And the parable of the seeds?
Your spirit or soul lives on with people who knew you or with anything else you may have influenced or accomplished. Let's hope it's a good one. Ghandi seems to have done okay, but, then, so has Spencer Tracy . :wink:
neologist wrote:And the parable of the seeds?
It is clearly said in the text to be a parable, is it not?
Mark 4:2 He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said: 3"Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed..............
real life wrote: Mark 4:2 He taught them many things by parables . . .
And when Jesus said "He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life. . . "(John 6:54)
neologist wrote:real life wrote: Mark 4:2 He taught them many things by parables . . .
And when Jesus said "He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life. . . "(John 6:54)
Not sure what your point is here, Neo.
Jesus used many comparisons , in this case the teaching in John 6 begins with:
35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life.
In other places, He stated 'I am the door', but obviously didn't mean He was made of wood, and in another 'I am the true vine'.
You want to make a case for the story of the rich man and Lazarus as a parable. Go ahead and make your case.
What indication in the text itself is there that it is a parable, and what do you think the parable means?
Why would Jesus tell a parable with men speaking and conscious after death if that was OPPOSITE of the intention He intended to convey?
real life wrote:neologist wrote:real life wrote: Mark 4:2 He taught them many things by parables . . .
And when Jesus said "He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life. . . "(John 6:54)
Not sure what your point is here, Neo.
Jesus used many comparisons , in this case the teaching in John 6 begins with:
35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life.
In other places, He stated 'I am the door', but obviously didn't mean He was made of wood, and in another 'I am the true vine'.
You want to make a case for the story of the rich man and Lazarus as a parable. Go ahead and make your case.
What indication in the text itself is there that it is a parable, and what do you think the parable means?
Why would Jesus tell a parable with men speaking and conscious after death if that was OPPOSITE of the intention He intended to convey?
Perhaps because he was referring to spiritual death?
neologist wrote:real life wrote:neologist wrote:real life wrote: Mark 4:2 He taught them many things by parables . . .
And when Jesus said "He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life. . . "(John 6:54)
Not sure what your point is here, Neo.
Jesus used many comparisons , in this case the teaching in John 6 begins with:
35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life.
In other places, He stated 'I am the door', but obviously didn't mean He was made of wood, and in another 'I am the true vine'.
You want to make a case for the story of the rich man and Lazarus as a parable. Go ahead and make your case.
What indication in the text itself is there that it is a parable, and what do you think the parable means?
Why would Jesus tell a parable with men speaking and conscious after death if that was OPPOSITE of the intention He intended to convey?
Perhaps because he was referring to spiritual death?
So the lesson is that there is no possibility of passing from spiritual death (the rich man in torment) to life (Lazarus)? When and what are you defining as 'spiritual death'?
And why would the man who is spiritually dead beg for his brothers to be enlightened?
As to the question of whether the dead have thoughts, according to the Bible, the answer is both yes and no. The Old Testament and New Testament were written in different cultures by many different authors that each had different upbringings and theological perspectives. The Old and New Testaments definitely do contain different views on this subject.
The Old Testament doesn't contain many--if any--references to death being a transition to another life, rather than a state of being. The Hebrew people of these writings' time period knew only of Sheol, the grave. The Hebrew people thought of death as actual death--the stopping of the biological machine--the dead have no thoughts--and not as a transition to another life as people tend to believe today. They probably thought there was an afterlife but they would be dead until the time of judgment, which is when they would be alive again, rather than the afterlife starting immediately after dying, as if death were a transitional period.
It was during the New Testament times that the notion of death as a transitional period became popular. This should be obvious to anyone who compares the Old and New Testaments because the Old says the dead have no thoughts while the New has many instances of them having thoughts. It should also be noted that the word "hell" literally means "covered place," and does not, specifically, refer to a place of punishment. This is important to keep in mind when reading the New Testament because it is possible that the authors of the texts could be speaking of many "hells" (covered places). One of those hells would be a place where people wait for God's judgment--those that Jesus preached the gospel to while he was dead in the tomb might have been in such a "hell"--and another place where people would be punished if they were judged worthy of punishment. The notion of experiencing actual death--the stopping of the biological machine--seems absent from the New Testament, seemingly replaced by the notion of death as a transitional period.
One might say that this means there is a contradiction. It depends on how you look at it. If one holds that each writer was infallible and the messages are to hold for all time, and the words have not been corrupted in the slightest when it's contents were copied by other writers--we don't have the originals--then yes, this would be a contradiction. However, by removing the assumption of author-infallibility from the texts, there isn't a contradiction. If the authors of the Old Testament texts are fallible, and there's no indication within the texts that God told them what death was like, a good explanation for this apparent discrepancy is that the notion of death in the Old Testament was a cultural notion, rather than a divine one--the people of that culture were trying to figure death out on their own. In this case, Jesus comes along in the New Testament and gives insights into the nature of death. The authors of the New Testament texts, now having divine insight, added this information to their writings, despite what notion of death the Old Testament had, for it was a cultural notion, not a divine one.
(Edited to add last paragraph and make a correction.)
real life wrote:neologist wrote:real life wrote:neologist wrote:real life wrote: Mark 4:2 He taught them many things by parables . . .
And when Jesus said "He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life. . . "(John 6:54)
Not sure what your point is here, Neo.
Jesus used many comparisons , in this case the teaching in John 6 begins with:
35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life.
In other places, He stated 'I am the door', but obviously didn't mean He was made of wood, and in another 'I am the true vine'.
You want to make a case for the story of the rich man and Lazarus as a parable. Go ahead and make your case.
What indication in the text itself is there that it is a parable, and what do you think the parable means?
Why would Jesus tell a parable with men speaking and conscious after death if that was OPPOSITE of the intention He intended to convey?
Perhaps because he was referring to spiritual death?
So the lesson is that there is no possibility of passing from spiritual death (the rich man in torment) to life (Lazarus)? When and what are you defining as 'spiritual death'?
And why would the man who is spiritually dead beg for his brothers to be enlightened?
Neo,
I still would be interested in your definition of 'spiritual death'.
real life wrote: . . . I still would be interested in your definition of 'spiritual death'.
Would these citations help?
"But he said to him: "Let the dead bury their dead. . . "" (Luke 9:60)
"But the one that goes in for sensual gratification is dead though she is living." (1Timothy 5:6)
"Furthermore, [it is] YOU [God made alive] though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and sins. . ."(Ephesians 2:1)
neologist wrote:real life wrote: . . . I still would be interested in your definition of 'spiritual death'.
Would these citations help?
"But he said to him: "Let the dead bury their dead. . . "" (Luke 9:60)
"But the one that goes in for sensual gratification is dead though she is living." (1Timothy 5:6)
"Furthermore, [it is] YOU [God made alive] though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and sins. . ."(Ephesians 2:1)
So then, is the lesson in the story of rich man and Lazarus that there is no possibility of passing from spiritual death (the rich man in torment) to life (Lazarus)?
Luke 16:26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'[/u][/i]
And why would the man who is spiritually dead beg for his brothers to be enlightened?
Luke 16:27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'[/u][/i]
