Does the story of Lazarus and the Rich man happen after the resurrection ?

[OldCoot 438]

1 hour ago, Da Puppers said:

And you are defining "only" and "immortality" in a hypo-literal fashion that defines the Father as being immortal,  rather than eternal.  Being Immortal and being eternal are not congruent terms. 

*[[1Ti 1:17]] KJV* Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Be Blessed, 

The PuP 

 

Well Yeshua is eternal.  As is the redeemed are eternal in that the redemption includes eternal life which by definition is immortal.  While He did come to be a man upon the earth, He is the eternal one Isaiah wrote of. The Mighty God, the Eternal One.  And He is the child who is given to us.  

Isaiah 9:6 (NKJV) For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The "Everlasting Father" in that passages should actually be translated literally as "the Father of Eternity".   And that is attributed to the Son. You don't agree with my position.  That's fine. I am not offended and I am not a salesman trying make the deal.  I stated it.  You have not offered any definitive evidence to refute it.  You like going on side trips to divert the discussion, and that is fine also.  But that doesn't sway me from my position.  

These resurrected of Matthew 27 are called saints (redeemed) by Matthew.  Paul in Ephesians applied Psalms 68:18 to suggest that Yeshua led the captive of Abraham's bosom captive, meaning that He took possession of the righteous being held in Abraham's bosom.   Many early church writers who directly knew the Apostles or students of the Apostles, and therefore had access to what would be called in legal terms "primary source material".  These early writers expressed that these saints of Matthew 27 were taken to the Father. Even elaborating that these saints were the righteous held in Abraham's bosom and Yeshua emptied it.  Dr. Norman Geisler did a major expository article on this very issue, documenting these early church writers, of which you can readily find online.  

But if one has eternal life, then one is immortal.... beyond mortality.  And the redeemed saints of Matthew 27 are just that... immortal.  Just like every other redeemed that is resurrected,  or changed at the rapture.  The redeemed cast off mortality and gain immortality.  Romans 2:7, 1 Corinthians 15:53-54, 2 Timothy 1:10, Job 19:25-27, Psalms 37:28, etc.

You want a food fight over whether Yeshua is the only one who is immortal.  You will have to provide something a little more substantive to refute my position or we will just have to leave it there.

 

 

 

Edited May 23 by OldCoot

[Da Puppers 61]

29 minutes ago, OldCoot said:

Well Yeshua is eternal.  As is the redeemed are eternal in that the redemption includes eternal life which by definition is immortal.  While He did come to be a man upon the earth, He is the eternal one Isaiah wrote of. The Mighty God, the Eternal One.  And He is the child who is given to us.  

Isaiah 9:6 (NKJV) For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The "Everlasting Father" in that passages should actually be translated literally as "the Father of Eternity".   And that is attributed to the Son. You don't agree with my position.  That's fine. I am not offended and I am not a salesman trying make the deal.  I stated it.  You have not offered any definitive evidence to refute it.  You like going on side trips to divert the discussion, and that is fine also.  But that doesn't sway me from my position.  

These resurrected of Matthew 27 are called saints (redeemed) by Matthew.  Paul in Ephesians applied Psalms 68:18 to suggest that Yeshua led the captive of Abraham's bosom captive, meaning that He took possession of the righteous being held in Abraham's bosom.   Many early church writers who directly knew the Apostles or students of the Apostles, and therefore had access to what would be called in legal terms "primary source material", they wrote that these saints were taken to the Father. Even elaborating that these saints were those righteous held in Abraham's bosom and Yeshua emptied it.  Dr. Norman Geisler did a major expository article on this very issue, documenting these early church writers, of which you can readily find online.  

But if one has eternal life, then one is immortal.... beyond mortality.  And the redeemed saints of Matthew 27 are just that... immortal.  Just like every other redeemed that is resurrected,  or changed at the rapture.  The redeemed cast off mortality and gain immortality.  Romans 2:7, 1 Corinthians 15:53-54, 2 Timothy 1:10, Job 19:25-27, Psalms 37:28, etc.

You want a food fight over whether Yeshua is the only one who is immortal.  You will have to provide something a little more substantive or we will just have to leave it there.

 

 

 

You are applying congruent logic to things that are not logically congruent.   Immortality does indeed imply for eternity.   But eternity does not imply immortality.   It's the same as saying that all men are humans.  But not all humans are men,  some are women.   The scripture in 1 Tim 6:16 does indeed make that distinction between immortality and eternity, but you are equating/ defining them as equal when they are not.   As long as you do that,  it is futile to show you the difference.   The internal component within the gives the contextual understanding.   The man,  Christ Jesus,  dwells in the light (of the eternal God)  that no other man can approach.   He is the ONLY one who possesses the IMMORTALITY that can do so.   No other scripture is needed to explain the context.   The conferment of immortality is a subset of eternity.   But the reverse is not true. 

The truth of scripture is not what men believe about them,  it's what the scripture says that makes them true.   Scriptures are the inspired words of God,  and not the inspired words of men. 

Be Blessed, 

The PuP 

[OldCoot 438]

Those saints of Matthew 27 were resurrected according to Matthew and by some accounts taken to be with the Father.  They are no longer mortal but immortal. They are classified as saints so they are redeemed to eternal life.  Nothing substantive to refute that still.    And that is the truth of both scripture and several early church writers who had contact with the Apostles or their students, which means they had access to primary source material on the matter.

Edited May 23 by OldCoot

[WilliamL 1,939]

On 5/20/2019 at 4:12 PM, childoftheking said:

On a side note: Have you ever read or heard where the idea of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man was an add in?

Yes, but there are a whole lot of passages in the Gospels that so-called scholars say were add-ins, including all kinds of statements they claim Jesus never said. The whole conspiracy theory of the Bible thing. But it is impossible for such conspirators to have forged all the manuscripts, and citations of the Church Fathers who quoted them. The textual evidence of the New Testament is solid, with only a few very minor exceptions.

[WilliamL 1,939]

18 hours ago, Da Puppers said:

 How about this: 

Verse list:    
1Ti 6:15-16 KJV    Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; WHO ONLY hath IMMORTALITY, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

If Jesus is the only one who currently possesses immortality,  then those saints resurrected at the time of the crucifixion do not.   

Be Blessed, 

The PuP 

Then Moses and Elijah didn't really show up on the Mount of transfiguration with Jesus?

Immortality does not necessarily imply that one has a physical body.

However, the sense of 1 Tim. 6:15 seems to be that Jesus alone holds/possesses [Gr. echo:  to have, own, possess] immortality; that is, has the keys to immortality.

Another passaage to consider is in Rev. 22:

22:8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”

This was a human being, in heaven, in John's time.

[Da Puppers 61]

59 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Then Moses and Elijah didn't really show up on the Mount of transfiguration with Jesus?

Immortality does not necessarily imply that one has a physical body.

However, the sense of 1 Tim. 6:15 seems to be that Jesus alone holds/possesses [Gr. echo:  to have, own, possess] immortality; that is, has the keys to immortality.

Another passaage to consider is in Rev. 22:

22:8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”

This was a human being, in heaven, in John's time.

It is an assumption on your part to say that this fellowservant had an immortal body.   John described him as being an angel.  

*[[Rev 22:8]] KJV* And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

The mount of transfiguration was a vision. 

*[[Mat 17:9]] KJV* And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the VISION to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Other than that,  I can accept what you say.  THANKS!

Be Blessed, 

The PuP 

 

Edited May 23 by Da Puppers

[WilliamL 1,939]

10 minutes ago, Da Puppers said:

It is an assumption on your part to say that this fellow servant had an immortal body.   John described him as being an angel.  

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

Immortality does not necessarily imply that one has a physical body.

I did not say he had an immortal body. But it is a good assumption. Or do you think Elijah and Enoch are still mortals, even after having been taken up into heaven? (And their bodies with them. Elisha looked for the body and didn't find it.)

The Greek term ἄγγελος simply means messenger. Whether a celestial messenger or a human one is decided by context. The context here indicates a human one

 

[Da Puppers 61]

28 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

I did not say he had an immortal body. But it is a good assumption. Or do you think Elijah and Enoch are still mortals, even after having been taken up into heaven? (And their bodies with them. Elisha looked for the body and didn't find it.)

The Greek term ἄγγελος simply means messenger. Whether a celestial messenger or a human one is decided by context. The context here indicates a human one

 

 True,  you did not say that he had an immortal body.   But it was an implied point to support your counterpoint.   

Angel=messenger... agreed.   This is why John Baptist is referred to as an "angel".

I don't know if Elijah and Enoch are immortal.   They were both transported to heaven,  before the one who holds the key to immortality became a man.   Were they held in an un-immortalized state until Christ came?   If,  yes,  then not all of heaven consists of the throne room where God dwells.  Which also means that they may still be awaiting immortality.   1 Tim 6:16 seems to indicate that Christ dwells in that eternal light...that no man can approach.  As per Elijah returning in a mortal body... is it a necessary element to his return?   I don't know.   With no other hints at who are the 2 witnesses (other than Malachi 4:5), we can't definitively answer that question.   There are numerous saints listed by name who will be a part of the endtimes [Daniel, Zerubabel, Ezekiel,  Eliakim (Isa 22), et al].  

Be Blessed, 

The PuP 

Edited May 23 by Da Puppers

[childoftheking 103]

3 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Yes, but there are a whole lot of passages in the Gospels that so-called scholars say were add-ins, including all kinds of statements they claim Jesus never said. The whole conspiracy theory of the Bible thing. But it is impossible for such conspirators to have forged all the manuscripts, and citations of the Church Fathers who quoted them. The textual evidence of the New Testament is solid, with only a few very minor exceptions.

That is true, but on things that church historians kept, like the changing of Yeshua's words in the 4th century we can bank on, since we know historians before the 4th century kept records of such things.

[OldCoot 438]

On 5/20/2019 at 4:57 PM, WilliamL said:

Luke's Gospel was more of a collection of remembrances of many different people, not a sequential narrative

And that hits the nail on the head. Luke himself outlined this idea right out of the gate in Luke 1:1-4.