Righteousness Defined

[Sean]

Brethren, I wrote my last post to try to "shock" us to see what we have become in our generation. If we lived even 100 years ago, we would have simply believed these things and would not try to "spiritualize" the actual words and literal meanings of the Bible. I believe we are overreading(over thinking) the Bible these days.

Case in point, I used to work at an all JW company. We would debate the issue of hell. I would bring up Mark 9 and they said it is only a parable. I would bring up this passage and they said it is only a parable.

That was their counter argument to prove to me there is NO hell.

When I see brethren saying like things, knowing that mainline churches in my area are adopting this new position,(of a non existent hell), I stirs me up and reminds me of the slippery slope that the churches are sliding down.

I personally am one that believes in a "literal" interpretation of Gods word. (as much as possible).

You absolutely cannot go wrong with this "cave man" approach to Gods word.

Harold Camping was a master of "spiritualizing" the Bible. That man could have written a commentary on the Bible that would in no way resemble any likeness of the actual literal words that were written. All slanted in "his" point of view, with nobody to oppose him(he owned family radio).

Men like that make me want to get back to the good old fashioned.... "read it and believe it" way of life.

Trust me, you will NEVER go wrong using simple interpretation of the Word.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. The firstfruits of them that slept. The only one who has immortality.

Its obviously a parable. Where was God in Abes Bosom? He is not even mentioned! Who gets prayed to in Abes Bosom? Abraham! Where did Adam go before Abraham lived, died and came into his Bosom? Where did Noah go?

Brother, that place was a holding tank for ALL the dead(with a great gulf between sinners and believers of God), Abrahams bosom was a name given for the place, Abraham was the "curator" of the place.

[Sean]

When Jesus resurrected, he took some of these folks out of there.(when the graves were opened, thief on the cross included )

[Sean]

Just a thought to swirl around. We dont expect to go to Abrahams bosom nowadays when we die, but directly to the "bosom" of Jesus. Could it be that when Jesus got the "keys", He took over the place as "curator"...?

Your opinion is welcome.

Iron sharpens iron....

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Sean, could you define a PARABLE?

What does one infer/imply when they say "this or that" story which Jesus told was a parable?

Moreover, what "purpose" does a parable serve (that is, what is it meant to depict?

Lafon, according to Mark 4, a parable is words meant to educated the sincere soul and baffle those that are not sincere.(it would seem like nonsense to them).

Very simple stories that had a spiritual application.



This passage we have been talking about in no way resembles a parable

[Carl]

Originally Posted by Sean

When Jesus resurrected, he took some of these folks out of there.(when the graves were opened, thief on the cross included )

If Abraham's bosom was the place of the departed righteous then why did Jesus not take them all out?

[Carl]

Originally Posted by Sean

Brother, that place was a holding tank for ALL the dead(with a great gulf between sinners and believers of God), Abrahams bosom was a name given for the place, Abraham was the "curator" of the place.

It sounds like a terrible place to be, being able to look over and see the others that are in torment.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Carl

If Abraham's bosom was the place of the departed righteous then why did Jesus not take them all out?

He did remove the righteous

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Carl

It sounds like a terrible place to be, being able to look over and see the others that are in torment.

Yeah, I dont like it either, but I didnt create it.
I just dont want to go there!

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I've always understood righteousness to mean "moral innocence, purity, and perfection", i.e. that just, eternal state of God, which can now be imputed to us by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

This was also the manner I (sort of) understood righteousness for a very long while. But after carefully noting the manner in which it (with the exception of the element of "just") conflicted with the definition given in Strong's Concordance, I knew I must take action to reconcile this. Strong's and I could NOT both be correct, but who's wrong? I arrived at the answer by endeavoring to authenticate my understanding by applying it to the numerous instances in the Scriptures wherein the word righteous and righteousness appears. And once again, it seemed that something just wasn't fitting up correctly.

As I fasted, prayed, and searched the Scriptures in an attempt to comprehend whatever esoteric implications might be "hidden" in this word, then it seemed to strike me like a jolt of lightning ..... "moral innonence, purity, and perfection" might be said to best describe the attributes of the Almighty's character; whereas "equality, justice, fairness, and impariality" seemed to be more fitting as a principle, or rule that God established to direct the manner in which He would "administer and regulate" all of His judgments. (After all, the words of Proverbs 25:2 do advise us that it is God's glory to conceal a thing, but that our honor comes from searching out [to discover] the truth of the matter.)

Upon discovery that righteousness prevails as the very foundational principle upon which the knigdom of heaven has been built (Psalms 89:14 and 97:2), and that Psalm 145;17 advises that ALL of God's works are done in accordance with this same principle/rule, then I felt compelled to abandon the manner in which I had previously esteemed righteousness, and accepted it as I've noted here (i.e., God MUST exercise impartiality [equality] in His administeration of justice [judgments], without exceptions).

It is with this understanding that my conclusions concerning the manner in which Jesus' telling of the story about the eternal fate of a certain un-named rich man and a beggar named Lazarus MUST be construed as a parable. Does this story depict a historical event? Of course not! It does, however, depict a significant truth though, for it describes the eternal fate that the wicked, as well as the righteous, can expect to receive as a consequence of their life while on earth.