Im not missing any points. Only calling bullshit on your reply: yep, it's kind of pointless to argue whether or not jesus existed in any meaningful fashion when a billion people on the planet believe he did. And THAT is the point im interested in. The fact that billions of people are likely to be wrong and fooled. Could care less about your OTHER point which you did not mention earlier and decided to insert just now. peace axeman
There you go again with your "its what you would expect" fallacious logic. Guess what Shoeshine... the ancient world of Greece believed in ZEUS. And thats what I would EXPECT if Zeus really existed. Therefore - ZEUS did exist. Doesnt hold water Shoe. Your logic is completely flawed. You are commiting a non-sequitur. peace axeman
Shoe: >You missed the point: Don't go getting shifty on me Shoe. Here was your point as you wrote it... >I have of course read this many times and have never >come away with the idea that it was anything other than >a story. Here are just some of the reasons: >1. It's past tense. >2. There is no name to the poor man. >3. Do you really believe there was a Lazarus that >had a real conversation with Abraham? Your point was clearly that you believe it's just a story(parable) BECAUSE: 1. It's past tense, and as I demonstrated to you with my grandmother question it is ENTIRELY appropriated (hopelessly so) to tell a historical story in the past tense...DUH!!! 2. There is no name to the poor man, and as I demonstrated with my thief on the cross example the word of god is RIFE with stories that you would hold endlessly as true in which a major character is not referred to by name. (and I was a moron in my response and said that the rich man had no name...my bad. Was writing in a hurry to get to dinner) (Your third reason why you believe it's a parable isn't a reason at all so I'll skip it.) So since you have supported your belief that this is a parable so pointedly, let me ask the pointed questions back. 1. Are not most historical stories told in the past tense? Is not the story of the Crucifixion in Luke 23 told in the past tense? 2. Have you come up with the name of the thief on the cross? In closing, since the story of the Crucifixion in Luke 23 IS told in the past tense, and since the name if the thief on the cross ISN'T there, do not BOTH of your reasons to disbelieve ring hollow when compared to other stories in the bible that you hold true? Shoe: >And notice the state of affairs: the entire theory is >built on the story of Lazarus. Hmmm.... What a cop out (actually, and outright lie)...the "entire theory" is built on the *numerous* scriptures that I posted of which the story of Lazarus was only the first. JB
Damir: >not quite. putting a character into the past and >then telling in present/future tenses is standard >storytelling technique. think of all the mini-stories >told in wiseguy films - 3/4 of them are told this way. >brings a vivid sense of immediacy to the story. You are making the wrong argument Damir. Shoe says he thinks the story isn't true BECAUSE it is told in the past tense. I'll bet you would agree that MOST historical record is written in the past tense. JB
Shoe: >But, second of all, and more importantly, you cannot >build a doctrine upon this imo for many reasons: >1. It's only one passage. Uhh... you keep saying that but it doesn't make it true. I actually posted FIVE passages which all refer to the same fiery hell. >2. The rich guy could have just been a nasty individual >who was truly getting what he deserved. And this means hell is not a fiery place of punishment how? >3. This verse in no way implies or states that this >state will go on forever, i.e. he could be destroyed >at the end of the age. And when will you stop trying to argue something that I'm not arguing? If you want to argue "hell is a place where you burn forever", argue it with someone else because I HAVE NEVER ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A CASE FOR IT. >Think about it: the whole theory of a Miltonian >hell is built on one semi-parable in the New Testament. (Forget the "Miltonian" (see above) ) Uhhh...once again you are conveniently forgetting the FOUR other passages (and there is more) that I posted. >What does that tell me? That the position is weak >at best. You should always have at least 3 passages >to support a major doctrine imo... Well, I posted FIVE originally and can come up with more. So now what is your excuse? JB
SHOE: You have to post 3 passages for it to be true Turok: I posted 5. SHOE: You have to post 3 passages for it to be true Turok: I posted 5. SHOE: You have to post 3 passages for it to be true Turok: I POSTED 5. SHOE: You have to post 3 passages for it to be true Turok: I POSTED 5!!! See the problem Shoe??? Stop playing dumb Shoe, it wont work. peace axeman
I didn't spend any time on the last four (on page 62) because they are simply so weak to your position. All those verses do is simply put the word "hell" and "fire" together in the same verse. Yes, "hell" is placed in a negative context in these verses. But my point is that "hell" could easily be a fire that destroys both body and soul and satisfy all four verses. Again, there is nothing in these last four verses that imply directly or otherwise that a person is tortured short term or long term in a fire. These verses simply say that "hell fire" is bad which is what one would expect if hell is a fire that destroys both body and soul. So that's why I say that the entire doctrine of a short or long term torturing hell is built on the story of Lazarus and Rev 20 which I have already talked about...
I wasn't playing dumb. I didn't have time to write, so I spent the time on Turok's only true argument, the story of Lazarus. The last four verses that he posted on p. 62 simply do not support his position and so I concentrated on passage #1.
I am guessing that this is what is bugging you. You think I am arguing that it is not a place of punishment. But, for the record, I definitely agree that hell is a place of punishment. But I lean strongly towards the idea that it is a place of destruction of both body and soul.
In your post on p. 62, you mentioned at the end Matthew 10:34 but skipped Matthew 10:28. I don't know whether that was deliberate or not but I can't help but wonder since it states "And do not fear him who kills the body but is unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell." The "hell" used in this verse is Gehenna, which as damir pointed out is the Hebrew word for the trash heap that was constantly on fire outside of Jerusalem. This verse would have instantly brought up a picture of consumption to the Israelis, not short or long term torture. Again, what could be more clear than this passage? Jesus clearly says that God will "kill", i.e. take the life of, those He is going to destroy in hell.