being a communal Unity with some hope of GOD using the King of Judah in some way, and his Davidic Kingdom being the catalyst of the whole nation of Israel's fulfillment. Judaism, then, began long before any captivity occurred (except for the much earlier situation in Egypt).

As to the beginning of Whifflingpin's reply:
To this Judaism [mentioned by Stanislaw above], varying persons brought along with their pledge for the GOD and Kingdom of Judah, their personal ideas of their Tradition. The Prophet Daniel, being of the royal family, had a great self-awareness with regards to the Destiny of his captive people. He refused to adopt the religion of the Chaldeans in Babylon, and he also refused that of Zoroaster in Persia. It was the original sense of belonging to the Kingdom of David, of the tribe of Judah, that remained a burning Hope in the hearts of captive Jews. Their Prophets were not open to things foreign to their Great Tradition. If they had had only the later Sadducean ideas, then, like the Sadducees, they would have stubbornly denied such new ideas [new to them] as Zoroastrians might have suggested.

To get what I mean, think of your family as being brought into a strange land, wherein your family seeks to cling to kin and heritage. How many generations would it take to change your family's mind on a great matter of doctrine?

The Maccabees were of the opinion that there is a Resurrection, etc., and the Sadducees post-date them. There is no proof of any Jew earlier not having such beliefs. It seems as though all things point to the Sadducean ideas being the novelty to Judaism.

JESUS indicated that the Pharisees retained the Teaching of Moses, while the Sadducees seem to have reatined a different aspect - more a customary than a doctrinal one.

I see no evidence of the name "Pharisees" being coined so far back as the captivity to Persia. If Native Americans suddenly call themselves "Mayflowers" at this late date, does that mean they are successors to the aspirations and beliefs of those that arrived in America in the Mayflower?

I don't think Pharisees ever credited Zoroaster with being a Prophet.

As for Etymology, we have to remember that what we read as proper names of organizations in modern translations, were, often in old Hebrew usage, mere epithets. If someone mentions the modern organization, B'nei B'rith, I have to listen to the context, to know that they aren't just referring in a general manner to all sons of the Covenant. Many conflicting circles called themselves "Sadducees". Why? Because it was merely the frequently used religious word to name such as were "righteous ones". [There are many theories on that term, but they all more or less allow for this example of a general meaning to retain relevancy for the discussion at hand.] One possibility to consider, then, is whether it be a case of a common epithet being applied to a growing cause among Jews, where "Pharisee" is concerned as a term.

There are words native to the Hebrew and Aramaic vocabulary from which the term can derive:
1)parash (to mark out distinctly - a thing done by Pharisees in highlighting details in Scriptural exegesis);
2)p'rash [Aramaic equivalent] - to make clear;
3)parashah - a distinct account [used in the book of Esther, the setting of which is Persia, but which nation did not furnish that word - this word shows that the former words were common enough as to have resulted in a substantive cognate];
4)parush - separated one (a thing every Pharisee sought to remain, aloof from commoners).

It has to be remembered that many things can be named separately from the same root. Even if Persia and the P'rushim (Pharisees) were named from one and the same word, they may not have been like-named in a common or continuous or related thought. What if Persia may have been named for a forefather or important king? The neme thus spread to the nation had a meaning before it belonged to the source of Persia's name.

Some have ideas that link Parsees with many other things. I do not doubt the possibility of a mutual respect between Zoroastrians and Jews over what they already held in common.

Out of curiosity, I ask that you reference the earliest extant evidence of the Persian beliefs along the lines you indicated in this thread. And what of your statement of Zoroaster being against dogmatism, bishoprics, etc.?
Thank you.

[Mililalil XXIV]

"the rich man in hell"(luke 16:23) was headed "parable" in King James.....
But not in the ancient Greek Text!
That's a useless, erroneous modern editor's touch - like a picture frame that has an incorrect caption under a picture it cannot truly alter.

[Whifflingpin]

"Out of curiosity, I ask that you reference the earliest extant evidence of the Persian beliefs along the lines you indicated in this thread. And what of your statement of Zoroaster being against dogmatism, bishoprics, etc.?"

The teaching attributed to Zarathustra is contained in passages known as Gathas, which, in turn are contained in the Avesta, the basic writings of Zoroastrianism.

The dating of the Gathas, like other ancient documents, is not certain, and has been the subject of various opinions. Based on linguistic similarity with the Rig Veda, sometime between 1750BC and 1000BC seems probable.

[Note: David ruled Judah either side of 1000BC; Jews captivity in Babylon started 586BC; return from exile over period from 537BC to 445BC. Note also that the rulers in Babylon who allowed and encouraged the Jews to return home (see Ezra & Nehemiah) were Persians who had overcome the Babylonians who took the Jews into captivity. The Persians were seen as liberators, and Cyrus their king was seen as fulfilling the prophecy in chapter 50 of Jeremiah, (II Chronicles 36:22.) The Babylonians were polytheistic idol-worshippers, whose religion was intolerable to the Jews (Jeremiah 50:2&3,) but the Persian rulers, by this time, had adopted the ethical monotheistic religion of Zoroaster, and, to the Jews, they clearly had God’s favour and were God’s instrument. In the 80 years in which they were living in favour and honour under Persian rule, there was ample time and reason for elements of Persian belief and practice to enter Judaism.]

Of course, there were no bishops at the time of Zarathustra, but there was a priestly class.
Zarathustra promoted the idea of personal relationship with God - "Hear with your ears the best things; look upon them with clear seeing thought, for decision between the two beliefs [good/evil in this context] each man for himself before the great consummation."
Against (bad) priests and leaders "by their dominion the priests and princes accustomed mankind to evil actions, so as to destroy Life."
Against the dogmatic and doctrinaire, "Can they be true to thee, O Mazda, who by their doctrines turn the known inheritances of Good Thought into misery and woe?"

Unfortunately, humans seem generally unable or unwilling to stand face to face with God, and there is no money or (temporal) power to be had in such a religion. Sooner or later any "pure" religion seems bound to be corrupted by those seeking wealth, power and the honour of their fellows. The best religions, in my view, are those which retain a core teaching that enables their devotees to cut through the accretions of hierarchies and rituals and find a simple, personal faith.

[Mililalil XXIV]

The above seems to speak more of abuses than of the things being abused as the problem. I'm sure Zoroaster could be taken to have made statements that, if believed, were Zoroastrian dogma. Dogma isn't a bad thing, any more than Marriage is, despite all the failed "attempts".

I don't see in the above any indication that Zoroaster hated order and authority, rather than things done by stewards of both. JESUS clearly said that HE would put a single man at a time over HIS House, already hinting to Peter then of what he would be entrusted with. On that occasion, HE said that each man in that place would either be found faithful and given more when HE came for them, or would abuse the Servants of the House on a personal level and be punished by HIM, and that some would make mistakes, with a lighter punishment for those not knowingly doing so.

And one thing:
what had been the religion of those Zoroaster denounced? What was his upbringing?

Do you know of any references to Persia as far back as King David? If they were the bestowers of Zoroaster's ideas to others, their first days of existence, power and influence are a critical chronological factor.

[Whifflingpin]

"The above seems to speak more of abuses than of the things being abused as the problem"
You may be right - given that there are Zoroastrian priests, it would be easy enough to argue that priesthoods are not incompatible with Zarathustra's teaching. I suggest that you read the Gathas for yourself, together with the writings of someone who can speak with some scholarship on them.


I simply believe that, in the Gathas, priests and rituals are shown to be sometimes a hindrance and always redundant - certainly as mediators of any form - because God has a relationship with each individual, and every one will be judged on his own behaviour, not on the beliefs he professes or the rituals he follows. The important things are to try to align your mind or conscience with God's and to behave according to your conscience.

"Dogma isn't a bad thing"
Indeed not, if dogma be merely the formalisation of a religious belief. The Gathas are not, primarily, complaints or attacks, they are hymns and teachings. They contain many passages that attempt to explain the relationships between man and God, man and man, man and the world and the means through which God works. Much can therefore be described as dogma. Unfortunately, there is not, as far as I know, a word in English that means holding lightly to dogma as a guide to God. We have only "dogmatism" which means holding too strongly to dogma, and allowing it to obstruct the way to God.


"JESUS clearly said that HE would put a single man at a time over HIS House."
Any religion might have teachers, and any organised religion will have some kind of polity, a governing structure. When the governing structure obscures the original teaching, or the teachers teach their own importance, then there is abuse of the religion. Maybe the Christian church should have one leader. When that leader carries a gold staff, rather than a fishing net, and dresses and behaves like a magstrate and high priest of the power that authorised Jesus' execution, then any outsider might think that the religious organisation was obstructing the religion, not maintaining it.



"what had been the religion of those Zoroaster denounced? What was his upbringing?"
Very little information about Zarathustra is included in his own teaching, but some details were added later into the Avesta. For convenience, I'll quote Farhang Mehr. "Zoroaster was born of virtuous parents and had been brought up in the Indo-Iranian religious environment of a pantheon of deities...He was appalled at the practice of animal sacrifice and the use of intoxicating drinks in religious rites. He disapproved of self-centred clergies and their practice of exorcism. He abhorred the clergy's greed and their capitalization on people's superstitious convictions...He set out to discover the rightness, the truth and the mystery of happiness, through observation, the application of a holy intellect, the practice of meditation, and intuitive cognition...He was determined to have communion with God. Listening to the call of his conscience...he realised that such a communion is only possible at a moral level, the level of Asha or righteousness."


"Do you know of any references to Persia as far back as King David? If they were the bestowers of Zoroaster's ideas to others"
Not much. I understand that the priestly class that had lost influence in the early days of Zoroastrianism regained their influence within the religion. By the time of Cyrus, the religion had become that of the rulers. I am not suggesting that Zoroastrianism had any influence on Judaism prior to the Persian conquest of Babylon. (I have been rereading Ezra & Nehemiah today, and will add that the appalling racism that was a major feature of restored Judaism at that period owes nothing whatever to Zoroastrianism.)

.

[ugthemc]

But not in the ancient Greek Text!
That's a useless, erroneous modern editor's touch - like a picture frame that has an incorrect caption under a picture it cannot truly alter.


according to you, I haven't seen the "ancient greek text"

[ugthemc]

it's written that. Jesus "spake ... unto the multitude[s] in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them" (Mat 13:34).

Also from bible-truths.com

"In Luke you would see a pattern of PARABLES Jesus speaks unto the mass, not just one parable but many in succesion.

How can anyone come to a conclusion that as Jesus spoke one parable after another parable, he would then go off on a tangent and speak unto the masses one true story, just for good measure.

Jesus did not have to resort to all of a sudden change the subject matter to a non-parable story for the reasons that the parables themselves would not be understood, less Jesus explains them in private to his diciples. "

[Mililalil XXIV]

it's written that. Jesus "spake ... unto the multitude[s] in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them" (Mat 13:34).


You are incorrectly generalizing in your private interpretation of a statement. It doesn't say that every part of HIS discourse was a Parable, nor that HE spoke only Parables (a recapitulation of the prior thing I said, to come at it from another point of view) - no, rather, it merely says that when ever HE was addresseing an audience, HE didn't fail to include at least one Parable in what HE said. Read it carefully, and you'll see that this is so.

Again, let me stress that "without a Parable spake HE not unto them" does not equal "HE spoke nothing but Parables to them". Every discourse came with a Parable. That is why the Parables have to be announced by the Narrator before each one commences - to highlight the Parable(s) that were present in a Discourse of the LORD.


Also from bible-truths.com

"In Luke you would see a pattern of PARABLES Jesus speaks unto the mass, not just one parable but many in succesion.

How can anyone come to a conclusion that as Jesus spoke one parable after another parable, he would then go off on a tangent and speak unto the masses one true story, just for good measure.

I assure you that that statement is no Bible truth. The statement is silly, and so derails from straight logic as to say that it would be "a tangent" for a TEACHER of the Truth to ever speak from nonfictitious events. As it is, this account of Lazarus is not called a Parable, while the Parables before it all are. It is not even like any Parable, because it is straight forward Narrative and has not a symbolic nature like a Parable. The Parables can be explained wholly as having all their meaning as types of real things alluded to. This account, however, leaves no question as to what it has just said in straight forward details: a particular man, Lazarus, has died, and the man that did not help him now has it worse than him beyond the land of the bodily living. Simple. What Parable names the characters, land, or kingdom with finite proper names?

Later Church Fathers saw Allegories in the historical facts of Scipture, but did not therein mix these innate Allegories up with surface Text Parables. JESUS never explains HIS factual statement about Lazarus - nor ever needed HE to.

And, elsewhere, Lazarus dies and is in She`ol four days before being raised from the dead. Those days during which Lazarus was in Abraham's Bosom would have been sufficient time for JESUS to discuss the tragedy with others - while, knowing HE would raise the youth up, HE would point out the rich man's pitiable state. Even one of HIS actual Parables, on the man whom GOD took away in his hording of wealth, might have a further hint in it of a real rich man's death that prompted the Parable. While not every fact prompts a Parable, every Parable can use a real event in mind for a springboard. While Lazarus is among the departed Fathers, the rich man asks Abraham if Lazarus cannot be sent from the dead to warn his brothers to avoid his doom. Abraham says that if the Teaching of Torah can't move their hearts, not even one sent back from the dead will move their hearts. When Lazarus is raised from the dead, some men are outraged and seek his life along with that of JESUS. It all fits.

As for "Abraham's Bosom" - which Persia certainly did not bequeath to Judaism -, we see in Genesis (which I can demonstrate had its contents before David's Kingdom split into Judah's Kingdom and Ephraim's) that Abraham is the first one of whom it is said that, after bodily death, before burial of the body, he was gathered to his People. This People included Abel and all the Righteous that had died before him. In both the name "`Avram" and in "`Avraham", are hints of his paternal embrace: "`Av" means "Father", and to a father's bosom the child is brought to safe haven. Also, the "-ram" part of "`Avram" is from a root relating to exaltation, or raising up - he is a Father in the Faith to those that should be raised up from the dead (showing a hint already in Genesis of a future Resurrection for `Avraham and his People to whom he was gathered in death.

Ethnically speaking, Abraham's people were Chaldeans, far from where he was buried. Before him, he had no multitude buried in his grave, nor even in the country where it was. Look at the cases with Jacob and with Joseph too, and pay extra careful attention to the passage of time between their being gathered to their people (now in yet another land) immediately after dying, on the one hand, and their burials, on the other hand. As soon as the body separated from the soul, the soul went straight to the other souls in She`ol.

I wouldn't depend so much on a web-site just because its owner has the audacity to call it "bible-truths.com". I can put you in touch with the Greek Text I earlier referred to. Thinking for yourself goes further than accepting another's private interpretation of Scripture. I am open to your sounding your own personal thinking aloud (for thinking is definitely allowed). All the best in your investigation into the Truth of all things - may GOD HIMSELF reveal all things to you so as to satisfy your mind with answers you wish for.

[ugthemc]

oK,

then your saying that Jesus was confirming the immortality of the soul. If the soul is immortal, well how does that vibe with the following verses?

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast; for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." Eccl 3:19-20

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the SPIRIT shall return unto God who gave it." Eccl 12:7

"For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thank?" Ps 6:5

"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, in that day his thoughts perish." Ps 146:4

According to that "audacious website"

Immortality of the soul comes from the same pagan sources as the doctrine of eternal torment.

Immortality of the Soul in Jewish Encyclopedia Vol VI pages 564-566

"The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is...speculation...nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture...The belief in the immortality of the soul came to Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended."

Herodotus: "The Egyptians were also the first that asserted that the soul of man is immortal."

Plato: "The soul whose inseperable attitude is life will never admit of life is opposite, death. The soul is shown to be immortal and, since immortal, indestructable...Do we believe there is such a thing as death? To be sure. And is this anything but the separation of the soul from the body?"

Tertullian: "For some things are known, even by nature: the immortality of the soul, for instance is held by many...I may use, therefore the opinion of a Plato when he declared 'every soul is immortal"

I find it strange that Tertullian who was concidered to be the "Father of the Western Church", left the Church of Rome to join a cult called the Heterodox Montanists. I guess that some of these people who had a hand in forming the Church, wasn't so sure of their own beliefs.

[Mililalil XXIV]

I will answer one verse at a time, so as not to post too big a reply all at once.

As some of the references you give are to Ecclesiastes, which, like Paul's tour through his conversion experience in his Epistle to the Romans, expresses not always Solomon's present Doctrine at the time of writing, but a synopsis of things thought as he came to his present mind, I must start by showing that Ecclesiastes is not like a lot of the other Writings in style or form. It expresses how things appear to a doubter, and is a retrospect journal of his own past doubts during his apostate phases of the past. He explains how sometimes he revelled in luxury, sometimes he wallowed in melancholic self abasement. He shows various faithless questions, then constantly attaches considerations that even those darkened thoughts could not shake off. He shows that even if one doesn't know of a spiritual difference between man and beast, they still have to reckon with a similar death in the flesh. And, if this is just as inevitable for man as for beast, then, even if the question of what happens to a man's soul after death as opposed to an animal's is not yet answered, this in no way allows one to be wihtout concern as to a possible Jugdement for how we spent our time in this world.


oK,

then your saying that Jesus was confirming the immortality of the soul. If the soul is immortal, well how does that vibe with the following verses?

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast; for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." Eccl 3:19-20


Because it is bodilly death being addressed - in this light, it only makes perfect sense. GOD did not give animals all that HE gave men - nor does it say in that above verse that all that a man consists of dies the death both man and animal die, wherein dust returns to dust. As mortality limits the days of beasts in this world, so does it with men. They all breathe the same air, sharing this bodily need in common - thus, no matter how much nobler men are than beasts, by reason of having been created in GOD's Image, after HIS Likeness, their lofty worldly business must come to a conclusion no less than an animal's lesser business must (simply being man does not get us ahead of animals in the way of buying worldly time - except in a case of exception, exceptional to the rule of human mortality). The place that all flesh is said to go to is the place the body goes, in returning as dust to dust. Never are our souls called dust - nor even in this verse is the soul pointed out as suffering this cycle (though, man, having Eternity set in his heart, suffers as a result of awareness of the shortness of time, despite all that he wishes to accomplish in this world).

Now notice carefully what is said, and how it is said:

Ecclesiastes 3:19
Therefore the death of man, and of beasts is one, and the condition of them both is equal: as man dieth, so they also die: all things breathe alike, and man hath nothing more than beast: all things are subject to vanity.

See the unity of thought here? It is a matter of the death shared in common by man and beast. The Writer goes on to describe what he means: in a thing in which man has no more than beast (the mortal flesh), which needs breath, he, like beast, faces death.

3:20
And all things go to one place: of earth they were made, and into earth they return together.

Again, this further ellaborates on the foregoing, and the second part of this verse explains the first part of it: the earth from which they were formed bodily returns to its source. This in no way puts to the fore the Image and Likeness of GOD man was made in. The Image was set into the unique form of the human form created from the earth. The Likeness, like the SPIRIT breathed into the form of the first man entering after the form existed, is listed second, as being associated with that SPIRIT from GOD. In the Likeness is man like GOD. In going over the considerations that one must consider to avoid spiritual carelessness, the Writer uses the very viewpoints of those he wants to persuade, and presents into those finite mindsets anomilies to disturb them from their unbelief. Thus he, without presuming that those now addressed acknowledge that they have what animals do not, impresses the following hint that there is more than conceded by many, with the following suggestion:

3:21
Who knoweth if the spirit of the children of Adam ascend upward, and if the spirit of the beasts descend downward?

He doesn't say that this is wrong, but merely shows that others' uncertainty about such questions doesn't remove the possibility.

You also quoted:


"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the SPIRIT shall return unto God who gave it." Eccl 12:7

This is in the final Chapter, in which he pulls aside the veil to his own Doctrine, dismisses all unbelief, beginning with the words: 1Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth, and later concludes with the words:
13Let us all hear together the conclusion of the discourse. Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is all man: 14And all things that are done, God will bring into judgment for every error, whether it be good or evil.
Between the two statements we are told outright that the Spirit does return to GOD, as distinct to from the thing that occurs with the flesh, at death. As it is, She`ol was a place of damnation, but is shown in JESUS' discourse to contain a residence for the Righteous apart from that for the wicked. This Book is ultimately addressing that in a reader which shall respond to the Wisdom that draws one unto GOD. As it is written in a Psalm 139:7, "Whither shall I go from YOUR SPIRIT? Or whither shall I flee from YOUR Face? (v. 8) If I ascend into Heaven, YOU are there; if I descend into She`ol, YOU are present." There is a lot more to this all, but I leave this post this size.