Hades isn't "Catholic hell", hades is the underworld which cointained Abraham's bosom (limbus patrum) AND the place of the wicked, thus hell, gehenna in the OT.
Rich Man and Lazarus
by Ding 169 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Anony Mous
@ray: Hades being a fiery place of torment is a rather Hellenistic idea, not at all in line with Jewish belief.
Yes, the Jews believe in a life continuing after death, but they don’t believe in a place of torment, that would’ve been pagan, similar to child sacrifice, hence why the idea would be repulsive to the listener if it was indeed told at the time.
The whole story is anachronistic, the idea of hellfire only came hundreds of years after Jesus supposed death with the Catholic Church iconography and isn’t at all visible in other Christian branches such as Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox iconography.
-
Vanderhoven7
From my perspective both "The Dishonest Steward" and :The Rich Man and Lazarus" accounts are satirical. They wete designed to undermine Pharisaic authority in the eyes of the common people in the audience.
In order to establish that the literary form of both narratives are satires, or more particularly, parodies, there must be clear evidence that:
a. A common or "well known story line is being imitated".
b. irony is employed; that the story’s outcome is changed such that there is clear “incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the expected result”
c. the unexpected results "highlight human stupidity" or corruption.
d. "a comic end is served", the purpose of which is to cause listeners "to detach sympathies from certain people (groups), to judge their actions and to see the absurdity in their behavior…
As it happens, The Dishonest Steward (Pharisees) get divine congratulations and the rich man (Pharisees) end up in their own version of hell in the afterlife.
It is clear why the Pharisees would not appreciate these accounts.
Check out my YT video
-
aqwsed12345
Anony Mous
Deut 32:22, Is 33:11.14, Is 66:24, Dan 12:2, Psalm 21:10, Mt 8,12; Mt 25:41, Mt 25:46, Mt 3,12; Mk 9:43-49, Lk 3,16-17, Lk 13:28, Rom 2,6-9, 2Tess 1:6-9, 2Pt 2:4, Rev 14:11, Rev 20,10.15
Salmond, Stewart (1903). The Christian Doctrine of Immortality.
-
ThomasMore
Rick - your video was enlightening. Thank you.
-
Anony Mous
@aqwsed: where modern English translations are biased towards Christian doctrine, they do indeed translate ‘hell’ where it should read Sheol, which is not the idea of a fiery place, but rather a disconnect with God, a place where you bring yourself voluntarily through deeds and can lift yourself up. Jewish lore is a lot closer to Hinduism in that they almost believe in a sort of karma that follows your soul through the “incarnations” of life as well as death.
Hence why in your OT references, you have to stretch a lot to get to an idea of hellfire whereas your NT references only have an approximation of hellfire in specific “authors” but not in others, most of them being anachronistic with and most likely inserted later in comparison with the rest of the text (as in the Lazarus and the Rich Man story).
The biggest differences between the NT and OT when it talks about death, is that the NT beliefs in redemption after death through faith, whereas the OT/Jews do not, redemption is only through action and your deeds follow you into the afterlife and even applies to higher levels of consciousness, including for example, angels, whereas in the NT figures like Jesus and the angels are infallible.
-
aqwsed12345
Sheol/hades isn’t hell, gehenna is.
Bible distortion is what NTW does, for example in Psalms 146:4.
-
Vanderhoven7
AQ
Yes, death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire where both will be destroyed eternally. No more death and no more hell. Wonderful - No?
-
aqwsed12345
The WTS publication "The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life" emphasizes that this is a parable and nothing more. All thoughts related to the literal place of torment must be excluded. They ask rationally:
"Is it reasonable or Scriptural to believe that a man suffers torment simply because he is rich, wears good clothing and has plenty to eat? Is it Scriptural to believe that one is blessed with heavenly life just because he is a beggar? Consider this too: Is hell literally within speaking distance of heaven so that an actual conversation could be carried on? Also, if the rich man were in a literal burning lake, how could Abraham send Lazarus to cool his tongue with just a drop of water on the tip of his finger?"
For all these reasons, this cannot be a literal account of events. What, then, did Jesus want to say with this? The Watchtower Society interprets the story allegorically:
"In this illustration the rich man stood for the class of religious leaders who rejected and later killed Jesus."
Some individuals here expand into entire groups of people. They also reinterpret the torment spoken of in the story. It no longer refers to the afterlife (Lk 16:22), but to the fate of religious leaders shortly after the events of Pentecost:
"Being cast off, they suffered torments when Christ’s followers after Pentecost forcefully exposed their evil works."
The fact that this explanation is unconvincing is proven, on the one hand, by the fact that the biblical text itself provides no basis for such a purely historical interpretation. On the other hand, the Watchtower Society has provided at least five different explanations for Lk 16:19-31 throughout its history - which we will omit for the sake of brevity. Dietrich Hellmund (1971) speaks in his dissertation of the "persistent, unsolved problem" of Jehovah's Witnesses in connection with the many and varied attempts at explanation. Russell's confession was still the most honest: "Here we find the only place in Scripture that suggests the possibility of thinking, feeling, torment, or joy in Hades or Sheol" (Biblical Studies 5, 1926, p. 361).
As we have seen, Luke 16:19-31 is by no means the only place that confirms this. How should Luke 16:19-31 be interpreted in reality? This is a difficult question in theological research as well. In my opinion, however, some basic statements can still be made.
First of all, it is not entirely clear whether this is really a parable. Compared to Jesus' other parables, there is at least one striking difference: the naming of "Lazarus", which otherwise never occurs in Jesus' parables. Various Church Fathers were therefore of the opinion that this is not a parable, but that Jesus is referring to a real Israeli event. Tertullian writes (De anima 7): "What would the name 'Lazarus' be doing here if it were not a real event? But even if it were a parable that demands faith, it would still be a testimony to the truth." The distinguished biblical scholar Theodor Zahn also points to the naming in connection with Lk 16:19-31, which "stands without parallel in all of Jesus' parables that have come down to us, both in the narrower and broader sense."
Even if the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is indeed an illustration, Jesus never used false or misleading things.
-
Vanderhoven7
The Pharisees, (like the organization) promised Abrahamic paradise to those who accepted God's judgment for their sins and those of their fathers. We cannot in good conscience help you.... Lazarus (God is your help) they would say to the poor without lifting a finger to help. In his story, Jesus placed "God is your help" in Abraham's Bosom just where the Pharisees said they would end up at death if they accepted their poverty and woes. But the rich man (i.e. the Pharisees) end up in the very hell they used to justify their refusal to help.
It's a parody, a masterful satire to undermine Pharisaic authority.