A logical problem witih "Hell"

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I noticed earlier on that neither the Christians or those who don't believe the Bible were able to clearly show if Luke 16:19-31was or was not a Parable, it seemed that the posts progressed into nonsense and childish babble over personal opinion rather than established facts.

I had to take a day to look at this and put it together so that I could present this in a concise manner to the forum. I will be using one version the AV as I have found it to have all the verses of all versions in it, and the English words in the AV teach all the other versions translations.

As I shared in an earlier post if you are going to identify what type of literature you need to look at whole context. There is a way to tell if Luke 16 concerning Lazarus and the rich man is a parable and one must take into consideration the context of the Gospels themselves. Jesus taught two groups of people 1) his disciple and 2) everyone else.

One observation of the text I saw was that the last mention of Parable before the story in Luke 16 was found in Luke 15. And here is the verses

Luke15:1-3 ¶ Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

Then in Luke 16 we read

Luke 16:1 ¶ And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods

Now, is there a difference in how Jesus taught his disciples and everyone else?

We will need to look at the whole context of the gospels writings to discover if indeed he did. The first mention of Parables found in the New Testament is found in Matt 13 verse 3, and the fist mention of Parable is found in Matt 13:18. First mentions are important to grasp as they generally set up the meaning for any word or doctrine for Christians.

Another thing I should mention is that we need to be inductive in our reasoning and logic as to bring forth the truth just like a good defense or prosecuting attorney does to establish truth for their case. So from here we will be asking simple questions about the verses like who, what, when, where, why, which and how.

So lets look at those verses in Matthew 13.

Mt 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

So the first question that comes to mind is who is the them he is speaking to? Is the them everyone or is it a specific group?

Mt 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

When we look at the second use of the word parables we see that the them does not include the disciples of Jesus because it is the disciples that are asking the question.

Mt 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mt 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Here is Jesus answer and he too separates his disciples from the them. But we still do not know who the them is at this point but it is clear it does not include the disciples.

Mt 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Ok here is the fourth time the word parables is used and Jesus has Identified that the them is the multitude. And then in Luke 15:3 he identifies them a bit more specific

Luke15:1-3 ¶ Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

The them Jesus spoke parables too were the Publicans (tax collectors), sinners (all people) and the Pharisees (a religious elite), and the scribes (usually of the Priestly caste of the tribe of Levi, also know as lawyers).

In conclusion we see that Luke 15 the last mention of a parable before Luke 16:19-31 was speaking to the them. But in Luke 16:1 Jesus is no longer speaking to them he is speaking to his disciples.

Luke 16:1 ¶ And he said also unto his disciples, . . . .

So it can be logically deduced from the text that he was no longer speaking a parable when he got to Luke 16 because he did not teach them in parables but clearly taught them so they would know the mysteries of the kingdom.

To answer the question is Luke 16:19-31 a parable? The answer is No because he was speaking to his disciples of whom he did not teach in parables and that we can concluded via the Context of the whole Bible to determine the truth.

Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable by logically and inductively investigating the Bible to determine the facts.

edit on 14-12-2012 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 



I noticed earlier on that neither the Christians or those who don't believe the Bible were able to clearly show if Luke 16:19-31was or was not a Parable, it seemed that the posts progressed into nonsense and childish babble over personal opinion rather than established facts.


If a concept presented as a fact can be neither proven nor disproven, it should be disqualified as supporting evidence. Considering we're attempting to have a rational discussion, is that unreasonable?


Luke15:1-3 ¶ Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

The them Jesus spoke parables too were the Publicans (tax collectors), sinners (all people) and the Pharisees (a religious elite), and the scribes (usually of the Priestly caste of the tribe of Levi, also know as lawyers).

In conclusion we see that Luke 15 the last mention of parables before Luke 16:19-31 was speaking to the them. But in Luke 16:1 Jesus is not longer speaking to them he is speaking to his disciples.

Luke 16:1 ¶ And he said also unto his disciples, . . . .

So it can be logically deducted that from the text that he was no longer speaking a parable when he got to Luke 16 because he did not teach them in parables but clearly.


Can you prove that Jesus always stated his intentions before illustrating a parable? Was this a routine he followed? If not, then your argument is flawed.

edit on 14-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


look closely I am not adding to the the Bible or taking away from it I am merely using just the Bible verses. You can easily see if Jesus was consistent in this by following the cross references or better yet go through and read each gospel and record each time he taught both publicly and privately.

I am not arguing an opinion I am just simply looking at the text to determine fact that will inductively show the truth of any point in it.

I am not saying if the Bible is real or made up. I am using the Bible as it stands to prove truth. My opinion on whether it is true or not does not matter. what matters at this point is what does the Bible say in and of itself.

Anyone who wants to debate the Bible as I do must use the bible to debate from and not from opinion. this way no Christian can argue that it is my opinion they either have to believe it or reject it and the same goes for those who don't accept the bible.

edit on 14-12-2012 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 



I am not saying if the Bible is real or made up. I am using the Bible as it stands to prove truth. My opinion on whether it is true or not does not matter. what matters at this point is what does the Bible say in and of itself.

Anyone who wants to debate the Bible as I do must use the bible to debate from and not from opinion.


Using the Bible as it stands to prove truth is utterly pointless if the Bible is not truth. The rest of your post just exemplifies your incredibly naive idealism in using the Bible as proof, because the Bible is inadmissible as proof of its own validity. Or did you forget that part?

Well, if that's how you feel, good luck finding anyone to debate with you. There's no point debating with people who agree with you. But that's the point, isn't it? You only want to talk to people who agree so you don't have to think about what you're saying.
edit on 14-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Do you know that Luke never met Jesus?

How could he accurately recount an event that isn't in any of the other gospels? Where did he get this story and why wasn't recorded by the other, so called Apostle writers, Matthew, Mark and John?

Could it be that the writer of the book of Luke made some personal tweeks, taking some artistic leeway, to promote a personal interpretation as to the teachings of Jesus?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Do you know that Luke never met Jesus?

How could he accurately recount an event that isn't in any of the other gospels? Where did he get this story and why wasn't recorded by the other, so called Apostle writers, Matthew, Mark and John?

Could it be that the writer of the book of Luke made some personal tweeks, taking some artistic leeway, to promote a personal interpretation as to the teachings of Jesus?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I do believe I am being rational in this discussion not one thing I showed was irrational. I simply used logic and study to see.

Honestly I thought it was a parable until I studied it out. and now my opinion is changed because the Book shows by its own internal evidence (apart from my opinion) that it was not by the way he taught.

Read the sower in Matt 13 he parables it to the masses and then interprets it for the disciples. so yes he was consistent in the way he clearly taught his disciples and the multitude.

You see if we are going to argue their religion we must use their book. It doesn't mean we will be right every time it just means we are being logical and consistent in our debate with them using their authority.

and as you can see I am also being open minded
edit on 14-12-2012 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Do you know that Luke never met Jesus?

How could he accurately recount an event that isn't in any of the other gospels? Where did he get this story and why wasn't recorded by the other, so called Apostle writers, Matthew, Mark and John?

Could it be that the writer of the book of Luke made some personal tweeks, taking some artistic leeway, to promote a personal interpretation as to the teachings of Jesus?


That external fact cannot be proven either way. Luke was a contemporary of the disciples and Paul yes he could have seen and met Jesus there are a lot more disciples than the 12 apostles. Read through the New Testament again and you will see that this is true.

Ac 1:15 ¶ And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Using the Bible as it stands to prove truth is utterly pointless if the Bible is not truth.


No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that, if you want to argue about what the Bible says (regardless of whether what it says is true or not,) you have to confine yourself to that text, not interject an opinion.

In other words, if I was to say "It's a sunny day" and you wanted to argue about what I said, you're stuck with those words, you can't say "well, what I think he really meant was..." and whether it's really a sunny day or I'm lying and it's raining doesn't matter.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Those two books that you have cited, Acts, credited to Luke and Colossians, written supposedly by Paul, did not ever meet Jesus while he was alive.



St. Luke was born in Antioch. He was a gentile doctor who was a good and kind man. He heard about Jesus from the great apostle Paul and soon became a Christian.


Also, talking about witness who claim to have seen the "ghost of Jesus," after his death, is not the same as recounting the things he actually said and did when he alive.

Luke and Paul never met Jesus. Paul distorts and co-opts the teaching of Jesus for his own prideful gain.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 



I am not saying if the Bible is real or made up. I am using the Bible as it stands to prove truth. My opinion on whether it is true or not does not matter. what matters at this point is what does the Bible say in and of itself.

Anyone who wants to debate the Bible as I do must use the bible to debate from and not from opinion.


Using the Bible as it stands to prove truth is utterly pointless if the Bible is not truth. The rest of your post just exemplifies your incredibly naive idealism in using the Bible as proof, because the Bible is inadmissible as proof of its own validity. Or did you forget that part?

Well, if that's how you feel, good luck finding anyone to debate with you. There's no point debating with people who agree with you. But that's the point, isn't it? You only want to talk to people who agree so you don't have to think about what you're saying.
edit on 14-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


No, I was quite clear on what my point was to establish truth according to their Authority, the Bible. If their truth is not supported in their authority then if is proven to be false. This is the only way to debate with them.

I am open minded enough to allow them their belief without belittling them over it. and I am open minded enough to allow you your belief without belittling you.

Balanced and Just in my logic with whomever I hold a discussion with. I tire of endless debates over opinions so I have taken on a new line of reasoning with all.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
Paul distorts and co-opts the teaching of Jesus for his own prideful gain.


Where is Paul prideful and what did he gain? Apart from being beheaded for being a Christian, I mean.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Those two books that you have cited, Acts, credited to Luke and Colossians, written supposedly by Paul, did not ever meet Jesus while he was alive.



St. Luke was born in Antioch. He was a gentile doctor who was a good and kind man. He heard about Jesus from the great apostle Paul and soon became a Christian.


Also, talking about witness who claim to have seen the "ghost of Jesus," after his death, is not the same as recounting the things he actually said and did when he alive.

Luke and Paul never met Jesus. Paul distorts and co-opts the teaching of Jesus for his own prideful gain.


To say they never met Jesus with no proof is only a opinion. Can you prove they never met. and it is logical that Luke claims to have been there so he must have met him. I need to use the Bible because their is no historical facts concerning Luke outside of the Bible.

Lu 1:1 ¶ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

It seems Luke is saying from the very first he had understanding. He may not have been a constant follower of the three years of Jesus public ministry but it seems he had occasional seen him by the above text. and indeed some of it was delivered unto him by others. When Luke says, "me also" in verse 3 it is an identification that he too was an eyewitness not to all but of some of Jesus ministry.

Luke more than likely was one of the physicians that had incurred much harm on a widow of whom they had taken all he money in trying to cure her of plague.

Mr 5:25 And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,
26 And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,
27 When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment.
28 For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.
29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague.



edit on 14-12-2012 by ChesterJohn because: additional thought



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 



To say they never met Jesus with no proof is only a opinion. Can you prove they never met. and it is logical that Luke claims to have been there so he must have met him. I need to use the Bible because their is no historical facts concerning Luke outside of the Bible.


To say that "God" is real is only an opinion. I respect your right to have that opinion, as long as you admit it is nothing more than an opinion.

So what's your point? Your opinion is more credible than ours? Don't even go there. That's a can of worms you don't want to open.
edit on 14-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Those two books that you have cited, Acts, credited to Luke and Colossians, written supposedly by Paul, did not ever meet Jesus while he was alive.



St. Luke was born in Antioch. He was a gentile doctor who was a good and kind man. He heard about Jesus from the great apostle Paul and soon became a Christian.


Also, talking about witness who claim to have seen the "ghost of Jesus," after his death, is not the same as recounting the things he actually said and did when he alive.

Luke and Paul never met Jesus. Paul distorts and co-opts the teaching of Jesus for his own prideful gain.


If I am not mistaken their Bible does not say they saw a ghost.

See how easy it is for us to interject our opinions and not make a logical argument using their authority. You added your opinion that it is a ghost. You bring external opinions that have no basis of factual evidence and try to make it their authority. You will not win them by your lack of logical process and mere opinions you will only alienate them. show proof it was a ghost don't just make unsupported opinions and present them as fact.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 



To say they never met Jesus with no proof is only a opinion. Can you prove they never met. and it is logical that Luke claims to have been there so he must have met him. I need to use the Bible because their is no historical facts concerning Luke outside of the Bible.


To say that "God" is real is only an opinion. I respect your right to have that opinion, as long as you admit it is nothing more than an opinion.

So what's your point? Your opinion is more credible than ours? Don't even go there. That's a can of worms you don't want to open.
edit on 14-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


where did I say God is real?

Their authority says he is and if we are going to prove them wrong the only logical way is to find it in their authority not our opinions.

I will take this up later I must go to work

edit on 14-12-2012 by ChesterJohn because: exit note



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 



If I am not mistaken their Bible does not say they saw a ghost.

See how easy it is for us to interject our opinions and not make a logical argument using their authority. You added your opinion that it is a ghost. You bring external opinions that have no basis of factual evidence and try to make it their authority. You will not win them by your lack of logical process and mere opinions you will only alienate them. show proof it was a ghost don't just make unsupported opinions and present them as fact.


If anything describes the Bible, "logical process" doesn't even come close. Why don't you prove every conversation in the Bible, every claim made by every character, using logical processes? It's easy enough to prove the existence and time frame of people and places, but how about their conversations? Can you prove they weren't fabricated? Can you prove it was one person and not another who said it?

While we're on the subject of "logical processes", give me a good reason why Jesus doesn't have a gospel. Did they forget? Was it unworthy? Perhaps it got lost? Why in the world would the most pivotal character in one of the most sacred books in all of human history not have a gospel of his own? His disciples were diligent, his friends were diligent, his mother and father were diligent - according to the Bible, they were all diligent in recording these events. So where is the gospel of Jesus?

Answer all of these questions for me, via your "logical processes", if you would be so kind. Because logical processes are so easy, so clear-cut, where Christianity is concerned. It's a piece of cake, a walk in the park, it really is. There should be no confusion whatsoever, and a clearly built case of evidence incontrovertibly outlining exactly who said what and where, without a shadow of a doubt, laid in front of us in physical, real-time proof.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


What authority do they have? They've been dead for 2,000 years! Your argument basically comes down to "they say it's right so they HAVE to be right, logic doesn't matter, they say so so it is". Do you realize how silly that sounds?

The fact is, Paul's account of his meeting with Jesus is solely based on HIS word. No one claimed to see Jesus other than him. He was killing Christians up until he had his vision. Where there is a killer there is most likely a liar. Paul was a liar who came out of left field somewhere and started dictating the rules. If Jesus really did choose Paul he made a piss-poor choice because Paul was a VERY sinful man when he took over.

Are you going to take a killers word for it? The fact he killed Christians before having his vision should send up a red flag immediately, not to mention him going on to dictate what Jesus meant after never even meeting him in person. Do those things not seem suspicious to you at all?
edit on 14-12-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Have you ever heard of the Q source? It's one half of the two-source theory which implies that Matthew and Luke were both based on Mark and another unknown source called Q. This Q source could be the original account by Jesus himself, the one that they destroyed to keep the true story buried.

It's also possible that Mark is completely based off of this Q source as well so Jesus' account could be the one all the others were based on so that's a pretty good reason to destroy it if you are editing the story.
edit on 14-12-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-12-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Here's a start.


1 Corinthians 4:15
For you can have 10,000 instructors in Christ, but you can't have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.


How is Paul's death any more or less dramatic that the 10's of 1000's of men and women who were killed during the Jewish wars, at the same time in history?

There was a purge going on, and Paul wan't exempt.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join