Lucas Banzoli<\/a> is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ\u2019s human nature after His death.\u00a0He has a Master\u2019s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He\u2019s<\/span> active on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n This is my<\/span>\u00a045th refutation<\/a> of Banzoli\u2019s writings. Since 5-25-22 he hadn\u2019t written one\u00a0 word<\/em> in reply, until he <\/span>responded on 11-12-22<\/a> (see my reply<\/a>) and<\/span> on 11-15-22<\/a> (see my response<\/a>). Why so few and so late? He says it\u2019<\/span>s because my articles are<\/span>\u00a0\u201cwithout exception poor, superficial and weak\u201d and<\/span> my<\/span> \u201cobjective\u201d was<\/span> \u201cnot to refute anything, but to exhaust [my] opponent.\u201d<\/span> Indeed, my writings are so<\/em> bad that<\/span> \u201conly a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take\u201d<\/span> them<\/span> \u201cseriously.\u201d<\/span> He didn\u2019t<\/span> \u201cwaste time reading\u201d<\/span> 37 of my 40 replies (three articles are his proof of the worthlessness of all<\/em> of my 4,000+ articles and 51 books). He also denied that I had a<\/span> \u201cjob\u201d and claimed that I didn\u2019t<\/span> \u201cwork.\u201d I disposed of these and other slanderous insults on my Facebook page<\/a> on 11-13-22. But Banzoli thought that replying to me was so \u201centertaining\u201d<\/span> that he\u2019ll \u201cmake a point of rebutting\u201d <\/span>my articles \u201cone by one.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n My current effort is a major multi-part response to Banzoli\u2019s 1900-page self-published book,<\/span> The Legend of the Immortality of the Soul<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[A Lenda da Imortalidade da Alma<\/em>], published on 1 August 2022.\u00a0 He claims to have<\/span>\u00a0\u201ccover[ed] in depth all the immortalist arguments\u201d<\/span>\u00a0and to have<\/span>\u00a0\u201cpresent[ed] all the biblical proofs of the death of the soul . . .\u201d<\/span>\u00a0and he confidently asserted:<\/span>\u00a0\u201cthe immortality of the soul is at the root of almost all destructive deception and false religion.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He himself admits on page 18 of his Introduction that what he is opposing is held by<\/span>\u00a0\u201cnearly all the Christians in the world.\u201d <\/span>A sincere unbiblical error (and I assume his sincerity) is no less dangerous than a deliberate lie, and we apologists will be \u201cjudged with greater strictness\u201d for any false teachings that we spread (Jas 3:1).<\/span><\/p>\n I use RSV for the Bible passages (including ones that Banzoli cites) unless otherwise indicated. Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas\u2019 Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n See the other installments:<\/span><\/p>\n See also the related articles:<\/span><\/p>\n Seven Replies Re Interceding Saints (vs. Lucas Banzoli)<\/a>\u00a0[5-25-22]<\/span><\/p>\n Answer to Banzoli\u2019s \u201cChallenge\u201d Re Intercession of Saints<\/a>\u00a0[9-20-22]<\/span><\/p>\n Bible on Praying Straight to God (vs. Lucas Banzoli)<\/a>\u00a0[9-21-22]<\/span><\/p>\n Reply to Banzoli\u2019s \u201cAnalyzing the \u2018evidence\u2019 of saints\u2019 intercession\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[9-22-22]<\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is a reply to Banzoli\u2019s article, \u201c<\/span>A par\u00e1bola do rico e L\u00e1zaro prova a imortalidade da alma?\u201d<\/a> [Does the parable of the rich man and Lazarus prove the immortality of the soul?<\/span><\/em>]<\/span> (11-19-22). It in turn was drawn from his book, The Legend of the Immortality of the Soul<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n He starts out by recounting a story that an Adventist preacher told, concerning St. Peter as the gatekeeper of heaven. It turns out that the preacher was using the story as an illustration preceding his sermon about Lazarus and the rich man. Then Banzoli delivers the kicker:<\/p>\n \u2022 The audience knows this is not a true story.<\/span> None of this, of course, is relevant to Jesus and His telling of the story. Jesus was God. His recorded words are in the inspired, infallible, inerrant revelation of the New Testament. He could not possibly teach falsehood, whether this was a parable or not. I shall argue that it was not<\/em>; but that even if it was<\/em>, the same point stands: it could not<\/strong> contain theological error or heresy<\/em>.<\/p>\n And it could not because this is the Bible<\/em>: central to the rule of faith for all Christians.\u00a0What it teaches is always true<\/strong><\/em>: whether it comes in the form of a parable or other non-literal idiom, or\u00a0 a \u201cstraight\u201d story of actual history. This is all the more the case, seeing that God the Son Himself is speaking and teaching. But then again, Banzoli is a Christological heretic<\/a>, who thinks (as far as I can determine) that Jesus stopped existing after His death on the cross and then was put together again by His Father at His resurrection.<\/p>\n Jesus was not an Adventist preacher, whose belief included the heretical doctrine of soul sleep. His teachings were developments of Jewish doctrine, which had always held to conscious souls in the afterlife (as I have abundantly shown in past installments). The sort of folk religion \/ cultural religion that produced the notion of Peter as the gatekeeper goes beyond Scripture, but is actually loosely based on his being given \u201cthe keys of the kingdom of heaven\u201d (Mt 16:19). From that people got the idea that he would be standing there with the key to get into heaven for each person, after they die, and that he would tell them why they could enter or not (which in the Bible is a task reserved for God).<\/p>\n Jesus never taught anything that His hearers knew was \u201cnot true.\u201d<\/span> The very notion is nonsensical and blasphemous. It would make Jesus a misleading liar. Banzoli thinks this story is one such case, but he can\u2019t prove<\/em> that from Scripture itself. He is only thinking like this in this instance because he knows that the story demolishes his belief in soul sleep.<\/p>\n But if this<\/em> story is considered to contain gross falsehoods and untruths about the afterlife and the nature of souls, then how many other<\/em> stories, doctrinal teachings, or parables also<\/em> contain falsehoods, that readers supposedly \u201cknow\u201d are false? Perhaps he can inform us of those, and, moreover,\u00a0 tell us how it is that he determined their less-than-true nature? The dangers are obvious: pretty soon Holy Scripture would become a \u201cslippery slope\u201d and used and abused to supposedly teach any false doctrine imaginable.<\/p>\n After arguing that a parable need not contain truths, Banzoli inexplicably defines a parable as an \u201cAllegorical narrative<\/span>\u00a0that transmits\u00a0<\/span>moral or religious precepts<\/span><\/u><\/span>, common in the Holy Scriptures.\u201d<\/span> Exactly! They are teaching some sort of precepts, to be believed; not falsehood. So he again contradicts himself (a not uncommon occurrence in his writings). He states that parables were \u201cnever intended to be a true story or necessarily express real things.\u201d<\/span> The first clause is true; the second is not. <\/span><\/p>\n Parables teach true \u201cmoral or religious precepts\u201d<\/span>: as Banzoli truly stated (a \u201creligious precept\u201d being a \u201creal thing\u201d). The author of Mark wrote that \u201che taught them many things in parables, and in his teaching he said to them\u201d (Mk 4:2). \u201cTeaching\u201d in the gospels refers to the sharing of truths (with regard to Jesus\u2019 \u201cteaching\u201d<\/a>, see Mt 4:23; 7:28; 9:35; 21:23;\u00a0 22:33; 26:55; 28:20; Mk 1:22; 6:6; 9:31; 11:18; 12:38; 14:49; Lk 4:31-32; 5:17; 10:39; 13:10, 22; 19:47; 20:1; 21:37; 23:5; Jn 7:16-17; 18:19). Paul also uses the word \u201cteaching\u201d many times<\/a>, with the meaning of \u201ctruth\u201d or \u201ctrue tradition\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Jehoash\u2019s purpose [see 2 Kgs 14:8-10]<\/span> obviously was not to teach that thorn bushes literally converse with the cedars of Lebanon, just as Jesus\u2019 purpose in telling the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was obviously not to say that Sheol\/Hades was a place of souls burning or talking. In both cases, the conversation of the trees or the dead serves only as a \u201cresource of analogy or comparison\u201d, which is precisely what a parable consists of.<\/span><\/p>\n In other words, although the elements themselves (thorn bushes, cedars or dead trees) are fictitious, they convey a deeper moral lesson, which is in fact the author\u2019s objective in using the parable as a didactic resource.<\/span><\/p>\n Alright; Banzoli needs to tell us, then, what Jesus\u2019 purpose<\/em> was, in misrepresenting what it is like in the afterlife, by means of false symbolic illustrations \u2014 in Luke 16 \u2014 of what doesn\u2019t actually<\/em> occur (which amounts to little better than a lie). So what did<\/em> He mean<\/em>, then, and why<\/em> would He use these<\/em> illustrations? We\u2019re all ears.<\/p>\n It\u2019s beyond strange that if Jesus wanted to teach us that souls were \u201casleep\u201d or not even in existence in the afterlife (as Banzoli and Adventists and Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses erroneously believe), until God creates them anew in the general resurrection, that He does so by having the rich man talking<\/em> to Abraham, asking petitionary requests<\/em> of him (i.e., praying<\/em> to him) and Abraham answering<\/em>: all in the effort to show that none of those very things are possible<\/strong><\/em>, and that, in fact, there is no such thing as Sheol \/ Hades in the sense of a place of conscious souls.<\/p>\n Is it not obvious that the very last<\/em> way to convey such a meaning would be by use of this<\/em> story? This scenario makes no sense whatsoever. It\u2019s absurd and ludicrous to think that it does. Heresy always leads to absurdity and self-contradiction.<\/p>\n Add to this the important addendum that, contrary to what most people think, Jesus did not tell parables to\u00a0<\/span>clarify<\/span><\/i>\u00a0spiritual truths, but to\u00a0<\/span>hide them.<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s not strictly true. The parables are true; they convey truths. Whether hearers can hear them is another question<\/em>. Jesus told them to people He knew would not be able to receive<\/em> them:<\/p>\n Matthew 13:12-13<\/strong> For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. [13] This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jesus\u2019 disciples, who had not yet received the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit, often didn\u2019t understand Jesus, just as the Pharisees and Sadducees (due to their outright rebelliousness and hostility) did not. Hence, Jesus said to His disciples<\/em>:<\/p>\n Matthew 15:15-16<\/strong> But Peter said to him, \u201cExplain the parable to us.\u201d [16] And he said, \u201cAre you also still without understanding?\u201d<\/p>\n Mark 4:13<\/strong> . . . \u201cDo you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?\u201d<\/p>\n Mark 7:17-18<\/strong> . . . his disciples asked him about the parable. [18] And he said to them, \u201cThen are you also without understanding? . . .\u201d<\/p>\n Mark 8:15-18, 21<\/strong> And he cautioned them, saying, \u201cTake heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.\u201d [16] And they discussed it with one another, saying, \u201cWe have no bread.\u201d [17] And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, \u201cWhy do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? [18] Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? . . . [21] And he said to them, \u201cDo you not yet understand?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As strange as this may seem, Jesus did not tell parables so that the crowd would better understand his teaching, but just the opposite: so that they would\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>understand!<\/span><\/p>\n The hardened who could not \u201chear\u201d wouldn\u2019t understand; that\u2019s quite true. But as I just proved, neither did the disciples<\/em> understand, on many occasions. It doesn\u2019t make the parables not true in what they expressed. Jesus expresses the thought that the disciples should<\/em> have understood them, if they had opened up their hearts. Otherwise, if it was inevitable that no one could understand a parable, it would be meaningless for Jesus to ask the disciples: \u201cAre you also still without understanding?\u201d (Mt 15:16) The question assumes that it was falling short<\/em> on their part, or a fault, for them to not understand the parable.<\/p>\n This is why Jesus spoke to the disciples clearly, but to the crowd he spoke only in parables: . . . it was a selfish crowd with a hardened heart.\u00a0This explains why people were always misunderstanding what Jesus was saying, as they do all the time in the Gospels.<\/span><\/p>\n He clarified more so<\/em> to the disciples, compared to the crowds, but He didn\u2019t always speak \u201cclearly\u201d<\/span> from their<\/em> perspective, because they repeatedly misunderstood or didn\u2019t grasp His parables (see the four passages above), or His predictions about His coming death. According to Jesus, His disciples could have hardened hearts at times, too, which is why He asked rhetorically (as an intended rebuke): \u201cAre your hearts hardened?\u201d (Mk 8:17). Mark 6:52 states flat-out about the disciples<\/em>: \u201cfor they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.\u201d<\/p>\n To be fair, Banzoli does acknowledge that the disciples sometimes misunderstood Jesus, too:<\/p>\n Even the disciples had difficulty understanding when Jesus was speaking literally and when not, which is why they argued about not having bread when Jesus asked them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 16:6-7).<\/span><\/p>\n Good!<\/p>\n This indicates that Jesus did not tell the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to teach anything about the afterlife.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course He taught there about the afterlife; otherwise, why did He provide the details that He gave? It makes no sense, as I contended above. In any event, it doesn\u2019t follow that Jesus therefore purposely taught untruths and in effect misled people or lied to them in parables or in (as I believe) His recounting of an actual historical event in Luke 16.<\/p>\n Even if there were anyone so foolish as to think that Jesus meant to teach the afterlife by telling the parable (which is not surprising, since they confused everything Jesus said in an allegorical way), the true purpose of the parable it was not in its lines, but between the\u00a0<\/span>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/11\/SoulsHeaven-1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\u00a0<\/span>
\n\u2022 They know the popular belief that those who die go to heaven, and at the entrance they meet Saint Peter.<\/span>
\n\u00a0<\/span>
\n\u2022 \u00a0They don\u2019t believe in this creed as a doctrine.\u00a0They know this is not true (the pastor already knows the audience and knows that they believe as he does, about man\u2019s destiny after death).<\/span><\/p>\n