Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Frankly I don't know what "life" means precisely. Life everlasting
    is totally beyond my comprehension.
    
    			Alfred

    Jeepers, Alfred!  I like your honesty.
    
    I don't have any concept of it either.
    
    All I can really try to understand is life *now*.  
    
    Life everlasting....that's some Energizer bunny, eh?
    
    Ruth

Daniel 12:2  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth
shall awake, some to �everlasting� �life,� and some to shame [and]
�everlasting� contempt.

John 3:16-17  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have �everlasting� �life.�  For God sent not his Son
into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him
might be saved.

John 3:36  He that believeth on the Son hath �everlasting� �life:� and
he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath
of God abideth on him.

John 4:14  But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give
him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him
shall be in him a well of water springing up into �everlasting�
�life.�

John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
and believeth on him that sent me, hath �everlasting� �life,� and
shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto
�life.�

John 6:27  Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that
meat which endureth unto �everlasting� �life,� which the Son of man
shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

John 6:40  And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one
which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have �everlasting�
�life:� and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me
hath �everlasting� �life.�
6:48  I am that bread of life.

John 12:50  And I know that his commandment is �life� �everlasting:�
whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me,
so I speak.

Romans 6:22-23  But now being made free from sin, and become servants to
God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end �everlasting�
�life.�  For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God
[is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Galations 6:8-9  For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap
corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap
�life� �everlasting.�  And let us not be weary in well doing: for in
due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

I Timothy 1:16  Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me
first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a
pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to �life�
�everlasting.�

    This is a philosopher question and philosophy was never one of my
    better subjects. Though I think it's something one gets better at
    with age. 

    My belief has long been that once we've done our time on earth there
    are two options. Those who are part of the Body of Christ will live
    on with God. This is the context that "life" gets confusing. Or rather
    too metaphysical for me to handle. In any case I assume it means that
    we (in what ever sense we exist at that point) are with God. Though 
    I'm not sure what that involves I believe it to be much better than
    the alternative.

    Option two is not being with God. This I'm not sure about either. But
    if God is good and closeness to God/good is good then I believe that
    separation from God/good is bad. The greater the separation the worse
    it gets. After death I believe the separation from God would be greater
    than it is now. This, quite frankly, is something I'd rather not have
    to face.

    I'm not sure that concepts of good/bad pain/pleasure map quite one to
    one with our earthly understanding of them. But given a choice I'll
    try good.

    			Alfred

    Just to state the obvious, I believe that there is one passage after
    life on earth. Not multiple visits to earth. There may or may not
    be a hiatus period between earth and after earth. If there is I believe
    that we will be unaware of the passage of this time so it is of no
    consequence. There is a theory of limbo which is an eternity in this
    hiatus state. I do not subscribe to it but it's not critical to my
    philosophy.

    Also there is the theory of purgatory which is a state of punishment
    for a set period of time before moving on to be with God. I do not
    subscribe to this theory either as it seems contradictory with the
    notion of complete forgiveness.

    			Alfred

    everlasting = eternal
    
    Nancy

Note 768.6

>    everlasting = eternal
    
Nancy,

	�Quien sabe?  Maybe you've got it.  Joseph Campbell made a
differentiation between "everlasting" and "eternal."  But what does
he know?  He's off following his bliss somewhere, I suppose.

	Now I must ask you this.  Are you assuming "everlasting life"
and/or "eternal life" refers explicitly to a condition which occurs
after death?

Paz y bueno,
Richard

re .0

	To us human's life everlasting would mean freedom from death.

	It would also mean one would have accurate knowledge of Jehovah
	and Jesus Christ - John 17:3.

	Those who will experience life everlasting would expect God to
	change or bring to an end this current system of things. For
	no one would want to live forever in the conditions and
	suffering that mankind currently experiences. There are many
	prophecies in the Bible that have yet to be fulfilled, where
	Jehovah God promises to bring an end to war and usher in peace
	(Psalms 46:9; Ezekiel 34:25-27), end to homelessness and famine 
	(Psalm 67:6;72:16 Isaiah 65:21,22), all persons united in worship 
	(Isaiah 11:9,54:5,66:23), even the animal kingdom will live in 
	peace with one another (Isaiah 11:6-9, Hosea 2:18). If you take 
	time to look up these Scriptures you will see that they have their
	fulfillment is here on the earth, showing that not all persons who
	will experience life everlasting will be in the heavens (Psalms
	37:9-11;34, Proverbs 2:21,22). In fact those anointed ones who 
	receive a heavenly calling were called a "little flock" by Jesus 
	(Luke 12:32) and have a purpose of ruling as kings (over the earth) 
	and priests in the heavenly realm (Revelation 5:9,10;20:6). The
	term "little flock" implies a select few who receive a heavenly
	resurrection, the majority of righteous mankind will enjoy a
	paradise earth.

	Some food for thought for those who feel that heaven is all there
	is. As Psalm 145:16 NWT reads "You are opening your hand, And
	satisfying the desire of every living thing." A grand future
	for all living creatures, not just humans.

	Phil.  

>	term "little flock" implies a select few who receive a heavenly
>	resurrection, the majority of righteous mankind will enjoy a
>	paradise earth.


        Luke 12:32 implies no such thing any more than John 21:15-17 implies
        that Peter is to spend his remaining time on earth  feeding sheep.
        Salvation is by faith, there are no "select few" apart from those
        who have accepted Christ by faith.






        Jim

RE .9

	Jim,

	You may feel that way but when you read John 10:16 you will
	see that there are two groups for Jesus mentions "And I have
	other sheep not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they
	will heed my voice." This other group is not of the same fold
	as the "little flock" "not of this fold", so who are they?. 
	What part do the play? Will the second group experience the
	same salvation as the first?

	Further Scriptures that indicate that the number of the 
	"little flock" is limited are found in Revelation 6:11 &
	Romans 11:25. 

	In my previous reply, I mentioned that the Bible indicates that
	those who are resurrected to the heavenly realm will fulfill the 
	purpose as kings over the earth (Revelation 5:9,10; 20:6). Over 
	whom will they rule? And with the blessings that come from such 
	rule, would not the subjects on earth see salvation in that they
	see a realisation of God's promises for a paradise earth (see 
	previous reply) and an end to the conditions we see today.

	Phil.

re .9

	Jim,

	What I'm trying to say is that salvation from a Biblical view
	does not neccessarily mean one will be resurrected to heaven.
	Though some will experience this.

	Remember God's original purpose for Adam & Eve was to full
	the earth with righteous offspring and subdue it (Genesis 1:28)
	and thus extend the boundaries of the garden of Eden. That purpose 
	of a paradise earth still has to be fulfilled, as God promises in
	Isaiah 55:11 it will not return with out results.

	I am sure the ones that live in such a paradise earth will see the
	salvation of Jehovah God.

	Phil. 

>	You may feel that way but when you read John 10:16 you will
>	see that there are two groups for Jesus mentions "And I have
>	other sheep not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they
>	will heed my voice." This other group is not of the same fold
>	as the "little flock" "not of this fold", so who are they?. 

        Little flock is merely the term being used to address the people
        to whom Jesus was speaking.  The other sheep are the gentiles as
        is clear in the context of John 10:16.


>	What part do the play? Will the second group experience the
>	same salvation as the first?

        Of course they will.  The gentiles received salvation by grace
         through faith just like the Jews who believed.

>	Further Scriptures that indicate that the number of the 
>	"little flock" is limited are found in Revelation 6:11 &
>	Romans 11:25. 

        I don't see anything in either of those passages that would
        indicate what you are saying.

	


     Jim

RE:    <<< Note 768.10 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>
                            -< Kings need subjects >-



>	You may feel that way but when you read John 10:16 you will
>	see that there are two groups for Jesus mentions "And I have
>	other sheep not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they
>	will heed my voice." This other group is not of the same fold
>	as the "little flock" "not of this fold", so who are they?. 

        You neglected to complete the passage in John 10:16 which states 
        "..and there shall be one fold, and one shepard"  So,  to enter the
        complete passage (KJV) "And other sheep I have, which are not of this
        fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there
        shall be one fold, and one sheperd"  Clearly He is talking about the
        gentiles who would later be brought into the fold.



       Jim

re .12

>	Further Scriptures that indicate that the number of the 
>	"little flock" is limited are found in Revelation 6:11 &
>	Romans 11:25. 

;        I don't see anything in either of those passages that would
;        indicate what you are saying.

	For the benefit of those reading this note string, Revelation 6:11
	RSV is rendered:

	"Then they were each given white robes and told to rest a little
	longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their
	brethren should be complete, who were to be killed as they
	themselves had been."

	Those who are given white robes are Christ's brothers in the
	heavenly realm, they are told to rest until the rest of their 
	number is complete. This indicates to me that the number of
	Christ's brothers (little flock) is indeed limited.

	Romans 11:25 RSV is reandered:

	"Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand
	this mystery, bretheren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel,
	until the full number of the Gentiles come in,"

	The number of "Gentiles to come in" is limited.

	Phil.

re .13

	Jim,

>	You may feel that way but when you read John 10:16 you will
>	see that there are two groups for Jesus mentions "And I have
>	other sheep not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they
>	will heed my voice." This other group is not of the same fold
>	as the "little flock" "not of this fold", so who are they?. 

;You neglected to complete the passage in John 10:16 which states 
;"..and there shall be one fold, and one shepard"  So,  to enter the
;complete passage (KJV) "And other sheep I have, which are not of this
;fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there
;shall be one fold, and one sheperd"  Clearly He is talking about the
;gentiles who would later be brought into the fold.

	This passage is talking about two different folds that will 
	become one fold under one sheperd. You may feel that Jesus
	was refering to the Gentiles, but where the Gentiles ever
	known as another of Jesus' fold's prior to the invitation 
	going to the Gentile nations?. Which Scripture will help us 
	to see where this other fold comes from?. 

	Matthew 25:31-46 talks about the separating of the "sheep" and
	the "goats". This separating work is to take place long after
	the invitation went out to the Gentiles, in fact it is to take
	place during Christ's second coming when he is present in
	kingdom power. If you look closely at Jesus' words the judgement
	is based on how persons in all nations respond to or treat 
	Christ's brothers (little flock) "'Truly, I say to you, as you
	did it to one of the least of these my brethern, you did it to
	me'" (verse 40,45). This parable of the sheep and the goats,
	indicate who the two folds are, for the second fold only become
	sheep because of their positive response to the first fold that
	is Christ's brothers.

	They become "one fold, one sheperd" in that the second fold
	recognises Jesus Christ as their leader and are also obedient 
	in heeding his voice to follow. Something else, other than
	being of the Gentile nations must separate these two groups.
	For the gathering of the second fold takes place "When the
	Son of man comes in his glory," Matthew 25:31 RSV long after
	the time when the Gentiles where in invited to join the 
	Christian congregation. In fact, Christ's brothers in this
	parable would include those that have come from the Gentile 
	nations.


	Phil.

I think it's kind of strange that there have been so few direct answers
to the basenote question.

It seems there may be more interest in who gets in on life everlasting
than what it means to have life everlasting.  If you don't know what it
means, how do you know it's something you want?  Just because it sounds
nice?  If you can't say with any certainty, isn't it like buying a pig
in a poke?  (an expression meaning purchasing something without benefit
of prior inspection)

Does "life everlasting" mean never dying?  Does it mean experiencing some
afterlife upon physical death?  Or does it mean, after some unrevealed
interval of time, those who have been dead come to life again?  Does it
mean something else?
    
Peace,
Richard

John 3:17  For God sent not his Son into the �world� to condemn the
�world;� but that the �world� through him might be �saved.�

The notion of a disembodied spirit going to dwell in some heavenly realm
upon physical death has apparently come to us as the result of post-biblical
Greek philosophy.  This is not to say that the seeds for such a notion
cannot be found within the canon, if one searches far enough.  But then,
the seeds of support for just about anything can be found in the Bible if
one looks far enough.

However, since it turns out that commonly-held notions of an afterlife
are largely non-biblical, it may or may not cause some to rethink their
thinking about what concepts such as "being saved" and "everlasting life"
actually mean.

Peace,
Richard

re .17

While I will agree with you that notions of the current state of those
who have died (i.e. from death until the end of all time) is what we call
"speculative theology", there is no question that Jesus taught that the
dead would be resurrected:

	For the hour is coming when all who are in their graves
	will hear his voice and will come out -- those who have
	done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who
	have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.      John 5:28b-29

	This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see
	the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and
	I will raise them up on the last day.			  John 6:40

    .18  Indeed, the resurrection of the dead is not the same as the
    commonly held notion of souls of the deceased being transported
    to heaven (or hell), as depicted in popular films such as "Heaven
    Can Wait."
    
    Funny, I don't recall you chiming in on 767, which is the springboard
    from whence this topic came.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

>    Funny, I don't recall you chiming in on 767, which is the springboard
>    from whence this topic came.

Well, if you think that's funny, you missed the best part.  Thanks for
chiming in with that one.

/john

re .16

Richard,

Your right to say that one needs to have an informed choice when it comes
to life everlasting. If one wants to be independent of God then life 
everlasting is certainly not for them. The Scriptures are illustrative
regarding the goal of life everlasting and show it as a life course
or opportunity one must take up. For example, in the famous sermon on the 
mount Jesus said "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide that leads
to destruction, and those who enter it are many. For the gate is narrow 
and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those that find it are few."
Jesus here showed that not many would take up the opportunity (that is
go through the narrow gate) of an invitation to life everlasting and also
that the way would be hard for those that travelled along it's route. One 
certainly would have to weigh up the costs before making such a decision.

You asked some pointed questions, time permiting I'll try and answer
some during the lunch breaks this week. But, I'm also interested in
what you think are the answers to your own questions. 

In the meantime here are some thoughts on what life everlasting means from 
a Biblical viewpoint, to those who will experience it:

 - One would have to tap into source of life. The only person who supplies 
   life everlasting is Almighty God, looking to any other source would be 
   in vain. So one would not want to pin ones hopes with the scientists,
   as though they might come up with the elixir of life. As the Psalmist 
   wrote "For with you is the source of life; by light from you we can see 
   light." 36:9, the rest are in the dark. 

 - It means having Godly fear, those exhibiting it would not want to 
   displease him in anyway (rather like a father/son relationship).

   Proverbs 9:10,11 RSV "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
   and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. For by me your days
   will be multiplied, and years will be added to your life."

 - It means being teachable, loyal and faithful.

   Proverbs 3:1-6 RSV "My son, do not forget my teaching, but let your
   heart keep my commandments; for length of days and years of life
   and abundant welfare will they give you. Let not loyalty and faithfulness
   foresake you; bind them about your neck, write them on the tablet of your
   heart. So you will find favour and good repute in the sight of God and 
   man. Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own 
   insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your
   paths."

 - It means to be willing to take discipline.

   Proverbs 6:23 RSV "For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a 
   light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life,"

   
 - It means being obedient.

   Proverbs 8:32-35 RSV "And now, my sons, listen to me: happy are those who
   keep my ways. Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it. Happy 
   is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside
   my doors. For he who finds me finds life and obtains favour from the 
   LORD.;"

 - It means righteousness (as God views righteousness).

   Proverbs 12:28 RSV "In the path of righteousness is life, but the way of
   error leads to death."

 - It means taking in knowledge.

   John 17:3 RSV "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only 
   true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."


 Obviously the Bible has alot more to say on what life everlasting means,
 perhaps some could share this.

 Phil.

John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have �everlasting� �life.� (KJV)

Oh, how it seems some would have us hinge our entire faith on this one verse!
And oh, for a dime for every time I've seen a reference to this verse on
license plates, Notes p_ns, placards held up during televised sports, tattoos,
walls of restroom stalls, and margins of library books!  Why, the very rocks
and trees are defaced with it: John 3:16, John 3:16! JOHN 3:16!!

Does anybody ever tell you what this verse's tantalizing carrot-on-the-stick,
"have everlasting life," actually means?

Moreover, does anybody ever emphasize the equally important next verse?

John 3:17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
world; but that the world through him might be saved. (KJV)

Christ is more than a personal Savior.

Peace,
Richard

  John 3:18-20 make interesting reading when read in context with John 3:16-17.
  Actually , I believe one should read all of John 3 to get the context, and
  verse 36 sorta sums things up.





 Jim

    .23  So, Jim, are you prepared to define for us "everlasting life"?
    
    Richard
    

 I believe that "everlasting life" is just that.  Life that will not
end..lasts for ever.  When does it occur?  For many of us we will one
day close our eyes in death and awake in God's presence.  For some of
us we may be alive at the time Jesus says "come up hither" and be present
with him forever without experiencing death.  At some point some of us
will stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ and receive our heavenly
rewards.  Some, however will at some point stand before God at the Great
White Throne Judgement and attempt to plead their cases with whatever
excuse they had for rejecting Him in this life.


Either way, everlasting life will either be in His presence, or in Hell..



Jim

Fair enough, Jim, .25,

As for me, at my present stage of spiritual growth and knowledge, I
cannot say what "everlasting life" is -- except to say that I believe
it means somehow being tethered to that which is endless and infinite,
that which was before the universe was formed and which will continue
after the universe collapses.

I don't believe it means being transported to a place called Heaven
upon our death where we'll be reunited with Aunt Bertha, who suffered so
before she died, and whose death we still grieve.  I don't believe it
means going to a place where Peter stands at a set of pearly gates, keys
in hand, ready to welcome the faithful and the righteous or otherwise
to dismiss new arrivals to the custody of his neighbor downstairs, Satan.

Shalom,
Richard

Just what, then, did Jesus mean when he said that he would raise us up on
the last day?

/john

 As I continue in a study of Revelation at my church, I am beginning to 
 understand that the next life won't be just standing around singing and
 yakking it up with the folks who've gone before (I used to view it that
 way).  I believe we will have responsibilities in the next life, based
 on our accomplishments in the cause of Christ in this life.


 I personally look forward to a reunion with my mother, hopefully my father,
 the children my now former wife and I lost early in her pregnancies and 
 my grandmother who I know prayed for me for a loooooong time.

 Do I understand it all?  No, of course not.  I know my sense of urgency for
 my lost friends and family increased significantly this past week as we 
 read the last verse in Revelation 21, and as my pastor talked about his
 step father who recently died rejecting Christ until he slipped into a coma.


 

 Jim

    .27  I, for one, do not have sufficient grounds to be able to say
    exactly what Jesus meant, John.  I'm happy for you if you feel you
    do.  And I'm glad your faith conforms so completely to an unbroken
    line of church teachings.  I suppose I am doubly handicapped for not
    being so inclined myself.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

O Saving Victim! opening wide			O salutaris hostia
The gate of heaven to man below,		Quae caeli pandis ostium,
Our foes press on from every side,		Bella premunt hostilia,
Thine aid supply, thy strength bestow.		Da robur, fer auxilium.

All praise and thanks to thee ascend		Uni trinoque Domino,
For evermore, blest One in Three;		Sit sempiterna gloria:
O grant us life that shall not end,		Qui vitam sine termino
In our true native land with thee.  Amen.	Nobis donet in patria.

re .25

	Jim,

	Your following comment caught my eye:

;Either way, everlasting life will either be in His presence, or in Hell..

	The Bible tells us that that life is a gift from God, for example
	Romans 6:23 RSV is rendered "For the wages of sin is death, but
	the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

	Now why would God give the gift of life to those who reject it?.
	Why would he give a gift of life to those who are disobedient 
	or lawless?

	From my viewpoint, when a gift is offered the recipient must
	accept it so as to benefit from it. If a person rejects God's
	free gift of life, then he is rejecting life itself.

	Life is not something that will be forced on persons, it will
	be given to those who are willing to accept it including all 
	that everlasting life means. 

	Phil.

 Why would Luke 16:19-31 clearly show us that there is a place where
 those who refuse God's gift wind up?





Jim

re .32

Jim,

Does the account of the rich man & Lazurus show us that there is a fiery
hell?. This account is a parable that the Pharisees were listening to,
very likely it was directed at them (verse 14). From what I remember, the
rich man respresented the religious leaders of Jesus' time. Decked in
purple and linen enjoying their superior position in soceity (verse 19).
Lazurus represented the poor common people (verse 20,21) whom Jesus had 
spoken of as "skinned without a sheperd" Matthew 9:36. I would need to
do some more research to fully explain the parable.

Matthew 13:34,35 NWT gives good reason for believing that this account
of the rich man & Lazurus is indeed a parable. It is rendered "All
these things Jesus spoke to the crowds by illustrations. Indeed, 
without an illustration he would not speak to them; that there might
be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet who said: 'I will
open my mouth with illustrations, I will publish things hidden since
the founding."

I understand that many do not see the rich man & Lazurus account as a 
parable, but if this is true then this account begs the following 
questions:

Do all rich men go to hell?

Will the poor and the beggars be the only ones whom go to heaven?.

Those in hell can see those in heaven? and vice versa.

Jim, how does this account help you to see who goes to hell & heaven and
why?. In other words what do you gleam from this account apart from there
being a fiery hell?.

From my own perspective there is a hell but it is not fiery. 

Phil. 

    .33
    
    
    In Jesus' parables names are not mentioned.  In this case, Christ
    identified Lazarus which lends to the belief that it is an accounting of,
    not an example of...
    

    .32
    
    Luke 16:19-31 does not demonstrate the consequences for refusing
    God's gift, if you're referring to everlasting life or salvation.
    The rich man in Jesus' story was reaping what he had sown in
    selfishness.
    
    Is this the same Lazarus whom Jesus raised from death?  Maybe.  Maybe
    not.
    
    Luke is the only one to provide us with this account, which does
    in many ways appear to be a parable, that is, an extended metaphor.
    No one knows where Luke got this material from.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

.34

	Nancy,

	If Lazurus was a real person, then who was he?.

	From what I recall there is no account in the Gospels of Jesus' 
	friend Lazurus dieing again after his resurrection, though no 
	doubt he did sometime later. The Pharisees did however want
	Lazurus to be killed as well as Jesus.

	Who was the rich man?.

	How do you reconcile Matthew 13:34,35?.

	Also if this was a real account, then is it true that those in
	heavean & hell can see each other as well as communicate?.


	Phil.

    .37
    
    Well can't answer all of your questions right now, but the one thing
    that leaped out at me was that Rich man saw Jesus.  I believe those
    that refuse Christ will face him and see him as the one whom they
    rejected.  Doesn't mean it'd last forever.
    
    How do you reconcile "And those that were not written in the book of
    life, were cast into the Lake of Fire" ?

    .38
    
>    Well can't answer all of your questions right now, but the one thing
>    that leaped out at me was that Rich man saw Jesus.
    
    Er..uh, Nancy, I just read Luke 16.19-31 a couple of times through
    and it doesn't say the rich man saw Jesus.  Are you saying Abraham
    and Jesus are one in the same?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .38
    
    Guess I need to re-read the account before I comment, huh? :-)
    
    No I don't think they're one and the same.

 So what is the purpose of parables?  If the parable of Lazarus and the 
 rich man are not to be taken literally, how about the Good Samaritan?
 Since few of us are from Samaria are we off the hook as far as being kind
 to others?  Are only those who feed swine eligable to be welcomed back into
 the loving arms of our fathers?



 Jim

    .40
    
    No sweat, Nancy. :-}
    
    I've done the same thing myself on many occasions.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

RE .41

Jim,

;So what is the purpose of parables? 

Jesus used them as a way of teaching.

;If the parable of Lazarus and the rich man are not to be taken literally,
;how about the Good Samaritan?

This is the point I'm trying to make, parables are an aid to teaching.
The parable of the good Samaritan is not something one should take 
literally, as in the points you make. Jesus quoted the Good Samaritan
parable in answer to a question "Who is my Neighbour?", by the end of 
the parable the person who had asked understood who was his neighbour
in regard to the command "You must love your neighbour" and in what 
way such love is expressed.

Yesterday, I said that Lazurus represented the common people. Well
after doing some research, on the train to work this morning, I
found that I was wrong. The poor beggar Lazurus represented the
common people including harlots and tax collectors who had repented
and had come to accept Jesus. The rich man represented the Pharisees
and Scribes, as class of people they loved money and prominence before
men they also had flattering titles (Matthew 23:5-7). They looked down
on the common people calling them an "accursed people" (Luke 18:11,12;
John 7:47-49).

Jesus showed that the repentent ones would receive divine favour were
as the Religious leaders of his time would lose out (Matthew 21:32,32).

In the parable, the droppings from the table or crumbs, symbolize that
at one time the now repentant ones had looked to Pharisees for spiritual
insight, for the slightest crumb as it were. Jesus now fills their
spiritual need.  

The persons in parable are not literally dead but two classes of people.
Hence their death is symbolic, often the Bible uses death symbolically
such as those who do things contrary to God's will are spoken of as
"being dead in trespasses and sins" but when they repent and change 
thus coming into an approved state the are referred to as coming "alive"
(Ephesians 2:1,5; Colossians 2:13 compare Romans 6:11)

In this parable the class represented by Lazurus symbolically die to their
previous "disfavoured position" being replaced by one of "divine favour". 
Evidence of this is seen in Pentecost 33 CE in the out pouring of God's
holy spirit. The Pharisees die from their former position of being
seemingly favourable to one of disfavour. Remaining unrepentant they open 
up a "great chasm" between Jesus' disciples and themselves. They have 
"Moses and the prophets" to point them to the Messiah, but still they do 
not accept Jesus whom God had sent. In the parable the class representing 
the rich man request the following ,to help them to escape from their 
position, "No indeed, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to 
them they will repent." in reply they were told "If they do not listen to 
Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises 
from the dead." This was proved true when Jesus was resurrected from the 
dead, apart from a few, the majority of Pharisees and Scribes still 
rejected him. 

There is alot more to this parable, but too much to relate at this moment.
The research material I used was a book called "Is THIS LIFE all there is?"
chapter 12, published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Soceity. But they
are not the only ones who see this as a parable. A footnote to Luke chapter
16, in the Catholic Jerusalem Bible reads "parable in story form without
reference to any historical personage." Also if someone has a copy of 
"The Interpreter's Bible" , please would they care to share it's 
understanding of Jesus' parable of the rich man & Lazurus.

Jim, if this account is a parable then understanding it is important. For
it will be an important teaching for Jesus' disciples today, just as
the teaching that comes from the parable of the Goood Samaritan.

Phil.

re .37

	Nancy,

	My last reply may help in helping in understanding this parable.

;How do you reconcile "And those that were not written in the book of
;life, were cast into the Lake of Fire" ?

	The lake of Fire, is interpretted as meaning eternal destruction.
	Those and the things that enter never return. For example,
	death is mentioned as being tossed into the lake of Fire. 
	In Revelation 21:3,4 we understand this to mean that death will
	be no more it has passed away, after this period of time it 
	will never return to plague mankind. 

	Remember, also that Death and Hades are tossed into the lake of
	Fire. To say that these will be tormented in a fiery hell is
	meaningless. Therefore the lake of Fire must be symbolic of
	something.

	So those who are cast into the Lake of Fire will cease to exist,
	just as death and Hades will no longer exist.

	Understanding what Gehenna meant to the Jews during Jesus' time
	on the earth will help one to understand why the fire illustrates
	destruction.

	Phil. 

    
    Fire, in other religions, has its meaning as 'purification', and
    not necessarily 'destruction' in the way that we typically think
    of it (atomic bombs and napalm, etc.)
    
    Therefore, it's possible that the lake of fire in this case could
    mean the way of ultimate purification - burning off the dross, so 
    to speak.
    
    Cindy
    

    Here, as in the afterlife, this buring and purification can be
    *mighty* painful...  Probably better not get messed up to begin
    with.

    Tom

RE:    <<< Note 768.44 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>
   
.	The lake of Fire, is interpretted as meaning eternal destruction.

        By whom?


.	Remember, also that Death and Hades are tossed into the lake of
.	Fire. To say that these will be tormented in a fiery hell is

       Remember also that the Beast and the False Prophet were tossed into
       the lake of fire where they shall be tormented day and night
       forever, the same lake of fire into which those who's name is not
       written in the book of life will go.       




 Jim

RE:    <<< Note 768.43 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>
   

.Jim, if this account is a parable then understanding it is important. For
.it will be an important teaching for Jesus' disciples today, just as
.the teaching that comes from the parable of the Goood Samaritan.


 What is the teaching that comes from the Parable of the Good Samaritan?

re .47

	Jim,

.	The lake of Fire, is interpretted as meaning eternal destruction.

;        By whom?

	As you know I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I'm not sure if any
	other group interprets it likewise.

;       Remember also that the Beast and the False Prophet were tossed into
;       the lake of fire where they shall be tormented day and night
;       forever, the same lake of fire into which those who's name is not
;       written in the book of life will go.       


	Could you tell me if the Beast and the False Prophet literal 
	or symbolic? from your viewpoint.

	I could comment on the term "tormented day and night forever" in
	this verse. But I would only do so if you are truly interested, for
	it would take sometime to formulate a response.

	Phil.

re .48

	Jim,

; What is the teaching that comes from the Parable of the Good Samaritan

	To help me respond, do you yourself believe that Jesus was
	teaching something in this parable? If so, would you share
	your own thoughts.

	I'm about to go home but I'll think about this overnight.

	Phil. 

RE:    <<< Note 768.50 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>


>; What is the teaching that comes from the Parable of the Good Samaritan

>	To help me respond, do you yourself believe that Jesus was
>	teaching something in this parable? If so, would you share
>	your own thoughts.



 I'd be happy to share my own thoughts, once you have shared yours.
 And yes, I do believe He was teaching something in this parable as he
 was in all of his parables.

 

 Jim

RE .51

 Jim,
 
 Ok, the parable of the good Samaritan is extremely relevant to this
 topic. A man versed in the Mosaic Law asked Jesus, "'Teacher, what shall 
 I do to inherit eternal life?' He said to him  'What is written in 
 the Law? How do you read?' And he answered, ' You shall love the Lord
 your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your
 strength, and with all your mind; and your neightbour as yourself.'
 And he said to him 'You have answered right; do this, and you will live.'
 But he desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, 'And who is my
 neighbour?' Luke 25-29 RSV

 Jesus now goes onto to relate the parable of the Good Samaritan. For
 one to understand why Jesus used a Samaritan in his parable, one has
 to understand how the Jews felt about Samaritan people in general.
 The Jews had very strong rooted predujices against the Samaritans,
 in fact it was so strong that some prayed daily in the synogogues that 
 Samaritans would not be given everlasting life. So by showing in the
 parable that it was the Samaritan who should mercy to a Jew, Jesus
 was illustrating to the Jew neighbourly love would extend to non-Jews.

 Many people today find it difficult to show neighbourly love to ethnic
 groups not of their own, but Jesus was teaching that such strong feelings
 must be and can be overcome. The answer is to look at people the way
 God & Jesus does. The account in John 4:4-42 showed that Jesus had no
 anti-Samaritan sentiments, in fact the woman at the well found this
 remarkable, for she asked "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink from 
 me a woman of Samaria?" John 4:9 RSV Normally Jews would have no dealings
 with Samaritans (see rest of verse 9). 

 Jesus' disciples where from Jewish origin would have to overcome their 
 deep-seated predujices against the Samaritans, and those of the Gentile 
 nations whom they would have a greater revulsion for, as they went out 
 to fulfill their commision of preaching/teaching to all the nations 
 (Matthew 28:19,20). As Peter said in Acts 10:34,35 "I percieve that God 
 is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works 
 rightousness is acceptable to him."  By looking at persons through God's 
 eyes they would see that all persons, who would listen, are deserving to 
 receive the good news message. Even in the face of persecution Paul did 
 not allow such opposition to embitter him such as to give up from preaching 
 to the peoples of other nations.

 So one might ask oneself, does my congregation cultivate love of
 neighbour for all ethnic groups or does it have predujices?.

 As a Jehovah Witness, I experience neighbourly love from my spiritual
 brother no matter what is background. I can visit any congregation
 anywhere in the world and be welcomed, Jehovah's Witnesses can be found 
 in some 229 lands. I know that my spiritual brother will not allow
 ethnic conflicts to rob him of the warm fellowship that we can enjoy.

 All persons are deserving of neighbourly love, however not all will accept
 it because of the strong predujices that they hold. But that is not to say
 that one should allow this to make one similar, rather the example one
 should use in moulding oneself is that of Jesus Christ.

 Ofcourse there is more to understand from this parable but hopefully
 this reply will help.

 Phil. 

 btw the idea for the content of this reply came from the September 15th
 Watchtower main article.

 I see..so some parables we take literally (like the Good Samaratan) and some
 we take figuratively (such as Luke 16..the Rich man and Lazarus)?




 Jim

    .53  Jim, I don't think that's what Phil is saying at all.
    
    Parables are extended metaphors, and as such, were widely used as
    a teaching tool by rabbis in the time of Jesus.  Parables were used
    to explain deeper truths than might be possible through the mere stating
    of facts.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

RE:    <<< Note 768.54 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "War is costly, Peace priceless" >>>

   > .53  Jim, I don't think that's what Phil is saying at all.
    
     It would seem to me that Mr Yerkess is asking us to accept the teaching
     on the Good Samaritan pretty much as it is stated..there is a clear point
     to it, it represents an event that could happen in the lives of each of us.
     The teaching of the prodigal son in Luke 15 likewise teaches us something
     that can happen in our lives and certainly must have happened in the times
     Jesus was on the earth..in fact, I believe if we were to look at each of
     the parables that Jesus taught, have application to our lives and are
     events that took place while Jesus was on earth..So it would seem to me
     that if that is consistent with all the parables, then we must also accept
     that Luke 16 is teaching us something that can be applied to our lives and
     that there is indeed conscious existance after death...if not, what is the
     purpose of Luke 16?


   

 Jim

re .55

	Jim,

	BTW it is Mr Burnett-Yerkess, but you were not to know that. I don't
	mind being referred to as Phil and hope you are not offended by
	me calling you Jim and not Mr Henderson. I would understand if you
	would prefer to called by your surname rather than your christian
	name. You seem to agree with what I wrote about the understanding
	of the Good Samaritan parable and to reiterate Jesus' words,
	by obeying these two commands that is love God and neighbour,
	"do this, and you will live." Luke 10:25-29 RSV

	
	I agree with you that the parable of the Good Samaritan could,
	in fact does, represent events that happen to us as individuals.
	From Jesus' parable the important part appears to be recognising
	the one who is showing neighbourly love and following that model. 
	This is seen in Jesus' question to the Jew versed in the Law, 
	"Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbour to the
	man who fell among robbers?" his reply was "The one who showed
	mercy on him." and Jesus said to him, "Go and and do likewise."
	Luke 10:36-37 RSV

	I have been told that I have a vivid imagination and was thinking
	that this parable could be seen in a spiritual sense and not
	just a physical one. Today we live with in a world that is in 
	darkness spiritually, a certain person is robbing persons of their
	spirituality and hence morals decline while crime and greediness
	increases (Compare 2 Corinthians 4:4). The Levite and the priest
	respresent those who should be sheperding their flock and helping
	in a spiritual sense those that have been robbed. But ignore the
	sorrowful state of the one liying the road and pass on the other
	side, thus ignoring their obligation to help their flock. The
	Good Samaritan (hated by most, especially the priest and Levite) 
	is someone who observes the spiritually robbed condition of those 
	aound him and goes out of his way to try and help them.

	One needs to recognise who plays the role of the Good Samaritan
	today and follow that example. Well that's one thought of mine
	that I felt was worth sharing.

	You stated in your reply:

;in fact, I believe if we were to look at each of
;the parables that Jesus taught, have application to our lives and are
;events that took place while Jesus was on earth..

	If you look closely at my brief explanation of  the Rich Man &
	Lazurus parable in reply in 768.43, you will see that it fits
	in with what you have stated. That is the Rich Man respresented
	the Pharisees & Scribes, the description of being dressed in 
	purple and linen and having a love of money fits that perfectly.
	Lazurus, fits the persons such as the harlots and tax collectors
	who had now repented. No longer looking for the spiritual crumbs
	from the rich man's table they now look to Jesus for spiritual 
	insight. See rest of reply for more details. 

;So it would seem to me that if that is consistent with all the parables, 
;then we must also accept that Luke 16 is teaching us something that can be 
;applied to our lives and that there is indeed conscious existance after 
;death...if not, what is the purpose of Luke 16?

	If the Rich Man and Lazurus represent persons *alive* on earth 
	during Jesus' time. Then their death is also figurative. This is 
	explained in 768.43 and often the Bible refers to death in
	a figurative sense. Remember those listening would have to make
	application in their lives, they would have to ralate to the
	two main characters and work out who these represent. Also consider,
	that other scripture in context with the state of the dead.
	Ecclesiastes 9:5,10, Psalm 6:5,146:4,Isaiah 38:18, Eccl 3:19,20
	and Acts 13:36 give insight to the state of the dead that is
	unconscious and inactive. I know you differ, but if you died surely 
	you would still want to praise God just as the Psalmist David would 
	and yet in Psalm 115:17 NWT it reads "The dead themselves do not 
	praise Jah.". 

	The purpose of the the rich man and Lazurus parable was to signify
	who had now received God's favour, again see 768.43 for details.

	Phil. 

>    <<< Note 768.56 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>


>	BTW it is Mr Burnett-Yerkess, but you were not to know that. I don't
>	mind being referred to as Phil and hope you are not offended by
>	me calling you Jim and not Mr Henderson. I would understand if you


        My apologies..I seemed to have developed a habit of referring to
        people by their surname.

        You may call me anything you want..just don't call me late for dinner;-)

	
	>If you look closely at my brief explanation of  the Rich Man &
	>Lazurus parable in reply in 768.43, you will see that it fits
	>in with what you have stated. That is the Rich Man respresented
	>the Pharisees & Scribes, the description of being dressed in 
	>purple and linen and having a love of money fits that perfectly.
	>Lazurus, fits the persons such as the harlots and tax collectors
	>who had now repented. No longer looking for the spiritual crumbs
	>from the rich man's table they now look to Jesus for spiritual 
	>insight. See rest of reply for more details. 

          I believe there is a simple message, as there is in each of the
          parables..there are those who think their wealth and position
          in life makes them worthy of Heaven, but without Jesus Christ
          they are doomed to eternity in Hell, where they are conscious of
          their blunder in rejecting Christ, and their fate for doing so.


>	two main characters and work out who these represent. Also consider,
>	that other scripture in context with the state of the dead.
>	Ecclesiastes 9:5,10, Psalm 6:5,146:4,Isaiah 38:18, Eccl 3:19,20
>	and Acts 13:36 give insight to the state of the dead that is
>	unconscious and inactive. I know you differ, but if you died surely 
>	you would still want to praise God just as the Psalmist David would 
>	and yet in Psalm 115:17 NWT it reads "The dead themselves do not 
>	praise Jah.". 


       You are applying meaning to the above verses that is not there.  I will
       address them as I have time.



   Jim
         

re .57

	Jim,

	Thanks for responding, I'll choose to call you by your first name.

;	  I believe there is a simple message, as there is in each of the
;         parables..there are those who think their wealth and position
;         in life makes them worthy of Heaven, but without Jesus Christ
;         they are doomed to eternity in Hell, where they are conscious of
;         their blunder in rejecting Christ, and their fate for doing so.

	I would agree with what you are saying that "there are those who 
	think their wealth and position in life makes them worthy of Heaven,",
	this was true of the Pharisees who had seemingly divine favour. 
	Jesus' admonishion on the sermon on the mount was to store treasure
	in heaven rather than here on earth. But if this parable is saying that
	these ones who put their faith in riches are going to hell, then does 
	it also mean that all those who are materially poor will go to heaven
	especially beggars? or if the poor man's outlook on life is to seek
	poverty, then he will receive divine favour?. Surely not, for  the 
	parable does not say anything about the moral state of either the 
	rich man or Lazurus, and Scripture such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 
        which makes it clear that if you are either rich or poor and you 
	practice immoral acts then you will not receive God's blessing.

	Poor people can also put their faith in riches, or have a love
	of money. So from your viewpoint what was it in this parable 
	that gave Lazurus divine favour?. 


;You are applying meaning to the above verses that is not there.  I will
;address them as I have time.

	I look forward to your reply.


	Phil.