Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling

This is a theological discussion, not an argument, that I get into every now and then. So I have decided to write (type) down my understand of this.

It was not God who said, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling", as many will say, rather it was Paul in his 2nd letter to the Philippians where in Chapter 2:10-14 he wrote, "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings:”

Let us take verse 12 out of context, as many do: "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;"  Many believe this to be that Paul is saying that your salvation is up to you, and that you must work it out.  We know that Paul does not mean “work so as to earn your own salvation.” Such a statement would contradict the whole of Paul’s gospel which that our salvation is by the grace of God.  This is his theme through his message, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"

So what does he mean by, "Work out your own salvation"?  Does it not mean that he calls the Philippians to put forth real effort into their Christians lives. This is not to work their salvation in the sense of accomplishing it, or earning it, but to work out their salvation, that is to see it evident in every area of their lives, to activate this salvation God freely gave them, and for them to understand it.  It can be liken to what you do when you work out a math problem, the answer is in the problem, you just have to work through it to the end, you did not crate the answer, you just put it in a form you can understand.

As Muller said, “The believer must finish, must carry to conclusion, must apply to its fullest consequences what is already given by God in principle . . . He must work out what God in His grace has worked in.”, and Robertson, "He exhorts as if he were an Arminian in addressing men. He prays as if he were a Calvinist in addressing God and feels no inconsistency in the two attitudes. Paul makes no attempt to reconcile divine sovereignty and human free agency, but boldly proclaims both.”.  Now much more in my absence: In context, Paul asks for this Christian work ethic he demonstrated while among them, not a work ethic, and to be promoted all the more because of his absence.

Now to the "With fear and trembling" part, Paul’s idea is not that we should live our Christian lives with a constant sense of fear and terror, but that we should live with a fear of failing to work out our own salvation.  Again the 'work' is not the price of your salvation, rather it is what brings your understanding to you of your salvation.

John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain:

2 Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Luke 18:6,7 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him...

Eph 1:11-12 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

1 Cor 1:27-29 God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;  And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nothing things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them

A Dissertation On Jesus and Wine

A Dissertation On

Jesus and Wine

I have given considerable though as to whether or not Jesus made fermented wine for his first miracle.

It is true that in Habakkuk 2:15 God’s word forbade giving alcoholic wine to someone else. says, "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, pressing him to the bottle, even to make him drunk, that you may look on his nakedness." But I would have you look at the whole verse, not just the preamble that says “Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, pressing him to the bottle, even to make him drunk, “ but to also consider the motive behind the warning that is, “that you may look on his nakedness."   It does not say woe unto him that serves wine at a party to make for joy and good cheer!

Here is the question, should we call drinking alcohol a sin and not only refrain from drink any but condemn those who do as sinners?  Romans 14:21, “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.”  Please note how Paul uses meat-eating on the same level with wine-drinking in this verse.  Why is it alright to eat meat that is cloven of hoof and does not chew a cud now which was clearly prohibited in Deuteronomy 14:8, “And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass.”  Why would those who condemn drinking wine as a sin not condemn eating port just as vehemently?

Remember those who called the Lord Himself a winebibber because He partook of the fruit of the vine. Conversely, they said that John the Baptist had a devil because he didn't drink! Luke 7:33-34 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! Note how Jesus puts eating and drinking on the same level.

Now to His first miracle, Jesus did made wine at the marriage feast at Cana of Galilee when they ran out. We know from the comments of the governor that it was not "grape juice". The men had well drunk (it does not say they were drunken) and the Lord provided more wine. John 2:7-10 , “Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.”

They are those who claim that Jesus would have never made alcoholic wine because of

the bane that is has laid upon mankind.  That it is ridicules to believe that He would have

done such a thing.  To this argument I have two points to make, first it is not alcohol that is evil, rather it is the misuse of it by some people that is bad.  To claim it is the “Demon Rum” that cause a man to drink away his life and kill a family while driving drunk is no more then saying, “The Devil made me do it” and removes the blame from the man and puts it upon a object that can never move itself. 

Secondly I would point to the use of wine by the early church:  Wine was used in the Lord's supper and in New Testament churches--and some folks were abusing it. As is pointed out in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22,  “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.”  Note that Paul did not tell them to drink wine juice instead, he told them to go home and indulge if that had the urge.

Today we call people with alcohol problems, "alcoholics", and say that they are suffering from a disease and it truly not their fault, that God made them that way, I.e., in their DNA. The Bible calls 'em drunkards and this is sin! I Corinthians 6:10, “Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Ephesians 5:18, “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess…” Titus1:7, ...[bishop] not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;“ 2:3, “The aged women...not given to much wine…” (see also I Timothy 3:3, 8) 1 Peter 4:3..., “we walked in... excess of wine, revellings, banquetings…”

Thus I would say to you that it is not drinking alcohol that is a sin, rather the surrender of one’s soul to its pleasure that is the sin.  For as Jesus says in Mark 7:14-23, “Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, ‘Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.’ After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. ‘Are you so dull?’ he asked. ‘Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him `unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.’(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") He went on: ‘What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean.’”

Again in Matthew 15:10-20, “10. And having called the multitudes to him, he said to them, Hear and understand. 11. What entereth into the mouth polluteth not the man, but what goes out of the mouth polluteth the man. 12. Then his disciples approaching said to him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended when they heard that saying? 13. But he answering, said, Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up. 14. Let them alone: they are blind leaders of the blind. And if a blind man shall lead a

blind man, both will fall into the ditch. 15. And Peter answering said to him, Explain to us that parable. 16. And Jesus said, Are you also still void of understanding? 17. Do you not yet understand that whatever entereth into the mouth passeth into the belly, and is thrown into the sink? 18. But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart itself, and they pollute the man. 19. For out of the heart proceed wicked thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, calumnies. 20. These are the things which pollute the man. But to take food with unwashed hands polluteth not the man.”

It is true that Jesus was talking about food in this passages, but fermented wine was a common drink at meal time in this era, and would it not stand to reason that if Jesus thought that drinking alcohol defiled a man He would have made an exception, like “ Do you not yet understand that whatever besides wine that entereth into the mouth passeth into the belly, and is thrown into the sink.”?

One last point and I will go to the argument for believing drinking wine is a sin.  Are we under the Law or are we under the Blood?  I was, having never been a Jew, never under the Law.  My salvation comes from Jesus’ sacrifice not in my abeyance of the Law.  Remember in Romans 14:21 where Paul says, “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything hereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."  Paul was not in these words endeavoring to put any bounds upon the liberties of God's people for as he wrote to the churches of Galatia to warn them that some teachers were seeking to enslave them unto the very things from which they had been delivered. He counsels them to tenaciously guard their gracious freedom, and to refute those who bring a false gospel of works and rules. Because it is for freedom that Jesus Christ makes us free, we do well to learn what that means. When legalists seek to drag us backward into rituals, codes, traditions, and laws,”. 

So what is he saying when he says, “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine”?  Is he saying that your salvation will go to hell if eat meat or drink wine?  (Oh, and by the way, why has meat been dropped in this admonition?) No, a thousand times no!  Your efforts cannot undo the works of Jesus, nor can your efforts save you.  Your salvation is yours because God gave it to you through the blood of Jesus.  What Paul is saying is, maybe if by my restraining myself from some of my pleasures that around those whose faith may be weak or nonexistence will not use me as an excuse to walk away from the Lord.  Remember Paul said, “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine” he did not say it was a sin to do either.

Religious Unaffiliated Caused By Internet Use?

In the News today, 4/6/20014: "New research shows that the number of Americans with religious affiliations has dropped by 18 per cent, or 25 million people." with this for the headline: Losing our religion: "New research shows the Internet could be making Americans lose faith."  Article

Religious affiliation: The self-identified association of a person with a religion, denomination or sub-denominational religious group.

I assume that this report was based upon "An extensive new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life details statistics on religion in America and explores the shifts taking place in the U.S. religious landscape. Based on interviews with more than 35,000 Americans age 18 and older, the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey finds that religious affiliation in the U.S. is both very diverse and extremely fluid."

"[Snip] Like the other major groups, people who are unaffiliated with any particular religion (16.1%) also exhibit remarkable internal diversity. Although one-quarter of this group consists of those who describe themselves as either atheist or agnostic (1.6% and 2.4% of the adult population overall, respectively), the majority of the unaffiliated population (12.1% of the adult population overall) is made up of people who simply describe their religion as "nothing in particular." This group, in turn, is fairly evenly divided between the "secular unaffiliated," that is, those who say that religion is not important in their lives (6.3% of the adult population), and the "religious unaffiliated," that is, those who say that religion is either somewhat important or very important in their lives (5.8% of the overall adult population)."  Statistics on Religion in America

Allen Downey, a computer scientist at the Olin College of Engineering in Massachusetts correlates the increase of Internet use with the increase of the religious unaffiliated, because while in 1990, eight per cent of Americans had no religious affiliation. In 2010, that figure stands at 18 per cent, or 25 million people. At the same time the number of people who used the Internet per 100 of population when from near zero in 1990 to about 75 per 100 today. Yep, it correlates alright.  Article

I count myself among the religious unaffiliation in that I do not belong to a church, and do not hold to a particular doctrine, but I do consider myself a Christian. My unaffiliation has nothing to do with my Internet use. A correlation like this is useless, and cannot prove causation. You could also correlate the increase of electric car in use in this time span with the increase in the unaffiliated, but the fact that they increased together means nothing. One could just as easily claim that the increase in the increase in the unaffiliated caused the increase in Internet use instead of visa versa.

Why Easter is when it is, and what is the Blood Moon:

Alright, Easter is coming up, do any of you remember how I explained how the Sunday it falls upon is determined? Well for those of you who did not read that, or forgot here is the explanation again. For calculation purposes, the full moon is always set at the 14th day of the lunar month. Now as a side bar I will explain how the full moon is a half moon. Remember from all those Cowboy and Injuns movies you say that the Injun would say, "We will meet in 3 moons and see if you speak with forked tongue"? Well the lunar month started with the New Moon, which is a dark moon, 14 days later or half a moon later, it is a full moon, thus the half moon falls upon a half moon.

The first Council of Nicae 325 AD said that Easter is to be celebrated on the Sunday following the paschal full moon. Notice what isn't mentioned? That's right: Passover. But on a Sunday because Sunday was the day of Christ's Resurrection. But why the paschal full moon? Because that was the date of Passover in the Jewish calendar, and the Last Supper (Holy Thursday) occurred on the Passover. Therefore, Easter was the Sunday after Passover.

As I said above the lunar month begins with the new moon. Now the Church set the date of the vernal equinox at March 21, even though it can occur on March 19th this year. These approximations allow the Church to set a universal date for Easter. Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon, the paschal full moon, after the spring equinox which is the first day of spring. Many Christians believe that the date of Easter is determined by the date of Passover, and so they are surprised when, in years such as 2008, Western Christians celebrate Easter before the Jewish celebration of Passover. The reason the Council of Nicaea set up a formula for calculating the date of Easter was to separate the Christian celebration of Christ's Resurrection from the Jewish celebration of the Passover. Some Christians in the early fourth century were calculating the date of Easter according to the Jewish calendar, while others believed it needed to be calculated separately.

Why? Because Christ is the new Paschal Lamb, of Whom the lamb sacrificed at Passover was just a sign or symbol. That symbol found its completion in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Thus, the continued celebration of the Jewish Passover has no theological significance for Christians, because Christ is our Passover Lamb.

Easter Sunday this year, 2014,  falls on April 20, and the new moon will be eclipsed and become what is called a blood moon. The first of a Blood Moon Tetrad.    A total lunar eclipse set to sweep the skies on April 14-15 and turn the moon blood-red just before midnight has got scientists excited and some Christians fearing for the end of days. The coppery moon will be the first of two total lunar eclipses in 2014 as well as the opening act in a lunar tetrad – four total lunar eclipses in series.                                                   

It will begin at 21:20 GMT according to Sky and Telescope magazine. The other three eclipses in the “tetrad” will be in October, April 2015 and September 2015. Griffith Observatory will stream the event live.John Hagee, pastor and author of ‘Four Blood Moons: Something Is About to Change,’ cites Joel 2:31 as evidence, which says: “The sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.”  

This  has happened only three other times in the last six centuries. It will be the first part of a Jewish Feast Blood Moon Tetrad – four complete lunar eclipses in a row that all land on a Jewish Feast Day. This has occurred seven times since the birth of Jesus Christ. The first four had significance to Jewish and Christian people, while the last three coincided with three of the most important events in Jewish history with incredible impacts on Christians as well.

Previous Tetrads

At the time when God created the universe, He made it very clear that he would be communicating with His people through the heavenly bodies.

Genesis 1:14 (NASB)

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

It isn’t simply through tetrads that we have seen signs, but the seven previous ones since the Resurrection have given compelling evidence that they do signify important events. The first four occurred in in the first millennium AD. While it’s possible to look at history books and attribute significant events to the time periods surrounding 162-163, 795-796, 842-843, and 860-861, it would be a stretch to say that these events were clearly Biblical in nature and of enough significance to point to make a modern person’s jaw drop. Rather than mention the Antonine Plague, the attack on the Vatican church in Rome, or the end of Islamic invasions of Europe, we’ll assume that the events that transpired were significant but lost to history books.

The significance of the events surrounding the last three tetrads is very clear as we now have much better records of the events in the second millennium after Christ. One could argue that the three events that transpired around the previous three tetrads were the most important events to Jews, Christians, and the rest of the world in the last thousand years:

• 1493-1494 – One of the theories surrounding Christopher Columbus is that he was raised Jewish. The expulsion of the Jews from Spain coincided nicely with his voyage to America in 1492. It was a time when a good chunk of the world’s Jewish population was being dispersed from their homes while another refuge for them was being discovered, one that would help them survive as a people until their land was reclaimed. There is no telling what the Jewish population would be today if America had not been discovered at that time.
• 1949-1950 – Israel was admitted into the United Nations on May 11, 1949, shortly after winning back their homeland and declaring their independence the year before. This is perceived by many to have “started the clock” for a good chunk of Bible Prophecy.
• 1967-1968 – This was the time of the 6 Day War that put Israel back in control of Jerusalem.

With all three of these events, it is very clear that they held significance in carving out modern day Israel as well as Christianity.   2014-2015 Blood Moon Tetrad – What Does It Mean?

If God led you to it He will lead you through it

I would like to say a word about a few. supposedly Christian based platitudes that are constantly going around on Facebook. They go like this: "If God led you to it He will lead you through it" or "If God closes the door He will open a window." These imply that if you believe in God that He will clear the path before you and make easy your way.

This is not what the Bible tells us about how it will be for those who accept Christ as their Lord, consider all the ones who were martyred by the Romans, fed to the lions and crucified. You think that thing have changed in these latter days? Did not Jesus say in John 15 "18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke [1] for their sin. 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause."?

Matthew 24:9-10 ...'Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.'

Are American Christian more holey to God than these, "A Christian man has been sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan, according to his lawyer, following an incident last year that prompted a Muslim mob to torch hundreds of homes.", "Central African Republic peacekeepers call Christians 'enemy combatants'", "Rebel Hell: Libyan Islamists Torture 48 Christians Detained In Benghazi, Use Acid To Burn Off Tattoos Of The Cross".

The above are just a few of the many, many example of Christians being persecuted for their faith, and they are the reason I always post a like to one of these atrocities when I come across one of the those, "It is good and safe to be a Christian posts". If people come to believe that their faith will be sorely tested if and when God puts the same burden on Americans as He has on Christian world wide.

I waited on God to plow my field

 I waited on God to plow my field, it still lays fallen.

I waited on God to sow the seeds, I got weeds.

I waited on God to fix my roof, it still leaks.

Then I remembered that God only helps those who help themselves.

 

The laborer is worthy of his hire for an honest day’s work

On the docks, in the fields, or clerking.

But what of the banker who lends,

Why is his effort of so much more value?

 

What is money, but a chit, a chit with trust?

A dollar bill or a credit card a promise to pay

This for that, and if you lend me this now

I will pay you then and something to boot.

 

I need seeds for the fields, fuel for the plow,

I will pay your rate for I need it now

For if I wait there will be no crops to harvest,

Nothing to sell, and no money for living.

 

 God only helps those who help themselves, not on the Bible,

But Aeschylus in his play The Persians wrote,

 "Whenever a man makes haste, God too hastens with him."

 Benjamin Franklin used it in his almanac in 1736,

 

 

 

And Sophocles wrote, "No good e'er comes of leisure purposeless; 

And heaven ne’er helps the men who will not act." way back when,

And who has not heard, "Trust in God, but keep your powder dry"?

Does this conflict with the Bible's view of God's of grace?

 

 

Should you wait on God to plow your field?

Should you wait God to sow the seeds?

Should you wait on God to fix your roof?

Does God's grace say He will do these things?

 

What say you?

 

Did the Thief on the Cross go to Heaven?

Where Does the Soul Go After Death? (Paradise or Soul Sleep)?

By Dr. Richard P. Bucher

"One of the questions that has confused and divided Christians over the years is, “Where does the soul go after death? Does the soul sleep and remain with the body until the final resurrection on the Last Day? Or does the soul leave the body at death, to be with the Lord in Paradise (if Christian), or to a place of punishment (non-Christian)? The Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and some evangelical Christians hold to the soul sleep view. Lutherans, Catholics, and most Protestants hold to the soul leaving the body view."  Extracted from the above link.

This essay is an argument for believing in soul sleep, which Dr. Bucher thinks is in error.  To follow the argument you must open the link to his essay and read it, keep the page open so you can refer back to it as I progress in my rebuttals.   In my opinion, if you understand it one way or the other is not a damning condition.

In 2 Peter, Chapter 2 Peter is talking about the believer’s being led astray, verse 1 set the stage, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

So when Peter gets down to verse 4-9 he is still talking about giving the pearls to those who would lead the faithful astray, then in 4-11 “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;  And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;  And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;  And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:  (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)  The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:  But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.  Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.”   

I ask what Noah was saved from other than the destruction of his life of which the other inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha had to suffer.  Noah was not whisked away to Paradise, rather he walked away from the destruction, giving his wife the opportunity to look back and be turned into a pillar of salt.  Bucher takes verses 8 and 9 to mean that the believer will, at death, will go to Paradise instead of the grave, “(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:”  I take it to mean that God will give His elect the power to not be led astray by the false prophets.

Then he uses this parable that Jesus told in Luke 16:22-31, “The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house- 28 for I have five brothers- so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man has been the foundation for many of the erroneous beliefs about "hell" within traditional Christianity. Some have viewed it not as a parable, but as a true story Christ told to give details about the punishment of sinners in hell. Yet a thorough, unbiased examination of this story will show that the generally accepted interpretations of this passage of Scripture are fallacious and misleading. In this article, we will go through the parable verse by verse to determine what Christ was truly teaching. 

Those who insist that this is not a parable, but a true, literal story Christ told to describe the condition of the lost in hell must overlook several facts to arrive at that conclusion. First, Yeshua the Messiah never accuses the rich man of any sin. He is simply portrayed as a wealthy man who lived the good life. Furthermore, Lazarus is never proclaimed to be a righteous man. He is just one who had the misfortune to be poor and unable to care for himself. If this story is literal, then the logical implication is that all the rich are destined to burn in hell, while all the homeless and destitute will be saved. Does anyone believe this to be the case?  Best ofTentmaker:

If hell is truly as it is pictured in this story, then the saved will be able to view the lost who are burning there. Could anyone enjoy eternal existence if they were able to see lost friends, family, and acquaintances being incinerated in hell, yet never burning up? Additionally, if hell (as it is traditionally taught) is an abyss of fire and brimstone where sinners are tormented forever, does anyone really believe that one drop of water would relieve the pain and anguish of someone suffering in its flames?

These are just some of the difficulties we encounter when we try to make the account of Lazarus and the rich man literal, instead of realizing that it is a parable. If it is a true story, then all of the things Christ said must be factual. If all the points of the story are not literal, then we must view this tale as an analogy Jesus used to teach larger spiritual truth.

Then he brings up 2 Corinthians, Ch 5: 6-8, “Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:  (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)  We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.”  But if we look up in verse 1,  “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”  We see that it is Heaven that Paul is talking about, not Paradise.

Then Dr. Bucher goes to Philippians 1:23–24, “For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:  Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.” as proof.  Biblia.com puts it this way, “Conclusion: Those who desire that Christ may be magnified in their bodies have a holy indifference whether it be by life or death and may rejoice in all their tribulations as Christ’s witnesses, knowing that the Word of God cannot be Imprisoned and that though things do not turn to their comfort in this world, by God’s grace, they will be made to turn to the salvation of others.”  In other words, Paul is not struggling with whether to die and go to Paradise to be with Jesus, rather he is unconcerned if he lives or dies as long it is in service to our Lord.

He goes on to say, “But in Philippians 1, Paul is describing “departing and being with Christ” before the resurrection, for there is no mention of the Last Day or the final resurrection in the immediate context.” But Paul does not say how long  after his departure before he would be with Christ:  "For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. See 1 Cor. 15:51-54; 2 Tim.4:7, 8.  If no-one goes to be with Christ till after the resurrection, how would it have been better for Paul, so far as he was concerned, to depart then, rather than live on?  As no cognizance is taken of the lapse of time, after a person becomes unconscious in death (Eccl. 9:5; Ps. 146:4), though 2,000 years should elapse before Paul's resurrection, it would seem to him but the twinkling of an eye.

I will respond to his interpretation of Luke 23:43 and then terminate my discussion, bty I am not a Seventh Day Adventists.  Jesus said to the thief on the cross next to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise”  This I have no bone to pick with, I believe that Jesus took him to Paradise with him.  But some don’t, “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.”  See the difference in understanding the placements of the comas make? 

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 ...'Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures.' ... So, according to this verse, Christ didn't rise from the dead until the THIRD day after His death on the cross. Do you now see the problem with the statement: "TODAY you will be with Me in paradise"? Well, maybe Christ went to heaven when He died? The answer to that question is found in the verse in John 20:17 ...”Jesus saith unto her, Touch Me not; for I am NOT YET ascended to My Father.” So Jesus had risen from the dead on the third day after His death, and meets Mary and says to her, "I have NOT YET ascended to My Father". So do we have a contradiction with what Jesus said to the thief and what actually happened? We know we cannot question the truthfulness of Christ, because He is without sin and perfect. So we must look for harmony between His statements.   Did theThief on the Cross go to Heaven?

With this I bid you adieu, you will have to make up your own mind.

Rexx