Answer: An idiom is an expression that has a meaning other than what the words themselves communicate. For example, you can “have your hands full” even with empty hands. If an idea is “over one’s head,” you don’t look toward the ceiling to find it. If someone has “let the cat out of the bag,” you don’t have to call animal control. These idioms are understood by experienced users of the English language to mean “busy,” “revealed a secret,” and “beyond comprehension,” respectively.

All languages have idioms, including the languages in which the Bible was written. Using idiomatic expressions is a normal part of communicating, and, since the Bible was written in normal human language, it, too, contains idioms.

The English Bible has had a profound effect on the development of the English language. The phrasing, vocabulary, and cadences of the King James Version left a lasting impact on our culture. In fact, some of the Bible’s idioms have been adopted as idioms in English. Idioms that come straight from the Bible include the following:

Let me catch my breath. Meaning: “give me some time.” As Job is questioning the purposes of his suffering, he says of God, “He would not let me catch my breath but would overwhelm me with misery” (Job 9:18).

A drop in the bucket. Meaning: “a very small, insignificant amount.” In lifting up God as sovereign, Isaiah writes, “Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust” (Isaiah 40:15).

The apple of one’s eye. Meaning: “something very dear.” The psalmist asks for God’s protection against his enemies, saying, “Keep me as the apple of the eye” (Psalm 17:.

Other English idioms that are sourced from the Bible include Adam’s apple (Genesis 3:6), cast the first stone (John 8:7), by the skin of one’s teeth (Job 19:20), taking someone under the wing (Psalm 17:8; 61:4; 91:4), the handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5:5–6), set in stone (Exodus 31:18), Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–35), extending an olive branch (Genesis 8:11), and to miss the mark (from the meaning of the Greek word hamartia in Luke 1:77; John 1:29; 1 John 3:4).

The Bible also contains Hebrew and Greek idioms that are translated into English. Idioms are notoriously difficult to translate, since they are specific to the language of origin and may cause confusion when translated literally. Here are some examples of idiomatic phrases in the Bible:

Know. A literal translation of yada (Hebrew) and ginóskó (Greek) gives us the sense of “knowing.” Both words are used as an idiom for “sexual intercourse.” Adam “knew” his wife (Genesis 4:1, ESV). Joseph did not “know” Mary until after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25, ESV).

Seed. Someone’s “seed” in the Bible can be an idiomatic reference to his “children” or “descendants” (Genesis 22:17, KJV).

The manner of women. The Hebrew idiom for a woman’s period can be translated literally as “the manner of women” (Genesis 31:35, NKJV).

Flowing with milk and honey. God used this idiom to communicate to the Israelites that the Promised Land was “fertile” (Exodus 3:.

Melting heart. If a person’s heart “melts,” then he “loses courage,” and that’s how the idiom is used in Deuteronomy 20:8 (BSB).

One who urinates on a wall. In 1 Samuel 25:22 (WEB), this idiom makes reference to a “male.”


Cover one’s feet. It is thought that the Hebrew expression translated as “covered his feet” in Judges 3:24 and 1 Samuel 24:3 (NASB) was a euphemistic idiom for “relieving himself.”

From Dan to Beersheba. Dan was in the extreme northern part of Israel, and Beersheba was in the extreme south, so the idiom from Dan to Beersheba meant “all of Israel” (see 2 Samuel 3:10; 1 Kings 4:25).

Great before God. A literal translation of Jonah 3:3 says that Nineveh was “a great city before God” (YLT). Most translations simply say something akin to “Nineveh was an extremely large city” (HCSB), which is what the idiom great before God means in this context.

Gird up your loins. To be told to “gird up your loins” is a command to “get yourself ready” (Jeremiah 1:17; Job 40:7, NASB).

Having in the belly. Matthew 1:18 contains an idiom describing Mary as en gastri exousa, literally, “having in the belly” or “possessing in the womb.” This was Matthew’s way of saying that Mary was pregnant.

Answered and said. A common idiom in Greek, answered and said or opened his mouth and said, was simply a way of saying that someone began speaking. In a language written without punctuation marks (including quotation marks), such an idiom was useful for alerting readers of the start of a direct quote (see Matthew 4:4 and Acts 10:34, NKJV).

What you hear in the ear. This idiom is used by Jesus to refer to a “whisper” (Matthew 10:27, BLB).

Eat their own bread. Paul rebukes idle people in the church, telling them to “eat their own bread,” that is, to work for a living and earn their own money (2 Thessalonians 3:12, NKJV).

Abraham’s bosom. Jesus spoke of a place called kolpos Abraam in Luke 16:22. This idiom is translated as “Abraham’s bosom” (NASB) or “Abraham’s side” (NIV). The NLT renders it as being “beside Abraham at the heavenly banquet.”

As you read through the Bible, you should “keep your eyes peeled” for idioms. Some of them you may not be able to “make heads or tails of” at first, but a good commentary or study Bible can “lend a hand.” With a little research and background information, understanding most passages containing idioms in the Bible can become “easy as pie.
www.gotquestion.org.con

Can you mention some other idioms in the bible?

"The works of my hands" means my achievements

Ecc 2vv 11

solite3:
Answer: An idiom is an expression that has a meaning other than what the words themselves communicate. For example, you can “have your hands full” even with empty hands. If an idea is “over one’s head,” you don’t look toward the ceiling to find it. If someone has “let the cat out of the bag,” you don’t have to call animal control. These idioms are understood by experienced users of the English language to mean “busy,” “revealed a secret,” and “beyond comprehension,” respectively.

All languages have idioms, including the languages in which the Bible was written. Using idiomatic expressions is a normal part of communicating, and, since the Bible was written in normal human language, it, too, contains idioms.

The English Bible has had a profound effect on the development of the English language. The phrasing, vocabulary, and cadences of the King James Version left a lasting impact on our culture. In fact, some of the Bible’s idioms have been adopted as idioms in English. Idioms that come straight from the Bible include the following:

Let me catch my breath. Meaning: “give me some time.” As Job is questioning the purposes of his suffering, he says of God, “He would not let me catch my breath but would overwhelm me with misery” (Job 9:18).

A drop in the bucket. Meaning: “a very small, insignificant amount.” In lifting up God as sovereign, Isaiah writes, “Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust” (Isaiah 40:15).

The apple of one’s eye. Meaning: “something very dear.” The psalmist asks for God’s protection against his enemies, saying, “Keep me as the apple of the eye” (Psalm 17:.

Other English idioms that are sourced from the Bible include Adam’s apple (Genesis 3:6), cast the first stone (John 8:7), by the skin of one’s teeth (Job 19:20), taking someone under the wing (Psalm 17:8; 61:4; 91:4), the handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5:5–6), set in stone (Exodus 31:18), Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–35), extending an olive branch (Genesis 8:11), and to miss the mark (from the meaning of the Greek word hamartia in Luke 1:77; John 1:29; 1 John 3:4).

The Bible also contains Hebrew and Greek idioms that are translated into English. Idioms are notoriously difficult to translate, since they are specific to the language of origin and may cause confusion when translated literally. Here are some examples of idiomatic phrases in the Bible:

Know. A literal translation of yada (Hebrew) and ginóskó (Greek) gives us the sense of “knowing.” Both words are used as an idiom for “sexual intercourse.” Adam “knew” his wife (Genesis 4:1, ESV). Joseph did not “know” Mary until after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25, ESV).

Seed. Someone’s “seed” in the Bible can be an idiomatic reference to his “children” or “descendants” (Genesis 22:17, KJV).

The manner of women. The Hebrew idiom for a woman’s period can be translated literally as “the manner of women” (Genesis 31:35, NKJV).

Flowing with milk and honey. God used this idiom to communicate to the Israelites that the Promised Land was “fertile” (Exodus 3:.

Melting heart. If a person’s heart “melts,” then he “loses courage,” and that’s how the idiom is used in Deuteronomy 20:8 (BSB).

One who urinates on a wall. In 1 Samuel 25:22 (WEB), this idiom makes reference to a “male.”


Cover one’s feet. It is thought that the Hebrew expression translated as “covered his feet” in Judges 3:24 and 1 Samuel 24:3 (NASB) was a euphemistic idiom for “relieving himself.”

From Dan to Beersheba. Dan was in the extreme northern part of Israel, and Beersheba was in the extreme south, so the idiom from Dan to Beersheba meant “all of Israel” (see 2 Samuel 3:10; 1 Kings 4:25).

Great before God. A literal translation of Jonah 3:3 says that Nineveh was “a great city before God” (YLT). Most translations simply say something akin to “Nineveh was an extremely large city” (HCSB), which is what the idiom great before God means in this context.

Gird up your loins. To be told to “gird up your loins” is a command to “get yourself ready” (Jeremiah 1:17; Job 40:7, NASB).

Having in the belly. Matthew 1:18 contains an idiom describing Mary as en gastri exousa, literally, “having in the belly” or “possessing in the womb.” This was Matthew’s way of saying that Mary was pregnant.

Answered and said. A common idiom in Greek, answered and said or opened his mouth and said, was simply a way of saying that someone began speaking. In a language written without punctuation marks (including quotation marks), such an idiom was useful for alerting readers of the start of a direct quote (see Matthew 4:4 and Acts 10:34, NKJV).

What you hear in the ear. This idiom is used by Jesus to refer to a “whisper” (Matthew 10:27, BLB).

Eat their own bread. Paul rebukes idle people in the church, telling them to “eat their own bread,” that is, to work for a living and earn their own money (2 Thessalonians 3:12, NKJV).

Abraham’s bosom. Jesus spoke of a place called kolpos Abraam in Luke 16:22. This idiom is translated as “Abraham’s bosom” (NASB) or “Abraham’s side” (NIV). The NLT renders it as being “beside Abraham at the heavenly banquet.”

As you read through the Bible, you should “keep your eyes peeled” for idioms. Some of them you may not be able to “make heads or tails of” at first, but a good commentary or study Bible can “lend a hand.” With a little research and background information, understanding most passages containing idioms in the Bible can become “easy as pie.
www.gotquestion.org.con

Hello solite3.

This is quite true. There are idioms in the Bible, and I think that the interpretations here are right for the most part (except for one, in my thinking).

I also think it is critical to keep in mind that although the Bible does use idioms, it is a very literal book for all that. For example, Abraham's Bosom is an honorary name for an actual place. One ought to be careful of getting lost in the metaphors and idioms.

solite3, well done brother, this is a very commendable thread and deserving approval and admiration for providing useful and interesting information

Just to build up on your explantion on what idioms are. Idioms exist in every language. They are a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not easily deducible from the constituent individual words used in the idiom or saying make up (e.g. I can eat a horse, its raining cats and dogs, drop me with a feather etcetera) Idioms are words or phrases that aren't meant to be taken literally.

solite3:
Can you mention some other idioms in the bible?

"And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey."
- Exodus 3:17

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet."
- Matthew 10:14

"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;"
- Luke 16:22

"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch"
- Matthew 15:14

Please dont tell me that the beggar was literally carried into Abraham's bosom here, like as if a literal physical real Abraham's chest area place.. Of course that place is a literal place, put literally carrying the beggar into Abraham's bosom or chest area is not, besides the Luke 16:22 narrative is a parable.

We all know that Jesus, told quite a sizeable amount of parables, as a matter of fact, varying in total, between a number of 45 and 60.
The parables usually have a plethora of lessons and moral truth in them. Actually are a faithful representation of reality. They at times are told, as a story, with verisimilitude characters in them. The rich man & beggar poor man named, Lazarus characters, in Luke 16 is an example of parables with verisimilitude characters.

Fyi, we have verses in OT (e.g. Psalm 9:17 etcetera) suggesting that the wicked go to sheol but it was Jesus in the NT that brought things into perspective for us, where and when He shared the hyperbolic illustration of sheol with the story of the rich man being elsewhere and Abraham with the beggar poor man being on a different side

Well, until Jesus' parable in the New Testament, Luke 16:19-31 to be precise, sheol in general, without necessarily distinguishing between righteous or unrighteous souls, has been the realm of the dead or abode of the dead, but from Jesus' parable, we got to know, that, Sheol, has two sections with a dividing gulf (i.e. a demarcation, if you'll like to call it that way) The two sections were the Rich man section and a place called, Abraham's bosom section

Here are some interesting things to think about:
1/ Do you know what happened, as in meaning what Jesus did, a few weeks after He narrated the parable of the Rich Man and Beggar Poor Man named Lazarus?
2/ Most of the verisimilitude characters in Jesus' parables, hardly have names, but the name of the beggar poor man was given.
Do you know why Jesus, on purpose, gave Lazarus, as the name of the beggar poor man, in that Luke 16:19-31 parable narrative, hmmm?

MuttleyLaff:
solite3, well done brother, this is a very commendable thread and deserving approval and admiration for providing useful and interesting information

Just to build up on your explantion on what idioms are. Idioms exist in every language. They are a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not easily deducible from the constituent individual words used in the idiom or saying make up (e.g. I can eat a horse, its raining cats and dogs, drop me with a feather etcetera) Idioms are words or phrases that aren't meant to be taken literally.

"And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey."
- Exodus 3:17

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet."
- Matthew 10:14

"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;"
- Luke 16:22

"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch"
- Matthew 15:14

Please dont tell me that the beggar was literally carried into Abraham's bosom here, like as if a literal physical real Abraham's chest area place.. Of course that place is a literal place, put literally carrying the beggar into Abraham's bosom or chest area is not, besides the Luke 16:22 narrative is a parable.

We all know that Jesus, told quite a sizeable amount of parables, as a matter of fact, varying in total, between a number of 45 and 60.
The parables usually have a plethora of lessons and moral truth in them. Actually are a faithful representation of reality. They at times are told, as a story, with verisimilitude characters in them. The rich man & beggar poor man named, Lazarus characters, in Luke 16 is an example of parables with verisimilitude characters.

Fyi, we have verses in OT (e.g. Psalm 9:17 etcetera) suggesting that the wicked go to sheol but it was Jesus in the NT that brought things into perspective for us, where and when He shared the hyperbolic illustration of sheol with the story of the rich man being elsewhere and Abraham with the beggar poor man being on a different side

Well, until Jesus' parable in the New Testament, Luke 16:19-31 to be precise, sheol in general, without necessarily distinguishing between righteous or unrighteous souls, has been the realm of the dead or abode of the dead, but from Jesus' parable, we got to know, that, Sheol, has two sections with a dividing gulf (i.e. a demarcation, if you'll like to call it that way) The two sections were the Rich man section and a place called, Abraham's bosom section

Here are some interesting things to think about:
1/ Do you know what happened, as in meaning what Jesus did, a few weeks after He narrated the parable of the Rich Man and Beggar Poor Man named Lazarus?
2/ Most of the verisimilitude characters in Jesus' parables, hardly have names, but the name of the beggar poor man was given.
Do you know why Jesus, on purpose, gave Lazarus, as the name of the beggar poor man, in that Luke 16:19-31 parable narrative, hmmm?

humm
I think Jesus wanted to show it was a real story.
Very true sheol has two sections one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous but this was before christ death and resurrection.
When Christ died the souls of the righteous was relocated to heaven where christ is, and anyone who dies in Christ would also be where Christ is which is heaven but the unrighteous souls still remain in sheol only the bodies of the righteous remain buried in the grave or sheol.

Ihedinobi3:

Hello solite3.

This is quite true. There are idioms in the Bible, and I think that the interpretations here are right for the most part (but not quite all of them, in my thinking).

I also think it is critical to keep in mind that although the Bible does use idioms, it is a very literal book for all that. For example, Abraham's Bosom is an honorary name for an actual place. One ought to be careful of getting lost in the metaphors and idioms.

yes of cause the bible is a very literal book as it contains documented history and names of real people but although the bosom of Abraham is a real place but the term" bosom of Abraham" is rather an idiom as the word "bosom" is used to indicate intimacy rather than a real place.

solite3:
humm
I think Jesus wanted to show it was a real story.
Very true sheol has two sections one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous but this was before christ death and resurrection.
When Christ died the souls of the righteous was relocated to heaven where christ is, and anyone who dies in Christ would also be where Christ is which is heaven but the unrighteous souls still remain in sheol only the bodies of the righteous remain buried in the grave or sheol.

Will you for a second please stop in a quick and hasty manner replying to comment hmm?

What is a verisimilitude character? What does verisimilitude character mean, hmm?

I repeat, until Jesus' parable in the NT, sheol in general, without necessarily distinguishing between righteous or unrighteous souls, has been the realm of the dead or abode of the dead. We have verses in OT (e.g. Psalm 9:17 etcetera) suggesting that the wicked go to sheol and nothing about those that arent wicked is said of where they are.

It wasnt until Jesus in the NT, brought things into perspective when He shared the hyperbolic illustration of sheol with the story of the rich man being elsewhere and Abraham with the beggar poor man being on a different side that we got to know that sheol actually has two sections. This is the very important point and observation to know about I was making. C'mon, at ease soldier. Relax. lol

solite3:
yes of cause the bible is a very literal book as it contains documented history and names of real people but although the bosom of Abraham is a real place but the term" bosom of Abraham" is rather an idiom as the word "bosom" is used to indicate intimacy rather than a real place.

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
- Matthew 7:15

Matthew 7:15's wolf in sheep clothing is another good biblical idiom.

The term bosom, as a matter of fact and without necessarily going to be sexually suggestive about the term, is used to give the impression of relationship, closeness, fondness, close association, cosy and private, relaxed atmosphere, close attachment, close acquaintance with knowledge of each other etcetera.

Here's an interesting question for you solite3 or anybody else for that matter. Why do you think Jesus when on the cross at Calvary, handed off His mother Mary specifically to John and not to any of His own particular brothers and sisters, hmm?. Back up your answer with biblical verse or reference please

solite3:
yes of cause the bible is a very literal book as it contains documented history and names of real people but although the bosom of Abraham is a real place but the term" bosom of Abraham" is rather an idiom as the word "bosom" is used to indicate intimacy rather than a real place.

You're quite right. The reason that Paradise was also called Abraham's Bosom was because it was where people who had the same faith as Abraham the Hebrew went when they died. The idea was one of association with Abraham's Faith. Abraham, after all, was, in a manner of speaking, the father of all believers, even though believers like Enoch and even Adam were ahead of him in time. His faith was the exemplar of the Church, as Paul explained in Romans.

So, all those who share that faith shared also in his very pleasant reception in Paradise after death.

As you said in your other comment, no believer is still there now. All dead believers are now in the Third Heaven with our dear Lord, beholding the Face of the Father.

If I may, I would also add that Sheol/the Grave/Hell/Hades has three compartments, not two. There is Torments where the unbelievers are kept in fires of torment until the Resurrection of the Last Judgment. There is Paradise where believers before the Cross were taken until the Lord resurrected and took them with Him into the Third Heaven. That one is now empty. There is the Pit or the Abyss where rebel angels who violate the ground rules of this war are kept under punishment until the time of their release. At the Second Advent, all the rebel angels will be consigned in this last place until the end of the Millennium when Satan alone will be released for the final uprising of unbelieving mankind against the Lord. After that, the Lake of Fire will fill all three compartments and will be the eternal repository of all creature rebels including the rebel angels and unbelieving mankind.

You are also exactly right that the Lord was telling a true story. Our Lord was and is the Truth. He never made anything up. Every story He told, every parable that He used was a true story.

Finally, it is true that Sheol is also called the Grave, but it is an error to receive that to mean that our physical bodies are put there when we die. They are not. Whether we are believers or unbelievers, our physical bodies decay and return to the dust literally after we die. They are not supernaturally preserved, except in the cases of Moses and Elijah who will be resuscitated by the Lord for the Tribulation in a few short years. These two had their bodies specially preserved because they are the two Messengers, the two Witnesses of the Tribulation. Otherwise, their bodies would have seen corruption too, just like every other human being's has.

This does not affect our prospects for Resurrection because our eternal bodies are entirely new creations. Although those of us who live to see the Lord return will have their own mortal bodies miraculously changed into the eternal state, this does not mean that we need to have our physical bodies in order to be resurrected, no. In fact, it is only about as remarkable a miracle that our mortal bodies are transformed without going through death as it is that wholly new ones are created out of nothing for those who died before the Lord's Return. The Lord does not need our mortal bodies in order to resurrect us.

This thread is about idioms, of which Abraham's bosom, from Luke 16:22, is a very good classical example of one.

Now can someone please tell me whether or not the beggar poor man was carried into Abraham's literal or not, bosom or frontal chest area? Of course, the place is real and exists, but the term, Abraham's bosom is used figuratively. Literally carrying the beggarpoor man into Abraham's bosom or chest area did not happen.

What usually, by the way, is a parable?

We all know that Jesus, told quite a sizeable amount of parables, as a matter of fact, varying in total, between a number of 45 and 60.
The parables usually have a plethora of lessons, moral truth in them and actually are a faithful representation of reality. They at times are told, as a story, with verisimilitude characters in them. The rich man, unnamed character & the beggar poor man given a Lazarus name character, in Luke 16 is an example of parables with verisimilitude characters.

MuttleyLaff:
Will you for a second please stop in a quick and hasty manner replying to comment hmm?

What is a verisimilitude character? What does verisimilitude character mean, hmm?

I repeat, until Jesus' parable in the NT, sheol in general, without necessarily distinguishing between righteous or unrighteous souls, has been the realm of the dead or abode of the dead. We have verses in OT (e.g. Psalm 9:17 etcetera) suggesting that the wicked go to sheol and nothing about those that arent wicked is said of where they are.

It wasnt until Jesus in the NT, brought things into perspective when He shared the hyperbolic illustration of sheol with the story of the rich man being elsewhere and Abraham with the beggar poor man being on a different side that we got to know that sheol actually has two sections. This is the very important point and observation to know about I was making. C'mon, at ease soldier. Relax. lol

do you know that the story was a real life event?

Jesus never uses real names of people to make parables.

MuttleyLaff:
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
- Matthew 7:15

Matthew 7:15's wolf in sheep clothing is anothe good biblical idiom.

The term bosom, as a matter of fact and without necessarily going to be sexually suggestive about the term, is used to give the impression of relationship, closeness, fondness, close association, cosy and private, relaxed atmosphere, close attachment, close acquaintance with knowledge of each other etcetera.

Here's an interesting question for you solite3 or anybody else for that matter. Why do you think Jesus when on the cross at Calvary, handed off His mother Mary specifically to John and not to any of His own particular brothers and sisters, hmm?. Back up your answer with biblical verse or reference please

John is that disciple whom Jesus loved.

John 19:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Ihedinobi3:

You're quite right. The reason that Paradise was also called Abraham's Bosom was because it was where people who had the same faith as Abraham the Hebrew went when they died. The idea was one of association with Abraham's Faith. Abraham, after all, was, in a manner of speaking, the father of all believers, even though believers like Enoch and even Adam were ahead of him in time. His faith was the exemplar of the Church, as Paul explained in Romans.

So, all those who share that faith shared also in his very pleasant reception in Paradise after death.

As you said in your other comment, no believer is still there now. All dead believers are now in the Third Heaven with our dear Lord, beholding the Face of the Father.

If I may, I would also add that Sheol/the Grave/Hell/Hades has three compartments, not two. There is Torments where the unbelievers are kept in fires of torment until the Resurrection of the Last Judgment. There is Paradise where believers before the Cross were taken until the Lord resurrected and took them with Him into the Third Heaven. That one is now empty. There is the Pit or the Abyss where rebel angels who violate the ground rules of this war are kept under punishment until the time of their release. At the Second Advent, all the rebel angels will be consigned in this last place until the end of the Millennium when Satan alone will be released for the final uprising of unbelieving mankind against the Lord. After that, the Lake of Fire will fill all three compartments and will be the eternal repository of all creature rebels including the rebel angels and unbelieving mankind.

You are also exactly right that the Lord was telling a true story. Our Lord was and is the Truth. He never made anything up. Every story He told, every parable that He used was a true story.

Finally, it is true that Sheol is also called the Grave, but it is an error to receive that to mean that our physical bodies are put there when we die. They are not. Whether we are believers or unbelievers, our physical bodies decay and return to the dust literally after we die. They are not supernaturally preserved, except in the cases of Moses and Elijah who will be resuscitated by the Lord for the Tribulation in a few short years. These two had their bodies specially preserved because they are the two Messengers, the two Witnesses of the Tribulation. Otherwise, their bodies would have seen corruption too, just like every other human being's has.

This does not affect our prospects for Resurrection because our eternal bodies are entirely new creations. Although those of us who live to see the Lord return will have their own mortal bodies miraculously changed into the eternal state, this does not mean that we need to have our physical bodies in order to be resurrected, no. In fact, it is only about as remarkable a miracle that our mortal bodies are transformed without going through death as it is that wholly new ones are created out of nothing for those who died before the Lord's Return. The Lord does not need our mortal bodies in order to resurrect us.

Jesus stated that a time will come that those in the grave will hear his voice. First this refers to believers who died in christ, although their souls are with the Lord, but their bodies are on earth although decayed. Their bodies shall be supernaturally recreated while their souls reunited with their bodies.
Secondly, it refers to the sinners on judgment day, when their bodies will also be recreated and their souls reunited with their bodies, then will the powers of hell and death completely be defeated.
John 5:28
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

1 Corinthians 15:55
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?



@bold

Read 1cor 15:37-44

1 Corinthians 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

The body is liken to a seed sown which reproduces but this time around it does not yield what is sown only what God determine will come out.
The resurrection body is a resurrection of the first body but this time around in a new form, glory ,strength and immortality like that of Jesus.

The resurrection of believers will be like that of Jesus. God didnt create a body out of nothing for Jesus rather the old body was resurrected as glorified body same thing is going to happen to belivers.

Romans 6:5
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

solite3:

Jesus stated that a time will come that those in the grave will hear his voice. First this refers to believers who died in christ, although their souls are with the Lord, but their bodies are on earth although decayed. Their bodies shall be supernaturally recreated while their souls reunited with their bodies.
Secondly, it refers to the sinners on judgment day, when their bodies will also be recreated and their souls reunited with their bodies, then will the powers of hell and death completely be defeated.
John 5:28
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

1 Corinthians 15:55
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?



@bold

Read 1cor 15:37-44

1 Corinthians 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

The body is liken to a seed sown which reproduces but this time around it does not yield what is sown only what God determine will come out.
The resurrection body is a resurrection of the first body but this time around in a new form, glory ,strength and immortality like that of Jesus.

The resurrection of believers will be like that of Jesus. God didnt create a body out of nothing for Jesus rather the old body was resurrected as glorified body same thing is going to happen to belivers.

Romans 6:5
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

In principle (and that is the important part), I completely agree with you. I don't consider us to be in disagreement on this issue. The reason I pointed out the things I did is because of the nature of the discussion. Plenty enough people ignore what the Bible clearly says because they think that it means something hidden in the folds of metaphor and idioms, so it is often the job of the pastor-teacher to bring them "back to Earth," in a manner of speaking.

We both agree obviously that when we die, our bodies decay and fall to the dust. Many people die at sea or in fires or are even cut to pieces. In the end, our bodies return to the dust. We both know this and agree that it is the case. And we both also know that this is not at all a problem for the Lord in Resurrection. He has no problem at all even reconstituting the previously decayed body to resuscitate any given person. How much more Resurrection? So, you and I are agreed. Besides, your posts are always pretty much on the mark, so when I discuss with you, it is essentially to just relax and enjoy the Truth with someone who seems to me to have adequate respect for it, so the corrections and clarifications I offer are just the same as the tips and encouragement that fellow soldiers training in the yard and out in the shooting range give to each other.

I do agree that our eternal bodies are not completely different from our temporal ones, but the sense in which I do is that we were created as spirits that live in corporeal bodies. So, whether it is our current physical body or it is our later spiritual body, both are true material, corporeal bodies. They are not the same, however, because our current body is designed for temporal existence, that is, it is designed to limit our spirits. The Bible describes our earthly experience in this body as "[seeing] through a glass darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV). This is necessary for us to make our choices and confirm them without undue spiritual influence. It is the primary difference between us and the angels who because they lack a true body could only make their choices once. That is, their knowledge was of such a comprehensive sort that once they made a decision, they simply didn't change it ever again. But the possession of an earthly body limits our ability to see and perceive reality comprehensively. We only see it in bits and pieces, so that as our knowledge and understanding of things improve through experience, we are able to change our minds and repent prior decisions. Without this ability to change our minds, it would have been impossible for us to be saved after Adam sinned.

Our Resurrection bodies are designed for spiritual, eternal existence, on the other hand. Because our choices have been made and confirmed here on Earth, those bodies are designed entirely for the eternal expression of our choice to serve the Lord. Unlike this one that is corrupted with sin and continues to provide an alternative and incentive to humbly serving the Lord, that one is perfectly designed to serve us in perfect righteousness. That is, it will never be at odds with our desire to serve the Lord like this one is. Additionally, it is designed to be the carrier of our eternal rewards. So, what we win through our faithfulness to the Lord on this Earth will be eternally part of those bodies. They will also be glorious bodies exuding the light that is God Himself. Their ability will also be completely beyond this poor limited one.

So, the two bodies are actually quite different. I suppose one could think of our Resurrection Bodies as an upgrade of this one, but I think that that is a mistake because of the radical differences involved. It is clear that both are material, true corporeal bodies, but that is where the similarity ends. One may be the seed in the sense that it is the promise or potential, if we prove ourselves faithful and worthy, and the other may be the plant in the sense that it is the fulfillment of that promise and potential, but just as the seed is different from the plant, the natural body is different from the spiritual.

When you mention our Lord Jesus, it is good to remember that His Resurrected Body was remarkably different from the one He went into the tomb with. For one thing, we keep seeing that for some reason, His disciples had trouble recognizing Him when they saw Him after He resurrected. Always, He did or said something that "opened their eyes," so that they could. Mary, one of His staunchest followers who was also the first to see Him once He resurrected, did not even know that it was Him until He called her name. The two disciples going to Emmaus did not either. The disciples fishing decided that it had to be the Lord if they made such a large haul only after His word that they should cast their net on the right side of the boat. They clearly would not have recognized Him otherwise.

This is not even to mention all the amazing things that He did in that new body. He could transport instantly between distant places, enter and exit locked spaces without needing an open door or window, and incredibly ascend through the universe into the distant Third Heaven bodily.

It is true that that body had the marks of crucifixion like the old one, but this is explained by the Uniqueness of the Lord's Humanity. Like Adam in his original state, our Lord's Humanity was sinless. It was made without male seed, so that it lacked the corruption that all other human beings have been born with since Adam and Eve. For that reason, that was a Body that was not going to see corruption. His Resurrection is unique in that the Body did not need to be destroyed to erase the imperfection and sin in it, as ours essentially must be (1 Corinthians 15:53-54 does not teach that those who are resurrected alive do not suffer a destruction of the body: in fact, Resurrection results in the replacement of the perishable with the imperishable and of the mortal with immortality, which amounts to the same thing). Even so, the Lord's Body was significantly changed by Resurrection as I have discussed above.

The same principle holds for the Resurrection of the Universe, for example. It is clear from the Gospels, 2 Peter, and Revelation that this Universe will be destroyed. But we know that the New Universe is going to be quite like this one except with some crucial differences, for example, no more seas or oceans, far bigger Earth (and almost certainly bigger planets and a bigger Universe too), no darkness of any sort, the New Jerusalem permanent on Earth, the Trinity resident on Earth, no more trace of unrighteousness, and far much more that we are not told. So, it is resurrected for eternity: still recognizable as the universe, but so different that it is actually a new one.

The best way to describe it and the way that the Bible describes it to avoid confusion is simply as as a new creation, even though they still serve some of the functions of the old one and exceed them. So, one is NOT the other. It is not wise to make them the same, not even if we think of one arising from the other (and I don't think the Bible teaches that at all). One may be changed into the other, but it is still a change, a transformation, not a preservation.

At least, that is what I see in the Bible.

Edited.

solite3:
do you know that the story was a real life event?

[img]https://s3/images/ObamaMuttley.gif[/img]
I beg to differ with you solite3.
To start with, it was a parable for crying out loud,
or wasnt it not, ni, hmmm?. C'mon.

solite3:
Jesus never uses real names of people to make parables.

You're right that Jesus usually doesnt use real names of people to make parables. This is why I asked you the two earlier resurfaced questions below that you evaded replying to
1/ Do you know what happened, as in meaning what Jesus did, a few weeks after He narrated the parable of the Rich Man and Beggar Poor Man named Lazarus?
2/ Most of the verisimilitude characters in Jesus' parables, hardly have names, but the name of the beggar poor man was given.
Do you know why Jesus, on purpose, gave Lazarus, as the name of the beggar poor man, in that Luke 16:19-31 parable narrative, hmmm?

solite3:
John is that disciple whom Jesus loved.

John 19:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Very good answer giving "John is that disciple whom Jesus loved", and relying on John 19:26-27 for support, but in the context and spirit of talking about idioms them two are not the best answers solite3.

I know if you carefully think deeply, you can come up with the best answer and best proof verse too. lol. Let the Spirit take over from the flesh, yield to the Spirit to help you with the answer.

Ihedinobi3:

In principle (and that is the important part), I completely agree with you. I don't consider us to be in disagreement on this issue. The reason I pointed out the things I did is because of the nature of the discussion. Plenty enough people ignore what the Bible clearly says because they think that it means something hidden in the folds of metaphor and idioms, so it is often the job of the pastor-teacher to bring them "back to Earth," in a manner of speaking.

We both agree obviously that when we die, our bodies decay and fall to the dust. Many people die at sea or in fires or are even cut to pieces. In the end, our bodies return to the dust. We both know this and agree that it is the case. And we both also know that this is not at all a problem for the Lord in Resurrection. He has no problem at all even reconstituting the previously decayed body to resuscitate any given person. How much more Resurrection? So, you and I are agreed. Besides, your posts are always pretty much on the mark, so when I discuss with you, it is essentially to just relax and enjoy the Truth with someone who seems to me to have adequate respect for it, so the corrections and clarifications I offer are just the same as the tips and encouragement that fellow soldiers training in the yard and out in the shooting range give to each other.

I do agree that our eternal bodies are not completely different from our temporal ones, but the sense in which I do is that we were created as spirits that live in corporeal bodies. So, whether it is our current physical body or it is our later spiritual body, both are true material, corporeal bodies. They are not the same, however, because our current body is designed for temporal existence, that is, it is designed to limit our spirits. The Bible describes our earthly experience in this body as "[seeing] through a glass darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV). This is necessary for us to make our choices and confirm them without undue spiritual influence. It is the primary difference between us and the angels who because they lack a true body could only make their choices once. That is, their knowledge was of such a comprehensive sort that once they made a decision, they simply didn't change it ever again. But the possession of an earthly body limits our ability to see and perceive reality comprehensively. We only see it in bits and pieces, so that as our knowledge and understanding of things improve through experience, we are able to change our minds and repent prior decisions. Without this ability to change our minds, it would have been impossible for us to be saved after Adam sinned.

Our Resurrection bodies are designed for spiritual, eternal existence, on the other hand. Because our choices have been made and confirmed here on Earth, those bodies are designed entirely for the eternal expression of our choice to serve the Lord. Unlike this one which is corrupted with sin and continues to provide an alternative and incentive to humbly serving the Lord, that one is perfectly designed to serve us in perfect righteousness. That is, it will never be at odds with our desire to serve the Lord like this one is. Additionally, it is designed to be the carrier of our eternal rewards. So, what we win through our faithfulness to the Lord on this Earth will be eternally part of those bodies. They will also be glorious bodies exuding the light that is God Himself. Their ability will also be completely beyond this poor limited one.

So, the two bodies are actually quite different. I suppose one could think of our Resurrection Bodies as an upgrade of this one, but I think that that is a mistake because of the radical differences involved. It is clear that both are material, true corporeal bodies, but that is where the similarity ends. One may be the seed, in the sense that it is the promise or potential, if we prove ourselves faithful and worthy, and the other may be the plant, in the sense that it is the fulfillment of that promise and potential, but just as the seed is different from the plant, the natural body is different from the spiritual.

When you mention our Lord Jesus, it is good to remember that His Resurrected Body was remarkably different from the one He went into the tomb with. For one thing, we keep seeing that for some reason, His disciples had trouble recognizing Him when they saw Him after He resurrected. Always, He did or said something that "opened their eyes," so that they could. Mary, one of His staunchest followers who was also the first to see Him once He resurrected did not even know that it was Him until He called her name. The two disciples going to Emmaus did not either. The disciples fishing decided that it had to be the Lord if they made such a large haul only after His word that they should cast their net on the right side of the boat. They clearly would not have recognized Him otherwise.

This is not even to mention all the amazing things that He did in that new body. He could transport instantly between distant places, enter and exit locked spaces without needing an open door or window, and incredibly ascend through the universe into the distant Third Heaven bodily.

It is true that that body had the marks of crucifixion like the old one, but this is explained by the Uniqueness of the Lord's Humanity. Like Adam in his original state, our Lord's Humanity was sinless. It was made without male seed, so that it lacked the corruption that all other human beings have been born with since Adam and Eve. For that reason, that was a Body that was not going to see corruption. His Resurrection is unique in that the Body did not need to be destroyed to erase the imperfection and sin in it, as ours essentially must be (1 Corinthians 15:53-54 does not teach that those who are resurrected alive do not suffer a destruction of the body: in fact, Resurrection results in the replacement of the perishable with the imperishable and of the mortal with immortality, which amounts to the same thing). Even so, the Lord's Body was significantly changed by Resurrection as I have discussed above.

The same principle holds for the Resurrection of the Universe, for example. It is clear from the Gospels, 2 Peter, and Revelation that this Universe will be destroyed. But we know that the New Universe is going to be quite like this one except with some crucial differences, for example, no more seas or oceans, far bigger Earth (and almost certainly bigger planets and a bigger Universe too), no darkness of any sort, the New Jerusalem permanent on Earth, the Trinity resident on Earth, no more trace of unrighteousness, and far much more that we are not told. So, it is resurrected for eternity: still recognizable as the universe, but so different that it is actually a new one.

The best way to describe it and the way that the Bible describes it to avoid confusion is simply as as a new creation, even though they still serve some of the functions of the old one and exceed them. So, one is NOT the other. It is not wise to make them the same, not even if we think of one arising from the other (and I don't think the Bible teaches that at all). One may be changed into the other, but it is still a change, a transformation, not a preservation.

At least, that is what I see in the Bible.

Edited.

humm nice one, I really thank God for such wisdom which you possess bro.
I totally agree with you that the resurrection body will be spiritual.
I often wonder how that body will feel like! Oh the experience will be out of this world, then the soul, spirit and body becomes perfectly united.

I watched a video that explains that majority of these movies (marvel comics/marvel cinematic production) are hinting at some of the abilities that the future ressurrected bodies of believers will hold. What is your view on this?

Oh I look forward to that great day of resurrection where we shall be transformed to be like the Lord and be with him in the new creation forever.

MuttleyLaff:
[img]https://s3/images/ObamaMuttley.gif[/img]
I beg to differ with you solite3.
To start with, it was a parable for crying out loud,
or wasnt it not, ni, hmmm?. C'mon.

How did you know it was a parable?

You're right that Jesus usually doesnt use real names of people to make parables. This is why I asked you the two earlier resurfaced questions below that you evaded replying to
1/ Do you know what happened, as in meaning what Jesus did, a few weeks after He narrated the parable of the Rich Man and Beggar Poor Man named Lazarus?
2/ Most of the verisimilitude characters in Jesus' parables, hardly have names, but the name of the beggar poor man was given.
Do you know why Jesus, on purpose, gave Lazarus, as the name of the beggar poor man, in that Luke 16:19-31 parable narrative, hmmm?

no pls do explain

MuttleyLaff:
Very good answer giving "John is that disciple whom Jesus loved", and relying on John 19:26-27 for support, but in the context and spirit of talking about idioms them two are not the best answers solite3.

I know if you carefully think deeply, you can come up with the best answer and best proof verse too. lol. Let the Spirit take over from the flesh, yield to the Spirit to help you with the answer.

ok yes I answered hurriedly, but you can help me out by providing more text or proof for or against it.

solite3:
humm nice one, I really thank God for such wisdom which you possess bro.
I totally agree with you that the resurrection body will be spiritual.
I often wonder how that body will feel like! Oh the experience will be out of this world, then the soul, spirit and body becomes perfectly united.

I watched a video that explains that majority of these movies (marvel comics/marvel cinematic production) are hinting at some of the abilities that the future ressurrected bodies of believers will hold. What is your view on this?

Oh I look forward to that great day of resurrection where we shall be transformed to be like the Lord and be with him in the new creation forever.

Thank you for your kind words, my friend.

Although "spiritual" is the word that Apostle Paul used to describe our Resurrection Bodies, I tend to avoid using it because of how the word is misunderstood. So when you use it here, I want to make sure that you understood what I meant. It is a spiritual body because it is perfectly suited to our spirits. In our Resurrection bodies, our spirits are uninhibited. They can find perfect expression through them. But the bodies themselves are physical and tangible. They are just as material and corporeal as the bodies we have now.

You're exactly right that our experience of existence in our promised bodies will be nothing like anything we have experienced so far. This body we live in today is weak and sinful. It cannot do much of any value, although it is adequate for fulfilling our purpose of existence here on Earth. The bodies we have been promised, on the other hand, are incredibly powerful. In them, our status as "higher than the angels" will be actualized. In fact, at Armageddon after our Resurrection, it is likely the Church that will rid the world of all rebel angels. Our superior ability then will count for something considerable in our decisive removal of them into the Abyss.

As for the Marvel movies, I learned quite a while back by experience that it is a bad idea to put any value at all on cinematic productions. I used to use movies as a learning tool for the Bible too, but they are incredibly misleading. The Bible is sufficient in itself. Outside of the Bible, there is very little of any real spiritual value.

Having said that, interestingly, the Marvel movies and all the legends of superhuman people actually have their roots in the Nephilim. So, rather than looking forward to our Resurrection, these works of art are actually looking back to some of the worst people that have ever lived. Without doubt, the Nephilim were a powerful people. Just look at the Antichrist: able to perform incredible miracles and survive a wound that should kill a normal human being. While that does hint at the possibility of a more powerful body than this one that we endure, it really is still considerably inferior to the Resurrection Bodies we look forward to.

For an idea of how our future bodies will be, we have the Lord Jesus in Resurrection and Glory to consider. Even before He was glorified, as I said in my last response, His Resurrected Body was beyond amazing. After He was glorified, even His Appearance and His Voice changed. When He returns to the world in the darkness of the moment of His Return, His Own Glory will light up the whole world. He is literally the Bright Morning Star. His Brightness considerably exceeds the brilliance of the sun at the height of its strength. He will also singlehandedly decimate the world armies gathered at Jerusalem at the time. He will also change the physical conditions of the world when He begins His Millennial Reign in Jerusalem.

Suffice to say that what the Lord Jesus is right now is what we expect to be and it is pretty much mind-boggling to even imagine that we could be like that. Yet, that is what we are promised. So, just like you, all of us who believe look forward to His Appearing so that we can receive these new bodies that will liberate us from the limitations and constant temptations and failures of this one we have to endure now.

If I may also add, I would point out that we do not "have" souls. A soul is what we are by being spirits in an unresurrected body (Genesis 2:7). That is, "soul" is another word for "person" or "individual," and in some cases "heart." The unity then that we are looking forward to is that of the body and spirit, where there is no miscommunication between them, where the body serves the spirit's wishes perfectly without any rebellion. That is why Paul says that the last Adam became a "life-giving Spirit." That is, in the last Adam, the body becomes a perfect expression of the spirit which has life.

Amen to your prayer. Marana Tha. Come, Lord Jesus.

Ihedinobi3:

Thank you for your kind words, my friend.

Although "spiritual" is the word that Apostle Paul used to describe our Resurrection Bodies, I tend to avoid using it because of how the word is misunderstood. So when you use it here, I want to make sure that you understood what I meant. It is a spiritual body because it is perfectly suited to our spirits. In our Resurrection bodies, our spirits are uninhibited. They can find perfect expression through them. But the bodies themselves are physical and tangible. They are just as material and corporeal as the bodies we have now.

You're exactly right that our experience of existence in our promised bodies will be nothing like anything we have experienced so far. This body we live in today is weak and sinful. It cannot do much of any value, although it is adequate for fulfilling our purpose of existence here on Earth. The bodies we have been promised, on the other hand, are incredibly powerful. In them, our status as "higher than the angels" will be actualized. In fact, at Armageddon after our Resurrection, it is likely the Church that will rid the world of all rebel angels. Our superior ability then will count for something considerable in our decisive removal of them into the Abyss.

As for the Marvel movies, I learned quite a while back by experience that it is a bad idea to put any value at all on cinematic productions. I used to use movies as a learning tool for the Bible too, but they are incredibly misleading. The Bible is sufficient in itself. Outside of the Bible, there is very little of any real spiritual value.

Having said that, interestingly, the Marvel movies and all the legends of superhuman people actually have their roots in the Nephilim. So, rather than looking forward to our Resurrection, these works of art are actually looking back to some of the worst people that have ever lived. Without doubt, the Nephilim were a powerful people. Just look at the Antichrist: able to perform incredible miracles and survive a wound that should kill a normal human being. While that does hint at the possibility of a more powerful body than this one that we endure, it really is still considerably inferior to the Resurrection Bodies we look forward to.

For an idea of how our future bodies will be, we have the Lord Jesus in Resurrection and Glory to consider. Even before He was glorified, as I said in my last response, His Resurrected Body was beyond amazing. After He was glorified, even His Appearance and His Voice changed. When He returns to the world in the darkness of the moment of His Return, His Own Glory will light up the whole world. He is literally the Bright Morning Star. His Brightness considerably exceeds the brilliance of the sun at the height of its strength. He will also singlehandedly decimate the world armies gathered at Jerusalem at the time. He will also change the physical conditions of the world when He begins His Millennial Reign in Jerusalem.

Suffice to say that what the Lord Jesus is right now is what we expect to be and it is pretty much mind-boggling to even imagine that we could be like that. Yet, that is what we are promised. So, just like you, all of us who believe look forward to His Appearing so that we can receive these new bodies that will liberate us from the limitations and constant temptations and failures of this one we have to endure now.

If I may also add, I would point out that we do not "have" souls. A soul is what we are by being spirits in an unresurrected body (Genesis 2:7). That is, "soul" is another word for "person" or "individual," and in some cases "heart." The unity then that we are looking forward to is that of the body and spirit, where there is no miscommunication between them, where the body serves the spirit's wishes perfectly without any rebellion. That is why Paul says that the last Adam became a "life-giving Spirit." That is, in the last Adam, the body becomes a perfect expression of the spirit which has life.

Amen to your prayer. Marana Tha. Come, Lord Jesus.

thank you very much God bless you

solite3:
How did you know it was a parable?

"Then Jesus told them this parable:"
- Luke 15:3

"Jesus also said to His disciples:"
- Luke 16:1

It is easy and very simple how I know it was a parable solite3.

OK, how I know it was a parable is because of what Luke 15:3 above said and leading to be continued in Luke 16:1. There are quite a large number of parables said in quick succession by Jesus between Luke 15:3 and Luke 16:19-31.

Take a wild guess solite3. How many number of parables in total, did Jesus churn out between Luke 15:3 and Luke 16:19-31? Give me the list. lol

solite3:
no pls do explain

No? You dont know?
You dont know what happened, as in meaning what Jesus did, a few weeks after He told the parable of the Rich Man and Beggar Poor Man named Lazarus?

Granted that most of the verisimilitude characters in Jesus' parables, hardly have names, but the name of the beggar poor man was given.
and you dont know why Jesus, on purpose, gave Lazarus, as the name of the beggar poor man, in that Luke 16:19-31 parable narrative, hmmm? Na wa oo. Oleku, shey I bin don tell you something wey you no fit do, ni?

solite3:
ok yes I answered hurriedly,

Why you want to be doing something like that for, huh?

solite3:
but you can help me out by providing more text or proof for or against it.

"Then they scoffed, “He’s just a carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And his sisters live right here among us.” They were deeply offended and refused to believe in Him."
- Mark 6:3

You gave good answers, but there are better and/or best answers. I can help you out by providing you with Mark 6:3 above. You can see from Mark 6:3 above, that Jesus had His own brothers and sisters, so I ask again solite3, why do you think Jesus, when on the cross at Calvary, handed over His mother Mary, specifically to John and not to any of His own particular brothers and sisters, hmm?. I want you to improve your answer and improve it with the appropiate alternative biblical verse or reference please too.

Remember, I typed about bosom, saying that the term bosom, as a matter of fact and without necessarily going to be sexually suggestive about the term, is used to give the impression of relationship, closeness, fondness, close association, cosy and private, relaxed atmosphere, close attachment, close acquaintance with knowledge of each other etcetera.

C'mon now solite3, this is more than being fair. I already have bailed you out with more than enough clues.

solite3:
thank you very much God bless you

The Lord bless you too, my friend.

MuttleyLaff:
"Then Jesus told them this parable:"
- Luke 15:3

"Jesus also said to His disciples:"
- Luke 16:1

It is easy and very simple how I know it was a parable solite3.

OK, how I know it was a parable is because of what Luke 15:3 above said and leading to be continued in Luke 16:1. There are quite a large number of parables said in quick succession by Jesus between Luke 15:3 and Luke 16:19-31.

Take a wild guess solite3. How many number of parables in total, did Jesus churn out between Luke 15:3 and Luke 16:19-31? Give me the list. lol

First, the story is never called a parable. Many other of Jesus' stories are designated as parables, such as the sower and the seed (Luke 8:4); the prosperous farmer (Luke 12:16); the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6); and the wedding feast (Luke 14:7). Second, the story of the rich man and Lazarus uses the actual name of a person. Such specificity would set it apart from ordinary parables, in which the characters are not named.

Third, this particular story does not seem to fit the definition of a parable, which is a presentation of a spiritual truth using an earthly illustration. The story of the rich man and Lazarus presents spiritual truth directly, with no earthly metaphor. The setting for most of the story is the afterlife, as opposed to the parables, which unfold in earthly contexts.

? You dont know?
You dont know what happened, as in meaning what Jesus did, a few weeks after He told the parable of the Rich Man and Beggar Poor Man named Lazarus?

Granted that most of the verisimilitude characters in Jesus' parables, hardly have names, but the name of the beggar poor man was given.
and you dont know why Jesus, on purpose, gave Lazarus, as the name of the beggar poor man, in that Luke 16:19-31 parable narrative, hmmm? Na wa oo. Oleku, shey I bin don tell you something wey you no fit do, ni?

All the things and events that Jesus used to make parables where things or events that truly took place or relate with.
The story of lazarus and the richman does not strike as a parable based on the evidence provided above and even if, still the message is clear heaven and hell are real and all sinners will end up in hell separated from God.

solite3:
First, the story is never called a parable.

solite3, please stop trying to make fetch happen, because it's just not going to happen. Biko, jor now.

Why is it not a parable?
What is your understanding definition of what is a parable?

solite3:
Many other of Jesus' stories are designated as parables, such as the sower and the seed (Luke 8:4); the prosperous farmer (Luke 12:16); the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6); and the wedding feast (Luke 14:7)

Luke 16:19-31, which is story of the nameless rich man and beggar poor man named Lazarus, was designated as a parable as far early and way back in Luke 15:3. This was a successive spate of parable telling by Jesus on that eventful learning day. Quite a large number of parables said in quick succession was done and quashed in between Luke 15:3 and Luke 16:19-31, by Jesus. I previously, asked you to take a wild guess solite3, on how many number of parables in total, did Jesus churn out between Luke 15:3 and Luke 16:19-31 and to list them, but you didnt, I guess you were shy, lol. No problem.

solite3:
Second, the story of the rich man and Lazarus uses the actual name of a person. Such specificity would set it apart from ordinary parables, in which the characters are not named.

What is the name of the rich man solite3?

Are you now beginning to understand why I asked you the below resurfaced questions, hmm? lol
1/ Do you know what happened, as in meaning what Jesus did, a few weeks after He narrated the parable of the Rich Man and Beggar Poor Man named Lazarus?
2/ Most of the verisimilitude characters in Jesus' parables, hardly have names, but the name of the beggar poor man was given.
Do you know why Jesus, on purpose, gave Lazarus, as the name of the beggar poor man, in that Luke 16:19-31 parable narrative, hmmm?

You like ignoring and dont answer questions. It is a bad habit of yours and a self-sabotaging behavior one for that matter. I know I earlier asked you these two below questions:
1/ What is a verisimilitude character?
2/ What does verisimilitude character mean, hmm?

You wouldnt have had the nerve to advance your second apology, if you had answered those two questions,

solite3:
Third, this particular story does not seem to fit the definition of a parable, which is a presentation of a spiritual truth using an earthly illustration. The story of the rich man and Lazarus presents spiritual truth directly, with no earthly metaphor. The setting for most of the story is the afterlife, as opposed to the parables, which unfold in earthly contexts.

[img]https://s5/images/parable.jpg[/img]

Did Jesus, not reveal a spiritual truth about sheol, that before then, was never known about, hmm?

solite3:
All the things and events that Jesus used to make parables where things or events that truly took place or relate with.
The story of lazarus and the richman does not strike as a parable based on the evidence provided above and even if, still the message is clear heaven and hell are real and all sinners will end up in hell separated from God.

It is obvious from your pitiful three apologies that your understanding is seriously flawed when it comes to what parables are and you for no justifiable reason, just want to argue with me.

Such a beautiful thread, providing useful and interesting information, but all you want to do, is flaunt and display that you do not know things you should know.

solite3:
First, the story is never called a parable. Many other of Jesus' stories are designated as parables, such as the sower and the seed (Luke 8:4); the prosperous farmer (Luke 12:16); the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6); and the wedding feast (Luke 14:7). Second, the story of the rich man and Lazarus uses the actual name of a person. Such specificity would set it apart from ordinary parables, in which the characters are not named.

Third, this particular story does not seem to fit the definition of a parable, which is a presentation of a spiritual truth using an earthly illustration. The story of the rich man and Lazarus presents spiritual truth directly, with no earthly metaphor. The setting for most of the story is the afterlife, as opposed to the parables, which unfold in earthly contexts.






All the things and events that Jesus used to make parables where things or events that truly took place or relate with.
The story of lazarus and the richman does not strike as a parable based on the evidence provided above and even if, still the message is clear heaven and hell are real and all sinners will end up in hell separated from God.

I hope that you will not consider this to be overstepping boundaries on my part, my friend. I thought that I might help you understand a bit more clearly about parables in general and the Lord's use of them. Please, don't take offense with my doing so. I am not trying to claim some kind of authority over you, but if I can help a brother, I will always want to. And I too am always willing to receive help where I need it.

First of all, parables were teaching tools. The Greek word it is translated from evinces a comparison between one thing and another, that is, it is like laying something down next to another to compare the two and show how they are similar or different. In other words, even the word does not at all suggest that what is laid down is fictitious. That is, if a teacher used a story to explain a given concept, the fact that he did so does not at all mean that the story is fictitious.

My point in saying this is that a parable is not a fictitious story by definition. It is merely an assumption on the part of many interpreters of the Bible that the Lord Jesus made up the stories that He used just because they were called parables. The Bible called the stories parables, but it never said that the stories were not true. And the meaning of the word itself does not at all suggest that it must be fiction.

To further explain, if I told my son that when I told him not to eat a lot of chocolate but he went ahead and did so and got a stomachache, that that was exactly the same kind of thing as when the Lord commands us to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved and we don't and end up in the Lake of Fire, I have just used a parable. It need not be fiction at all that my son ate a lot of chocolate and got a stomachache. In fact, the lesson is far more powerful if he did eat a lot of chocolate and got a stomachache from it.

Now, the Lord Jesus was sinless, unlike us. He was also the Truth, unlike us. He was also a Prophet, unlike us. In other words, He simply could not make anything up. It would at the very least cast His status as the Truth in doubt. But even more so, He did not need to make anything up, because as a Prophet, He had far more information about the world and life that He only had to pull up this or that given actual instance to make a point. When, for example, He asked His disciples to do something about the crowd of 5000 men (not counting women and children) with them in Bethesda, the Bible states clearly that He was only testing them because He already knew what He was going to do.

He also saw visions while He was on earth, for example, when He sent out the 12 to proclaim the Gospel, and heal, and do miracles, and perform exorcisms, He told them upon their return and when they gave their report that He was watching Satan fall from Heaven as they worked. The Lord knew far more than anyone else did even in His Flesh with His Deity voided.

As a result, He did not need to make any story up. He knew precisely which true story to use to get His Message across to them. In the crowds would be people who knew the actual events, and it is not beyond reason to imagine that their knowledge of those events would impress them with the Truth of His Message.

Also, very importantly, regarding the Nature of His Ministry, the Lord used parables specifically to conceal the Truth from those who didn't want to hear it, but for those like the ones I mentioned above, those parables could stir them into asking more questions. This was how the Lord drew those who were worthy to Himself. It certainly helped too that our Lord was completely above reproach even in the choice of the stories He told. The Lord did what He did with parables to practically demonstrate to us what He taught us in Matthew 7:6. If He taught the Truth directly to the crowds, it would have offended many of them and brought on His Death sooner than it should have, so He gave the Truth through similitudes, allowing those who valued it to come to Him with questions that allowed them to get to the meat of the lessons.

So, His Parables were all true stories. Not a single one was false or fictitious. It didn't matter whether He named the people involved or not. In fact, if one had no preconceptions and just read the Bible, that is the assumption that one would make. The onus is always on those who claim that parables are made-up stories to prove that they are. Neither the definition of the word nor the specific character of our Lord nor yet the nature of His Ministry even suggest that His Own Parables were made-up stories. That is merely a fiction that some people love to tell themselves.

For those who listen carefully and believingly, our Lord's Parables are a treasure trove of information. If He did not tell the story of Lazarus and the rich man, for example, we Gentiles would probably have never known that the Jewish traditions about Sheol are actually true. We have a hint of their truth from 1 Samuel 28 and Job and the Psalms, but only from that parable do we see a very graphic picture of what goes on with the dead. Once we dismiss the true nature of parables and the character of our Lord, we close ourselves to very much of the Truth in the Gospels.

Finally, if I might advise, I don't know what your spiritual gift may be, but when you discuss the Bible, the wise thing to do is to stick with what it actually says. If you cannot pin an idea that you have to something that the Bible literally says in agreement with everything else that it says, it is best not to say it at all. Otherwise, you might find yourself confused and actually struggling to maintain your hold on biblical truth when you are challenged by those who hate the Truth. Not everyone has the gift of teaching or apologetics, so even those who know the Truth and don't possess these gifts are ill-advised to operate like they do. It can cause much damage to them and others when they do. Please, do not take offense with this. I am only trying to help. As I said, I think that your heart is in the right place about the Truth, and I consider you a brother (and I have been watching you for a while now too), so this is not to put you down or chastise you. It is to help, if I can.

Grace be with you, my friend.

Ihedinobi3:

I hope that you will not consider this to be overstepping boundaries on my part, my friend. I thought that I might help you understand a bit more clearly about parables in general and the Lord's use of them. Please, don't take offense with my doing so. I am not trying to claim some kind of authority over you, but if I can help a brother, I will always want to. And I too am always willing to receive help where I need it.

First of all, parables were teaching tools. The Greek word it is translated from evinces a comparison between one thing and another, that is, it is like laying something down next to another to compare the two and show how they are similar or different. In other words, even the word does not at all suggest that what is laid down is fictitious. That is, if a teacher used a story to explain a given concept, the fact that he did so does not at all mean that the story is fictitious.

My point in saying this is that a parable is not a fictitious story by definition. It is merely an assumption on the part of many interpreters of the Bible that the Lord Jesus made up the stories that He used just because they were called parables. The Bible called the stories parables, but it never said that the stories were not true. And the meaning of the word itself does not at all suggest that it must be fiction.

To further explain, if I told my son that when I told him not to eat a lot of chocolate but he went ahead and did so and got a stomachache, that that was exactly the same kind of thing as when the Lord commands us to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved and we don't and end up in the Lake of Fire, I have just used a parable. It need not be fiction at all that my son ate a lot of chocolate and got a stomachache. In fact, the lesson is far more powerful if he did eat a lot of chocolate and got a stomachache from it.

Now, the Lord Jesus was sinless, unlike us. He was also the Truth, unlike us. He was also a Prophet, unlike us. In other words, He simply could not make anything up. It would at the very least cast His status as the Truth in doubt. But even more so, He did not need to make anything up, because as a Prophet, He had far more information about the world and life that He only had to pull up this or that given actual instance to make a point. When, for example, He asked His disciples to do something about the crowd of 5000 men (not counting women and children) with them in Bethesda, the Bible states clearly that He was only testing them because He already knew what He was going to do.

He also saw visions while He was on earth, for example, when He sent out the 12 to proclaim the Gospel, and heal, and do miracles, and perform exorcisms, He told them upon their return and when they gave their report that He was watching Satan fall from Heaven as they worked. The Lord knew far more than anyone else did even in His Flesh with His Deity voided.

As a result, He did not need to make any story up. He knew precisely which true story to use to get His Message across to them. In the crowds would be people who knew the actual events, and it is not beyond reason to imagine that their knowledge of those events would impress them with the Truth of His Message.

Also, very importantly, regarding the Nature of His Ministry, the Lord used parables specifically to conceal the Truth from those who didn't want to hear it, but for those like the ones I mentioned above, those parables could stir them into asking more questions. This was how the Lord drew those who were worthy to Himself. It certainly helped too that our Lord was completely above reproach even in the choice of the stories He told. The Lord did what He did with parables to practically demonstrate to us what He taught us in Matthew 7:6. If He taught the Truth directly to the crowds, it would have offended many of them and brought on His Death sooner than it should have, so He gave the Truth through similitudes, allowing those who valued it to come to Him with questions that allowed them to get to the meat of the lessons.

So, His Parables were all true stories. Not a single one was false or fictitious. It didn't matter whether He named the people involved or not. In fact, if one had no preconceptions and just read the Bible, that is the assumption that one would make. The onus is always on those who claim that parables are made-up stories to prove that they are. Neither the definition of the word nor the specific character of our Lord nor yet the nature of His Ministry even suggest that His Own Parables were made-up stories. That is merely a fiction that some people love to tell themselves.

For those who listen carefully and believingly, our Lord's Parables are a treasure trove of information. If He did not tell the story of Lazarus and the rich man, for example, we Gentiles would probably have never known that the Jewish traditions about Sheol are actually true. We have a hint of their truth from 1 Samuel 28 and Job and the Psalms, but only from that parable do we see a very graphic picture of what goes on with the dead. Once we dismiss the true nature of parables and the character of our Lord, we close ourselves to very much of the Truth in the Gospels.

Finally, if I might advise, I don't know what your spiritual gift may be, but when you discuss the Bible, the wise thing to do is to stick with what it actually says. If you cannot pin an idea that you have to something that the Bible literally says in agreement with everything else that it says, it is best not to say it at all. Otherwise, you might find yourself confused and actually struggling to maintain your hold on biblical truth when you are challenged by those who hate the Truth. Not everyone has the gift of teaching or apologetics, so even those who know the Truth and don't possess these gifts are ill-advised to operate like they do. It can cause much damage to them and others when they do. Please, do not take offense with this. I am only trying to help. As I said, I think that your heart is in the right place about the Truth, and I consider you a brother (and I have been watching you for a while now too), so this is not to put you down or chastise you. It is to help, if I can.

Grace be with you, my friend.

thank you very much for your wonderful thought and advise.
I know not to overstep scripture limits when conversing with people concerning the truth. I wasnt inferring that the parables where false because whatever parables the Lord made where things that really happened and the people could relate with for example, the parable of the sower however in the case of lazarus and the rich man, although Jesus might have used it for teaching, it something that really happened.

solite3:
Can you mention some other idioms in the bible?

"The Kingdom of God."

Though I'm using 'idiom' very loosely, hoping you could explain.

Parables usually have a plethora of lessons, moral truth in them and actually are a faithful representation of reality. They at times are told, as a story, with verisimilitude characters in them. The rich man, an unnamed character & the beggar poor man, who was given a Lazarus name character, in Luke 16 is an example of parables with verisimilitude characters.

solite3:
thank you very much for your wonderful thought and advise.
I know not to overstep scripture limits when conversing with people concerning the truth. I wasnt inferring that the parables where false because whatever parables the Lord made where things that really happened and the people could relate with for example, the parable of the sower however in the case of lazarus and the rich man, although Jesus might have used it for teaching, it something that really happened.

It's my privilege to serve you, my friend. And thank you kindly for the reassurance and clarification.

As you said, they all really happened, and our Lord used them all to teach:

34All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable.
Matthew 13:34 NASB

Grace be with you, my friend.