The REAL 'olympic style greco-roman' KNOCK OUT PUNCH episode!!!
Posted : 6 Feb, 2022 12:41 PM
From thread titled - 'using olympic style greco-roman'
The verse in question on that thread - “For the >>>wages of sin is death<<<, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord,” (Romans 6:23).
According to CULTISTrsvp he says in his NON Biblical words of course - Romans 6:23 'that the word “death” means nonexistence in the final eternal judgment. But, the verse doesn’t say that.'
So according to CULTISTrsvp, death does not mean death because people don't really die! The Messiah never died then according to CULTISTrsvp, right? Then to make matters soooo much worse for his CULT doctrine, the very verse that says DEATH is the PAYMENT for sin, its WAGES paid in full come judgment day obviously but for some strange reason outside of Scripture no less, CULTISTrsvp now claims DEATH really means ETERNAL LIFE OF TORMENT in a made 'lake of fire' someday??? REALLY NOW!
CULTISTrsvp states from his 'greco-roman' thread which describes him quite well because he is still 'GREEK' in understanding Scripture and very much a 'ROMAN' in keeping a PAGAN roman calendar, let alone keeping a RCC 666 PAGAN SUNday to worship BAAL on! -
Quote from that thread - 'Eternal death is eternal separation (Isaiah 59:2) that consists of eternal torment (Jude 7; Rev. 14:10-11). So there is no problem with understanding this verse from the >>>traditionalist<<< point of view.
BIG PROBLEM IS that NOWHERE in all those verses does it EVER put those TWO words together of 'eternal' and 'torment' that CULTISTrsvp does and therefore changing the meaning of what takes place on judgment day! Note also the verse in question, Romans 6:23, NEVER SAYS - the wages of sin is eternal torment, so why does CULTISTrsvp claim its there????
Now lets look at he ULTIMATE 'olympic style' KNOCK OUT PUNCH to the forum known CULTISTrsvp, shall we?
Note he claims Jude 7 teaches 'eternal torment' that supposedly exists by definition of two combined words that NEVER exist together in the Bible but that 'torment' never ends come judgment day because the continual sinner will NEVER ever pay the price for their own sin and never die! Is that true?
Jude 7 - 'Even as >>>Sodom and Gomorrah<<<, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are >>>set forth for an example<<<, >suffering< the vengeance of >>>eternal fire<<<'
Is it not obvious that CULTISTrsvp has been 'olympic style greco-roman' KNOCKED OUT in SLAM DUNK manner like an all star wrestler would do???
Its really simple logic isn't it readers??? READ MY LIPS CULTISTrsvp 'Sodom and Gomorrah' is not burning today you IDIOT! The Bible is clear its 'set forth for an example' to us today in what JUDGMENT DAY will be like WHEN continual sinners will be BURNED UP in the 'eternal fire' that will be started and never stopped/quenched by Father YHWH, just like Sodom and Gomorrah was you IGNORANT INDOCTRINATED SHEEP of your CULT teaching 'church' of the lost!!
Parables Mooncakes are just what they are, not to be taken in every detail of the afterlife-in judgment! If you think the PARABLE is all literal then you must think Lazarus could dip his finger in water and put on the tongues of the suffering in the one day made 'lake of fire'???
Or perhaps you think there is a 'great gulf fixed' by Father YHWH between the wicked unrighteous and the SINLESS righteous or that you can witness from a distance people suffering??? REALLY MOON????
Do you really think Lazarus will be 'in the bosom of Abraham??? LOL!
The REAL 'olympic style greco-roman' KNOCK OUT PUNCH episode!!!
Posted : 6 Feb, 2022 02:25 PM
More TeddyBug IGNORANCE‼️‼️‼️
SHEEEEEEEEESH THE IGNORANCE OF FALSE TEACHERS IS ASTONDING‼️‼️‼️‼️
Now for true truth
Even logosapostolic gets this right
THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS (Luke 16) IS NOT A PARABLE
Greek Word Study ᾅδης meaning 'hades' Strong's 86
Introduction 5.2
Luke 16:19 to 31 is another scripture that shows very plainly that the souls or spirits of people are alive after someone dies physically. They can talk, think, remember, and feel pain as it says, but if we take this scripture literally then it destroys the doctrine of 'soul-sleep'. For this reason there are many who would like to explain this scripture away as a parable, because then it enables them to ignore the literal interpretation. This is wrong, and if Jesus believed the doctrine of soul-sleep he would never have told a parable like this which contradicts it very plainly. This bible study gives plenty of scriptural proof that the scripture about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 is not a parable.
#5.2 THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS (Luke 16) IS NOT A PARABLE
LUKE 16:19-31 (Jesus)
19 There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 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;
23 And in Hades1, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and you tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that those who would pass from here to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from there.
27 Then he said, I pray you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brothers; that he may testify to them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham says to him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said to him, If they will not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Note: Although some may ignore the truth of this scripture, by saying that it is a parable, there are several valid reasons which show that it is certainly not a parable:
(1) People are never named in parables. Search the gospels and find one if you can, but you will fail. In this scripture however, three people are named, Lazarus (v20, 23) , Abraham (v23, 24), and Moses (v29, 31), of which Moses and Abraham are definite historical figures who are mentioned many times elsewhere in the scriptures. Parables on the other hand refer to people as "a king" (Luke 14:31-42), "the master of the house" (Matthew 24:42-44), "that evil servant" (Matthew 24:48-51), "a man taking a far journey" (Mark 13:34-37), "a judge" (Luke 18:2), "a widow" (Luke 18:3), "a certain man" (Luke 13:6), "a certain rich man" (Luke 12:16), and so on; but none named.
(2) Every parable has an earthly setting, which the people hearing could relate to, but never a heavenly or spiritual one. In this scripture however, Hades1 (Gtr. hades) (v23), and 'Abraham's bosom' (v22), are not earthly settings, showing that this is not a parable.
(3) Because the settings of parables are always earthly they never include spiritual beings either, although God may be mentioned. The interpretation of a parable may include spiritual beings though, because a parable is a simile, which has a spiritual comparison to it. For example 'the reapers' in the parable of the wheat and tares, are 'angels' in the explanation, and 'the enemy' in the parable is 'the Devil' in the comparison (Matthew 13:39). So if spiritual beings such as angels only appear in a comparison, but never in a parable, then this scripture about the rich man in hell cannot be a parable, because angels are also mentioned (v22). The conclusion to be drawn is that Jesus was relating a true story here, either one that happened in the past or it was prophetic; the rich man and Lazarus were people who had or would actually live and die.
(4) If Jesus believed the doctrine of soul-sleep he would never have told a parable like this which plainly contradicts it. Doctrine should be based on plain statements of scripture, and parables are an earthly story similar to the spiritual truth, and are meant to illustrate it. They are laid alongside spiritual truths as a comparison. Parables should NEVER contradict spiritual truth, and Jesus would never tell one that did.
There are some who would object to this on the basis of this verse, "All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables, and without a parable he did not speak to them." (Matthew 13:34). Now looking back in Luke 16 it says, "Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard these things, and they derided him. And he said to them ... " (Luke 16:14-15). So the argument is that Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, and therefore he must have been speaking a parable. This is a failure to rightly divide the word of God on the subject, for if we look immediately before he spoke about the rich man and Lazarus, we see this:
(Luke16:18) "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery."
The parallel scriptures that go with this are Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11-12. We see that prior to these verses in Mark it says, "And in the house his disciples asked him again about the same matter." (Mark 10:10). So when he spoke the scripture in Luke 16:18 he was in the house talking to his disciples, not the Pharisees. After all, he was speaking plain language in Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18 so on the basis of their argument that he would only speak to the people in parables, he was not speaking to the Pharisees. Matthew confirms that after this statement about adultery (Matthew 19:9) he was speaking to his disciples; "His disciples said to him, ... But he said to them, ... ." (Matthew 19:10-11). So their argument to try and prove that this was a parable, on the basis that he was speaking to the Pharisees, is false.
The REAL 'olympic style greco-roman' KNOCK OUT PUNCH episode!!!
Posted : 6 Feb, 2022 02:56 PM
spot on on target bro david 🎯
dear people of God here's another easy way to expose teddy bugs
fallacious logic
He writes in regards to the parable found in Luke 16
" Parables Mooncakes are just what they are, not to be taken in every detail of the afterlife-in judgment! If you think the PARABLE is all literal then you must think Lazarus could dip his finger in water and put on the tongues of the suffering in the one day made 'lake of fire'??? " --
2 Kings 19:35 says that under King Hezekiah Jerusalem was sieged but would be delivered by an Angel of the Lord
" That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies "
☑️ So what if I used to figurative language to describe a true historical biblical event ❓❓ let's say for example the Lord used one of his angels to " NUKE " ☢️🚀 the 185,000 Assyrians..... Obviously it couldn't be a nuclear missile because they didn't exist ❗❗
🤔🤔 Does my figurative language metaphorical language mean that it's no longer a literal historical event ❓❓ of course not that would be silly ❗❗
☑️ Pete takes his 2012 Toyota Prius to the car wash he comes back and says they used millions of gallons to wash my car now it's worth a million dollars 💲💲
🤔🤔 Does it mean that they literally used millions of gallons of water to wash Pete's car and now it's worth a million dollars 💲💲❓❓ no of course not it's hyperbole ❗❗
🙂💯👍🙂 the same goes for Luke 16 in regards to teddy bugs false claim that it couldn't be a parable because the rich man wants to dip his finger in water to cool his tongue . Obviously the rich man is suffering and wants relief desperately from the flames of eternal fire that's why he uses metaphor figurative language
☑️☑️ Just as David pointed out this is not a parable again it's not a parable it was a literal event and the rich man is in hell awaiting the great white throne judgment Day
It’s been used to rebuke the rich, defend salvation by poverty, teach about the afterlife, condemn antebellum slavery, even promote women’s suffrage. Jesus’s story in Luke 16:19–31 certainly raises a series of questions. Can heaven be seen from hell? Does wealth make the difference between the two? Are those in heaven aware of (and indifferent to) the suffering of those in hell? Is this a parable or a true story?
The account is unique to Luke’s Gospel and has several other exclusive features besides. How should we interpret it and what can it teach us today?
Advertise on TGC
Parable or Not?
First, is it a parable or a tale of historical figures? Some in the medieval church and the Reformation believed it was an account of actual people rather than a parable. Calvin, for example, thought this because it has a named character (Lazarus)—something no parable has.
Calvin’s observation is right, but it’s hard to miss the fact that Luke introduces the story the same way he does the four parables that precede it, including the famed prodigal son. All are introduced with the generalizing formula “a certain (wo)man . . . ” (Luke 15:3, 15:8, 15:11; 16:1). Further, there’s a good reason why the poor man is named and why it’s Lazarus.
But does it matter whether or not this is a parable? I don’t think so and neither did Calvin. We agree that the main issue is comprehending “the doctrine which it contains.” The difficulty, of course, as Klyne Snodgrass points out, is that “no formula exists for determining whether an element [of the parable] is theologically significant.” The best approach is to use the immediate context of the parable and a theology derived from the whole Bible as our guide. The church father Tertullian wrote:
We, however, do not take the parables as sources of doctrine, but rather we take doctrine as a norm for interpreting the parables. Therefore, we make no effort to twist everything so that it fits our own explanation, striving to avoid every discrepancy. Why a “hundred” sheep? and why, indeed, “ten” drachmas? and what does that “broom” stand for? Well, when he [Jesus] wanted to show how pleased God is at the salvation of one sinner, he had to mention some numerical quantity from which one could be described as “lost.”
Context
This parable ends without any summary explanation from Jesus like we find in, say, the Good Samaritan. But help is not far away. Just before this parable, Jesus tells another parable about wealth (Luke 16:1–13)—and the passage in between (16:14–18) finds Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for loving money, exalting themselves in self-justification, and ignoring the Old Testament’s authority. All three themes are woven into the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. We have the rich man’s love of money, his self-importance even in Hades, and his rejection of divine revelation. Other themes emerge in contrast to these.
Characters
The angels, five brothers, and Moses and the prophets play supporting roles, as does Abraham. The main characters, of course, are Lazarus and the rich man. Although tradition has called this man “Dives” (the Latin word for “rich man”), he has no name in the original. He’s introduced as one who literally wears his wealth on his sleeve (“clothed in purple and fine linen”) and feels not the least pain of hunger (he “feasted sumptuously every day”).
Next there is poor Lazarus, a man covered with sores who sits at the rich man’s gate, apparently close enough for him to see the food he can’t have but far enough that the rich man can safely ignore him.
The rich man clearly ignores the need on his doorstep. Only the dogs see the need. Their licks, which seem to provide relief, serve as a bitter contrast with the rich man whose own tongue will soon enough be the site of great need. Calvin asks:
What could be more monstrous than to see the dogs taking charge of a man, to whom his neighbor is paying no attention; and, what is more, to see the very crumbs of bread refused to a man perishing of hunger, while the dogs are giving him the service of their tongues for the purpose of healing his sores?
Consequences
The contrasts don’t end there. Upon death, Lazarus finds himself at Abraham’s “bosom,” which is probably a reference to the heavenly banquet (cf. John 13:23). For any Jew at the time, this seating arrangement would have been a mark of the highest honor. And what about the rich man? Despite the blessing of his great wealth, he ends up in Hades where he’s in torment. It’s hard to tell whether this Hades is intended to be different from hell (or Gehenna). It’s certainly not where he wants to be.
From this surprising turn of events, some conclude the parable teaches that the poor go to heaven and the rich to hell. The problem with such a view, as Augustine noted long ago, is that poor Lazarus is carried to the side of wealthy Abraham. If wealth alone determines our fate, then Abraham should be in Hades right along with the rich man.
Instead, the reason for their fate is found elsewhere. The name “Lazarus” is probably the Hellenized version of an abbreviated form of Eliezer, which means “God helps” (cf. Gen. 15:2). The point is that Lazarus’s deep physical need made him much more sensitive to his deeper spiritual need. Meanwhile, the rich man unwittingly condemns himself to Hades by using Lazarus’s personal name (Luke 16:24). If he knows him now, he must have known him then.
Worse still, he continues to treat Lazarus as beneath him, refusing to address him directly and having the gall to ask that Lazarus quench his thirst—the very thing he wouldn’t do for Lazarus. Abraham’s response in Luke 16:25 mimics Jesus’s teaching elsewhere: the measure we use to judge others will be used on us (Matt. 7:2). Here, the first two themes converge: The rich man’s love of money has bloomed into a callous, self-justifying negligence of others’ needs. His lack of mercy finds its miserable echo in mercy not received.
But the story doesn’t end there. If the rich man won’t be relieved, perhaps his family can be spared. This seems altruistic, but the rich man is still asking for Lazarus to be sent. What’s more, he insists on determining the terms by which they are warned. Moses and the prophets aren’t enough; only a resurrection will do.
Abraham’s response only adds to his indictment. If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t listen to anything. This is the third theme, which connects back to Luke 16:16. God has given men the law and the prophets and these have more than testified to what God expects. The problem isn’t with the message; it’s with the audience.
This helps explain the reason for the fixed chasm (Luke 16:26). That gulf is not fixed because God is nursing a cosmic grudge; it’s fixed by the justice of God and the obstinacy of the ungraced human heart. The rich man is all too aware of his own suffering. What he cannot see—because he will not see it—is that he is the cause of it. He won’t admit that all his wealthy opulence brings him no closer to heaven’s doorstep than it brought him to his own doorstep to help poor Lazarus. His great need is to recognize his greatest need—and that he will not do. The suffering of Hades has done nothing to dull his sense of self-importance. In this profound sense we can speak of God’s divine judgment as self-imposed. Not because God is ashamed of it, but because we utterly deserve it.
God Who Helps
The most important lesson this parable teaches is a warning about money. Wealth calcified the rich man’s heart. Though wealth doesn’t always have this effect, who can deny that it often does? As many have realized, either we will own our money, or it will own us. You cannot serve God and money, as Jesus said a few verses before (Luke 16:13).
So the true test can never be a simple dollar amount. It must be our sensitivity to the poverty and pain we find around us. A heart unwilling to help others—because it might be risky, or they might not deserve it, or it might cost us too much—is a heart unwilling to recognize the desperate help we ourselves need from God. And the stakes couldn’t be higher, since heaven and hell hang in the balance. As Ephrem the Syrian comments on this parable, “We cannot hope for pardon at the end unless the fruits of pardon can be seen in us.”
The Messiah never died then according to CULTISTrsvp, 
right? Then to make matters soooo much worse for his CULT doctrine, the very verse that says DEATH is the PAYMENT for sin, its WAGES paid in full come judgment day obviously but for some strange reason outside of Scripture no less, CULTISTrsvp now claims DEATH really means ETERNAL LIFE OF TORMENT in a made 'lake of fire' someday??? 
REALLY NOW! 
Note also the verse in question, Romans 6:23, NEVER SAYS - the wages of sin is eternal torment, so why does CULTISTrsvp claim its there???? 
Is that true? 
The Bible is clear its 'set forth for an example' to us today in what JUDGMENT DAY will be like WHEN continual sinners will be BURNED UP in the 'eternal fire' that will be started and never stopped/quenched by Father YHWH, just like Sodom and Gomorrah was you IGNORANT INDOCTRINATED SHEEP of your CULT teaching 'church' of the lost!! 
If you think the PARABLE is all literal then you must think Lazarus could dip his finger in water and put on the tongues of the suffering in the one day made 'lake of fire'???
