4 Truths About Hell

Ligonier ^ | 9/18/15 | Tom Ascol

[Bob434]

[[That seems so far-fetched and unnecessary to whatever Jesus was illustrating that I cannot presently manage enough suspension of disbelief to entertain it. ]]

Even when the events spoken of are contrary to biblical truths? You must suspend belief In order to explain a soul has lips and a tongue in need of relief, that souls in hell are able to talk to souls In heaven, that Abraham would call a gentile in hell son, that a gentile soul in hell would call Abraham father, you would have to suspend belief In order to believe a man in torments would be able to speak at all

[[I would disagree with you that the passage is based on a superstitious Babylonian myth, ]]

I would encourage you to look into this passage more thoroughly- The Pharisees DID teach the myth of abrahams’ bosom - this isn’t in dispute- They taught that there was a gulf that could be crossed,

[Bob434]

μικρότερον (mikroteron) — 2 Occurrences Matthew 13:32 Adj-NNS-C GRK: ὃ μικρότερον μέν ἐστιν NAS: and this is smaller than all KJV: indeed is the least of all seeds: INT: which smallest indeed is Mark 4:31 Adj-NNS-C GRK: τῆς γῆς μικρότερον ὂν πάντων NAS: upon the soil, though it is smaller than all KJV: the earth, is less than all INT: the earth smallest is of all

[Diamond]

Oh, but you kibitzed it so well!!

Cordially,

[Hebrews 11:6]

Kibitzing on FR since you were a five-months-old FReeper.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Soteriology of the Old Testament is also an interesting thing. There were persons who could say, as in the Psalm, that afterward God would receive them unto glory.

This seems to imply some kind of private Holy Spirit ministry, which coexists uneasily with the scripture about a preacher being needed, but again in the extreme instance the Lord can personally be that preacher. He engages men too in that role not because He is logically forced to, but because in love He desires their involvement. We have left legalism and stepped into love, which in the end achieves everything that the law stated was necessary.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Don’t get the part about a “gentile in hell” — while Jesus didn’t specify what people the miser belonged to, His usual context was that of Jewish people.

To allude to a myth but change elements of it could be to acknowledge that the myth was partly accurate but not wholly. Some elements could also take on symbolic meanings, as both water and tongue might. I am not terribly bothered by a failure of a story or even parable to be woodenly literal.

[Bob434]

[[Don’t get the part about a “gentile in hell” — while Jesus didn’t specify what people the miser belonged to, His usual context was that of Jewish people.]]

Yes I misspoke on that- It was Lazarus generally regarded as representing the gentiles- I made note of that in my response to Diamond

[[To allude to a myth but change elements of it could be to acknowledge that the myth was partly accurate but not wholly.]]

It could, but there’s no hard fast rule to acknowledge any of a myth were true In the purpose of giving metaphors- the metaphor simply sets up ‘the moral of the story’ which is a truth

[[Some elements could also take on symbolic meanings, as both water and tongue might.]]

That could be- however, when something used By Christ is contrary to what the bible teaches- yet used for a purpose- that just lends more credence ot the fact that it’s not about a real event, and is simply being used to give a ‘moral of a story’- If you’ll note in my previous posts, I’ve stated several reasons why the story is a parable and not a literal event- not just the physical aspects mentioned In the story-

I think we would be hard pressed though to come up with a symbolic meaning for the body parts used In the parable- while other aspects of the parable are pretty clearly symbolic and had double meanings-

[Bob434]

Just one more thing I want to point out- A parable is nothing more than a metaphor- or rather ‘one thing said, another thing meant’- That’s it- there are no rules for using metaphors- And while Jesus usually used ‘real things’ as his metaphor examples, that does not bar Him from using a myth-

I misspoke in previous post about the rich man being gentile- it was Lazarus who was the gentile- representing gentiles as a whole now being accepted into heaven- The rich man being representative of The ‘self righteous’ Jews who’s hearts were hardened yet who appeared spiritual-

The purple fine cloth was symbolic of both royalty and priests - an the whole point of the parable is not to confirm or deny the myth- but to the lie to the teachings of the myth by the Pharisees, for the purpose of pointing out two things, that the Pharisees were teaching lies, and that unsaved Jews would not see the kingdom of Heaven, while gentiles would- something that would have made the Pharisees furious no doubt-

The Pharisees were teaching the myth of Abraham’s bosom, and teaching that there could be mercy in hell, and that people could be ‘prayed out of hell”, and that they could cross to the other side, and that is clearly not truth- Christ- Using their own parable against them, made it clear that once one is in hell, there will be no getting out, and there will be no mercy given- Christ simply by way of metaphor, informed them that their major points were wrong- lies-

Nowhere else In the bible does it state that men go to paradise or sheol in bodily and spiritual form as taught by the myth the Pharisees were peddling- The myth included bodily parts, lips, eyes, tongue- lazarus’ finger- But we know from scriptures that we will be reunited with our bodies, and at that point hey will be made incorruptible-

[Bob434]

and just for the record mhg- I’ve been around long enough to recognize when someone is escalating their personal attacks, and I refuse to get into a flame war- this is the religious forum, and as such we should keep the discussions especially civil- I’ve seem many people like Daniel escalate their rhetoric into sophomoric insulting battles- and I’m not going to entertain that- and if that’s not ok with you then I don’t really care- And if you are going to join the fray- then I’ll simply ignore your psots as well- I have too much to do to get into arguing points with those who are more interested in hurling petty insults than they are about discussing the issues in a civil manner-

Heated arguments are oen thing- becoming petty is quite another- If you have a different opinion than mine- there’s no need to stoop to saying I’m arrogant- that I have a “disgusting twisted mind”- If you can’t discuss the issues (Which you haven’t done, preferring rather to insult I guess) then I’m not wasting my time with you, and again if that’;s not ok with you then I don’t care- I have better thigns to do-

[daniel1212]

I’ve explained several tiems why it was important for Him to use the MYTH of Abraham’s bosom

The more your try the more desperate and absurd you are exposed to be.

I’ve explained several tiems why it was important for Him to use the MYTH of Abraham’s bosom

Wrong, for all the Scriptural reasons given. Real names were never used in parable and the Lord never used any non-existent place or experience as representing reality, including in metaphors. And in Lk. 16 He separated the Truth from the additions of tradition. As does Scripture do in other places, such as referring the book of Enoch, which also contains fiction.

Christ is NOT affirming a myth- No more so than Christ is telling everyone He is a literal vine when he gave the parable of a vine and branches

You are Wrong again, for once again the Lord is using a real and known physical reality, not some unknown growth, as a metaphor which is analogous to another reality.

[[for which you have zero precedent.]]

Sorry, but the parable of the rich man IS the precedent for the reasons already explained

What?! You want to use something outside Scripture for Scriptural precedent? In our next episode Bob434 will have the Lord channeling Vedic mythology as representing Biblical reality.

There is no ‘Abraham’s bosom’-

Well that was easy. The Lord taught that there was, since He was not teaching myth, but you say there was none. Of course we must believe the gospel according to Bob434.

There was no ‘holding place’ for those who were bound for heaven, nor one for hell- There is no soul sleep-

Indeed, as a conscious man in torments does not equate to soul sleep, yet the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, and the way into the holiest in the Heavenly place was not yet opened, and thus Christ went to Paradise the day of His death, descending first into lower places of the earth, led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men, and many of the OT saints arose and appeared unto many.

There is too much wrong with the parable to be taken as a literal event that took place- or reference to a literal event-

Rather, There is nothing wrong with the account of Christ, only with those who relegate the Son of God as teaching science fiction and scientific error.

You main premise seems to be that because Christ never used ‘non-real’ analogies before, He is prevented from ever doing so- I’d like to see a verse that explains this rule-

Let me help you. Since the Lord could not lie of deceive, and He never taught any place or experience that never existed, and since the spiritual reality that He taught of in parables and figurative language was real, then so were the physical things that He used to illustrate them, then you have a rule of both integrity and precedent.

Now if you want to argue that since it is nowhere explicitly said that the Lord could not teach of fictional places and experiences, then there are some Mormons who would like to meet you.

Your next premise seems to be that He couldn’t possibly use ‘science fiction’ to convince anyone because doing so would be ‘fraud’ Not sure how you come to that conclusion- especially in light of the FACT that He clearly used a false teaching by the Pharisees to show them how wrong their false teaching really is

Once again the Lord no more taught a false teaching due to using some true elements of tradition then the Holy Spirit also did then doing the same with Truth from other books which also contain myths (the book of Enoch has 40 feet - or 400 depending on source - giants in Genesis). And as said, the Lord validated the True aspects while correcting the errors.

And in so doing the Lord is show you how wrong your false teaching really is !

[daniel1212]

your continual premise is that this has to be a real event because Christ would never use fiction or something false to convey a story or parable-...Hmm, Christ clearly taught something about mustard seeds which wasn’t true-

WRONG! Christ was not teaching the mustard seed was the smallest seed out of every seed on the earth, nor that is becomes the greatest among herbs (the banana plant is) , but " which a man took, and sowed in his field." (Matthew 13:31-32) Thus the context is local, which is like saying in America, "the dime is the smallest of coins." Thus the Lord was not teaching a scientific fallacy to illustrate a point, but was teaching a known fact in the realm that this was restricted to.

But behold what ease you descend into blasphemy into order to defend your absurd doctrine at any cost, which is consistent with Christ teaching myth, which is what you have Him doing despite your vain denials!

He ‘never sued deception before- so by your rules, He can’t possibly be using deception here I nthe mustard seed analogy, yet the fact is He did-

Wrong : He would be deceiving people or mistaken if He was teaching the mustard seed was the smallest in the whole world, as it is necessary for the physical example which represents the spiritual reality to be true if the latter is to be held as true in the analogy.

Christ gave no indication that He was using a myth, and here you are no better than RCs who teach that the story of Jonah and the great fish was a fable, yet the Lord invokes that as being analogous to His resurrection. If the former was a fable then so also.

[[while in your case you have Christ teaching science fiction, which He NEVER did in any of His 45 parables.]]

He never had occasion to before- yet in this case He DID have a reason for doing so- a VERY specific reason

You reasons are a false like what you have the Lord teaching, and the Lord never had occasion to use science fiction. Instead of correcting the idea of souls going to Hell or Abraham's' bosom, He affirmed it while correcting the errors the Pharise

[[Talk about compelled absurdity! ]] es held.

Keep it civil Daniel or I’m done with you- T

Then stop posting absurdities, if not then you should be done with me as i am fed up with them!

yet the man In hell is able to speak to him? Did he have a supernaturally loud voice? Did He have super vision...Was the rich man supernaturally strong

You are making the classic cultist mistake of imposing the physical laws of this realm upon the supernatural. How could the res. Lord come thru closed doors and then eat food? Where did it go to?.

Lazarus represents Gentiles Even if so, they were real people, not Klingon's, nor was the place and experience of Lazarus or his counterpart something that was unreal.

This whole parable is steeped in Jewish customs, sayings, and erroneous teachings

Which science fiction you have the Lord teaching as representing reality, which is nowhere seen, and contrary to the imposed meaning being true.

The more you try to defend cultic doctrine then the more you are exposed as a vain sophist, and now a blasphemer, for all to see. Give it up even if only for the sake of your eternal soul!

[Hebrews 11:6]

...in the extreme instance the Lord can personally be that preacher. He engages men too in that role not because He is logically forced to, but because in love He desires their involvement.

Yes, if He has someone elected for salvation, He will not be deterred if the person(s) He has delegated to preach to them proves unreliable.

About twenty-five years ago a suicidal man walked around Lake Elsinore in Southern California, which has about an eight-mile circumference. He told God that if He is real and didn't send someone to Him with encouragement by the time he got all the way around, he would kill himself.

A Christian man was driving on the nearby 15 Freeway when he felt a strong prompting to pull off, so strong he couldn't shrug it off. Uncomprehendingly, he obeyed, only to receive further promptings that finally led him to park at the beach and then to approach a man walking along the shore. He felt led to greet the man and say God had sent him, although he said he had no idea why. The walker, who was just finishing his circuit, was astonished and incredulous and explained the situation. Our obedient intervenor led him to Christ on the spot.

Even if He must send Philip to the eunuch, God is never at a loss.

...some kind of private Holy Spirit ministry, which coexists uneasily with the scripture about a preacher being needed...

You're very clever to notice that tension, but I don't consider that an uneasy coexistence at all. God is always the ultimate preacher, but in our ordinary world, the one Paul had in mind, he uses us to preach, in order to build our faith. When He must do it Himself (as indeed He did with Paul!), that is only the exception that proves the usual rule. He uses the Gospel from Creation (cf Job), He uses our example, and He uses His Scriptures, in addition to our puny preaching efforts--and in all cases He uses His Holy Spirit. Whether it's in the womb, on the deathbed, or anywhere in between, the Lord always gets His man!

[HiTech RedNeck]

Hey watch it, don’t get too full of yourself. Begged questions pounded with passion tend to demonstrate that.

[Bob434]

[[You are making the classic cultist mistake of imposing the physical laws of this realm upon the supernatural.]]

And you’re not? You claim wen a parable is told the ‘
rule is’ the one doing the telling must use ‘real things’

[[How could the res. Lord come thru closed doors and then eat food? Where did it go to?.]]

Are you claiming that people in hell can speak with those in heaven across a great distance (or at all for that matter)?

[[The more you try to defend cultic doctrine then the more you are exposed as a vain sophist, and now a blasphemer,]]

Lol- now I’m a blasphemer- my goodness- what a wretch I am - please explain how stating Christ is turning a MYTH around on the Pharisees is blasphemy- You’re making some pretty nasty accusations-

[[Christ gave no indication that He was using a myth, ]]

Where in God’s word is there a command that He had to?

[[Wrong : He would be deceiving people or mistaken if He was teaching the mustard seed was the smallest in the whole world, as it is necessary for the physical example which represents the spiritual reality to be true if the latter is to be held as true in the analogy. ]]

Wrong- He stated, as recorded by the apostles, that the mustard seed was the smallest seed- your explanation doesn’t even make sense - He stated something that was not true- He did so as a means of speaking about what the people knew- or believed- the point stands-

[[WRONG! Christ was not teaching the mustard seed was the smallest seed out of every seed on the earth,]]

he wasn’t? Please cite where He clarifies for His listeners- My bible doesn’t contain such a statement of clarification- perhaps your does?

[[Thus the context is local, which is like saying in America, “the dime is the smallest of coins.” Thus the Lord was not teaching a scientific fallacy to illustrate a point, but was teaching a known fact in the realm that this was restricted to]]

Sorry- that isn’t what the verse says- The statement is that it’s the smallest seed- AFTER claiming it’s a seed that is planted- You’re stretching the word-

[[and the Lord never had occasion to use science fiction.]]

Sure He did- when confronting pharisees who were teaching a false doctrine-

[[Then stop posting absurdities, if not then you should be done with me as i am fed up with them!]]

Good for you- Would have been nice had you made a comment with the caveat that no one was able to have a difference of opinion because you can’t handle discussing things in a civil manner-

[[How could the res. Lord come thru closed doors and then eat food?]]

The resurrected Lord had a physical body- Are you suggesting those in hell have physical bodies but are able to suspend physical laws as did God?

[[Give it up even if only for the sake of your eternal soul!]]

OSAS-

[[The more your try the more desperate and absurd you are exposed to be.]]

How about addressing the points brought up instead of constantly ignoring them and concentrating on attacking my character?

[[Wrong, for all the Scriptural reasons given. Real names were never used in parable and the Lord never used any non-existent place or experience as representing reality, including in metaphors.]]

There ya go- Now please point to a scriptural passage that states this must always be the case? This is your only defense- which you state over and over- which basically boils down to this

“Because it’s never been done before, it can’t ever be done because, well... that’s the rule” That’s it- that’s all you’ve said basically-

[[and thus Christ went to Paradise the day of His death, ]]

Paradise huh? Care to show where the bible speaks of Him DESCENDING into paradise

[daniel1212]

And you’re not? You claim wen a parable is told the ‘ rule is’ the one doing the telling must use ‘real things’

Since that is what the Lord always did, versus using science fiction, and used something that really exists to represent something that really exists, which is fitting, then it appears the Lord followed that as a principle, while you have zero examples for your science fiction.

Wrong- He stated, as recorded by the apostles, that the mustard seed was the smallest seed- your explanation doesn’t even make sense - He stated something that was not true-

Blasphemy repeated! You have God teaching scientific error, which no parable does or can, which you compel Christ to teach in the interest of supporting your premise that He taught science fiction!

And my explanation makes much sense, that the mustard seed was the smallest "which a man took, and sowed in his field," as that is what preceded that, and is indeed like saying in America, "the dime is the smallest of coins." In the frame of reference of the people the Lord was speaking to, then this was actually considered the least of the seeds.

While the Lord did not do so in His parables, the Lord could have spoken phenomenologically, that is, descriptive of what they actually saw in effects, as in the sun rising, which it actually does regards the image of it rising in the sky. Which is not the same as teaching as real what does not occur even as regards visible effects.

That this does not even make sense to you is consistent with your desperate defense of Christ teaching science fiction in Lk. 16, since according to you and your cult reference such a place and experience never existed.

Lol- now I’m a blasphemer- my goodness- what a wretch I am

That you laugh at having God teach scientific error if consistent with teaching Lk. 16:19031 is a myth, and your handling of the word of God in vainly trying to defend.

God cannot err, and telling a story which teaches something about a physical reality that is not true is a error. Again, the parables of the Lord are fictitious stories which He use real physical things which represent real spiritual realities. Being wrong about the mustard seed being the smallest seed - which He would be if He was referring to all the seeds of the earth, versus what was sowed the local realm - would be as contrary to Divinity, as would saying the ten virgins were women pregnant by men.

[[Christ gave no indication that He was using a myth, ]]

Where in God’s word is there a command that He had to?

He did not, but that would be consistent with His use of parables, in which He (again) He never taught error about a physical item that He used as representing a spiritual reality. You vainly attempt to argue for an exception without any Scriptural precedent, and lacking any, you invoked a extraBiblical story and claimed that was the precedent! Yet aspects of which the Lord corrected,. Next then you have Christ teaching an error in earthly science! The issue is not what Christ could do but what you must do, which is to be consistent with what He always did do.

[[WRONG! Christ was not teaching the mustard seed was the smallest seed out of every seed on the earth,]]

he wasn’t? Please cite where He clarifies for His listeners- My bible doesn’t contain such a statement of clarification- perhaps your does?

Are you blind or obtuse? "The text says The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which a man took, and sowed in his field. Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs." (Mt. 13:31,32) Mark add "in the soil," but the "sowed in his field" places it their known context, like as my analogy to a dime would.

And it is likely some did not know that there were smaller seeds, such as the orchid seed, nor that it is not the greatest among herbs.and thus would be misled, not about a hidden spiritual truth, but that the Son of God could be counted on to teach scientific fact.

The statement is that it’s the smallest seed- AFTER claiming it’s a seed that is planted- You’re stretching the word-

No, as what precedes it defines what realm He referring to, and there are no commas or periods in the the earliest Greek manuscripts we have access to. You sure seem determined to make the Son of God teach error. Maybe you think He is a created being like the cult you referenced.

[[and the Lord never had occasion to use science fiction.]]

Sure He did- when confronting pharisees who were teaching a false doctrine-

Wrong again, as that is begging the question, presuming the very thing that must be proved, and is not.

[[Then stop posting absurdities, if not then you should be done with me as i am fed up with them!]]

Good for you- Would have been nice had you made a comment with the caveat that no one was able to have a difference of opinion because you can’t handle discussing things in a civil manner-

I am slow to wrath, but doctrine is life, and the Lord also reproved error in harsh terms

The resurrected Lord had a physical body- Are you suggesting those in hell have physical bodies but are able to suspend physical laws as did God?

The point, as said, was that physical laws simply do not apply in the spiritual realm. Get it or deny it. Take your pick.

How about addressing the points brought up instead of constantly ignoring them and concentrating on attacking my character?

What you think I have been doing, despite your complaints, and your continued attempts to defend the indefensible premise of the Lord teaching science fiction, which lead to claiming He taught error in science, warrant such reproof.

here ya go- Now please point to a scriptural passage that states this must always be the case?

Here ya go- Now please point to a scriptural passage that states this you can claim an exception to a consistence practice when you have no precedent, except to claim the very thing that must be proved is it?

“Because it’s never been done before, it can’t ever be done because, well... that’s the rule” That’s it- that’s all you’ve said basically-

And which is the protest of Catholics defending the sinlessness of Mary, arguing God could do this and "all" is not always inclusive of all. As if God, whose practice is record far less notable exceptions to the norm of lesser characters, and at least thrice states that Christ did no sin, would not record that Mary was without actual sin.

Paradise huh? Care to show where the bible speaks of Him DESCENDING into paradise

That is easy, and you should know it. "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43) And if you try the absurd argument of the cult your invoked, that the Lord is saying "Verily I say unto thee To day," as if He needed to differentiate btwn today and tomorrow, and contrary to other uses of "to day," then I will consider you further deceived.

[MHGinTN]

As shown, the poster to whom we have responded (you have done a saintly patience job) is literally asserting that God would tell a falsehood as if it were a truth. That is asserting that God would tell a lie. I don’t suppose it will ever dawn upon such a twisted mind that if it could be true that God would tell a lie then how sercure could any Promise of God be? There is no thing more sure than a Promise from God. To call God a liar immediately cancels the accuser’s basis for faith and thus cancels at that moment their chance for salvation! But such is cultish religion ...

[Springfield Reformer]

μικροτερον ("mikroteron") can be a superlative or a comparative. If one superimposes modern western patterns of thought on an expression like "least of all seeds," it is hard to resist seeing it as a superlative and inserting the hidden qualifier of absoluteness, as in "least of [absolutely] all seeds."  However, context is critical.  In the parable of the mustard seed, the context is agricultural, " a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field..."  As we now believe the smallest seed is the orchid seed, such a seed does not belong to that agricultural context. As far as anyone knows the mustard seed was indeed the smallest of any that might be used agriculturally in First Century Israel.

So realistically, there does not appear to be justification for inserting the "absolute" qualifier. One has to be cautious in translating such expressions.  The strong temptation is to force them into our own mental framework, when in their time and circumstance they may have meant something quite different.  For example, even if one assumed the sense of mikroteron was superlative, it is not necessarily the case that "all" is absolute either.  For example, the same word is used here, twice:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
(Luke 2:1-3)

... and neither time is it used in an absolute sense, but in a relative, context-aware sense.  

This, BTW, is a mark of sophisticated thought.  The reader is expected to accept the factual nature of these statements, even though they are not true in an absolute sense. What an impediment to any fine literature it would be to always press the meaning of a word into it's absolute extremes.  As humans we are more than capable of grasping an astounding range of meanings that link well to the overall passage we are absorbing.  Rather than get tripped up by some bizarre shift to modern botany, we hear Jesus teach how the church will start out as the smallest of things and grow to the largest of things, and we get the point, that Jesus will grow His church into the grandest of things, no matter how small its beginning. This is the nature of sound teaching and good use of natural language.  No violence to science was done here.

Peace,

SR

[Hebrews 11:6]

To call God a liar immediately cancels the accuser’s basis for faith and thus cancels at that moment their chance for salvation!

I'm writing to encourage you to reconsider this statement. I haven't followed the very long-winded and apparently acrimonius debate between Bob and Daniel, but it seems to me you've crossed an important line with that statement. It is one thing to disparage a group's beliefs as being sufficiently unorthodox to prevent salvation, but it is quite another to make such a charge publicly toward an individual, even in the third person, and especially inferentially, as you have. It appears that in doing so you violate Jesus' admonition against judging. You're thereby exceeding your authority, even if you are correct in your inference.

Please reconsider.

[Bob434]

[[is literally asserting that God would tell a falsehood as if it were a truth.]]

that isn’t what I said at all mhg- I said Jesus used something that was false to point out to the false teachers that everything they claim In their false teaching is infact false- there’s a big difference there- Jesus often turned what the Pharisees said completely and expertly around on them- There is nothing in God’s word barring Jesus from using something that isn’t literal in order to illustrate a point- Surely you don’t think Jesus is an actual vine? Or a piece of Bread? Or that His blood is wine? NONE of these are literally true- none! Neither is the myth of souls crossing over into a supposed paradise that is outside of heaven

[[To call God a liar immediately cancels the accuser’s basis for faith and thus cancels at that moment their chance for salvation!]]

I called God a Liar? I simply stated that he constantly used things that are not literally true to illustrate points- That is all- The point being ,which you’ve missed apparently, is that if He’s allowed to use things like the vine, wine, bread that aren’t literally true, then He’s able to use a myth and turn it around on the false teachers WITHOUT becoming a liar Himself- The Very nature of a parable or metaphore is to use something which isn’t necessarily true to illustrate a point- Using metaphors does NOT make one a liar

But in your lust to label me a twisted sick person- you can’t seem to grasp that distinction apparently

[Bob434]

[[In the parable of the mustard seed, the context is agricultural,]]

Only I nthe sense that farmers plant mustard seeds- As pointed out- there is also no qualifier that states that ‘smallest of seeds’ was referring only to what farmers would plant- the verse simply states that farmers do plant mustard seeds, and that they are the ‘smallest of seeds’- the verse does not go on to state ‘that farmers plant’

[[it is not necessarily the case that “all” is absolute either.]]

Except when it is-

as noted in my previous post- the point beign that Jesus used thigns that were not literally true (and there is no compelling reason to think Jesus was singling out just farm seeds simply because He said farmers do infact plant them) in order to make points that needed to be made-

The parable of the rich man is just such an example- Many major commentators, and noted theologians all down through the ages do not consider the parable an actual event for many of the reasons I’ve posted-

[[This, BTW, is a mark of sophisticated thought. The reader is expected to accept the factual nature of these statements, even though they are not true in an absolute sense.]]

What is the factual nature I n this passage? That because farmers plant mustard seeds, Christ MUST only be comparing seed sizes to seeds that farmers plant? Is that what you are suggesting?