|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Hell. Surprised it's not a DH? So am I.
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ophthalmos:
I don't think that heaven and hell are worth bothering thinking about. No one knows for sure, so why spend time worrying about it either way?
That's how I feel about my retirement in the oh-so-distant future. Not to mention my eating habits and the so-called connection between high-fat diets and heart disease.
quote:
Originally posted by Ophthalmos:
Perhaps we should look at Jesus' teachings first and worry about "the afterlife" after life*. He didn't have much to say about it, did he?
Heh-heh. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
Fancy being a bit more oblique there on the latter point, Freddy?
Of course, the difference between heart disease and heaven is that believing in heart disease has an observable consequence in the here and now.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Sorry Op. I thought you were joking. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Good point about the consequences of a high-fat diet.
As for Jesus, I thought that almost all of His statements were about heaven and how to get there, not to mention avoiding hell and its unpleasantness. As far as explicit statements go, here is a quick, and not very accurate, count of Jesus' statements about
- heaven - 34 verses
- Eternal life - 16 verses
- Everlasting life - 15 verses
- Hell - 10 verses
- Hades - 4 verses
- Our resurrection - 5 verses
Not to mention dozens of other references to judgment, condemnation, being prepared, being forgiven, salvation, blessing, the fate of the rich and poor, and similar topics.
Jesus talks quite a bit about the next life, but it is true that He doesn't say much about what it looks like.
[ 09. August 2006, 00:07: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Freddy, I haven't forgotten you but can't respond just at the moment.
I think you are putting forward some very interesting points which I want to engage with.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ophthalmos:
I don't think that heaven and hell are worth bothering thinking about. No one knows for sure, so why spend time worrying about it either way?
It's not like any of us actually thinks we're going to hell ANYWAY!
Of course not! But THOSE people.... OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QB] Sorry Op. I thought you were joking.
Good point about the consequences of a high-fat diet.
As for Jesus, I thought that almost all of His statements were about heaven and how to get there, not to mention avoiding hell and its unpleasantness. As far as explicit statements go, here is a quick, and not very accurate, count of Jesus' statements about
- heaven - 34 verses
- Eternal life - 16 verses
- Everlasting life - 15 verses
- Hell - 10 verses
- Hades - 4 verses
- Our resurrection - 5 verses
Not to mention dozens of other references to judgment, condemnation, being prepared, being forgiven, salvation, blessing, the fate of the rich and poor, and similar topics.
Jesus talks quite a bit about the next life, but it is true that He doesn't say much about what it looks like.
Freddy, in reading your previous posts I get the impression that you see the concept of Hell as a metaphor for what is basically bad 'karma.' Is this the impression you intend? If so is heaven the opposite?
I ask because I'm essentially a literalist since simplicity seems the clear route to faith for me. The apparent anomalies one does find in scripture are in my belief and experience, paradoxical but not irreconcilable.
I'm not denying there is metaphor in the scripture but it seems to me that it is clearly signalled and that you can't read something figuratively, or as allegory without good textual justification.
I've noticed for instance elsewhere that folk regard the story of lazarus and the rich man as a parable. To me there is little evidence for it being such and so I read it literally. ie There is a bloke in Sheol right now who had words with Abraham from the other side of a great gulf in the nether regions of sheol..
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Freddy, in reading your previous posts I get the impression that you see the concept of Hell as a metaphor for what is basically bad 'karma.' Is this the impression you intend? If so is heaven the opposite?
Jamac, maybe sort-of, in the sense that heaven and hell are actually present realities in our lives.
Our satisfaction and peace in this life depend on the same foundation as they do in the next life. Fundamentally, if we are self-centered and materialistic we will not have the satisfaction and peace that we will experience if we are genuinely caring people.
Unfortunately, the perception of the results of these foundational qualities is clouded by the events and circumstances of this world - so that a life of comfort, wealth, and ease can mask unhappiness. By contrast a life of hardship, misfortune and deprivation can mask the inner joy of heaven.
In the next life, the masking effects of this material world are dissipated, and things appear more and more as they really are. So I see heaven and hell as real places, where people go after they die. Life goes on in the afterlife, and people do what they do, with good results in heaven, and bad ones in hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
I ask because I'm essentially a literalist since simplicity seems the clear route to faith for me. The apparent anomalies one does find in scripture are in my belief and experience, paradoxical but not irreconcilable.
That is fine with me. I agree that simplicity is the clear route to faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
I'm not denying there is metaphor in the scripture but it seems to me that it is clearly signalled and that you can't read something figuratively, or as allegory without good textual justification.
I understand. I, on the other hand, think that Scripture is nothing but a series of magnificantly brilliant metaphors, which describe repeatedly and in detail the way to heaven, the purpose of the Incarnation, and the spiritual history of humanity.
These metaphors are marked by a flawless, internally consistent symmetry, much of which is innately understood by people who love the Bible and read it with an eye to doing God's will.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
I've noticed for instance elsewhere that folk regard the story of lazarus and the rich man as a parable. To me there is little evidence for it being such and so I read it literally. ie There is a bloke in Sheol right now who had words with Abraham from the other side of a great gulf in the nether regions of sheol..
I somewhat agree. It is not a parable in the sense that it means something other than what it seems to be about - unlike parables like the Sower, which appears to be about farming, or the Pearl of Great Price which appears to be about investing in pearls. Anyone reading those parables easily understands that they are about spiritual life.
The parable of Dives and Lazarus is about the life after death, and about belief in the testimony of Moses and the prophets, and about trusting in riches.
But I have a hard time reading it literally. Do good people literally sit in Abraham's bosom? How could Abraham accommodate so many people? Is there literally fire in hell, so that the people there are literally thirsty? Can they look up and see the people in Abraham's bosom and talk to Abraham? Is there literally a "great gulf" that they can talk over but not cross? The scenario is easy to imagine, it forms a definite mental picture. But it is surely an impossible scenario, not meant to be taken literally.
The message, though, is perfectly consistent with the biblical message:
- There is a life after death.
- Some are happy there, and some are unhappy.
- Don't trust in riches, they can't help you after death.
- Do trust in Moses and the prophets.
- If you go to hell you can't cross the gulf and go to heaven.
- People in this world believe what they wish to believe and act the way that they wish to act - sending one from the dead to each person would not persuade.
Or whatever. These exact messages may be off the mark. But I do think that this is a parable, and that it has these kinds of messages in it.
My opinion, though, is that the heaven and hell that is described in this parable, and others like it, are not so much places as states of being. You don't go to hell and receive punishment. Rather, your chosen desires bring you no happiness, but rather a punishing and fiery state of suffering. This is hell - whether you are in this life or the life after death.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Freddy, I see what you mean. If Abraham had a bosom it would have to be rather a large one! The issue is I suppose how literal and how metaphorical should one be. Abraham's bosom for instance seems to me to be a place name so there is a limit to the literalness of my reading here.
You do suggest there is a real afterlife though so metaphor must not be your bosom (sorry) bottom, line.
Does it really come down to agreed rules of reading? Literary theory in other words. If that is the case it's a wonder any of us are ever on the same page. The more you see text as only one ingredient in the transmission of meaning rather than the medium of that transmission the more confusion and cross-purposes will abound.
I can suggest for instance a reading of Shakespeare's play Henry IV part one, for instance, that is stand alone. In that case, the King is in the right. Or, I can read it in the light of the previous play Richard II in which case the King is a 'might is right' merchant and deserves to be deposed and the prince, who becomes Henry V in a later play, has no legitimate throne.
The text thus becomes non objective. It is only one element of a variety of factors that conspire to create meaning, others being the audience's previous knowledge, or the author or even the mores of the times. It is thus free for all to bring in their premises, stipulations and preconceptions however well grounded or not. The consequence is we can never objectively know anything.
I prefer not to see the Bible in this way though I can see any other text this way. The difference being that if it is God-breathed, then there is objective security if we discern the way to read it.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Does it really come down to agreed rules of reading? Literary theory in other words. If that is the case it's a wonder any of us are ever on the same page. The more you see text as only one ingredient in the transmission of meaning rather than the medium of that transmission the more confusion and cross-purposes will abound.
Jamac, this is a very good point. I guess it does come down to agreed rules of reading. Isn't that, to some extent anyway, what denominational differences are all about?
I wouldn't say, though, that this means that text is only one ingredient in the transmission of meaning rather than the medium of that transmission. The text is the medium of transmission, but all texts need to be understood and interpreted.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
The text thus becomes non objective. It is only one element of a variety of factors that conspire to create meaning, others being the audience's previous knowledge, or the author or even the mores of the times. It is thus free for all to bring in their premises, stipulations and preconceptions however well grounded or not. The consequence is we can never objectively know anything.
I wouldn't say that the text becomes non-objective. But it does depend on agreed-upon rules of reading.
To my mind Jesus offered a model of this when He explained the Parable of the Sower. He interpreted each scenario in that parable using a simple formula in which worldly things stand for spiritual ones. His explanation is so obvious that it barely needed explaining - like pointing out that darkness means ignorance and sin, and that light means its opposite. Nevertheless, He explained both the rudiments of the system and also the rationale behind using parables instead of plain language.
This certainly opens the way for people to bring their premises, stipulations and preconceptions, however well-grounded or not. It doesn't have to be this way, though. A denominational interpretation that is both self-consistent and consistent with all biblical teachings can head that off. The important thing is to see any individual statement as only a piece of a larger interlocking puzzle. Its valid interpretation depends on the extent to which it is understood in the context of the whole.
So I agree that an objective understanding is the goal, and that if people interpret willy-nilly then we can never objectively know anything. I think that we can objectively know if we can agree on the rules of reading. In my experience this works beautifully within denominations. It is understandably more problematic in an ecumenical setting.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
The thing about the Rich Man and Lazarus not being a parable, I find that quite odd.
Jesus sets out speaking to the crowd, he begins speaking to them in parables. In this same dialogue he gives :
The parable of lost coin
then
The parable of the lost sheep
then
The parable of the prodigal son
then
The parable of the unjust administrator
then
he suddenly stops speaking in parables and gives a warning to people that if they are rich, they will go to hell and if they are poor they will go to heaven (thus making a mockery of all this faith and good works business).
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
then
he suddenly stops speaking in parables and gives a warning to people that if they are rich, they will go to hell and if they are poor they will go to heaven (thus making a mockery of all this faith and good works business).
Yes, that would be odd. I guess it's just that we don't usually hear the parable in context.
It has always also seemed strange to me that people have often taken this parable as saying that the rich go to hell and the poor to heaven. That would, I agree, make a mockery of all the faith and good works business. It seems more consistent to read Dives' riches as symbolic of the love of riches and luxury, and Lazarus' poverty as symbolic of those who are "poor in spirit," that is, who look to God and are aware of their own inadequacy.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
There is a very exact meaning of this parable I think. It's don't believe that it's about the afterlife at all. I could be wrong of course - but I think it would be very odd to try and take this as a literal story when considering it's context.
In Mathew it says Jesus only spoke in parables to the multitude :
"All these things spoke Jesus unto the multitudes IN PARABLES and without a parable spoke he not unto them. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, ‘I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.’"
Matthew 13:34–35
N.T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham recently said he thought this was a parable about Israel and the gentiles, check out this article for a full study of it :
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d030602.htm
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
John, thanks for the link to N.T. Wright's explanation. Very interesting.
The idea that Jesus did not mean the parable to indicate anything about the afterlife seems farfetched to me, but it is surely a possibility. I do agree that it is very symbolic of a judgment on Israel and Judah, and that Lazarus represents the gentiles.
I certainly agree, also, that it is a parable.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
That link isn't actually N.T. Wright, It Dr. Ernest Martin - Wright only commented briefly, but said similar things.
The thing about the five brothers is surely the most interesting facet of the whole tale, is five significant? I think so.
"Judah and the Rich Man each had "five brethren." Not only that, the five brothers of the parable had in their midst "Moses and the prophets" (verse 29). The people of Judah possessed the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:1–2). Though the Rich Man (Judah) had been given the actual inheritance of Abraham’s blessings (both spiritual and Judah and the Rich Man each had "five brethren." Not only that, the five brothers of the parable had in their midst "Moses and the prophets" (verse 29). The people of Judah possessed the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:1–2). Though the Rich Man (Judah) had been given the actual inheritance of Abraham’s blessings (both spiritual and physical), Christ was showing that he had been unfaithful with his responsibilities. When the true inheritance was to be given, Judah was in "hades" and "in torment" while Lazarus (Eleazar, the faithful steward) was now in Abraham’s bosom. He was finally received into the "everlasting habitations" (verse 9)."
Dr. E Martin
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
The thing about the five brothers is surely the most interesting facet of the whole tale, is five significant? I think so.
I agree. If you look at other places where the number five comes up, there is often a similar context.
As I see the examples, five is a number that seems to stand for the amount of good that is left or the amount of evil that is left. It has the implication of there being few remaining, or of being defeated, but it also can have the opposite implication that great things can be accomplished by a few.
Examples of five in the sense of the evil that remains, or of a negative and failing state: - The five kings of the Amorites that attack Gibeon and are defeated by Joshua. Joshua 10
- The five lords of the Philistines. I Samuel 6
- The five men of the failing tribe of Dan who took Micah’s idols. Judges 18
- The number that will frighten you if you are unfaithful – “At the threat of five you shall flee.” Isaiah 30:17
- The number of foolish virgins. Matthew 25:2
- The number of husbands the Canaanite woman had. John 4:18
- The number of kings who have fallen. Revelation 17:10
Examples of five in the sense of the few good that remain who can overcome evil or sustain the rest:
- The five golden tumors and five golden mice that was the Philistines trespass offering. 1 Samuel 6:4
- David’s five smooth stones that he gathered to attack Goliath. 1 Samuel 17:40
- The five wise virgins. Matthew 25:2
- The five loaves that Jesus used to feed five thousand men. Matt. 14:15-21; Mark 6:38 seq.; Luke 9:12-17; John 6:5-13
Dives five brothers fit right into this series because they remain in the world, are apparently wicked, and need to be reformed.
I think that the message about Israel's situation that Dr. Martin gives is a very good analysis of the parable also.
[ 18. August 2006, 13:12: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Good stuff here John and Freddy. Useful for me anyway as I have a message to prepare on this.
One reason I don't think it is a parable is that it uses a name. No other parable Jesus spoke seems to do this.
Also.. The context of all of the previous parables, beginning with the lost sheep, is to suggest God's attitude to the needy is far different to that of the Pharisees who taught (at least some of them) a health and wealth gospel viz that wealth was a sign of blessing. Thus the Lazarus and rich man story, has an outcome that would have affronted them. as it is opposed to their own teaching.
Another interesting point is that this story comes chronologically (according to A.T. Robertson's 'A Harmony of the Gospels,' ed 1950 originally 1922) not too long before a guy named Lazarus is actually raised from death by Jesus. This he called a 'sign of Jonah' and was to be his last public sign to affirm his credentials as messiah. The evidence for the chronological point is that of the gospel writers, only Luke ever claims chronlogical order in Luke 1:3
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
One reason I don't think it is a parable is that it uses a name. No other parable Jesus spoke seems to do this.
Jamac, I like what you are saying in most of this post, but this first point makes me wonder what you think a parable is and what this story is by comparison.
Are you thinking that this is a story about an actual person that Jesus knows, and whose fate Jesus knows because He is God? Would Jesus have literally seen into the next life and witnessed these events?
I'm not doubting that He could have done this, or that Jesus knew precisely what happens with everyone after death. But I'm thinking that at the very least this is a hypothetical situation that He is describing here. To my mind, this makes it a parable - a story with a meaning.
Most of Jesus' parables are perfectly possible and even likely stories. Many of them could easily have been based on actual incidents - the prodigal son, the good samaritan, the unforgiving servant. They are called parables because they have a meaning beyond what is obvious from the text, not because they may or may not have literally happened. We assume that they are not literally true stories because that seems probable, but it doesn't especially matter either way.
The story of the rich man and Lazarus has the typical elements of a parable. It has a moral at the end about the importance of belief. It features the very poor and the very rich, who seem to be being compared with the pharisees. It has some elements that seem to be literally improbable - actually sitting in Abraham's bosom, having a dialogue between hell and heaven.
I guess the real issue is that those who speak about it being a parable sometimes emphasize that it has nothing to do with heaven and hell or the life after death. This, as I said, seems farfetched to me, since the picture of heaven and hell and the fate of the good and evil in the parable is consistent with everything else Jesus says. But I'm wondering if this is your main point. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Also.. The context of all of the previous parables, beginning with the lost sheep, is to suggest God's attitude to the needy is far different to that of the Pharisees who taught (at least some of them) a health and wealth gospel viz that wealth was a sign of blessing. Thus the Lazarus and rich man story, has an outcome that would have affronted them. as it is opposed to their own teaching.
I completely agree. Riches and blessings are not synonymous, and this is one of Jesus' major points. We need to seek treasure in heaven, not this world.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Another interesting point is that this story comes chronologically (according to A.T. Robertson's 'A Harmony of the Gospels,' ed 1950 originally 1922) not too long before a guy named Lazarus is actually raised from death by Jesus. This he called a 'sign of Jonah' and was to be his last public sign to affirm his credentials as messiah. The evidence for the chronological point is that of the gospel writers, only Luke ever claims chronlogical order in Luke 1:3
I'm not sure how relevant this point is, or how likely the chronological connection between the two Lazarus' is. I agree that Luke presents itself far more chronologically than the other gosepls. I don't know if we are meant to see this chronology as literally precise.
I have often wondered whether there is any connection between the two Lazarus'. Jesus evidently loved them both. I very much agree with John that they stand for the Gentiles, or those who are humble and needy and long for an understanding of God. I have always been taught this. But I don't know why Jesus would want to portray his close friend as a misreable beggar - except prerhaps to bring some immedicay to the story. Teachers often include present individuals in stories like these.
In any case, Jamac, good luck with your talk. Tell us what further ideas you come up with. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
