Discussion with Orangeduck

[GuestFellow]

Hi,

Welcome to the forum. :statisfie

Your interesting. I like learning about history too. Not many people that I know enjoy reading about history. It is a complex area of study and very important. As they say, to understand the present, you must learn about the past. Primary sources are quite difficult to interpret, especially if it is a different language. I personally do not trust historians completely. They may hold bias views too, even those who are quite talented.

This may be off-topic, but what are your views about world war 2? Specifically, are you aware about the financing of world war 2?

I'm more interested in modern history.

 

[Orangeduck]

I'll post this again just incase you forgot to read it



The history part of the bible is not of God's revelation, its of no use or benefit to its followers. This is man made literature that has been added to the bible. We have plenty of recorded history as well, sticking into the Qur'an would not make it 'provable history'. So don't bring up 'historical evidence' ever again, it will only make you seem like a hypocrite.

Now enough of the evidence and lets talk logic and common sense, use the scriptures we have available to us.

What is it about worshipping a mangod that attracts you? With all the talk about warning against idolatry in the bible - does it then make sense that you go and turn God's prophet into an idol god and start to worship him?

Your polemic aside, you are assuming that your point of view is 100% correct and can't possibly be wrong. Obviously you are mistaken about your premise.

If you read my reply above, you will find several references to people who lived during the life of Christ that said He was God and that He was worshiped. Therefore, you premise of a "turning a prophet into an idol" is nothing more than a failed polemic.

What attracted me (at least one of the things that attracted me) was I had to make a choise. I could choose to believe many people who wrote about Christ during His lifetime, or I choose to believe 1 man writting 600 years later. Once I was in my late 20's, the choise was easy.

If I gave you 2 options. Option 1 is to believe the reports of 6 contemporary people about an event. Option 2 is believe 1 person, writting many hundreds of years later, while have no way to verify what he said as correct.

You can choose to believe whatever you want, but you will have to make a choise. Lets forget about relgion for a moment and assume both options have nothing to do with religion. Out of those 2 options, which would you pick? I would pick option 1. You might disagree, but if you do, please tell me why.

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Hello. I will be typing this in haste, so forgive me if I dont answer all your questions.

Greetings, no problem.

I will start with people alive to during the time of Christ. I will refer you to the last paragraph of Saint John's Gospel
"This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that would be written."
As you can see, the author was there to witness Christ's ministry.

Since you've classified yourself as a 'history buff', where is the historial evidence for this?

On a serious note, how many years after Jesus (P) did John write his gospel?

I can give you many examples, but I will give you a few to start with.

John 10:30 states "I and the Father are one." I have heard muslims try to argue that "One" refers to purpose. However, if you read John 10:33, it reads, "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
The people who were there when Jesus said His words knew exactly what Christ was saying. He was saying that He is God.

Regardless of what muslims say, 'If I and the Father are One', this means there are 2 Gods, right? If I were to say they are 'One' in purpose, to me it would sound more correct, than saying One as saying Jesus is God and God his father in heaven, then I wouldn't agree, coz you mentioned in Post 63#, i quote you below:

At this point in my life, I dont think I could ever be an athiest. My spiritually is too strong. I will probably always believe in some monotheistic deity

Matt. 28:9 - "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."

According to some events of the prophets in Islaam, the prophet Adam, and prophet Yusuf (as) and perhaps others, were bowed down to, but this was because in their time this was a sign of respect, just like shaking of hands, greeting one another. However, this was something changed in the time of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh), as Only God allmighty alone deserves worship. Could it be that they loved Jesus dearly they showed their respect to him?

And also, if Jesus 'died' and was then resurrected, who controlled the world? And if you'd say the father, then that would equate to 2 Gods.

And if you look at the book of Luke, regarding the crufiction, I think i'll let sh.Deedat explain best and save my time in typing away. There are 11 parts to it.

---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUj0KgoTbLY <---

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Does 'firstborn' mean begotten according to you or your scholars or bible?

As for Barnabas, you should read as to when the Gospel of Barnabas was written. It might surprise you

Sure do share, i'd love to see more information.

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

What attracted me (at least one of the things that attracted me) was I had to make a choise. I could choose to believe many people who wrote about Christ during His lifetime, or I choose to believe 1 man writting 600 years later. Once I was in my late 20's, the choise was easy.

Do you know that many people wrote about Muhammad (Sallaahu 'Alaayhi wa salam), you read the ahadeeth right?

And again, the Qur'aan was NOT written 600 years after Muhammad (P). You've failed to provide authentic evidence, except for perhaps an ignorant who refers to the Qur'aan as 'filth' Naudubillaah. I honestly doubt your sincerety in research. How about look at the sources of Islaam?

If I were to mock away at the bible, would you trust me as a reliable source?

Now, you wouldn't go to a historian if you were sick, or would you? nope, i'm sure you'd get in contact with the doctor.

 

[aadil77]

Your polemic aside, you are assuming that your point of view is 100% correct and can't possibly be wrong. Obviously you are mistaken about your premise.

If you read my reply above, you will find several references to people who lived during the life of Christ that said He was God and that He was worshiped. Therefore, you premise of a "turning a prophet into an idol" is nothing more than a failed polemic.

Call it polemic but its pretty straight forward logic to me. On the other hand you will find people who lived during the life of Christ and said that he was not divine and the bright idea to turn him into a god was only decided many years later at the Council of Nicea, agree? That's blatant proof that not every christian believed prophet Isa was divine. Hence why you currently have the Unitarian church.

What attracted me (at least one of the things that attracted me) was I had to make a choise. I could choose to believe many people who wrote about Christ during His lifetime, or I choose to believe 1 man writting 600 years later. Once I was in my late 20's, the choise was easy.

God Al-Mighty you definitely made a 'choise', you can't even spell the word.

If I gave you 2 options. Option 1 is to believe the reports of 6 contemporary people about an event. Option 2 is believe 1 person, writting many hundreds of years later, while have no way to verify what he said as correct.

You can choose to believe whatever you want, but you will have to make a choise. Lets forget about relgion for a moment and assume both options have nothing to do with religion. Out of those 2 options, which would you pick? I would pick option 1. You might disagree, but if you do, please tell me why.

I don't care about much about reports, they only form part of the basis of my faith, spirituality and the miracles of God form the rest - I can truly and honestly say I feel a direct connection with my Lord - can you say the same?

This is why you are not a true christian you have no real faith or spirituality in you all you care about is hard evidence.

Your next step is to become an atheist or agnostic like the majority of christians have become - 3 in 1 god fantasy tales drive them completely away from religion all together. You can still do the sensible thing and accept islam - the proof is all around you.

You came here and said you're a convert to Christianity from Islam, yet you are probably unaware that a good portion of the members here are converts from Christianity.

You've shown your true colours and didn't come here with sincere intentions, I would have rather preferred to have guided you than resort to exposing your own beliefs.

 

[Futuwwa]

Let's hear some of that historical evidence for Jesus's crucifixion. And more precisely, tell us how it refutes the Islamic position, which is: Jesus was not crucified, but God made it appear like he was.

If an omnipotent deitydeliberately made it appear like X happened, it's perfectly plausible that some people who witnesses it might actually have thought that X happened. And if those people told it onwards and wrote it down, it only proves that they believed that X was true. It doesn't prove that X actually, factually is true.

As far as I see, the Islamic position on the crucifixion is essentially unfalsifiable and cannot be proven either way. Which makes it impossible to use it to prove that Islam is in error.

 

[Orangeduck]

/\/\/\ I dont think I ever said the quran was written 600 years after muhammad. I was talking about Christ. The quran was written 600 years after Christ. If I did say muhammad, then that was a slip up on my part and I apologize.

That was the choise I was talking about. I can choose to believe 6+ people who lived during Christ's life, or I can choose to believe 1 person (muhammad) who lived 600 years later.

 

[Orangeduck]

On the other hand you will find people who lived during the life of Christ and said that he was not divine and the bright idea to turn him into a god was only decided many years later at the Council of Nicea, agree? That's blatant proof that not every christian believed prophet Isa was divine. Hence why you currently have the Unitarian church.

You think Christ's divinity was decided on at Nicea? LOL HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol:

You have been watching too much Divinci Code (which is a FICTIONAL MOVIE).

I now see the extent of your knowledge and it's laughable. :lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol:

I challenge anyone and everyone. Read the records from Nicea (I have). I will send anyone a check for 1 million dollars if they can find me ANY mention of deciding weather or not Christ was divine at Nicea.

I will give you all a hint. There was NO talk of the canon at Nicea and NO talk of a vote on Christ's divinity.

The canon was basically set (yet the Church kept an open canon since there was no challenge to it and no need to close it) and Christ's divinity was agree upon by +99% of Christianity. Some brain dead idiot is going to mention Arius. Arianism didn't exist until about 300 AD, which means the idea that Christ was simply a man didnt exist among Christians till the 4th century.

 

[Scimitar]

/\/\/\

Hello and peace be with you.

I would like to say something about the youtube clip. 1) I have seen that movie and I loved it. Mel Gibson did a fantastic job imo. Not every is going to agree with me however

2) Tell me. Can a hollywood movie from 2004 really be used as evidence that a man in the first century prophesied about a man in the 7th century? The answer is "no". Please do not take offense as I am not trying to offend anyone.

If you do think that the Bible prophesied about muhammad, please give the verse and I will be more than happy to talk to you about it

Brother, have you seen the entire series? It makes for a compelling case for the Prophet Muhammad being mentioned in the bible. As for the clip in the passion of the christ, that is only one small clip. yeah, I agree that Mel Gibson did an ace job with that movie - from an orthodox Christian perspective. but i wasn't trying to discuss Mel Gibson lol. I was trying to stay ontopic.

Tell you what bro, humour me. Watch the entire series. Keep an open mind, don't let your pre-conceived notions get in the way of real knowledge, ok?

It is good to ask questions, but even better to get real answers

Scimi

EDIT:

I will send anyone a check for 1 million dollars if they can find me ANY mention of deciding weather or not Christ was divine at Nicea.

Prove you have a bank balance that can paty me that amount, and I will prove it to you on the spot (see what I did there?)

If you can't prove it, then I think you should do that homework yourself, and pay yourself that 1 million in small incremental deposits. meh. Debating with people like you is just futility in itself - constantly going round and round in circles...

...If you can humour my request, I will give you my time. If you cannot, then you only do yourself an injustice and negate the opportunity to learn something new.

salaam.

Scimi

EDIT 2:

I will give you all a hint. There was NO talk of the canon at Nicea and NO talk of a vote on Christ's divinity.

The canon was basically set (yet the Church kept an open canon since there was no challenge to it and no need to close it) and Christ's divinity was agree upon by +99% of Christianity. Some brain dead idiot is going to mention Arius. Arianism didn't exist until about 300 AD, which means the idea that Christ was simply a man didnt exist among Christians till the 4th century.

Seems you've studied history from a very one dimensional perspective - you need to study comparatively - otherwise you are out of your depth here.

Scimi

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

I now see the extent of your knowledge and it's laughable.

No need to be over dramatic esp with the emo's :\

Since you believe in the divinity of Jesus (P), whether you believe in Jesus (P) as God, and believing in the father as God alongside, equates to 2 Gods, correct or incorrect?

 

[aadil77]

You think Christ's divinity was decided on at Nicea?

I now see the extent of your knowledge and it's laughable.
.

Divinity, Trinity all as equally absurd

Again you're getting all excited over history and different claims, point I was trying to make is not everyone agreed/agrees with assigning divinity to a prophet.

As muslims we have a life we don't need to dig up thousands of history books to reaffirm our beliefs. I honestly couldn't care less if I got my facts wrong I can bring a tonne of other arguments that will leave you embarrassed.

Christianity has had its foundations rocked and only few claims here and there in history books can uphold the beliefs of christians.

 

[Sunnie Ameena]

I can not claim to know alot about the Quran or the Bible. I have been learning from the posts here on this forum. It is definitely an eye opener. I would like to just share something, being raised a Christian (I am now Muslim), I believed that Jesus was cruxified to cleanse us of our sins. I think I should be held accountable for my own sins not someone else. So Orangeduck, could you please explain to me how it is, that if he died to cleanse me of my sins, that on the Day of Judgement, that I have to answer for my sins ( which I should, since I am the one who committed them). And how it is that after he died for our sins, that the Christian faith says that even babies are born with sin. So then why did he die? And how can Jesus and God be one and the same, because Jesus says to pray to our Father in Heaven, he does not say to pray to God and myself. You keep saying that a certain scholar said this and that, well, were these scholars alive then, or are they just reading and quoting history books like yourself?

 

[Orangeduck]

I can not claim to know alot about the Quran or the Bible. I have been learning from the posts here on this forum. It is definitely an eye opener. I would like to just share something, being raised a Christian (I am now Muslim), I believed that Jesus was cruxified to cleanse us of our sins. I think I should be held accountable for my own sins not someone else. So Orangeduck, could you please explain to me how it is, that if he died to cleanse me of my sins, that on the Day of Judgement, that I have to answer for my sins ( which I should, since I am the one who committed them). And how it is that after he died for our sins, that the Christian faith says that even babies are born with sin. So then why did he die? And how can Jesus and God be one and the same, because Jesus says to pray to our Father in Heaven, he does not say to pray to God and myself. You keep saying that a certain scholar said this and that, well, were these scholars alive then, or are they just reading and quoting history books like yourself?

If you would like to know about sin, Christ's death on the cross and Judgement Day, I will be more than happy to explain it to you. However, I am at a party right now and it will take some hours before I get home (I'm replying from my IPhone).

It's a very involved explanation and I'm sure it will take a few replies (I'm sure you will have questions and things you need me to clarify)

 

[GuestFellow]

^ Don't rush your responses and take your time.

 

[Perseveranze]

Btw, I don't really have time to read 7 pages.

Has anyone refuted his claim about the historicity of the Qur'an and the blaitant lie (well, possibly misconception) that "western academia are skeptical/doubtful about it"?

 

[Scimitar]

We've refuted many like him in the past... they just go away with their tails between their legs. I suppose we could always dig out the old posts just to save time eh?

Scimi

 

[Muhammad]

Im not ignoring anything. Some of those people are not historians. Some of those quotes are from the person you listed, but that person is quoting someone else (often times a non-historian).

What about Arberry, Brockett or Taylor? Surely there must be a qualified historian amongst them?

You have to be very careful of which authors you quote from, and you have to be EXTREMELY careful of what you are quoting.

Of course. The conclusions drawn by your favoured scholar Dr Puin have no grounds whatsoever to claim the Qur'an is an evolving text - a quote which you did not actually provide a reference for anyway.

You have completely ignored the rest of the points in earlier posts, explaining for example why there are minor differences in wording or ordering of surahs. You say "No one on this board has been able to bring any evidence to refute this claim"... rather you are conveniently overlooking the responses and picking and choosing what suits you.

 

[Sunnie Ameena]

If you would like to know about sin, Christ's death on the cross and Judgement Day, I will be more than happy to explain it to you. However, I am at a party right now and it will take some hours before I get home (I'm replying from my IPhone).

I will pass on the explanation, because, so far on this entire thread, I have seen you say the same thing...."I will be more than happy to explain", and there is never really any clear response, just more of what someone has written in history books.

It's a very involved explanation and I'm sure it will take a few replies (I'm sure you will have questions and things you need me to clarify)

No, I will have no more questions, why should I, I already asked them. And your clarification will be to tell me what some scholar has said, or what you learned.

 

[Orangeduck]

Brace yourself, as this is going to be my largest wall of text ever :nervous:

There is no rush to respond.

I believed that Jesus was cruxified to cleanse us of our sins.

This is the very heart of the matter. First, we must understand what "sin" is. "Sin" in Koine Greek means to "miss the mark". In fact, the word isnt exclusive to religion. An archer who misses the target just "sinned". If I try to save up a million dollars by the end of the year and I fail to do so, I just "sinned". As you can see, "sin" can be applied to thousands of things outside of religion. So, in the context of Christianity, what does it mean to "sin"? This is where you will get 1 of 2 answers (either the Orthodox answer or the Catholic / Protestant answer...however, both are very similar in the end). Since I belong to the Orthodox Church, I will give you their answer.

When you, I, or anyone commits a sin, we either miss the mark that God has set for us. It could be we either fail to do what we are supposed to do, or we do something we are not supposed to do. The word has nothing to do with legeality. As stated, if you fail to get a 100% on a test, you sinned, yet you are not in any legeal trouble. You might be asking "what is the mark that God has set for us". We, to be honest, the mark is complete perfection. You may read that and say "perfection is impossible", and you would be correct.

Before I go further, I need to explain another term. "Theosis" is a term used all the time in the Orthodox Church. It means "God like". That phrase can be confusing since the Church teaches we can never be "like God". You can think of the term as "friendship". Our level of theosis refers to our level of friendship with God.

So when we sin, we loose our relationship with God because God demands perfection and will not accept anything less. Jesus dieing on the cross cleanses us of our ruined relationship (if we ask God for it...God will not force us to have a relationship). That is what Christ's death did. It heals our relationship and wipes away our imperfection.

Back to theosis. After we are forgiven, we can increase our friendship with God. Christ said the 2 greatest commandments are to love God and love your neighbor. Christ also said to help those who are in need (give to charity). Those are simple things we can do to increase our theosis.

WHy is theosis important? The afterlife is not equal for everyone. There are various degrees of happiness in the afterlife depending on your level of theosis. I will talk about the after life in great detail in a bit.

I think I should be held accountable for my own sins not someone else

Lets assume Christianity is absolutly correct for the sake of the discussion. Knowing what I just told you, you would *NEVER* want to be held accountable. Since God demands perfection, and no one is perfect, what do you think would happen if you told God you wanted to be held accountable for your own sins? How can you, on your own, restore yourself back to level of no imperfection?


So Orangeduck, could you please explain to me how it is, that if he died to cleanse me of my sins, that on the Day of Judgement, that I have to answer for my sins ( which I should, since I am the one who committed them).

Im afraid Im not exactly sure what you are asking. Can you please, if you want, rephrase your question?

And how it is that after he died for our sins, that the Christian faith says that even babies are born with sin.

Again, there are 2 answers to this question (Catholic vs Orthodox). There is some common ground between both answers however. First, we are cleansed of our sins if we ask. Since a baby cant ask for forgiveness, it is sinful (however, the answer gets much deeper than this). There is a verse in the Old Testament where Saint David talks about how his child died, and that David would see his child again in the after life. This means that God does take age into consideration.

Here is where Catholics and Orthodox differ. You can choose to accept 1 answer over the other, or you can reject them both...it doesn't matter to me.

Catholic believe people are born *WITH* sin. Orthodox believe people are born *INTO* sin. The Orthodox Church teaches that we are not born with sin, but we are born into a world that is sinful, and thus, we will be sinful by nature (just look at human history...humans from all time frames and across the entire world have been very sinful). This is why Orthodox reject the Catholic idea of "original sin"

So what I'm trying to say is, babies are not born with sin, but babies also can't ask for forgivness.

So then why did he die?

He died to cleans us of our imperfection (assuming we choose to accept it). God demands perfection, and only a perfect sacrifice is acceptable. Christ lead a perfectly sinless life and was able to be that sacrifice.

And how can Jesus and God be one and the same,

I might be misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you are under the impression that Christianity teaches that there is a being called "God" and another being called "Christ / Jesus". If this is actually what you think (and forgive me if I did misunderstand you), then I need to clarify something. We do not believe that Jesus and God are seperate beings. Jesus *IS* God. There are not 2 beings in Heaven. God is invisible, but throughout the Old Testament, God has taken a visible and humanized form. This visible and human form of God *IS* Jesus. So Christ is simply God in the flesh.

he does not say to pray to God and myself

You are 100% correct. Christ did not say pray to God and Me. That would be against what He taught and a contradiction. There is no God and Jesus. There is only God and if you pray to God, you are praying to Jesus. And if you pray to Jesus, you are praying to God. If you worship Jesus, you are worshiping God. The New Testament records stories of people worshiping Jesus, and Jesus fully accepted their worship. Why did He accept it? Because He is God...The One True God in human form.

As I promised, I will talk about the after life. Stay tooned for my next reply :statisfie

 

[Orangeduck]

The afterlife is semi complicated. Keep in mind what I said about theosis and sin. Both those terms are important to understand what the Orthodox Church teaches about the after life (Catholics and Protestants have a different veiw, but there is a ton of overlap in what they believe)

Remember what I said about sin not beiThe afteng a legeal concept? Well, what does that mean when you die? It means there is no "punishment" for your sins when you die. That does not mean the after life is all flowers and smiles either, but it does mean that since you are legeally guilty, God has no reason to sentance you to a punishment. This is vastly different from "sin" in islam.

You might be saying "Then why does the traditional concept of hell in Christianity a place of fire and torment?" Well sadly, that has a lot to do with American fundamentialism Protestants. Fundamentalism began to grow in the USA in the 1800's, and it's still at the heart of many denominations. Over 50% of Americas are some denomination of Protestantism, so it makes sense that it's fundamential aspects would permeate our culture.

If you read the Koine Greek text of the New Testament, you will not find the word "hell" anywhere. Hell is an anglo-saxon / germanic word that doesn't exist in ancient Greek. The word in the NT is "hades". I must also tell you that "hades" in ancient Greek means "underworld", and nothing more. There is no negitive connotation to the word "hades" in Kione Greek. It's not a bad place. In fact, Hades is where EVERYONE goes when they die.

Christianity teaches that the next life is a continuation of this life. If you theosis, or friendship with God is very high in this life, your friendship with God will be very high in the after life. If you theosis is very low in this life (or if you have no theosis) then your friendship with God will be very low in the next life. Lets use a scale from 0 to 100. 0 = no friendship with God at all (this is probably not possible) and 100 = perfect friendship with God (this is also impossible since none of will have done everything possible to earn 100% theosis).

Lets say I die and my theosis is 80. That means I will have a great relationship with God in the after life. If Hitler has a theosis of 3, then he will have virtually no relationship with God in the afterlife. There isn't going to be any punishment for Hitler other than the fact that he must live forever in the presence of a being that he has no relationship with.

Here is another way to look at it. Lets use me as an example. I am not married, but lets pretend that I am. My wife and I live in a house together. The house represents the afterlife. I can love my wife, spend time with her, do activities together and have a great time being with her. This would be an example of high theosis. Or I could not want to spend time with her, hate living with her and not even want to look at her. This is an example of low theosis. Either way, I have to live in the house (afterlife) with her. There is no punishment for haveing low theosis other than the fact that I will be living with her forever and I hate her.

You might be asking "what about when the NT describes a place like a with fire?" Matthew 25:41 for example says "‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the Eternal Fire".

This is something I get asked a lot. I will give you other examples, but first we must understand the cultural context of where Christ was living and preaching. There were many religions in the eastern half of the roman empire. All faiths were familiar with the theology of each other. It was very common to use a description that was familiar with someone of a different faith when trying to describe your own faith. Let me give you some example. Many roman pagan religions believed in a firey afterlife for wicked people. The fire Christ spoke of would have been familiar with pagans. Christ also spoke of "outer darkness". That phrase would have been familiar with adherents to the religion of zoroastrianism. Christ also used the phrase "a place where the worms never die". This is a play off an ancient Israelite superstition. The ancient Israelites believed that if you died and you weren't properly burried, then what ever happened to your body would be felt in the afterlife. When people die, worms and other creatures can and will eat our bodies. Jesus used this phrase to scare some sense into the Jews.

As you can see, if taken literally, "hell" would be impossible. Fire creates light which means darkness is impossibe. Fire would kill worms so obviously they wouldn't be able to eat you in the afterlife if it's filled with fire.

I also invite you to read the parable of the Rich man from the Gospel of Luke. That story contains some truth, some metaphore and a parabale all wrapped up into a single story. I will give you some of the highlights of the story that pertain to this discussion.

lazarus and a rich man died. Lazarus was "comforted" and the rich man suffered. The rich man was able to see and speak to Saint Abraham, but they were seperated by a gulf. This means that the rich man didn't go "down to hell" and Lazarus didn't go "up to heaven". Geographically, they were on the same plane of existance. They both went to hades upon death. However, the rich man was certinally in agony. He had to spend the afterlife with virtually no relationship to God or the Saints (that would cause me to be in agony also)

I must warn you...there are very few good english translations of the story. it's very difficult to translate and keep the original message. This would be easier if you knew Kione Greek. Im not suggesting you learn it though...it's a terrible language (almost as bad as Hebrew)

There will be 1 more part ;D