Interpreting the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: It's Really Good News!

Hasn’t been proven wrong yet, even though it continues to be attacked. Id rather not turn this into a KJV thread. I’ve debated the topic hundreds of times.

Yes and yes…😀

Since there is no punuation in the Greek text let's loot at it that way, "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise"
That has them going to paradise that very day.

"
First, we can look at how similar phrases are used in both the septuagint and the nt. As i said before this is commom idiom to express certainty, especially in the septuagint. See Deu 30:18 for an example.

We have to use the septuagint for usage examples because in nearly every case in the nt 'legw soi' is followed by an 'oti' clause, thus the examples are not parrallel.

We can also go back to sources closer in time to when the NT was written and see how those people interpreted the passage. Below I have quoted a portion of the b-greek discussion on this issue. It shows that putting the comma after today is a valid historical interpretation.

Early Greek manuscripts had no punctuation, but occasionally it is found in some MSS, and this is the case here, where B (the Vatican 1209) has a lower point ((hypostigme) after semeron. Regarding the punctuation used by this MS, it was noted that in general "B has the higher point as a period, the lower point for a shorter pause." (A. T. Robertson, "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament," Nashville, 1934, p. 242) The ink of the uncial letters in codex B was at one time a faded brown color, and in a later century a scribe traced over many of the letters and punctuation marks. However, in Luke 23:43 the ink of the lower point is the same as the letters of the text, and thus it can be traced back to the fourth century C.E.The Vatican 1209 uses punctuation marks also in other places. Thus, at Romans 9:5, ABCL and 26 cursives have a point after sarka. Does anybody know any MS that displays some kind of punctuation in Luke 23:43, beside the Vatican 1209?

The Curetonian Syriac (fifth century C.E.) renders Luke 23:43: "Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden.'"--F. C. Burkitt, "The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels," Vol. I, Cambridge, 1904.
Below I am quoting from several Greek sources, in transliteration and
providing an English translation. I would appreciate if improvements would be offered for the English renderings.

Tines men houtos anaginoskousin* _Amen lego soi semeron*_ kai hypostizousin* eita epipherousin, hotiet' emou ese e to paradeiso._ ("Some indeed read this way: 'Truly I tell you today,' and put a comma; then they add: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'"--Hesychius of Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E. Greek text found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 93, columns 432, 1433.

Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <<Semeron,>> hin' e to
legomenon toiouton* <<Amen ego soi semeron*>> eita to, <<met' emou ese en to paradeiso,>> epipherontes. ("But others press upon the saying, putting a punctuation mark after 'today,' so that it would be said this way: 'Truly Itell you today'; and then they add the expression: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'")--Theophylact, an ecclesiastical writer who died about 1112 C.E. Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123, column 1104.

alloi -- to rheton ekbiazontai* legousin gar dein hypostizontas 254:hypostizantas) anaginoskein* amen lego soi semeron*>> eith' houtos epipherein to* met' emou ese etc. ("Others press upon what is spoken; for they say it must read by putting a comma thus: 'Truly I tell you today,' and then adding the expression this way: 'You will be with me' etc.")--Scholia 237, 239, 254. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869,under Luke 23:43.

kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met' emou ese en to parad[eiso]. ("And immediately he said to me: 'Most truly today I tell you, You will be with me in Paradise.'")--Descent into Hades, an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43.
ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton
parad[eison] met' emou. ("And he said to him: 'Today I tell you the truth,
that I should have you in Paradise with me.'")--Gospel of Nicodemus (=Acts of Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke 23:43.

Therefore, at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the twelfth
century C.E. there were readers who understood the text at Luke 23:43 as "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise." On that very day,when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in Paradise. (Psalms 16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb until the third day and was then resurrected as "the firstfruits" of the resurrection. (Acts 10:40;1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18 ) Thus, the word "today" at Luke 23:43 does not give the time of the evildoer's being with Jesus in Paradise."
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1996-08/14020.html
https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=889

start at https://christianchat.com/threads/i...arus-its-really-good-news.203594/post-4783391

It is a silly discourse. Paradise is used in different contexts. It has a specific meaning based on the context where it occurs is scripture and it was a word used in Rabbinical teaching and Jewish thought. So depending on who is using the word and how it is used in scripture it has a meaning in that context.

Focusing on Up vs Down is a silly trek I don't wish to pursue. I was just showing how what you said was up eventually is down in that it comes down upon the earth, and there is no contradiction if there was a place called paradise as a general term describing a place of blessing for the righteous dead. In the "other worldly" frame of reference there probably is no up or down.

A
Anecdotal, not scriptural.

Anecdotal:. I know Catholics and (so called) Protestants, Muslims who believe in eternal torment and serve God from fear, rather than love, and live sinful lives in secret (unless they're Catholic and attend auricular confession to be relieved of having to overcome). And many unrepentant unbelievers think they're gonna "party on dude" in hell.

If it (fire) were purification of person, why would it be physical fire? If it (fire) were purification of person, why would it be eternal and unending, rather than temporary and limited?

I am asking because I really do not know. When do you believe the wicked dead suffer torment. Do you believe they die, are asleep, get raised, then cast into the Lake of Fire, but it snuffs them out instantly? Or do they linger swimming about in it for a day or two?

I gave you many verses, both OT and NT, not merely Ecclesiastes (which you do to what you accuse me and Phoneman-777 of doing).

I showed from many texts how the Bible itself (not me, not Phoneman-777) defines "forever" and thus koine Greek aiwn.

Again, I ask you straight:

Can "aiwn's" begin and end?

Does "forever" in scripture always mean eternal and unending?

Have you any idea how unreasonable it is to argue that God will cast into a fiery "holding cell" humans who had only faith as evidence for God and chose not to walk in that faith..but demons which knew God intimately and beheld Him face to face before trying to snatch Him from His throne are spared that same "fiery holding cell"?

Bro, the wages of sin is death, not eternal torment, because the only way for Jesus to deliver us from eternal torment is that HE BE ETERNALLY TORMENTED.

Basically what you just said, though the last sentence is a caricature. Each suffers the length and intensity that they deserve (deeds done in the body), with satan going down last of all, suffering the most.

Genesis 2:7 KJV says the living soul comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life. At death when the Breath of any living soul - saved or lost - returns to God, and the body to dust, as a result of this disunion the living soul ceases to exist...until the one or the other of the two resurrections.

That's why Jesus called the first death a "sleep" and the Second Death is "death". Because Jesus knows all the dead are coming forth from the grave, but those found "unjust" and "filthy" will suffer the Second Death - they will be cast into the Lake of Fire and burn for as long as their sins permit, with Hitler burning way longer than Cain and Satan burning the longest...until all pass out of existence.

You just did what satan did in the wilderness. What do I mean?

The sentence doesn't begin, "Today ..."

The sentence begins, "Verily I say unto thee To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."

This changes the sentence from saying that "today" the person on the cross would be in paradise, to Jesus promising the person "today" (Today if you hear his voice harden not your heart, but believe his promises) that when Jesus came into His kingdom (context previous verse which prompted the response from Jesus) the person would be resurrected and enter there also.

In other words to begin where you did leaves out important context which alters the meaning, and thus you have done what satan did in the wilderness to Jesus. I am not saying you did such deliberately, nor am I saying that you are satan.

Take away the comma or place it AFTER the word "today" and we can easily have Jesus promising the thief that Friday that one day both He and the thief will meet in heaven.

Put if BEFORE "today" and we make Jesus a liar when He said Sunday that He hadn't yet ascended to the Father.

That's a fine subjective argument. No where are we told there are "different levels and types of punishment".

There is only ONE punishment for sin, and that's death by Lake of Fire. There is variation, however, but not the kind you're inventing: that variation is "duration of suffering" where some will burn up rather quickly, while others guilty of greater sin will burn longer, and the devil will burn the longest...but all will burn up and pass out of existence in death...the Second Death....eternal death...a death from which there will be no resurrection.

So you teach that the unrepentant are now (presently this very ongoing moment) being punished and are also in that punishment being reserved to be punished in future?

In your view what exactly changes from the now and the future besides location?

There is no "new" revelation in the NT about death. In the NT, David had STILL not ascended to heaven, and if anybody's gonna be there, it's good ol king David.

I don't know Greek. I rely on expert authors who I trust that do.

There are so many scriptures that describe the eternal torment, that we would have to analyze each one.

So one word might be a word that means ages of ages. And an argument might be presented that ages end. Maybe a word about eons.
Or some other similar approach.

But eventually you get to the verses that contrast eternal life and eternal torment or punishment and you are not able to make the eternal part of eternal life be never-ending and the same word used for eternal punishment have an end. Not and be intellectually honest with the Greek at least.

So if you really want to analyze the eternity of all those Greek words in each verse that suggest that the torment is neverending or the worm dies not or the flame is not quenched we could have a go of it.
But I think you will find that your approach will not work for all of them.

We have already crossed this ground and your attempt to say that the flame is not quenched means that it is not quenched by any body but it does go out, sounds like something some child would come up with as a completely dishonest attempt to find some "way out" of accepting the plain meaning of the words.

If the scripture says it is not quenched it means it never goes out. Nobody puts it out, no one can put it out, because it goes on and on and is never put out. Trying to explain how a fire burned until it went out on its own means it was not quenched is so outrageously dishonest that I really don't know why we are even still chatting.

Of course a fire that goes out from lack of fuel is quenched. It is quenched for lack of fuel. If it looses oxygen it is quenched. To take it upon your self to force a personal definition that the word quenched here must only apply to someone stamping it out with there foot is dumb and dishonest.

He is not saying that the fire goes out after there is no more fuel he says the fire is never quenched. Flame/fire, whatever. It is of another world and realm and not to be explained with earthly fire anyway.

It doesn't go out. So you see as we go through all of the verses you will have to find a way to make the Greek mean something else for multiple Greek words. And this approach will eventually expose you as 1) ignorant of Greek and 2) intellectually dishonest.

Take three years of Greek and learn to read and right Koine Greek and explain the sentence rule for the word in the context in which you are discussing as it appears in the text and I will give you an ear as to why that word means thus and so. But don't pull out a Strongs find a list of possible English words and try and replace the one that the translators use for one of the other english words in the list. That is not how it works.. People who dont know Greek try and pull that all the time in a desperate effort to change the meaning of a verse.

What do you base that on? An uninterpreted parable in Luke 16?

How about you quote the verse correctly first?

"Verily I say unto thee today thou shalt be with Me in Paradise".

The word "today" is modifying the verb "say", not "shalt be".

In other words, "I say unto thee today, Friday, while I'm hanging here looking like anything but the Savior of the world.....YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE".