re: Trump says he doesn’t think there’s anything that’ll get him to heaven

quote:

---

Many scholars believe this was not a parable but an actual story since he names Lazarus by name. The whole point is to convey the dangers of torment and destruction that awaits those outside Christ. Scripture does not teach all will be saved, only those dressed in the righteousness of Christ.

---

It was a parable. There was no resurrection of the dead before Christ died. The Gospels were not written for the Gentiles (non-Jews).

Matthew 10:5-6
King James Version
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matt 15:
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

The whole Bible is based upon the defeat of Death. When you die you are dead until the resurrection. On judgement day if you are not found in the Lamb's book of life you will be cast into the Lake of Fire, which is the second death. There is no consciousness in death. The Lake of Fire is not forever; it's til the ages of the ages, which have an end.

Paul tells us all we need to know about God's plan post Jesus's death:

I Cor 15:
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
(See, death is just that, death. If you were conscious in death, it wouldn't matter if you were resurrected or not.)

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
(the Lake of Fire is the second death. It too will be destroyed in the end.)

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

quote:

---

You have this on repeat.
Source?

---

Posted upthread:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Many scholars believe this was not a parable but an actual story since he names Lazarus by name. The whole point is to convey the dangers of torment and destruction that awaits those outside Christ. Scripture does not teach all will be saved, only those dressed in the righteousness of Christ.

---

It was a parable. There was no resurrection of the dead before Christ died. The Gospels were not written for the Gentiles (non-Jews).

---

This is refreshing to see a Christian admitting that the parable of Lazarus in Luke was that of a fictional, ahistorical character.

I really love the two stories of Lazarus because the second one in particular showed how disgusted “John” was with “Luke’s” story that he ginned up a new story to rebuke the other that had Lazarus resurrected from the dead precisely to convince people Jesus was divine and to follow God, which contradicted the “Luke” parable of a Lazarus that there was no use resurrecting from the dead because even that wouldn’t convince people to follow God.

quote:

---

Goodness, you do try hard to support your atheistic faith.

---

It’s literally the opposite of faith.

Read the stories of Lazarus in Luke and John.

These are the morals of the stories.
Luke: not even witnessing someone resurrecting from the dead will convince.
John: seeing someone resurrected from the dead will convince.

Just curious Squirrel, and not personal...but I assume that you would agree that you and I and all perceiving Entities/Lifeforms are essentially Energy, which forms a unified, molecular Carbon base for becoming a Self-Aware, Cognitive Entity. An Entity/Lifeform whose particular, relative, complexity determines and establishes the relative degree of said Entity's self-awareness and cognition (Intelligence). The more complex an Entity is, the more knowledgeable and powerful it can become. I.e., Knowledge is Power, to an Entity which is complex/cognitive enough to realize such. The sky might be the limit in such an evolutionary scenario. But a snail has a long way to go.

Quantum Physics experiments indicates that there is some form of inexplicable 'unity' underlying the Energy Universe, such that Energy, which is stimulated in one area, causes an b] instantaneous [/b] reaction in another area (of Energy) so far away that said reaction/transmission time defies proven Universal Time/Space Law.

I know that you are an impeccable research Cognitive Entity, and as such, wonder and suspect that you are very aware of the implications of said "Entanglement Theory". For me, the evidence is plain and definitive: Said evidence indicates that there is some form of underlying Unity in the total Energy Reservoir, which subordinates Empirical/Worldly Reality Universal Law. So given that bomb, the relevant question becomes - for us sticklers and Truth Seekers - is, or can, this form of infinitely complex, Unified Energy Reservoir...be relatively Self-Aware, as we less complex Energy Lifeforms are. Albeit we as 'Children', to an obviously much lesser degree. Do you not give this possibility ANY credence or scientific/philosophical weight, given the evidence? Because if you don't, then a willful choice to omit a potential truth - for whatever reason - could become a costly problem, re one's legitimate search for Truth. Or in the minds of those who honestly search for Truth, and the comfort and prosperity therein.

Bottom line, Religious 'interpretations' aside...I think that the infinite, Energy Reservoir, is Self-Aware. And that would be the very definition of Religion's "God". And it's lagniappe that such an Entity, can love me as I do my Great-granddaughter, and friends, but vastly much more so.

No pushing here, to each their own. I'm down with that as long as the arguments and information presented to the people is honest and wholly truthful. If the info is skewed, ignored, or muddied up, it's up to the good, responsible, and loving folk to take care of business, if good conscience so demands. I assume you are in that group.

He needs Jesus.
None of us can stop enough wars to make up for our sins.
Dat Yat
Shaw 83

quote:

---

No pushing here, to each their own.

---

RCD, I think that arguments such as “look at the complexity of life” and “look at the cosmos/physics/gravity/atomic forces” and so on as an argument for a deity (or deities) isn’t totally crazy. There’s a lot we don’t know and can’t explain. Hindus and Muslims and so on use some of those same arguments… for the existence of their particular god or gods.

Could there be deities or powerful beings beyond our comprehension - could they have even set life in motion on this planet? It’s certainly possible… maybe even somewhat plausible. But just because of that possibility or plausibility, it doesn’t automatically point to the deities in the Bible as being real or the stories in the Bible as all being accurate and historical.

Just because there’s something unexplained doesn’t require us to say “God did it”. That’s fallacious.

When I ask you about the two Lazarus stories - one used to assert that not even resurrecting a man from the dead will make people believe, and the second asserting that resurrecting a man from the dead did make people believe - I’m just asking if you can see and can understand the outcomes/morals/lessons of the two stories as I see it. If you were to admit what is plainly obvious about the two stories contradicting each other, it doesn’t mean you have to reject your faith or suddenly become an atheist.

I don’t know if many people do this, but when I read a gospel I read the whole thing start to finish. I want to know what Mark wanted to convey to his audience. I want to know what Matthew wanted to convey to his audience. Same with Luke and John. I think far too many people presuppose univocality and inerrancy as part of their dogma, and they just flatly miss out on each author’s story.

The calvinist clown here is foomanblew aka fooCUCKchew

Just believe DJT!