The Sadducees did not believe in disembodied sprits either, just like you. However, the Pharisees did, as can be proven from the Talmud. Paul solemnly affirmed in a dispute before both the Pharisees and the Saducees on this point that he as a Pharisee adhered to the Pharisees with respect to BOTH tenets: 1. spirits; angel or human, and 2. the resurrection. Paul claimed the same belief as the Pharisees, as opposed to the beliefs of the Sadducees, who denied both disembodied spirits and the resurrection. For the third time, I am telling you that this particular doctrine of the Pharisee that you ridicule, Paul solemnly affirmed.
Where does it indicate that Jesus was teaching anything at all about why the Rich Man was in torments?
I didn't say that Jesus said why the Rich Man was in torments; I was only giving my personal conviction on the subject.
I don’t see any charge or charges brought against this man, except by the absurd statement of Abraham that this man was in torments because he had enjoyed the good things in his lifetime. If that’s the case, Abraham certainly deserved to be on the bad side of the gulf too. Wouldn’t he? Isn’t that an absurd statement on his part as to why the Rich Man was there?
Where does it say that Abraham said why he was in torment? I don't see the word "because" in there anywhere. You just assume it. Abraham merely states the fact that the Rich Man had enjoyed the good things in his lifetime. It is your inference that Abraham was saying why the Rich Man was in torment, but it's not something that Abraham actually said. If you are allowed to make inferences or speculate about what is not stated, so am I.
Cordially,
Again, I believe in angels and spirits. I really do. And I believe Paul did too. Absolutely. Maybe it’s just semantics, but a disembodied spirit makes no sense to me.
In attempting to explain the “Rich Man’s” predicament, Abraham stated that in his lifetime he had enjoyed the good stuff, which is why he was now on the “bad side” of the great gulf. He further explained that Lazarus was such a poor guy, and that is the reason why he was now on the “good side.” The Pharisees did teach that the poor were poor because of their not being in God’s favor. But, in the hereafter the poor would enjoy the good things, because conditions would be reversed. That seems pretty plain to me as far as an explanation goes. But, the word “because” is not in there, just the explanation as to why. If this is true, it seems logical to ask why Abraham wasn’t therefore likewise on the “bad side” of the gulf.
I again affirm my belief in 1 Cor 2:11. And I again respectfully ask you what Paul was telling us in 1 Cor 15:18.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
The Sadducees did not believe in disembodied sprits either, just like you. However, the Pharisees did, as can be proven from the Talmud. Paul solemnly affirmed in a dispute before both the Pharisees and the Saducees on this point that he as a Pharisee adhered to the Pharisees with respect to BOTH tenets: 1. spirits; angel or human, and 2. the resurrection. Paul claimed the same belief as the Pharisees, as opposed to the beliefs of the Sadducees, who denied both disembodied spirits and the resurrection. For the third time, I am telling you that this particular doctrine of the Pharisee that you ridicule, Paul solemnly affirmed.
I'm suppressing a mirthful laugh :-) Paul never said that he believed the Pharisees doctrines; in fact, Paul said that he counted whatever he had as a Pharisee to be as dung, rubbish! See Philippians 3:2-11. Gotcha, just as you accused me of doing the same thing, putting words into Paul's mouth!
FYI:Some tell me that after years of "intense and extensive research and study" into the nature of man and the nature of final punishment I should have perfected my beliefs. I still have not arrived at perfection of perception with regard to this matter. My only defense, I suppose, is that God has chosen to create me finite, and thus I shall likely always struggle in my attempt to grasp the realities of the Infinite. In the course of these years, and through this intensive inquiry, I have come to a very firm conviction of what I believe God's Truth to be. Do I still have questions? Absolutely. Do I at times find myself puzzling over some passage in Scripture or some challenge posed to me by a fellow disciple? Yes, I do. By engaging in further study, though, I generally come to an acceptable and rational understanding of those issues, but in a few cases the research and reflection continue. I don't profess to have "arrived!" Frankly, I would be highly skeptical of anyone who had any other experience with their quest to perceive the eternal Truths of our God. None of us have yet attained perfect knowledge or understanding; thus, we all continue to face challenges, from without and within, to our beliefs and practices. I doubt that any honest Christian is any different.
Some have seemingly implied, at least that was my perception of their comments, that years of intense study should have produced within me an absolute certainty with no further doubts. I do indeed know some people who feel, and don't hesitate to assert, that they have arrived at perfect perception of virtually every eternal truth. I do not arrogantly claim such infallible insight, however. I am merely a finite, fallible student of the Word who often has far more questions than answers. The more I study, the stronger my convictions become. That is true. However, I shall never attain to that state of absolute perfection of perception that some of my fellow disciples seem to believe they themselves have already acquired. Thus, I shall continue to admit to others that my inquiries continue, as does my quest for better understanding of some things that occasionally puzzle me.
Let me stress this, however ... and I'm sure that others will agree: This discussion between us is not about one man "winning" and the other "losing." This is about a mutual quest for ultimate Truth in the matter of the nature of man and the final disposition of the wicked. In the course of this exchange I will readily acknowledge those areas, as we come to them, where I may still struggle with a lack of perfect comprehension of God's purpose. I would hope they would do the same (unless they perceive themselves to be beyond such personal struggle). We shall progress from point to point logically, with weaknesses and strengths of both positions becoming evident to the readers of this discussion. Our purpose, I pray, is simply to present both perspectives to the public, as fully and honestly as we can, and allow them to determine for themselves, in light of the Word, which position, if either, better conveys ultimate Truth!
We are brethren, after all, I hope, and our common purpose is to glorify our God and more perfectly perceive His will for our lives. Thus, I shall avoid, as I hope others will, anything that might lead us into a tense, less than civil and Christian exchange with one another.
It is obvious that others will differ over the subject matter of this discussion. We differ greatly, and are all passionate about our convictions. We also are unlikely, realistically, to convert the other to our own point of view, although both of us are likely hopeful. The reality, therefore, is that in the course of this discussion we will need, at times, to simply acknowledge we are unable to come to agreement on some point and move on to the next logical point in our exchange. To expect one of us to concede to the other on each point before progressing to the next is unrealistic and will only succeed in bringing this discussion to an untimely demise. Again, we shall each present our position to the best of our individual abilities, and then we shall need to leave the matter in the hands of the readers.
I doubt that I have ever encountered a single person with whom I agreed 100% on everything. Indeed, I'm not sure such is even possible. Thus, it is rare that I will declare absolute agreement with any particular author or book. About the best I will do is to declare I "basically agree" with the overall conclusions of a specific work. That does not necessarily imply that I am aware of specific errors, it's just that I personally do not proclaim unequivocal or unreserved agreement with anyone.