It wasn't a typo in the normal sense. Remember I'm on my phone and I tried to copy and paste something fo the last point and it messed it all up. I fixed what I found. That was supposed to be Lake of fire.
No, the Lake of Fire is not identified as hell or of having the properties associated with hell. It's just(!) a lake of fire. You're pointing to the verses that are cited as supporting these dogma's. But they don't elucidate any of them.
Didn't Jesus tell about the Rich Man and Lazarus and it is noted DID NOT say it was a parable. But told as though it were a real event. and of course the Rich Man was condemned to hell.
No it says Hades, and both the Rich Man and Lazarus go there, one to be tormented, the other to be comforted. One of a number of the various and differing outlooks that the NT provides about the afterlife.
Your bible is translated by someone who already had the doctrine in mind, and therefore translates Hades as "Hell". The fact that both figures are there doesn't make any sense according to the dogma that you would like it to support.
It certainly doesn't say both the Rich Man and Lazarus were both in the same place. In fact it is pointed out that there is a "chasm" between where the two people are located.
I've said it twice now. In that story - read it - both the good man and the bad man go to the same place in the afterlife.
I've read it. They don't https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 16:19-31 Rich man in torment In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. Lazarus being comforted. but now he is comforted here
Both were not there. Lazarus was at Abraham's side and the Rich Man was in hades and a gulf separated them. The Rich Man asked for water because he was in torment from the fire.
It's the same place, chasm and all. You're both trying to impose a meaning on the text based on a later theology.
When Abraham says "his is comforted here" he is clearly referring to Lazarus being comforted at "Abraham's side". It seems that you are the one imposing a meaning based on your theology (or lack there of).
So the correct reading of "here" is "not here, at Abraham's side". Right. Like if I say that it's raining here, I don't mean in Ireland, I mean in Arkansas.
See, that's the thing with relying on a 2,000-year old text as the source of your belief. It says Hades, not hell. Does the word Hades take on that new meaning for this text? It might. It says nothing about a chasm. (EDIT: Meaning that it emphasizes that while Abram knows about a chasm, it is not visible to the rich man, so it's clearly not just a physical spatial thing, unlike Hades and Abram's lap.) It does say that the rich man goes to Hades, lifts his eyes, and sees Lazarus on Abram's lap. (Yup.) Does that mean they are in the same place, or that Heaven is visible from Hell? It might. It also talks about Abram discussing with the rich man whether Lazarus should be resurrected. Two other stories in the gospel tell of a man named Lazarus whom Jesus resurrects. Is this the same guy? Is Jesus or the evangelist choosing that name to make a point? Is it just a coincidence? It might be. The language, the meaning, and the intention all have to be selected through outside sources, or by contingent decision. The text doesn't provide them. If I did base my beliefs on this text, I think my best bet would be to look for people who at least claim that their understanding of the text goes back, by direct succession, to the people who were there and who wrote it in the first place.
Well, it does say 'apo makrothen', i.e. 'far away'. It all comes down to your choice of interpretation, which is pretty much the point.
And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ I'm pretty sure it does refer to a chasm.
Again, whatever that chasm is, it is not a fact of the space between Abram and the rich man that the rich man might see. Otherwise, the whole dialogue doesn't make sense: The rich man wants Lazarus to come to him, but the chasm that Abram describes is such that this is specifically impossible.
I'm pretty sure Hades is generally accepted to be hell by most biblical scholars. But to me this whole arguments is like debating the length of the Enterprise's warp nacelles. It's not real. It's whatever you want it to be.
That's nice, but it doesn't relate to the original point. Meanwhile, the main issue here was whether the text is a reliable source of information on its own. For that, it is not enough that a certain interpretation exists. Rather, its accuracy would have to be obvious to all readers, at least the sincere believers. If there is no consensus among them, what good is the book without further tradition?
It didn't use to be. Hades used to be the place where ALL the dead went before Jesus died; then he lead them all out of there when he returned from the dead; and it was only on Doomsday that some of them were banished to hell.
Caprica fan, makes sense they used that language for Taurons. A SciFi show without space battles. Packard is having an affair with Anderson Cooper,
I thought "Hades" as an interim place prior to judgement day was part of Catholic dogma or is that "purgatory".?
