You said concerning Luke 16 as a parable:
“It is not for the accurate reasons i gave.”
Your reasoning is not accurate and you are not “rightly dividing the Scriptures. For example your quote:
“And here, if you regard Eccl. as a doctrinal nook like Romans, then as i showed you, you must agree that “There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God. “ (Ecclesiastes 2:24) “Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun. “ (Ecclesiastes 8:15)”
And then you add:
“But which is contrary to such texts as Rm. 14:17; 1Cor. 8:8
....”
But here is what those verses say:
“For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” (Romans 14:17)
And.
“But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat are we the better neither, if we eat not, are we the worse” (1 Cor 8:8)
One verse discusses welcoming a person with weak faith, the other foods offered to idols, neither are as you said, “contrary” to what Solomon said.
You did not “rightly divide the Scriptures”.
Again you say:
“Another example of a forced interpretation, for the text nowhere says this was a mere vision as in a dream but that they were actually “with Him in the holy mount,” (2Pt. 1:8) and there Moses and Elijah with Christ is what they saw, “optanomai / optomai,” which is the same word which used to denote seeing a real being in many places, (Acts 20:25) including seeing the resurrected Christ (Mk. 16:7; Lk. 24:43; Acts 1:3) - which we dare not make into a mere vision - . “ (2 Peter 1:17-18) Thus Peter wanted to make literal dwellings for them”
First 2 Peter 1:18 does not discuss the vision. And “mere vision” is your words not mine. In fact Jesus called it a “vision”. (Matt.17:9).
But by your reasoning Moses and Elijah were first sent to Paradise/Abraham’s bosom at death, recalled from Paradise/Abraham’s bosom (located in the earth somewhere) to be merely seen by Peter and the others and then presumably they would return to Paradise/Abraham’s bosom (where they would soon by joined by the thief) for a while until going to heaven.
Paradise/Abraham’s bosom must have a revolving door.
Unlike David, I might add who had to stay in Sheol/Hades according to Peter.(Acts 2)
You do not “rightly divide the Scriptures”.
Again you said:
“Thus, rather than remaining in Sheol till the resurrection, the Lord said to the contrite criminal, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. “ (Luke 23:43)”
Then neither Jesus nor the thief were really dead (a condition Jesus likened to sleep) but had been resurrected, brought to life from the death state, and Jesus wasn’t in Sheol/Hades three days but somewhere in Paradise/Abraham’s bosom.
“accurate reasons” you gave? Nope, not accurate, not according to “rightly divided Scripture”.
By the Bye, you should know the placement of that comma is the translators choice since many Greek manuscripts use no punctuation at all, the most notable exception being the Vatican 1209, which places the comma AFTER “today”.
What? Do you really believe these verses support the idea that there is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour?
If the kingdom of God, into which believers have been spiritually translated into now, (Col. 1:13) is not about eating and drinking - denoting the natural man's life, (1Cor. 15:32; Is. 56:12) - and which it would be if there was nothing better in this life than that, and if eating does not gain man favor with to God - unlike righteousness - or make man better or worse spiritually, then how can nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink? This can only be said if one was judging from the perspective of the natural life divorced apart the spiritual side , as he was in stating the dead know nothing. Understanding that division is indeed “rightly dividing the word of truth” from reflections of the natural man.
And “mere vision” is your words not mine. In fact Jesus called it a “vision”. (Matt.17:9).
The word there (horama) denotes "spectacle," and apart from seeing as in a dream or trance, (Num. 24:4) it can mean actually seeing something actually present, (Acts 7:31) and which was so real to Peter in this case that he wanted to build houses with wood in a real physical place. The disciples were able to see something supernatural, but the Lord who brought them up a real mountain was there, as were those He conversed with, unless the Lord was talking to mere images. You must differ, and i will allow that good men can have different opinions on this text, but i see it as consistent with other texts which do teach souls being conscious after death.
But by your reasoning Moses and Elijah were first sent to Paradise/Abraham’s bosom at death, recalled from Paradise/Abraham’s bosom (located in the earth somewhere) to be merely seen by Peter and the others and then presumably they would return to Paradise/Abraham’s bosom (where they would soon by joined by the thief) for a while until going to heaven. Paradise/Abraham’s bosom must have a revolving door.
The problem is on your end in seeing this as a problem in the supernatural realm, as angels left/leave Heaven and returned many times.
Unlike David, I might add who had to stay in Sheol/Hades according to Peter.(Acts 2)
That simply states of David, that [hoti] died and/also [kai] buried [thaptō], and his sepulchre is with us unto this day," not that David's soul and spirit are there, unconscious, rather than being with the Lord now, as the spirit of Stephen went to be with Lord, (Acts 7:59) and such martyred souls are inquiring of the Lord before the resurrection. (Rv. 6:10)
Then neither Jesus nor the thief were really dead (a condition Jesus likened to sleep) but had been resurrected, brought to life from the death state, and Jesus wasn’t in Sheol/Hades three days but somewhere in Paradise/Abraham’s bosom.
The problem is your idea that one must be resurrected to be with the Lord, and that "sleep" refers to the total being and thus the deceased are unconscious, but it no more means that than that someone being in their grave nearby means that is where they really reside. Stephens spirit was with the Lord but he was "asleep," resting in Jesus. (Rv. 14:13)
Once again, in the fullness of revelation, and comparing Scripture with Scripture, Scripture clearly says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, to depart and be with Christ - and which is not a vain hope as you attempt to construe it. Both the "good thief" and his Savior died that day, and both are in paradise today.
You do not “rightly divide the Scriptures”.
By the Bye, you should know the placement of that comma is the translators choice since many Greek manuscripts use no punctuation at all, the most notable exception being the Vatican 1209, which places the comma AFTER “today”.
You should know that is is understood that punctuation was not part of the inspired text, thus Vaticanus does not define the original, but placing the comma after "you" is a correct translators choice as it is what is sensible, and consistent with Scripture.
We can even look at the WatchTower’s own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures for this, in which placing the comma after "today" in Lk. 24:43 is contrary to the 69 other places in which "truly I say to you" occurs, in which the comma is after "you," or more rarely, there is no comma at all.
You do not “rightly divide the Scriptures”.
No matter how much you deny it, the manifest reality is that it is you is not “rightly dividing the word of truth, comparing Scripture with Scripture according to the principle of progressive revelation. Solomon is not teaching the spiritual aspect of man's postmortem state, but the conclusion of the natural man in Eccl. 9:5, while Luke 16:19-31 is simply NOT a parable, nor are the souls of Rv. 6 resurrected saints, nor is Paul expressing some vain hope of being with the Lord at death.
Meanwhile, you are becoming increasingly arrogant, and though soul sleep is part of your doctrine, i believe one can be saved and still believe that, and it is not the same as annihilationism, which is a more serious deviation. And tomorrow i will be setting up a new PC the Lord gave , so will not be online for a time.