Now that you mention it, I was thinking that it didn't sound like Josephus. The Josephus who only made an indirect reference to Christ when he mentions
"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[ ...
And your objection of "doesn't apply" likewise doesn't apply to the story setting of a parable. You keep getting ahead of yourself on this one.
You don't have to respond and certainly not with incredulity over each point. This one is merely that it was written 1) written atf and 2) written by a Christian ECF As such, it has more to do with it than you are seeing the façade.
Pharisees weren't being warned of Eternal Conscious Torment. First, you haven't yet shown a source (biblical or otherwise) to evidence that any Pharisees believed that death was a conscious expereince, second, there is no "eternal" in the story, as the judgment is not yet and the end effect of the punishment of judgment is described as destruction into ash from both Jesus and John the Baptist.
1) :doh: You said it was to the Pharisees. If the Rich man's story isn't ECT, what was it? :think:
2) It doesn't matter if it is eternal. That It is ongoing for over 2000 years is your first needed consideration. 2000 years or eternity does not let God, by
your concern, off the hook. I've talked to nonChristians here on TOL. They are not comforted by your attempt, and usually find it as or more offensive.
So if "no such acknowledgement exists" then please explain why Matthew Henry, John Gill ,and Albert Barnes all identified the passage as a parables within their Bible commentaries? I'm not going to do the copy and paste a second time. Fairness of rational discussion means that you need to at least provide a reason if you are going to ignore evidence. Just saying "not so" is what Way 2 Go does, which is why I largely ignore him.
I didn't dismiss it. In fact, I said if it were a parable, it makes the problem worse...
It is rather point for point and so you can draw up a piece of paper, put some of these on one side, some on the other, and a good few on both sides. We have already agreed that I am not going to convince you, nor you I. Rather, we are presenting so that you and I 'can' have a genuine balance sheet.
Lon, numbers or what is thought to be majority aren't a valid measure in this sort of question. When Elias was in the minority, and thought he was the only one left, God assured him that there were seven thousand men who had not yet bowed the knee to Baal. Yet even those seven thousand of minority were thought to be much less, if at all, because they were persecuted by the majority.
Differences: 1) NOT Christians. There were Spiritual Jews and those who rejected God. 2) As such, you are talking about 'within' those seven thousand, not outside the group, so your thinking and model are incorrect. In the Church, do you imagine only 7000 follow God??? :think:
It may be that many who intuitively can tell there is something wrong with "Eternal Conscious Torment" may not be properly armed with scriptures, or attempt a proper "on the scripture only" request for review and/or confrontation. However, I have personal first-hand experience witnessing abominable behavior that is railed upon those that do question, especially if on the basis of scriptures. So much that I started a collection documenting all the variety of bad behavior, from those that supposedly are supposed to be representatives of God and who with their mouths, at least, profess that "scripture only" and to "prove anything if asked."
What is the purpose of documenting sins??? Was the man that was with his step-mother or mother 1 Corinthians 5:4,5,9,12,13 not a Christian? 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 Did Kind David, an adulterer, bigamist, and murder, lose God's favor? Acts 13:22
Not everyone is like that. But it's fairly common.
We are being made into His likeness. As far as behavior, we cannot judge it well. It seems 'odd' to hear Ephesians 4:28. I just don't steal. We might think: "Why is Paul saying THIS???!!" The real mark of Christianity is growth, imho, rather than lack of poor behavior and even at that, I'm no fruit inspector. I try not to come between people and their Savior. They must stand or fall before Him, with me out of the way. Matthew 25:36 Mark 2:17 I think God loves sinners.... :think:
You likely have more of Christendom that believes similarly but you won't ever hear from them for a variety of reasons, including that they don't want to be attacked. They may not be equipped to answer every question that might be put to them, but even you aren't able to answer every question put to you, and you have the benefit of an official bible education.
A bit naïve, imho, because we are not bereft of scholars and have a wealth of thoughts accessible for most matters.
You are correct, I don't know everything, but I do have good access.
You haven't yet shown me how "Abraham was alive in Paradise" is compatible with Jesus proving the resurrection of the dead by "God is the God of the Living." If Abraham was in Paradise, he doesn't need to be raised for God to be the "God of the Living." Until and unless you manage to reconcile that, in a way that at least makes reasonable sense to someone such as myself (I try to be fair) please realize that your assumption isn't a settled point yet.
I'm pretty sure the "thanks" I've been given, show some are getting this: God of the "Living." Abraham, had and has to be 'alive' somewhere when the Lord Jesus Christ said it. HAD to be.
Sorry, I have trouble understanding what you mean with the super short responses sometimes.
That's fine and I appreciate you asking when it isn't clear to you. The main point: I brought up Samuel coming to Saul, as an example of 'your' observation. IOW, I was just saying "We
ll yeah, of course you are correct. Samuel coming to Saul may well be an example of what you were talking about." Your response was to say
"Not Samuel." "
Well, okay, just pick another example then, I was trying to agree with you."
Correction, and an important one. Sadducee did not believe that bodies lay in the ground dead until the resurrection. Sadducees denied that there was ANY resurrection. This is described as the dividing point between Pharisee and Sadducee.
Not a correction. I already knew this. Worth a note, sure.
Rather, "the dead lay silent in the dust until the resurrection" is what the Pharisees believed. No mention is made of a dispute between these factions as to the state of death, only whether the dead would be raised from death. Look at verses that you have already posted, it says as much.
It wasn't soul-sleep however. Some of them? Sure, it is possible BUT when The Lord Jesus Christ said "God is the God of the living," He corrected them (and I believe you) as well.
Acts 23:6-8 KJV
(6) But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
(7) And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.
(8) For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
Why do you say the Sadducees believed we were dead until the resurrection?
Sorry, "until Resurrection" would have been the anecdote, not what the Sadducees believed. Rather, It was the 'lain in the ground' that I was my intention. Thanks for asking that I might clarify.
Which brings us back to Tyndale's question to Sir Thomas More. Any assumption that the dead were conscious means that Christ's answer does nothing to prove the resurrection. Given that Jesus said that this was to prove the resurrection, specifically and for no other purpose, and nothing else was said to offer proof, ergo his statement does NOT mean that the dead are alive, but requires that the dead are dead in every sense of the word.
Jesus corrected the Sadducees, but he corrected them about the resurrection, not anything else. Please, the text says exactly that!
Matthew 22:31-32 KJV
(31) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
(32) I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Do you see where Jesus says "As touching the dead, that they live in Paradise..." or anything like that there? I don't. If you do, please point them out to me and underline or use color or something.
For me, incredibly clear:
Matthew 22:31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God:
Matthew 22:32 ‘I
am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?
He is not God of the dead, but
[God] of the living [ONLY].” Again, Abraham HAD to be
alive somewhere. Where? :think: Paradise side of Hades according to Luke 16:19-31
Today's churches aren't that different from when they were officially under Rome. Some of the people changed, for a bit, a few of the customs, but the same base human attributes that brought corruption in the first case are still present and reassert themselves. Who was it that said that the tree of liberty must continually be refreshed with the blood of patriots? One attempt at reformation doesn't fix everything at once, and before you know it a new generation has entirely different objectives.
I read scripture and 'find' I'm orthodox. Later, on things I might not have understood, I've looked to orthodox positions to understand what others believe the particulars mean.
I was hoping for a more enthusiastic commitment to "scripture only." Not tradition first, and interpreting all scripture in the light of that tradition. If one isn't willing to attempt to put aside preconceived ideas and let the scripture naturally build itself up in the order God gave them to us, and then compare the results, you will never have a fair comparison.
1) :chuckle: You have brought up Tyndale and Luther a lot for a guy this disinterested in tradition. Sorry, just strikes my funny bone and a bit of irony.
2)
Unless it is 'logically' unassailable, but it'd have to be mutual as well. As far as 'orthodox' these are what the 'majority' (and VAST majority) believes is biblical.
I think that is fairly enthusiastic, especially when I said if it were NOT, that we'd have to hold that truth 'mutually.' I believe flowing lava is hot. Do you believe lava is hot? We didn't get it from the bible. We both mutually agree lava right from a volcano is probably hot. Because we agree, we can agree without fanfare.
You say that "the majority of Christianity believes..." but Lon, how much of this "majority of Christianity" do you think has read the whole Bible at cover to cover (at least) maybe once? The first ECT quote in James Wallace list was from a person who said that the souls of the wicked are immortal.... yet scripture tells us that Jesus only hath immortality, and that immortality is only given as a gift to those who believe in Jesus Christ, something that the blessed saints in Christ only put on in the resurrection. Yet this so-called "Father" is accepted as Orthodox when he blatantly denies the scripture. Something is wrong with this picture...
Depends on the church, but every pastor, teacher, missionary, we'd suppose. There is a thread on TOL that asks how many have read their Bible cover-to-cover at least once. Some were surprised at the number that hadn't. I was pleasantly pleased with the number that had. All? Nope. Still glad for the number that have.
I had a "discussion" with Jim Wallace some years back about less-than-accurate posting of those lists. For example, he was listing Justin Martyr as being a proponent of "Eternal Conscious Torment" and "immortal souls." Most people believe those lists because they don't suspect someone will flat-out lie to them. For example, he had Justin Martyr in the middle of his list, who also has these clear statements in his writings:
"... why do we any longer endure those unbelieving and dangerous arguments, and fail to see that we are retrograding when we listen to such an argument as this: that the soul is immortal, but the body mortal... this we used to hear from Pythagoras and Plato, even before we learned the truth."
" ... and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death those those who repent of their wickedness and believe in him..."
" the fire of judgment would descend and utterly dissolve all things, even as formerly the flood left no one but him only with his family who is by us called Noah..."
A good half of his list (the earlier half) was filled with bogus claims as to early Christian Fathers. Since I persisted on attempting to talk with him on it, he finally removed Justin Martyr only (who I was using as my prime example) and stopped responding. Point being, don't trust lists from James Wallace without first verifying the information yourself.
Here is
the other link I would have given, but it requires digging out the quotes. Wallace's was formatted easier to find (and the only reason I'd used it).
]It's not the person I care about either, but rather the dishonesty of those lists. More so about the unwillingness of the authors to make corrections when (presumed) mistakes or oversights are brought to their attention. I am reminded of how state-sponsored textbooks continue to use arguments and evidences that have been proved false or fake hoaxes, but their response is that they won't update the textbooks because they need to have some sort of evidence for evolution.
Could it be, as you've noted earlier, because some quotes can go both ways, depending on presuppositions? IOW, would he have left them, simply because from his perspective, they support his position?
You can ask him for a copy. He has materials he shares on request. Or ask me and I'll share the copy I got from him. But the list you gave incorrectly listed authors with annihilation language as ECT, without any mention of "immortal soul" or "torment without end" when he said that the result of eternal fire was "death."
... and this is getting longer. To be continued.
I'm not really too interested:
Unless it is 'logically' unassailable, but it'd have to be mutual as well. As far as 'orthodox' these are what the 'majority' (and VAST majority) believes is biblical.
Unless we could agree on the ECF's, it'd just be distraction, I think.
I was hoping for a more enthusiastic commitment to "scripture only."
