Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
About Luke 16:19-31 II century interpolation
#1
Peace and grace from our heavenly Father and from His Son, our Lord Jesus!

I am John from Romania, and I searching after references in connection with the storry of Rich man and Lazarus

"A fourth view holds that the story was not told by Jesus. Proponents of this view suggest that it is significant that only the Gospel of Luke mentions Jesus telling the story"

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_and_Dives">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_and_Dives</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/lazarus.htm">http://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/lazarus.htm</a><!-- m -->

I want to know how is in Peshitta and if exist another references.
Thank you and God bless you!
John
Reply
#2
Post Scriptum:

I believe in the future judgemet and punisment of the wicked, ungodly persons, but this punishment is eternal death, eternal destruction in the fire, according to the Bible: Hebrews 10:26,27; Revelation 20:11-15.


"Eternal" with Words of Action

Of the 70 usages of the adjective "eternal" (aionios) in the New Testament, six times the word qualifies nouns signifying acts or processes, as distinct form persons or things. These cases call for special consideration. They are "eternal salvation" (Heb. 5:9), "eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12), "eternal judgement" (Heb. 6:2), "eternal sin" (Mark 3:29), "eternal punishment" (Matt. 25:46) and "eternal destruction (2Thess. 1:9). Three occur in Hebrews; all six have to do with final judgement and its outcome.
Here we see again the other-age quality of the "eternal". There is something transcendent, eschatological, divine about this judgement, this sin, this punishment and destruction, this redemption and salvation. They are not merely human, this-age matters, but are of an entirely different nature. On the other hand, something about this judgement, sin, punishment, destruction, redemption and salvation will have no end. If in one sense these things are timeless, they are in another sense without temporal limits. They belong to that Age to Come which is not bound by time and which will never end.
"Eternal Judgement" (Heb. 6:2). Among the "elementary teachings" which make up the "foundation" of Christian teaching are "the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement". This is literally the resurrection "of the dead ones" (plural, nekron), seemengly both good and bad, and it is linked to that judgement which is of the Age to Come, not merely a judgement made by man or God in the here and now. That is quality, but what of its duration? How is the last judgement "eternal" in the sense of everlasting?
The act of judging will certainly not last forever. But we notice that the text speaks of judgement (kirimatos) and not judging. There will be an act or process of judging, and then it will be over. But the judging results in a judgement - and that will never end. The action itself is one thing; its outcome, its issue, its result, is something else. "Eternal" here speaks of the result of the action, not the action itself. Once the judging is over, the judgement will remain - the eternal, everlasting issue of the once-for-all process of judgement.
"Eternal Redemption" (Heb. 9:12). Christ has entered upon His high-priestly service through the greater tabernacle that is not hand-made or a part of this creation. "He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." It is clear that "eternal" here also has a qualitative aspect. These matters are of that order which is not a part of this creation (v. 11). They pertain to the "eternal Spirit" (v. 14), not the flesh. They belong to the new covenant and the "eternal inheritance" (v. 15). By faith these "eternal" things are already operative and even visible (Heb. 11), though they are of an order different from the space-timpe creation of which we are presently a part.
This redemption is also "eternal" in the sense of everlasting. Not that the act or process of redeeming continues without end - Christ has accomplished that once for all! Our author specifically makes the point that Christ did not have to suffer "many times since the creation". Rather, "He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. 9:25,26). But this once-for-all act of redeeming, which is finished, will never be repeated and can never be duplicated, issues in a redemption which will never pass away. "Eternal" speaks here again of the result of the action, not the act itself. Once the redeeming has taken place, the redemption remains. And that "eternal" result of the once-for-all action will never pass away.
"Eternal Salvation" (Heb. 5:9). Trough reverent submission and perfect obedience, Jesus became "the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him." This salvation partakes of the eternal quality of the new order - that order in which Jesus may be priest like Melchizedek (v. 10). It is already a reality (Heb. 4:15,16), for it partially intersects the present order even while it transcends it. But this salvation is also "eternal" in that it will have no end. Jesus is not forever saving His people; He did that once for all, as we have already seen. This salvation is eternal because it is the everlasting result which issues from once-for-all process or act of saving. The result remains even after the act has ended.
The expression "eternal salvation" here may come from Isaiah 45:17. There God promissed that "Israel will be saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation." It is clear from the following words that God has in mind the result He will accomplish rather than the act He will perform. "You will never be put to shame or disgraced, to ages everlasting." Once the saving has taken place, the salvation remains. And that "eternal" outcome of God's finished action will never pass away.
"Eternal Sin" (Mark 3:29). In a controversy with some teachers of the law, Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is quilty of an eternal sin." Mark's next statement tells us what this "eternal sin" was. "He said this because they werw saying, 'He has an evil spirit' "(Mark 3:30). This sin of atributing to the demonic the Holy Spirit's power manifested in Jesus had a quality other sins did not. It was "eternal" in that sense because it resisted and contradicted the power of the Age to Come. It stood in opposition to the inbreaking kingdom of God, as Luke points out in the parallel passage (Luke 11:20). Nor will it be forgiven, even in the Age to Come, which for Matthew is equivalent to saying it is an "eternal sin" (Matt. 12:32). The act of sinning does not continue forever; it was committed on that occasion in Jesus' ministry and may possibly never be repeated in exactly the same way. Men are punished in hell for sins committed during this Present Age, not for evil done following the last day (Rom. 2:6-16). This "eternal" sin was committed once. But its result remains for eretnity.
"Eternal Destruction" (2Thess. 1:9). When Jesus comes, He will punish His enemies who have refused to know God and to obey His gospel. "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of His power."
This destruction clearly partakes of the Age to Come. It belongs to those eschatological realities which are now unseen and mysterious to our Present Age. In that sense it is "eternal" in quality. In keeping with what we have seen already, we suggest that the destruction is also everlasting and unending.
The New International Version uses two verbs to describe what will happen to the wicked on that day. "They will be punished" (with everlasting destruction), and they will be "shut out" from the Lord's presence and power. The second verb is not in Greek but is supplied by the New International Version's translators to express what they think it means. We will discuss that more later. For now it is important to see that whatever happens will happen "on the day He comes" (v. 10). It will not be happening forever, but when He has brought about their destruction, its result will never end.
In keeping with the rest of the teaching of both Old and New Testaments, to be examined in following chapters, we here suggest that this "eternal destruction" will be extinction of those so sentenced. (...)
"Eternal Punishment" (Matt. 25:46). Jesus concludes His Parable of the Sheep and Goats with the statement that the wicked "will go to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Both the life and the punishment partake of the quality of the Age to Come. We have some experience here and now of life and of punishment. But we cannot know now what the eternal life will be - in its fullness - nor can we know now what the eternal punishment will be - in its actual horror. There is more to either than a timeless extension of what we can now experience. We are acquainted to some extent with the nouns; the adjective tells us they will then be of a quality we do not yet comprehend. There is a clearly a qualitative aspect to "eternal" punishment.
At the same time, the life and the punishment of this passage are never to end. They are "eternal" in the sense of everlasting. (...) But the punishment which will remain forever.
Conclusion. This is a powerful argument which conditionalists have pressed with vigor. In all the literature covered by this study, no traditionalist writer has dealt with it at all except perhaps to assert that it is false without giving any reasoning evidence - and that but rarely. Like most of the conditionalistst arguments, this one has simply been ignored. If the traditionalist understanding of hell is to stand, a cogent and persuasive answer must be forthcoming. Since all we want to know is God's truth as revealed in Scripture, no one need be threatened on either side of the discussion. This is a challenge which calls for careful exegesis and prayerful study within a commitment to the final authority of the Word of God.

With permision of the author:
Edward William Fudge: The Fire That Consumes, chapter 3, page 44-48
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://edwardfudge.com/written/fire.html">http://edwardfudge.com/written/fire.html</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#3
Inventors of "infernos":

Polybius, the ancient historian, says: "Since the multitude is ever fickle, full of lawless desires,
irrational passions and violence, there is no other way to keep them in order but by the fear
and terror of the invisible world; on which account our ancestors seem to me to have acted judiciously,
when they contrived to bring into the popular belief these notions of the gods, and of the infernal
regions." B. vi 56.

Livy, the celebrated historian, speaks of it in the same spirit; and he praises the wisdom of Numa,
because he invented the fear of the gods, as "a most efficacious means of governing an ignorant
and barbarous populace." Hist., I 19.

Strabo, the geographer, says: "The multitude are restrained from vice by the punishments the gods are
said to inflict upon offenders, and by those terrors and threatenings which certain dreadful words and
monstrous forms imprint upon their minds...For it is impossible to govern the crowd of women, and all the
common rabble, by philosophical reasoning, and lead them to piety, holiness and virtue - but this must be
done by superstition, or the fear of the gods, by means of fables and wonders; for the thunder, the aegis,
the trident, the torches (of the Furies), the dragons, &c., are all fables, as is also all the ancient theology.
These things the legislators used as scarecrows to terrify the childish multitude." Geog., B. I

Timaeus Locrus, the Pythagorean, after stating that the doctrine of rewards and punishments after
death is necessary to society, proceeds as follows: "For as we sometimes cure the body with
unwholesome remedies, when such as are most wholesome produce no effect, so we restrain
those minds with false relations, which will not be persuaded by the truth. There is a necessity,
therefore, of instilling the dread of those foreign torments: as that the soul changes its habitation;
that the coward is ignominiously thrust into the body of a woman; the murderer
imprisoned within the form of a savage beast; the vain and inconstant changed into birds, and
the slothful and ignorant into fishes."

Plato, in his commentary on Timaeus, fully endorses what he says respecting the fabulous invention of these foreign torments. And Strabo says that "Plato and the Brahmins of India invented fables concerning the future judgments of hell" (Hades). And Chrysippus blames Plato for attempting to deter men from wrong by frightful stories of future punishments.

Plato himself is exceedingly inconsistent, sometimes adopting, even in his serious discourses, the fables of the poets, and at other times rejecting them as utterly false, and giving too frightful views of the invisible world. Sometimes, he argues, on social grounds, that they are necessary to restrain bad men from wickedness and crime, and then again he protests against them on political grounds, as intimidating the citizens, and making cowards of the soldiers, who, believing these things, are afraid of death, and do not therefore fight well.

But all this shows in what light he regarded them; not as truths, certainly, but as fictions, convenient in some cases, but difficult to manage in others. Seneca says: "Those things which make the infernal regions terrible, the darkness, the prison, the river of flaming fire, the judgment seat, &c., are all a fable, with which the poets amuse themselves, and by them agitate us with vain terrors." Sextus Empiricus calls them "poetic fables of hell;" and Cicero speaks of them as "silly absurdities and fables" (ineptiis ac fabulis). Aristotle. "It has been handed down in mythical form from earliest times to posterity, that there are gods, and that the divine (Deity) compasses all nature. All beside this has been added, after the mythical style, for the purpose of persuading the multitude, and for the interests of the laws, and the advantage of the state." Neander's Church Hist., I, p. 7. 11

For another information:
"Histoire de l'enfer", Paris 1994 (deutscher Titel: H?lle. Kleine Kulturgeschichte der Unterwelt)
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.alapage.com/m/ps/mpid:MP-5C78CM1334826#moid:MO-5C78CM2669161">http://www.alapage.com/m/ps/mpid:MP-5C7 ... 8CM2669161</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Minois">http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Minois</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#4
What means the word "unquenchable" in ancient time

Strabo calls the lamp in the Parthenon, and Plutarch calls the sacred fire of a temple
"unquenchable," though they were extinguished ages ago. Josephus says that the fire on the altar
of the temple at Jerusalem was "always unquenchable," asbeston aei, though the fire had gone
out and the temple was destroyed at the time of his writing. Eusebius says that certain martyrs of
Alexandria "were burned in unquenchable fire," though it was extinguished in the course of an
hour, the very insult in English, which Homer has in Greek, asbestos gelos, (Iliad, 1: 599),
unquenchable laughter.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.doralynn.net/eon4.html">http://www.doralynn.net/eon4.html</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#5
New request:

I want to know more about Origene's mission in Arabia, regarding his preaching against those who believe that the soul is not immortal:

"After his conversion of Beryllus, however, his aid was frequently invoked against heresies. Thus, when the doctrine was promulgated in Arabia that the soul died and decayed with the body, being restored to life only at the resurrection (see soul sleep), appeal was made to Origen, who journeyed to Arabia, and by his preaching reclaimed the erring."

Also Bishop Policarp of Smirna believe this so called "erring": "to the resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and body, through the incorruption [imparted] by the Holy Ghost"

?O Lord God Almighty, the Father of thy beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the knowledge of Thee, the God of angels and powers, and of every creature, and of the whole race of the righteous who live before thee, I give Thee thanks that Thou hast counted me, worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the number of Thy martyrs, in the cup of thy Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and body, through the incorruption [imparted] by the Holy Ghost. Among whom may I be accepted this day before Thee as a fat [Literally: ?in a fat,? etc., or, ?in a rich?] and acceptable sacrifice, according as Thou, the ever-truthful [Literally: ?the not false and true?] God, hast foreordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, ?in the Holy Ghost?, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.?
Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iv. 15)
Reply
#6
Innoire Wrote:Peace and grace from our heavenly Father and from His Son, our Lord Jesus!

I am John from Romania, and I searching after references in connection with the storry of Rich man and Lazarus

"A fourth view holds that the story was not told by Jesus. Proponents of this view suggest that it is significant that only the Gospel of Luke mentions Jesus telling the story"

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_and_Dives">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_and_Dives</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/lazarus.htm">http://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/lazarus.htm</a><!-- m -->

I want to know how is in Peshitta and if exist another references.
Thank you and God bless you!
John

Shlama,

the story is contained in the Peshitta.
i personally think, despite how one may wish to interpret the actual content of the account, that suggesting it's sole appearance in Luke as being "significant" to the idea that Messiah never spoke it, is a ludicrous position. How many other teachings of His, or accounts, are only found in one of the Gospels? If the view is taken that a passage is suspect if it only appears in one Gospel, how much would we have to throw out? furthermore, why stop there and not go back into the TN"K (OT) and throw out the multitude of accounts only related once for us?

I really believe it is a dangerous thing to throw suspicion on a passage with that being the sole reason. it is in the Peshitta, and it is in the Greek. the validity shouldn't be questioned. as for the interpretation, well, that is fair game, i suppose, but the validity of it should not be in question.

my two shekels worth!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#7
hi,yes, I agree just because this story is only in one gospel does not mean jesus did not speak it. According to bill wiese jesus spoke about hell forty six times in the gospels.
Reply
#8
Hi Innoire, I believe that what the bible saids is literal , and Jesus who is God is never going to lie. So I am going to pay atten tion to the words that He saids. The bible is the word of God , the most precious book that we can have. When God speaks lets pay attention, the words of a man may pass away, But the words of God will never pass away, mathew 24-35.
Reply
#9
Hi, I am a universalist , meaing that i dot believe in an eternal hell, and I am a preterist, meaning I think the end time prophecies happend in the 1st century.
According to this view sheol, where the rich man was, was emptied out and destroyed long ago. It was a temporary place.
Reply
#10
Hi and thx for comment!
I do not could agree with you.
It is not in the early apostolic fathers quotations, early quotations is from Africa and Western Europe:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/luke16.html">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e ... uke16.html</a><!-- m -->

Before Peshitta, was the "Evangelion Da-Mephareshe" (II century). Peshitta is just a recension of this. So, who know if this story was or not in Evanghelion Da-Mephareshe?
Reply
#11
Innoire Wrote:html

Before Peshitta, was the "Evangelion Da-Mephareshe" (II century). Peshitta is just a recension of this. So, who know if this story was or not in Evanghelion Da-Mephareshe?

But the peshitta has 22 books but the "Evangelion Da-Mephareshe" only has 4 books. How can you get 22 books out of 4?
Reply
#12
Quote:But the peshitta has 22 books but the "Evangelion Da-Mephareshe" only has 4 books. How can you get 22 books out of 4?

I don't discuss the "primacy". I want more information about Evanghelion Da-Mepharese, pls.
Reply
#13
"The Old Syriac is known in Syriac as Evangelion Dampharshe meaning 'Gospel of the Separated [Evangelists]', in order to distinguish it from the Diatessaron, 'Gospel of the Mixed'. This translation was made at some point between the late second century and the early fourth century by a number of translators. Rather a literal translation, this was a rather free translation from the Greek. A series of revisions took place over a long period of time which brought the Old Syriac into closer line with the Greek. The original translation of the Old Syriac is lost, but we are fortunate to have two lacunous manuscripts which represent two different stages of the revisions: the Sinaiticus palimpsest and the Curetonianus manuscript."

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://sor.cua.edu/Bible/OldSyriac.html">http://sor.cua.edu/Bible/OldSyriac.html</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#14
Innoire Wrote:"The Old Syriac is known in Syriac as Evangelion Dampharshe meaning 'Gospel of the Separated [Evangelists]', in order to distinguish it from the Diatessaron, 'Gospel of the Mixed'.

Ok this bit is correct.


Quote:This translation was made at some point between the late second century and the early fourth century by a number of translators
.

Really? Can you provide any evidence to support this. Any evidence at all?



Quote:Rather a literal translation, this was a rather free translation from the Greek.
Maybe..what makes you think so?

Quote:A series of revisions took place over a long period of time which brought the Old Syriac into closer line with the Greek
.

Do you have any evidence or facts to support this?
Reply
#15
That's a quote from a Syriac Orthodox website...of course it's going to say that <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)