Thread: The fires of Hell

Originally Posted by GodismyJudge

You should know that there is a difference between Hell and the Lake of Fire.

They are not the exactly the same thing or place.

People tend to use the term hell about both. There are two categories :

1) Sheol or just "the grave" from the OT. Which corresponds to Hades and various other Greek words used in the NT, like Abaddon (the abyss) and Tartarus. Paradise or "the bosom of Abraham" was a compartment in Sheol/Hades where the OT saints were kept in custody, away from the fire of torment. (If we interpret the parable of the rich man and Lazarus literally then that is as close to fiery torment we can get in this version of "hell" but the Jews thought that this fire was administered by angels, not by the devil. The parable itself doesn't tell).

2) The lake of fire and brimstone or "the unquenchable fire" which the contemporary (to Jesus) Jewish scholar Josephus says the Jews believed was in a separate compartment inside Hades where noone had been cast yet. The book of Revelation places this fire completely outside Hades and Hades is cast into this lake. Jesus also talks about Gehenna and its fire and this probably corresponds to the lake of fire. Gehenna was the garbage dump outside Jerusalem.

This is rather complicated but dividing this clearly into two different categories works perfectly. In general :

* Sheol / Hades
* the lake of fire and brimstone

Mistake: The Bible does not say that the Story of the Rich man and Lazarus is a parable. It is a literal story. It is not a parable.

Originally Posted by Nikos

Mistake: The Bible does not say that the Story of the Rich man and Lazarus is a parable. It is a literal story. It is not a parable.

I didn't say that it should necessarily be interpreted non-literally. It's one of those question marks.

Originally Posted by Nikos

Mistake: The Bible does not say that the Story of the Rich man and Lazarus is a parable. It is a literal story. It is not a parable.

Exactly... Jesus said "a certain rich man" so He is telling of actual events. There is no question mark about it... if Jesus is talking about a person, it was an actual person. He does not make up fictitious stories... if He did, He is a liar. God cannot just make stuff up since it is impossible for Him to lie.

And, after Jesus was raised from the dead and He led captivity captive out from Abraham's bosom which was that protected area for OT saints where paradise was for a time.... that place is no longer there since it is no longer needed. This is where the catholics get perGatorY from as they seek cash payments to get mary to get your loved ones released from there after they learn their lesson and due penance for they sins.

hell has been expanded and nothing but the place where the rich man was is left since now days, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (for those that are saved) so paradise is in Heaven now in the presence of the Lord.

To those that are in hell ... it matters not what you call it, it's hot and tormenting.

Originally Posted by Colonel

I didn't say that it should necessarily be interpreted non-literally. It's one of those question marks.

Doesn't the fact that Jesus speaks of a specific person named Lazarus prove it's not a parable? In what other parable does Jesus literally name someone?

Luke 16:
The Rich Man and Lazarus

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

The main reason why I find it difficult to take that parable or account literally is that it involves righteousness according to works. In fact, according to suffering or lack of suffering. I suppose the rich man would have been found good enough if he had repented and taken care of the poor Lazarus. The question is if Jesus is using a Phariseeic belief about these things to illustrate that they themselves (they were rich) wouldn't qualify for the bosom of Abraham according to their own works and possibly that God has nothing against the poor beggar just because he is a poor beggar.

Originally Posted by Colonel

The main reason why I find it difficult to take that parable or account literally is that it involves righteousness according to works. In fact, according to suffering or lack of suffering. I suppose the rich man would have been found good enough if he had repented and taken care of the poor Lazarus. The question is if Jesus is using a Phariseeic belief about these things to illustrate that they themselves (they were rich) wouldn't qualify for the bosom of Abraham according to their own works and possibly that God has nothing against the poor beggar just because he is a poor beggar.

I don't think that is the heart of that story...in context Jesus is addressing the reality that the rich place their faith in their wealth..

in vs 10-15 Jesus says

10 “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11 So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12 And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.

Which suggests that he was talking to the Pharisees in the context of their own beliefs. Salvation by faith (including the faith of Abraham) rather than imperfect works didn't enter the picture in the parable. They also had these ideas that those who suffered, for instance by being diseased or crippled, did so because they were born in sin or were exceedingly sinful. Jesus addresses this several times elsewhere. The parable or account turns all of this upsidedown.

Originally Posted by Colonel

Which suggests that he was talking to the Pharisees in the context of their own beliefs. Salvation by faith (including the faith of Abraham) rather than imperfect works didn't enter the picture in the parable. They also had these ideas that those who suffered, for instance by being diseased or crippled, did so because they were born in sin or were exceedingly sinful. Jesus addresses this several times elsewhere. The parable or account turns all of this upsidedown.

The why of the STORY does not make it a parable..their confidence was in their wealth..no doubt they believed it proved them righteous and Lazarous poverty a sign of unrighteousness (not unlike some today). But the ISSUE Jesus was addressing states their faith is misplaced..just as the wealth won't keep them from Hell neither will Lazarus' poverty place him there..

So what makes this story have to be a parable? Jesus use a literal person's NAME in any of His parables? And the Parable had a cloaked message such as the sower and the seed and the vineyard owner and leaseholders...and the vine and the branches...

This story is two men's lives lived and where they landed after death and why...