The thief on the cross !?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

quietthinker

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
11,545
7,585
113
FNQ
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Well, I didn't "cobble" a theory and the scripture is not totally silent. I do know what the early church writers had to say about it. Until I read their stuff, I hadn't really been motivated to give it a lot of thought.

But, Dr. Norman Geisler did all the leg work for us on the Matthew 27 saints and what the early Church writers who knew the Apostles or knew their disciples had to say about the issue as well as many recognized Church writers that came later, so I don't need to pile on a lot of links and references that turn a post into a college thesis paper......

http://defendinginerrancy.com/early-fathers-resurrection-saints/

God has overseen the record of his word and has sealed it. Further additions of the early church fathers is not part of the cannon. If it were the scripture would be open to any angle of interpretation. Those who came after the apostles and are deemed 'church fathers' in many cases were in disagreement on the most basic things.
Anything added to the sealed cannon comes into the category of private interpretation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brakelite

Truth7t7

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2014
10,760
3,215
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I am of the understanding that in Jesus telling the story of Abraham and Lazarus he was using a well known myth to illustrate the finality of death in regards to choices. It was never intended as a description of the hereafter.
Jesus Christ Was Not "A Mythological Storyteller" as you suggest.

It appears you deny a literal Hell also, as the Holy Bible clearly teaches this is a spiritual reality.
 

Truth7t7

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2014
10,760
3,215
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The great majority of the religious sects of Christendom hold that eternal torment in a burning hell is the destiny of the wicked. The words of Jesus recorded at Luke 16:19-31 regarding the rich man and Lazarus are among the proofs offered in support of this teaching. It is argued that these words tell of an incident, are a narration of what actually took place. A tract published by one who holds to this view asks: “Do you not think all who heard the Lord Jesus relate the story of the rich man and Lazarus, would naturally suppose He meant to teach conscious existence after death in happiness or woe?”

Granting, for the sake of argument, that his listeners did think it was an actual incident, that, far from proving that it was, proves just the opposite. How so? Because we are explicitly told that the reason Jesus spoke in parables or illustrations was—that people might understand?—no, but that they might NOT understand. Note his words: “To you [his disciples] it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of God, but for the rest, it is in illustrations, in order that, though looking, they may look in vain and, though hearing, they may not get the meaning.” (Luke 8:10, NW) Obviously, whatever meaning his listeners got from the illustration was bound to be the wrong one.

But some further object because Jesus did not indicate in so many words that this was an illustration. But is it necessary that Jesus do this every time when we have the plain statement that “without an illustration, he would not speak to them”? (Matt. 13:34, NW) The mere fact that names are given cannot be used as an argument against its being an illustration, in view of all the evidence that proves that to take it literally is to outrage reason and common sense and to contradict the rest of God’s Word.

Briefly, in this illustration, we first read of a rich man clothed in purple and fine linen who lived in magnificence and of a beggar named Lazarus who sat at his gate, full of ulcers, and who craved the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table. Each in course of time died. Lazarus was taken by angels to recline upon Abraham’s bosom whereas the rich man was buried, and in Hades suffered torment and from which place he saw Lazarus.—Luke 16:19-23, NW.

Note here that not one word is said about Lazarus’ has been a good man, about his having had faith and proving it by works; both of which are indispensable to gaining everlasting life. (Heb. 11:6; Jas. 2:14-26) When are mere wretchedness, poverty, and disease a guarantee of salvation?

Neither is there a word about the rich man’s having been wicked. By what kind of reasoning and by what principles of justice can it be maintained that simply because a man enjoyed the good things of this life to the full for threescore years and then he must suffer the agonies of a burning hell for billions times billions of years, yes, for eternity? Even fallen, imperfect man appreciates that justice requires that “the punishment fit the crime,” and certainly God is more just than man. Abraham, David, Solomon, Joseph of Arimathea, all had great wealth; does that fact doom them to eternal torment?

Further, Jesus in his arguments with the Jewish clergy evinced a fine sense of logic, second to none. Would he give such a dire warning on the wages of sin and not even mention sin, or tell of the rewards of faith and obedience and not even mention them? Had Jesus meant to warn his listeners about eternal torment he certainly would have stressed these points, but he did nothing of the kind.

Not only that, but we read that Lazarus was carried off to Abraham’s bosom. Are all those gaining salvation reclining on Abraham’s bosom? If we grant that this expression is a figure of speech, why insist that what befell the rich man be taken literally? It simply does not make sense to take one part of the account literally and another parallel part figuratively.

Making Jesus’ words regarding the rich man and Lazarus literal becomes even more untenable when compared with what the rest of God’s Word has to say regarding the penalty of sin and the condition of the dead. Adam was not warned of eternal torment, and upon sinning was simply and plainly told: “Dust you are and to dust, you will return.” (Gen. 3:19; 2:17, NW) Jehovah God didn't say, “Your body will return to the dust”; no, but YOU, Adam, will do so. There is no mistaking the plain testimony of the Scriptures: “The wages sin pays is death.”—Rom. 6:23, NW.


Are we not assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust? Why a resurrection if at death man receives his eternal reward? (Acts 24:15; John 5:28, 29, NW) When the brother of Mary and Martha, Jesus’ friend Lazarus, died, did Jesus comfort those women by assuring them that Lazarus was not dead? No, but with the assurance that he would rise from the dead. His sisters knew that he would “rise in the resurrection on the last day.” And when Jesus called him forth, did he call Lazarus down from Abraham’s bosom, from limbo or from a burning hell? No, but from the grave. Incidentally, had Lazarus been conscious in any such place we may be certain he would have told all his friends about the remarkable experience he had, for he had been dead four days. His very silence on this point is strong circumstantial evidence that he was unconscious.—John 11:22-44, NW.

Besides, how could we account for Abraham’s being in heaven in view of Jesus’ words: “No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man”? And did not Peter on the day of Pentecost point out to his listeners that David “both deceased and was buried and his tomb is among us to this day? Actually, David did not ascend to the heavens”? (John 3:13; Acts 2:29, 34, NW) None of God’s servants had a heavenly reward held out to them before the coming of Christ Jesus; that is why his apostles even after his resurrection were looking to an earthly kingdom.—Ps. 45:16; Acts 1:6-8.

Returning to the illustration: it next tells us of the rich man’s calling “Father Abraham” to send Lazarus to give him relief by a drop of water on the tip of his finger, upon which Abraham reminds him of the good things he enjoyed in his lifetime as compared with what Lazarus had; besides, there is a great chasm between, which makes it impossible for anyone to cross from one place to the other. The rich man then requests that Lazarus be sent to warn his five brothers, but he is told that they have Moses and the Prophets and that if they would not listen to these they would not listen to one raised from the dead.—Luke 16:24-31, NW.

According to the Scriptures, heaven and Hades (Sheol) are at opposite extremes. (Ps. 139:8; Luke 10:15) Could we imagine those in one place seeing those in the other and carrying on a conversation? And were the rich man in a burning hell would he ask for just a drop of water to cool his tongue? How much relief would that bring? Would it last to reach him? Could anyone get anywhere near a burning hell with just a drop of water? Obviously, this is a figure of speech even as is Abraham’s bosom, yes, and as are all the rest of Jesus’ words on that occasion.
Do you believe "Jesus Used Mythology" in the Rich Man/Lazarus teaching?

This has been the claim, and many agree with this?
 

Copperhead

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2017
835
304
63
67
iowa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Besides, how could we account for Abraham’s being in heaven in view of Jesus’ words: “No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man”? And did not Peter on the day of Pentecost point out to his listeners that David “both deceased and was buried and his tomb is among us to this day? Actually, David did not ascend to the heavens”? (John 3:13; Acts 2:29, 34, NW) None of God’s servants had a heavenly reward held out to them before the coming of Christ Jesus; that is why his apostles even after his resurrection were looking to an earthly kingdom.—Ps. 45:16; Acts 1:6-8.

I guess Enoch and Elijah come to mind, along with Moses who was seen along with Elijah in Matthew 17:3.

It is feasible to also assume that when Yeshua said that "no man has ascended" could mean under their own power, like Yeshua did. Indeed, no man has ascended to heaven on their own, but it is also quite clear that Elijah was caught up to heaven, and the archangel Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses according to Jude 1:9.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truth7t7

Frank Lee

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2017
1,459
2,837
113
79
Ouachita Mountains
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm glad I wasn't on the cross next to Jesus. I'm even more glad that my ultimate fate as a believer was decided by God and not man. David had it right by wanting to fall into God's hands rather than man's.
2 Samuel 24:14 KJVS
And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the Lord ; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.

Some questions are too big to ask and are best left to God's wisdom. David knew this too. It's OK to be curious, God doesn't mind our questions but they should not cause us to abandon peace in pursuit of details we weren't given.

Psalm 131:1-2 KJVS
Lord , my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. [2] Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child.

George Washington Carver, that great black American inventor, told this story. George sometimes referred to God as Mr. Creator. He asked the great creator what is the purpose you made man for? Whereupon the great creator answered me and said "little man you ask questions too big for you. Ask something more in proportion to your size and place".

So I asked the creator why He made the peanut. The great creator showed me how to take the peanut apart and put it together again and to find all of these things that can be made from it.

James 2:13 KJVS
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

2 Timothy 2:19 KJVS
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

I'm staying in the peanut gallery and only ask questions in proportion to my size, certainly not larger than a peanut. Pardon me for we all have curiosity about the things of the Bible but when I see intense disagreements over the creation and other hugely mysterious events I realize that a large waste of time is going on. Jesus said it and that finishes it whether it is believed or not.

When Jesus said;

Luke 23:43 KJVS
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

That's it. God did not call men to either extrapolate or interpolate to or from His word but to accept it without question.

After reading other disagreements on what happened to the thief, some even infer that paradise was worse than hell and not a blessing at all!

Much inner turmoil comes from not simply accepting the word of God as it is stated. It makes absolutely no difference that we do not understand but it makes all the difference in the world to hold onto God's peace because His indefinable, indescribable peace always passes understanding.

Leaving huge questions with Him is always best. This is my belief and no one needs to subscribe to it at all.
 
Last edited:

Copperhead

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2017
835
304
63
67
iowa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
God has overseen the record of his word and has sealed it. Further additions of the early church fathers is not part of the cannon. If it were the scripture would be open to any angle of interpretation. Those who came after the apostles and are deemed 'church fathers' in many cases were in disagreement on the most basic things.
Anything added to the sealed cannon comes into the category of private interpretation.

So then you are saying, anything you might have to say on these issues is also of no value? After all, anything you might have to comment on is not canon either, including how you use one verse in relation to another that is outside the immediate context of the verse. Your argument is used to stifle legitimate dialogue on non essential issues.

I never mentioned church "fathers" as I don't really support that concept. I did say early church writers which is probably more apropos. But many did know the Apostles or disciples of those Apostles, so what they wrote regarding these things is worthy of consideration even though it is not canon. To dismiss it out of hand is extremely myopic.

And they wrote that the resurrected saints of Matthew 27:52 were taken to the Father by Yeshua. That sure sounds more reasoned assumption than these saints were resurrected just to die again as some assert. The operative word being "saints". It seems unreasonable that the Lord would put His "saints" thru the ordeal of dying again. It certainly doesn't comport with what the Apostles wrote about what happens to saints who die. And unlike this group resurrection, the individual resurrections we see in the Gospels, none of those individuals were referred to as "saints".

I will agree, many of the early Church writers did err in some areas. That was to be expected. Even in the scripture, the early Church couldn't make it thru the 1st century without really messing things up almost beyond recognition. The scripture makes that abundantly clear. Paul was constantly having to put out brush fires of nonsense that had crept into the Churches he established. And the letters to the 7 Churches in Revelation really is a poor report card on the condition of many of those Churches.

But some of what I asserted is canon. Yeshua referred to the harvest many times in His discourses, and the guidelines regarding the harvest are clearly laid out in Leviticus 23. So it is not unreasonable to apply that to the resurrected saints of Matthew 27:52 and make an assumption that they are the first fruits of the harvest, taken by Yeshua (the high priest and first fruit of the resurrection) to the Father as prescribed in Leviticus 23.

That you don't agree doesn't mean it is a wrong idea. None of us is the fount of all wisdom on theological issues. But the idea does have some merit. And it could be the basis of what the early Church writers said about that passage.
 

Frank Lee

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2017
1,459
2,837
113
79
Ouachita Mountains
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm concerned with staying right with God, being a blessing to others and leading others to Him. We all disagree on many things but that shouldn't make every man an armed camp. I've been ignorant enough in the past to jump into meaningless frays. No one EVER "wins".

The need to lift up the broken hearted and rescue the perishing far outweighs the need to understand the hidden things.
 

twinc

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2011
1,593
265
83
93
Faith
Country
United Kingdom
I'm concerned with staying right with God, being a blessing to others and leading others to Him. We all disagree on many things but that shouldn't make every man an armed camp. I've been ignorant enough in the past to jump into meaningless frays. No one EVER "wins".

The need to lift up the broken hearted and rescue the perishing far outweighs the need to understand the hidden things.


the great misunderstanding arises because it is not understood what Paradise is and also what man is or how Jesus became a son of man - twinc
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

quietthinker

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
11,545
7,585
113
FNQ
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
So then you are saying, anything you might have to say on these issues is also of no value? After all, anything you might have to comment on is not canon either, including how you use one verse in relation to another that is outside the immediate context of the verse. Your argument is used to stifle legitimate dialogue on non essential issues.

What I say is not Gods word (canon), that is clear. We are to test what others say in the light of Gods Word without violating context, not extra biblical writings.
I would ask you to reconsider the progression of your logic in your above statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Copperhead

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2017
835
304
63
67
iowa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well, Jude and Peter reference quotes from the Book of Enoch, a non-canonical book. The list of non canonical references in the NT alone is broad.

Book of Jasher
Epistle to the Laodiceans
Martyrdom of Isaiah
Assumption of Moses
The Targum of Genesis

If it were not the reference to Enoch by Jude and Peter, we would have no clue what Enoch did on the earth. If it weren't for the Assumption of Moses text that was referenced, we would have no idea that the Archangel Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses.

We have ample precedence that looking at non canonical books is not out of line. The only requirement is that they conform to scripture itself. They are only valid if they do not contradict scripture.

And back on point, since there is no elaboration in scripture regarding the saints of Matthew 27:52, and the references I gave in an earlier post are not contradictory to anything in scripture, their use to amplify the scripture account is not invalid. And they comport just fine to the illustration of the harvest given in scripture by Yeshua and Leviticus 23.
 

Harvest 1874

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2018
1,100
573
113
62
Tampa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

It should be noted that the King James Version does not punctuate Christ's reply correctly—it places the comma before rather than after the word “today”—and thus conveys the thought that Jesus promised the thief would be with Him in paradise on the very same day they were crucified.

It makes better since when it’s properly placed.

Verily I say unto thee today, (even today when the possibility seems so remote) thou shalt be with me in paradise (That is when the kingdom, the earthly phase of the kingdom is established during the millennial age).”

Since the original Greek manuscript had no punctuation, it is permissible to move the comma. Also, the Greek allows the subject and the verb to be transposed. In other words, Jesus was saying, “I am telling you now, even though everything looks bleak as regards my claim to be the Messiah, that I am indeed he. When I establish my Kingdom, you will be remembered.”

The thief could not have been with Jesus in paradise THAT DAY, for Jesus was in the tomb parts of three days and nights following his crucifixion. Nor could he have been in paradise following the Lord’s resurrection because the paradise the Lord referred to was the earthly paradise originally given man and lost through father Adam’s sin. This paradise would not be restore to mankind until “the times of restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21), following our Lord’s second advent and the establishment of the Mediatorial reign, and then only to those who passed the final test at the end of that age, such and such only will be ushered into the kingdom “prepared for them from the foundation of the world” (Matt 25:34), the original dominion, paradise fully restored.

How do we know the Lord was speaking about the thief being resurrected on earth and not in heaven as some suppose?

Well first of all there is no record of either criminal confessing faith in Christ as their savior, it is only a supposition based upon what the one thief said while on the cross, and even if it were true that he had confessed his faith in Christ this would not grant him entry into the heavenly phase of the kingdom, for the spirit was not given (save to Christ) until after Pentecost.

If John the Baptist of whom our Lord said there was none greater born of women could not get into the heavenly phase of the kingdom being he lived and died before Pentecost what makes any imagine this criminal even though he be repentant should be allowed in?

Likewise since our Lord had not yet completed his sacrifice in death the ransom was not yet given, and even then following his resurrection he had yet to had ascended to heaven to present the merit of his sacrifice before God, (before justice), therefore in the eyes of the law no man had as yet been (actually) justified, this regardless of what faith they may have possessed, this included even the Lord’s disciples.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Copperhead

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2017
835
304
63
67
iowa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Verily I say unto thee today, (even today when the possibility seems so remote) thou shalt be with me in paradise (That is when the kingdom, the earthly phase of the kingdom is established during the millennial age).”

Since the original Greek manuscript had no punctuation, it is permissible to move the comma. Also, the Greek allows the subject and the verb to be transposed. In other words, Jesus was saying, “I am telling you now, even though everything looks bleak as regards my claim to be the Messiah, that I am indeed he. When I establish my Kingdom, you will be remembered.”

It is true that it is permissible to move the punctuation. Whether the assumption made as a result of doing so is valid, that could be a different deal.

It is a stretch to accentuate the sentence the way you did. "Verily I say unto you today" is a statement that infers a difference. That Yeshua could have told him on a different day but He is telling him today. It really doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the event. It is clear the Yeshua is acknowledging the faith of the thief and comforting him, letting him know what awaits him after his death.

Many other translations use different wording and punctuation, but all seem to give the same idea of "today you will be with me in paradise". That paradise is what will be the thief's next stop after he dies on that cross. The thief is going to die today. Today is when the thief will be in paradise.

I understand your assertion, no way am I saying it is goofy. It just doesn't seem to fit the context of the event as well. We have to be careful in crafting a assumption of what is being meant based on something like a punctuation change. Especially when it can have such a dramatic shift in emphasis. And outside of using the original language, it can be wise to consult several translations to see what the general consensus is regarding the passage translation.

Probably what we should actually be taking away from this event is, even while Yeshua was suffering the most cruel form of death that had been devised after experiencing a beating that would have killed many people, He still felt compassion for a rotten thief that placed his trust in Yeshua and wanted to comfort him in letting him know his destiny. That right there is powerful beyond words.
 
Last edited:

Harvest 1874

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2018
1,100
573
113
62
Tampa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We have to be careful in crafting a assumption of what is being meant based on something like a punctuation change. Especially when it can have such a dramatic shift in emphasis.

In this you err my friend we are not basing our understanding of the text simply upon the punctuation of the sentence, much more importantly is what does the whole testimony of the Word of God say upon the subject.

What do the scriptures teach us in regards to salvation, how and by what means is it accomplished, how and when we were justified, when and where precisely the presentation of the merit of Christ sacrifice took place, when does the times of restitution take place, when and to whom is the kingdom, paradise restored to be given, all of these factors must first be considered before we jump to any hasty conclusions. If something seems amiss and does not harmonize with the whole testimony of God, it’s a sure bet that something is wrong.

The Word of God as a whole supersedes man's attempts at placing punctuation where he imagines it to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Copperhead

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2017
835
304
63
67
iowa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In this you err my friend we are not basing our understanding of the text simply upon the punctuation of the sentence, much more importantly is what does the whole testimony of the Word of God say upon the subject.

What do the scriptures teach us in regards to salvation, how and by what means is it accomplished, how and when we were justified, when and where precisely the presentation of the merit of Christ sacrifice took place, when does the times of restitution take place, when and to whom is the kingdom, paradise restored to be given, all of these factors must first be considered before we jump to any hasty conclusions. If something seems amiss and does not harmonize with the whole testimony of God, it’s a sure bet that something is wrong.

The Word of God as a whole supersedes man's attempts at placing punctuation where he imagines it to go.

What the scripture teaches about salvation and how it is accomplished is not the subject being discussed. It was regarding the thief on the cross and what paradise meant.

You err in that you area not even on topic.
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
It should be noted that the King James Version does not punctuate Christ's reply correctly—it places the comma before rather than after the word “today”—and thus conveys the thought that Jesus promised the thief would be with Him in paradise on the very same day they were crucified.
I would agree with this but not with your next paragraph. The souls and spirits of the righteous dead (the justified ones) would be in Sheol/Hades until the resurrection of Christ. So Christ Himself (His soul and spirit) went to Hades (called "hell" in the KJB, which is very misleading), and so did the soul and spirit of the saved thief.

After three days and three nights, Christ took all the righteous dead (the OT saints) with Him to Heaven (more specifically the New Jerusalem in Heaven). Since Paradise is indeed in the New Jerusalem, that thief was in Paradise as promised by Christ. But within a matter of three days. And those righteous dead are called "the spirits of just men made perfect" (Heb 12:23).
 

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Do you believe "Jesus Used Mythology" in the Rich Man/Lazarus teaching?

This has been the claim, and many agree with this?

I've said nothing about mythology in anything I text. I said what Luke 8: 10 said, that Jesus spoke in parables or illustrations. The rich man and Lazarus is a parable an illustration, not an actual event. Jesus wasn't telling a story that actually happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harvest 1874

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The rich man and Lazarus is a parable an illustration, not an actual event. Jesus wasn't telling a story that actually happened.
If this was actually a parable, what exactly was it illustrating? Every parable illustrated a spiritual truth or truths.

This was definitely NOT a parable, since it provided insight into the afterlife, and the fate of the righteous and the unrighteous in Sheol/Hades. That actual personages are mentioned strengthens that belief even more. That Christ Himself went to Hades while His body was entombed is even more evidence that this was not a parable.
 

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I guess Enoch and Elijah come to mind, along with Moses who was seen along with Elijah in Matthew 17:3.

It is feasible to also assume that when Yeshua said that "no man has ascended" could mean under their own power, like Yeshua did.

Didn't Jesus himself say at Matthew 17: 9 that what happened at Matthew 17: 3 was a vision

When Jesus said, no man has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven Jesus was telling Nicodemus that he, whose dwelling had been in heaven with his Father from the beginning of creation, had descended from heaven and was in position to instruct him about heavenly matters; but if Nicodemus was not going to accept his instruction, then there was no other way he could gain the knowledge he wanted, because no man had at any time ascended to heaven in order to instruct him on heavenly matters.
 

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If this was actually a parable, what exactly was it illustrating? Every parable illustrated a spiritual truth or truths.

This was definitely NOT a parable, since it provided insight into the afterlife, and the fate of the righteous and the unrighteous in Sheol/Hades. That actual personages are mentioned strengthens that belief even more. That Christ Himself went to Hades while His body was entombed is even more evidence that this was not a parable.

It is a parable, Luke 8:10 is proof of that. Luke 16: 14,15 is the setting for the parable at Luke 16: 19-31. The pharasees as a class of people looked down on the common Jew(pharasees rich man) common Jew (Lazarus) The pharasees who were supposed to be feeding the people with true spiritual food, were not doing so, therefore the common Jew was starving the death for that spiritual food. The death of each individual shows there is a change that has happened it's a figurative death.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Harvest 1874

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If this was actually a parable, what exactly was it illustrating? Every parable illustrated a spiritual truth or truths.

This was definitely NOT a parable, since it provided insight into the afterlife, and the fate of the righteous and the unrighteous in Sheol/Hades. That actual personages are mentioned strengthens that belief even more. That Christ Himself went to Hades while His body was entombed is even more evidence that this was not a parable.

The Jerusalem Bible, in a footnote, acknowledges that it is a “parable in story form without reference to any historical personage.”