How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Barrd]

Remember that the Gospel of Grace is what we are currently under. Paul's writings. He is the Apostle of the Gentiles.

If Paul were here and we could consult him, he would certainly tell us that he is not the head of the church.
Jesus is.
Further, he'd tell us that there is no more division between Jew and gentile...all are one in Christ.

 

[ewq1938]

Where do I find that teaching in Scripture?

Luk 16:19 is one example.

 

[ATP]

Luk 16:19 is one example.

You're basing your proof off a parable?

 

[Butch5]

Phil 1:23 (NIV), 'I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far'.

Yeah?

 

[ATP]

Phil 1:23 (NIV), 'I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far'.

I believe Phil 1:23 works off of 2 Cor 5:8, and is speaking of the anxious heart of Paul. If you expand 2 Cor 5:8, you will see it is talking about the first resurrection.

 

[ewq1938]

You're basing your proof off a parable?

Christ never said it was a parable. And even if it was, a parable always teaches some type of truth in a way simple people can understand. Either way, the good go to heaven and the bad don't.

 

[ATP]

Christ never said it was a parable. And even if it was, a parable always teaches some type of truth in a way simple people can understand. Either way, the good go to heaven and the bad don't.

It's a parable because it's telling a story about the priesthood.

 

[ewq1938]

It's a parable because it's telling a story about the priesthood.

That doesn't establish what a parable is and his story doesn't speak about the priesthood itself but two men, one who was a priest and one who was a beggar. One goes to hell/hades and one goes to heaven. Besides, all parables tell truth anyways. You act as if a parable doesn't relay truth and as specific as this story is makes it much likely a true story about two real people.

 

[ATP]

That doesn't establish what a parable is and his story doesn't speak about the priesthood itself but two men, one who was a priest and one who was a beggar. One goes to hell/hades and one goes to heaven. Besides, all parables tell truth anyways. You act as if a parable doesn't relay truth and as specific as this story is makes it much likely a true story about two real people.

It does speak of the priesthood. Parables do relay truth. You are just simply confused of what truth is being revealed in this story.

 

[ewq1938]

It does speak of the priesthood. Parables do relay truth. You are just simply confused of what truth is being revealed in this story.

Oh, let's see then. Please show us where it speaks of the priesthood and let's find out who is "confused":

Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[ATP]

Oh, let's see then. Please show us where it speaks of the priesthood and let's find out who is "confused":

Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

Let's take a look at Luke 16:19 NIV “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.

1. Purple is a color which is used in Scripture for the following: priestly garments (Ex 39:2, 24, 29); royal apparel (Judges 8:26; Esther 8:15); and is synonymous with wealth in Rev 18:16.
2. Fine linen was used extensively in the priestly garments such as the ephod, robe, mitre, and bonnet. (Ex 39). Linen is used as a symbol of wealth in Rev 18:16.
3. The priesthood is equated to living in luxury and wealth..

The priesthood lived in luxury well beyond that of the average man. They supported their lavish lifestyles with a temple tax which every Jew was required to pay. Richard Horsley in his book “The Message and the Kingdom” describes what archeologists have discovered about the living conditions of the priesthood.

“…impressive archeological remains of their Jerusalem residences show how elegant their life style had become. In spacious structures unhesitantly dubbed ‘mansions” by the archeologists who uncovered them in the 1970’s, we can get a glimpse of a lavish life in mosaic floored reception rooms and dining rooms with elaborate painted and carved stucco wall decorations and with a wealth of fine tableware, glassware, carved stone table tops, and other interior furnishings and elegant peristyles.”

The priests lived lavish lifestyles while the average Jewish peasant struggled to survive. The temple taxes combined with taxes imposed by Herod and Rome were literally threatening the existence of the Jewish people. The people of the land were carrying a burden they could scarcely bear or tolerate. Palestine had become a powder keg waiting to ignite.

Now let's take a look at some questions...

1. If this story is not about the demise of the priesthood, then why does verse 19 use priestly garments to describe the rich man with purple clothing and fine linen? (Luke 16:19 NIV “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.)

2. Why does Jesus use Hades as hellfire in only this passage and the rest of the Bible uses Gehenna and the Lake of Fire as hellfire? Is it possible that He could be using Hades as figurative picture language here? (Luke 16:23 NIV In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.)

3. If the rich man died his spirit would have to be in hell. Spirit is translated breath and wind in Hebrew and Greek. So how would breath and wind obtain a finger and a tongue? (Luke 16:24 NIV So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’)

4. We see here in Luke 16:24-31 NIV that the rich man is having a personal conversation in hell. Even though he died he is aware of things, but Eccl 9:5 and Eccl 9:10 specifically states that the dead know nothing and they can neither plan or have knowledge or wisdom. (Eccl 9:5 NIV For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.) (Eccl 9:10 NIV Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.)

- ATP

 

[ewq1938]

Let's take a look at Luke 16:19 NIV “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.

1. Purple is a color which is used in Scripture for the following: priestly garments (Ex 39:2, 24, 29); royal apparel (Judges 8:26; Esther 8:15); and is synonymous with wealth in Rev 18:16.
2. Fine linen was used extensively in the priestly garments such as the ephod, robe, mitre, and bonnet. (Ex 39). Linen is used as a symbol of wealth in Rev 18:16.
3. The priesthood is equated to living in luxury and wealth..

The priesthood lived in luxury well beyond that of the average man. They supported their lavish lifestyles with a temple tax which every Jew was required to pay. Richard Horsley in his book “The Message and the Kingdom” describes what archeologists have discovered about the living conditions of the priesthood.

“…impressive archeological remains of their Jerusalem residences show how elegant their life style had become. In spacious structures unhesitantly dubbed ‘mansions” by the archeologists who uncovered them in the 1970’s, we can get a glimpse of a lavish life in mosaic floored reception rooms and dining rooms with elaborate painted and carved stucco wall decorations and with a wealth of fine tableware, glassware, carved stone table tops, and other interior furnishings and elegant peristyles.”

The priests lived lavish lifestyles while the average Jewish peasant struggled to survive. The temple taxes combined with taxes imposed by Herod and Rome were literally threatening the existence of the Jewish people. The people of the land were carrying a burden they could scarcely bear or tolerate. Palestine had become a powder keg waiting to ignite.

Now let's take a look at some questions...

1. If this story is not about the demise of the priesthood, then why does verse 19 use priestly garments to describe the rich man with purple clothing and fine linen? (Luke 16:19 NIV “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.)

2. Why does Jesus use Hades as hellfire in only this passage and the rest of the Bible uses Gehenna and the Lake of Fire as hellfire? Is it possible that He could be using Hades as figurative picture language here? (Luke 16:23 NIV In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.)

3. If the rich man died his spirit would have to be in hell. Spirit is translated breath and wind in Hebrew and Greek. So how would breath and wind obtain a finger and a tongue? (Luke 16:24 NIV So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’)

4. We see here in Luke 16:24-31 NIV that the rich man is having a personal conversation in hell. Even though he died he is aware of things, but Eccl 9:5 and Eccl 9:10 specifically states that the dead know nothing and they can neither plan or have knowledge or wisdom. (Eccl 9:5 NIV For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.) (Eccl 9:10 NIV Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.)

- ATP

You are adding to the story that which the story does not speak about. It isn't about the priesthood at all but one man who happened to be a Priest. He doesn't represent all priests nor does the beggar represent all beggars. This is solely about these two men and shows a good man who is poor can go to heaven while a bad man who is rich can go to hell. Adding anything else to this is Eisegesis.

 

[ATP]

You are adding to the story that which the story does not speak about. It isn't about the priesthood at all but one man who happened to be a Priest. He doesn't represent all priests nor does the beggar represent all beggars. This is solely about these two men and shows a good man who is poor can go to heaven while a bad man who is rich can go to hell. Adding anything else to this is Eisegesis.

It's actually not about heaven and hell at all. You're missing the whole point of the parable.

 

[Barrd]

If the story of the rich man and Lazarus is literally true, then it appears that the "good" go to be in "Abraham's bosom"...evidently, just being poor and needy qualifies one to go there, because the story really doesn't tell us anything about Lazarus' moral life. All we know of him is that he was "laid at his gate"...that is the rich man's gate...that he was "full of sores"...that detail bothers me for some reason, and that he was "desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table"...although why he insisted that this particular rich man should feed him is not clear...and that the dogs came and licked his sores.
Anyhow, now he is in "Abraham's bosom"...if we're going to take this story literally, then Abraham is literally cradling the poor Lazarus in his arms the same way a parent cradles a little child. I'm fairly sure that, by this time, more than one righteous person had passed...where are the others? Could Abraham be cradling all of them? And why Abraham, anyway, and not, say Moses? Or Elijah? Or David? Or any number of other likely Biblical heroes?

Anyhow, the rich man also dies...and, like all selfish rich men, he lands in hell.
Now, evidently, people in hell can see people in Abraham's bosom...which would seem to be a problem. Can people in heaven see people in hell, then? How sad for those whose loved ones didn't make the cut! Oh...suppose one of your precious children were in hell, being "in torments" before your eyes! But I digress...
The rich man sees Lazarus in Abraham's bosom...and with typical rich man arrogance, he wants this man, whom he allowed to suffer at his gate without lifting a finger to offer him any help, to run and get him some water. He wasn't asking for much...just a fingertip to cool his burning tongue. But he wanted Lazarus to come into hell with him, and minister to him...and he didn't see a problem with that at all. Of course, it's a bit too late for him to humble himself at this point...but still...the nerve of this guy is appalling.
Abraham explains that the rich man had good things during his lifetime, but Lazarus had received evil things...as if this was the criteria for one's being given a place in Abraham's bosom, while the other was sent to hell. (Gosh, if being poor is all it takes, I guess I don't need to worry, then...I'm in! )
And he further explains that there is a great gulf fixed between them...I wonder how the rich man missed this detail?...and that neither side could cross this gulf to reach the other side. In other words, Lazarus couldn't go to the rich man, even if he wanted to. Interestingly, we are never let in on Lazarus' opinion of all of this. Which is probably just as well...

So now, our stubborn rich man shows the first glimmer of compassion we've seen so far in this parable. He wants Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them of their impending doom.
Again, we are not told if Lazarus would be willing to do this little chore...however, evidently the possibility did exist, because Abraham does not say that there is any impediment to one coming back in order to perform this service....rather he points out that the rich man's brothers have Moses and the prophets...they need to hear them. Which seems rather useless, given that the rich man also would have had access to these writings, and they didn't seem to help him very much...but again, I digress.
The rich man pleads that, if one came back from the dead, they would repent...which seems a reasonable deduction. I mean, if they were to see Lazarus, one would think that they'd be impressed enough to at least give a listen to what he had to say...
However, Abraham denies this possibility, insisting that if they didn't hear Moses and the prophets, they wouldn't listen to a risen Lazarus either.
Of course, we are to understand that Abraham is projecting forward to a time when Jesus will rise from the dead...and still be rejected by the Jews, who are still to this day looking for a human deliverer in the style of Joshua and the judges.

With all due respect, this story has to be a parable.
Now, I'm not involved in arguing either for or against hell...but if you take away this parable, it does leave a bit of a gap...
Just sayin'

 

[Barrd]

It's actually not about heaven and hell at all. You're missing the whole point of the parable.

Isn't the point of the parable that the Jews would not listen, even after Jesus rose from the dead?
Or am I missing it as well?

 

[ewq1938]

It's actually not about heaven and hell at all. You're missing the whole point of the parable.

Actually it's you that missed the whole point of the story (not a parable because it's about historical events) since you can't seem to see the whole thing is about where they go when they die. Literally a majority of the verses of the story deal strictly with where they ended up especially the rich man.

BTW, the rich man might have been a priest but could have been a nobleman or someone rich even a King.

Barnes:

Clothed in purple - A purple robe or garment. This color was expensive as well as splendid, and was chiefly worn by princes, nobles, and those who were very wealthy. Compare Mat_27:28. See the notes at Isa_1:18.
Fine linen - This linen was chiefly produced of the flax that grew on the banks of the Nile, in Egypt, Pro_7:16; Eze_27:7. It was especially soft and white, and was, therefore, much sought as an article of luxury, and was so expensive that it could be worn only by princes, by priests, or by those who were very rich, Gen_41:42; 1Ch_15:27; Exo_28:5.


More evidence this isn't about the priesthood nor it's supposed demise.

 

[ewq1938]

If the story of the rich man and Lazarus is literally true, then it appears that the "good" go to be in "Abraham's bosom"...evidently, just being poor and needy qualifies one to go there, because the story really doesn't tell us anything about Lazarus' moral life.

We know from other scriptures that it takes belief and love in God to make it there so Lazarus was a good man. Back in those days it was believed rich people went to heaven because they were rich and had better lives so people assumed God blessed them and in reverse the poor and sick were hated by God and were going to hell. It ties into what Christ said about a rich man going to heaven, that is was difficult and the disciples were shocked because they also believed the rich went to heaven but Christ corrected that belief:

Mar 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mar 10:26 And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?

 

[ewq1938]

Isn't the point of the parable that the Jews would not listen, even after Jesus rose from the dead?
Or am I missing it as well?

That's not the main lesson of the story but it was true.

 

[ATP]

Actually it's you that missed the whole point of the story (not a parable because it's about historical events) since you can't seem to see the whole thing is about where they go when they die. Literally a majority of the verses of the story deal strictly with where they ended up especially the rich man.

BTW, the rich man might have been a priest but could have been a nobleman or someone rich even a King.

Barnes:

Clothed in purple - A purple robe or garment. This color was expensive as well as splendid, and was chiefly worn by princes, nobles, and those who were very wealthy. Compare Mat_27:28. See the notes at Isa_1:18.
Fine linen - This linen was chiefly produced of the flax that grew on the banks of the Nile, in Egypt, Pro_7:16; Eze_27:7. It was especially soft and white, and was, therefore, much sought as an article of luxury, and was so expensive that it could be worn only by princes, by priests, or by those who were very rich, Gen_41:42; 1Ch_15:27; Exo_28:5.


More evidence this isn't about the priesthood nor it's supposed demise.

You need to answer these questions in order to support your belief.......

1. Why does Jesus use Hades as hellfire in only this passage and the rest of the Bible uses Gehenna and the Lake of Fire as hellfire? Is it possible that He could be using Hades as figurative picture language here? (Luke 16:23 NIV In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.)

2. If the rich man died his spirit would have to be in hell. Spirit is translated breath and wind in Hebrew and Greek. So how would breath and wind obtain a finger and a tongue? (Luke 16:24 NIV So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’)

3. We see here in Luke 16:24-31 NIV that the rich man is having a personal conversation in hell. Even though he died he is aware of things, but Eccl 9:5 and Eccl 9:10 specifically states that the dead know nothing and they can neither plan or have knowledge or wisdom. (Eccl 9:5 NIV For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.) (Eccl 9:10 NIV Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.)

The point of the entire parable is at the end and deals with repentance and the resurrection of Christ...........

Acts 23:8 NIV (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.)

Luke 16:19-31 NIV 29“ Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets (their writings); let them listen to them.’ 30“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone (Jesus Christ) rises from the dead.’ ”

 

[Barrd]

That's not the main lesson of the story but it was true.

Evidently, you did not read my post above. I'm fairly sure this story had to be a parable, for the reasons given in that post.
This has to be a parable, otherwise heaven is not going to be the blessed bliss we have been taught that it is. This version of paradise sounds pretty disappointing.