>>18550548
>I am not letting you run
This isn’t running. Now that I see you’re the Muslim gentleman I seem to keep running into recently, I understand your model. And it’s one that we can test in the concrete, objective external world.

Muhammad said that when the dead are buried, they scream when Allah has them hit with a metal hammer after everyone walks away from their funeral (...which is pretty messed up, but that’s a different subject). Muhammad explicitly says this can be heard to all but humans and Jinn. This is a sahih Bukhari hadith.

So animals and devices can pick up this screaming that takes place at nearly every burial in most of the world.

Do they? No. Lots of cemeteries have wildlife living on or near the grounds. Heck look at https://mountauburn.org/stewardship/urban-ecology-at-mount-auburn/, in that cemetery they even study the bat population there with “mobile acoustic bat detectors”.

We never see animals reacting to the screaming Muhammad says happens, or devices picking it up, despite both being present.

Lots of burials today have audio recording. So let's do a scientific analysis, genuinely testing the idea.

At https://www.youtube.com/live/mykKxlkmCcY?si=FMI-3-mZvhb-bhVM&t=7993 at the 2:13:13 mark is an example of exactly when Muhammad says Allah sends angels to torment the damned dead with a hammer, making them scream: right after the people have walked away from the funeral.

To remove concerns of selection bias this is just the first one I found that recorded with audio that specific part of the funeral after a generic search for “burial service at cemetery”. We can be confident here we’re not dealing with a Muslim burial since she’s buried under a cross and the comments and chat are all Christian.

Since we only need the audio I am going to extract it at https://media.ytmp3.gg/tools/youtube-to-mp3-320kbps-converter/ukhxfy which lets you download the audio of YouTube videos.

(Concluded below)

File: Muhammad scientifically r(...).png (1.31 MB, 1449x990)

1.31 MB PNG

>>18550548
>>18551284
To make the audio more wieldy, I am going to trim it in Microsoft Clipchamp from a length of 2:16:47. I will remove all audio from before 1:40:12 as irrelevant as she hadn’t been put down into her grave yet.

To get a waveform and spectrogram of the audio, allowing us to detect sounds that the recording device picked up but that human ears cannot hear, we will use https://www.sonicvisualiser.org/download.html.

Having gotten both a waveform (which lets you see the volume) and a spectrogram (which lets you see the frequencies) of the audio, I reviewed the audio, the spectrogram, and the waveform by playing the file and watching the waveform while listening. I saw no anomalies. We should, if Muhammad is correct, see a large spike on the waveform that is not audible to our ears. We do not. All elevation on the waveform were, in my judgement, reflected in what I audibly heard.

Please follow these same steps and tell me if you agree with my assessment of the audio.

If so then I believe this to be experimental disproof of Muhammad's model of a conscious afterlife where, as he teaches in https://sunnah.com/bukhari%3A1338, non-Muslims scream in their graves right after their funerals end as Allah sends angels to hit them with a hammer.

I also want to emphasize that I approached the analysis as neutral a mind as possible, genuinely holding it as an open question. Should I have found an anomaly here, I would have considered it strong evidence for not only the conscious afterlife we are discussing, but for the truth of Islam.

But as it stands, your model is, in my judgement, experimentally disconfirmed.

Yeah, I'm still waiting to hear why exactly you think Satan is bound.

>intertestamental period
No such thing.

File: Screenshot 2026-06-28 at (...).png (49 KB, 573x825)

49 KB PNG

>>18551284
Yes it is running, everyone can see it now that you linked the posts you've failed to address. And you're even doing it to other Christians lmao. You're going against your own apostolic tradition which you have spoken so highly of in the past when it was convenient for you. But no problem dude, I will accept yet another concession from you and we can move on to your new retarded argument since you've bothered to make a new thread and all.
>doesn't know the difference between qualia and stimulus
No they are not the same thing, a device (nowhere mentioned in the hadith) can just detect sound waves they don't consciously experience as per your own previous point on being "reasonably sure" that modern machinery does not posses this ability here >>18549295 And as usual your own bible refutes you. Paul and his companions detected the same sound but only Paul heard the speech. John 12:28-29 shows us again that some people hearing the same sound could understand the voice but to others it sounded like thunder instead of the speech of an angel from the heavens. If you took a spectrogram of these sounds from a microphone placed at the ears of these distinct groups of people it should show you no real difference and yet the people heard vastly different things! The only reasonable conclusion is that the perception of hearing does not necessitate in all cases the disturbance of sound waves which is what you've been measuring here. Auditory hallucinations are another example where this disconnect happens and we know of. In these cases individual conscious beings "hear" things and yet they do not require auditory stimulus nor can any be detected using microphones

>>18549218
>My secret technique is that I just don't reject that there's a possibility of salvation after death.
What sort of church do you go to?

This seems to be firmly against the Bible's model since the Bible ties your salvation to the state of your brain.

That's what beliefs are, you know: memories, patterns of neural connections in the brain. We can see them form. We can make them stop forming with physical actions.

Split-brain experiments are the strongest physical evidence against you having an immaterial part of your self that stores information. If you make it so that someone's brain hemispheres can't communicate, then without that physical connection, processes on one side will not have access to information on the other side.

If the brain is actually just sending and/or receiving information/belief to an immaterial substrate, this would not be the case. A split-brain would be no different from giving a computer a dual monitor set up, it just splits the display for the actual observer.

>1 Corinthians 15:29
Paul dies this to resurrection, not to any sort of conscious state between life and death. If it influenced immortal souls and sent them to heaven, why would he tie it to "if the dead are not resurrected"?

He considers this an argument for resurrection.

>Philippians 2:10
I'm not 100% following what you're looking to say with this verse, could you elaborate?

>IIRC Augustine didn't understand Greek well
His Latin here doesn't change or misrepresent anything. It's not the language here that's unclear but the statements themselves. Our first real deep dive on this has the person saying "I'm not really sure what this means", so saying that there's a historically obvious interpretation doesn't work since our earliest historical source really digging in here is someone confused about the passages and asking someone else, who replies that he's confused about them as well!

>>18549390
Also in here >>18551382
Now the main point is:
>He witnesses to the throwing down of the Temple in Jerusalem stone by stone
Exactly! And this happened in the first century, in 70 AD. It isn't possible for these predictions to be about a future event since he specifically referred to those stones, in the temple then, and said that not one of those stones would be on top of the other.

So when Revelation talks about this same destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, it's talking about that first-century event. In Revelation, Satan is bound in chapter 20 following the destruction of the city "where their Lord was crucified" (as Revelation 11:8 calls it).

We're in the millennium now, the long age of the Messiah. Satan isn't active anymore. That's why there are no possessions or demonic activity. Evil spiritual forces are bound now. One day they'll get out, but for now, and since the first century, they're gone.

>>18549395
>I'm not contradicting myself
By that I mean the explanation you're bringing forward contradicts your other point, since according to it the normal course of seances is for the medium to see but not hear and the one who came to the medium to hear but not see, so if you want to take their explanation you would refute another of your own points.

And what's more, taking this as accurate, wouldn't the fraud they're talking about be pretty obvious? It reminds me of the Fox sisters, who did basically exactly this: pretended to summon up the dead and make it so you could hear them, but in reality just knew how to make weird noises you couldn't tell were coming from they themselves.

>some ancient people
The Talmud is not an ancient document. The cutoff for what can even technically be called ancient is the Medieval period, and the cutoff for that is the Fall of Rome in 476 AD. The Talmud as we have it is later than this, so this is an early Medieval document, not an ancient one.

>My primary suggestion is that it's because Samuel let her know that the man with her was Saul
That would contradict the Talmudic account you brought forward which says she couldn't hear him.

>So if an author writes like that's what is happening, we shouldn't assume he actually meant God was pulling a trick
Like we saw, to commentators, there's no assumption here: they see the medium freaking out and conclude "oh, something unusual is happening here". Even the Talmud that you brought forth figures this is the case.

>In reality mediumship might be an extremely rare or unreliable ability
This is correct: it has worked once and only once in all of history in order to make an example of both the frauds that try this (who would lose it if it ever actually worked) and the people who try to hire them to do it (who got nothing out of it but "you're screwed, leave me be").

>might have been greatly diminished at some point in the past
Because frauds are getting easier and easier to refute!

>>18550565
You've misunderstood what exactly Irenaeus is calling Apostolic here.

Your screenshot in the prior post had Against Heresies Book 4 chapter 27. Specifically the end of section 1 and the beginning of section 2.

Let’s look back at section 1 to see what he’s saying. He does indeed cite the Apostles: “As I have heard from a certain presbyter, who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles, and from those who had been their disciples, the punishment in Scripture was sufficient for the ancients in regard to what they did without the Spirit's guidance”.

He then lists people in the Old Testament doing bad things and scripture condemning them for it. That punishment “was sufficient for the ancients”.

In other words there was no additional punishment. Hence the deceased ancients are not in a state where they are receiving further punishment for their misdeeds. The past condemnations were sufficient. This supports what I am saying! The dead are not being punished and have never been.

You take where he says “It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also” – and it isn’t specified if these are Irenaeus’ own thoughts or if this came from the presbyter – as a reference to the dead, but your own image said this is talking about the same thing as 1 Peter 3. But 1 Peter 3 cannot be talking about Jesus speaking to the righteous dead as you claim, since it says he spoke to “the imprisoned spirits—to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water”. Indeed the Apostolic tradition he cites here denies that the ancients are being further punished, so they cannot be suffering an imprisonment. 1 Peter 3 is about the demons Genesis 6 talks about. This is all very strong evidence for my position.

File: I_know_what_you_are.jpg (61 KB, 688x618)

61 KB JPG

Finitism Anon detected

>>18551702
It's true, I think it's best when individuals in a discussion here use names that identify individual speakers and their positions, it makes telling who is who and what the discussion is about and such easier.

Here I'm advocating for unconsciousness after death/soul sleep as it's sometimes called, which is a defining Adventist position, so in this thread it's Chadventist.

(Note that I don't believe in annihilationism like Adventists often do though.)

>>18551568
Did you forget the part where Jesus said the end of the world would come once the gospel was preached to *every* nation?

The battle of Armageddon, between the forces of antichrist and that heavenly host of the saints led personally by Jesus descending from heaven, his second coming in glory, has yet to happen.

It's only after this event, that Satan will be bound for one thousand years.
There's not a single church father who witnesses to your heresy.
The day of judgement, much less the two resurrections of the dead, has yet to transpire.

The first resurrection takes place immediately after Satan is bound, man.
Like, the *first* resurrection of the dead. When did that happen exactly for the *souls* of everyone who had been beheaded for Christ, those who neither worshipped *the antichrist* nor have his mark, were seated on thrones to rule with him during his millennium reign?
Was it after the battle of Armageddon or not? Cause it looks like this hasn't happened yet to me.

We are still premillennial.

>Revelation 11
that's many chapters *before* the second coming

I know exactly which martyrs were still being literally beheaded well into the modern era.

Do you?

File: Screenshot 2026-06-29 at (...).png (34 KB, 667x191)

34 KB PNG

>>18551670
Now you finally want to respond? Why don't you also pick up the earlier points you are running from too? Also I didn't misunderstand shit as we can see here. The entire chapter he references the source being the apostles multiple times! In that very line I linked earlier it says "it was for this reason too" right after citing apostolic authority as part of the reason for the earlier statement.
>This is all very strong evidence for my position
No it's not you just just gave a flimsy opinion that goes against the apostolic tradition Irenaeus himself affirms and now you yourself are attacking. Furthermore again you're failing to explain how Irenaeus is wrong here in ANY case, just like the last times where I've pointed out your lacking response in this department. I've shown you clearly how he mentioned the imprisoned spirits to be those people and your only rebuttal seems to be "nuh uh".

>>18551815
>Now you finally want to respond?
As I've explained repeatedly: this is quite a busy time. It will take time to respond to most things.

But I wanted to reply here since...well, what you wrote isn't really a reply. You asked the free version of an AI a question and cited nothing but its answer. It's the virgin birth silliness all over again. I guess I can pull out mine, but I prefer to talk to discussion partners rather than machines.

And in your second portion you just said:
>you just just gave a flimsy opinion...you're failing to explain...your only rebuttal seems to be "nuh uh"
Which, well, clearly I don't see it that way since I provided extensive analysis right up to the character limit.

Will you rewrite this and actually respond to my words? As written there's...really just nothing to respond to since it's a free AI assertion followed by what appears to me to be empty derision. I think my response was, within the character limit, very weighty, and did address the specific issues raised.

File: Screenshot 2026-06-29 at (...).png (64 KB, 763x307)

64 KB PNG

>>18552216
Nah you are simply running, resorting to irrelevant and easily refutable red herrings and ignoring points being made is clear evidence of it. Forgot that you yourself said that you aren't "talking normally" and are dodging points you find hard to refute? But I don't care for your baseless opinions. The only way forward with your dishonesty is to have a third party involved. https://chat.deepseek.com/share/ue445h0dwcxhewn9g4
>extensive analysis
Consisting of nothing, prove Irenaeus' doesn't know what he's talking about even if what he said was mere opinion. It's not, but I bet you can't even challenge his arguments if we ignore the fact that it's clear it comes from the apostles

File: Screenshot_20260629-13030(...).jpg (31 KB, 432x306)

31 KB JPG

>>18552250
>Nah you are simply running
Running from...what? You just keep posting yourself asking AI a question that I've already presented my thoughts on. And then saying my response to your reasoning is "Consisting of nothing", without saying where, what or why specifically.

>The only way forward with your dishonesty is to have a third party involved.
As I've said before I absolutely despise doing this but, since it seems very important to you, fine. Let's incorporate my response. The first message is "Here is a debate between two people. Person A believes in consciousness between death and resurrection. Person B believes it is an unconscious sleeplike state. Please give your thoughts on where the discussion currently stands." and attached your image of Irenaeus' text, and then my response there.

You can read it at https://chatgpt.com/share/6a42a4b3-fc7c-83ea-9f25-d0521214baf9. I use the Pro version of the latest model so this should be the highest intelligence model readily publicly available. See that link and, for its conclusion, pic related.

I emphasize again that I don't like doing this, but if it's important to you, there it is.

Aw jeez did I miss the part where all the faithful were caught up in the air to meet Jesus as he returns?
Dang, I can't believe that already happened like more than a thousand years ago now.

How come nobody told me all that happened in 70 AD?
Wow, that's such a bummer. Talk about missing the train.


15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

>>18551283
>belief in an immortal soul that goes to a realm of conscious joy after death looks to be something either imported or innovated sometime in the intertestamental period since there's hardly a trace, and arguably explicit contradiction, of such a notion in the canon Hebrew scriptures.
It's a teaching of Jesus. This isn't a mystery.

>>18552939
Yeah, his words to the good thief that he would be with him in paradise that day just wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

>>18553090
I'm on the side of an immediate afterlife, but, regarding what Jesus said to the thief, there is some ambiguity in it.

>Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” He replied, “Truly I tell you [,] today [,] you will be with me in paradise.”

Because the original New Testament Greek didn't have much in the way of punctuation, the comma before "today" could also be placed after "today" as I've indicated with the brackets. And, if it's placed after "today," then the statement no longer puts a definite time limit on when the thief will be with him in paradise.

It might be argued that that the "today" becomes superfluous in that case, but I don't think it does, because it's still emphasizes a contrast from what the thief has requested. The thief says "remember me when you come into your kingdom," like Jesus is going to decide what to do with him at some point in the distant future, but Jesus is saying, "No, I'm giving you my guarantee right now." And to me this could be motivated by Jesus' belief that "the kingdom of God is among you" as he says in Luke 17. The Kingdom is here now, contrary to the thief's expectations, so Jesus is going to "remember" him here now, contrary to the thief's expectations.

I actually favor putting the comma after today, because, in 2 Corinthians 12, Paul speaks about being caught up to the third heaven, which he also calls paradise, meaning paradise is in heaven. But, shortly after Jesus' death, he's supposed to spend three days in the heart of the earth according to Matthew 12:40, not heaven. Of course, he could've gone up for a minute with the thief and then back down, or you could say that he's in the earth bodily but in heaven in spirit (but then there's no harrowing of hades), or paradise could refer to two different places as gotquestions.org seems to think, or a dozen other solutions, but they all seem slightly more complicated to me than just moving the comma.

>>18553138
This has reminded me that when Paul says he doesn't know whether he was snatched away to the third heaven in his body or out of his body, that supports early Christian belief that it was *possible* to experience things apart from your body.

>>18551506
>you've failed to address
Please have patience, this is a particularly busy period for me

>a device (nowhere mentioned in the hadith)
That’s because Muhammad, the supposed prophet, had no idea advanced devices would be invented in the future. Hence how he says at the end of the world Yajuj and Majuj will beat everybody using arrows and horses. Also that they are currently held behind a metal wall. An egregious error we discussed earlier.

His wording, as given, is that it can be heard by any but a human or a Jinn. We’ve now invented non-human, non-Jinn hearers. They don’t pick it up. It does not happen. He was wrong. Other versions of this hadith side firmly with me that this is intended very broadly, to cover everything else. Abu Dawud’s at https://sunnah.com/abudawud%3A4753 says: “مَا بَيْنَ الْمَشْرِقِ وَالْمَغْرِبِ ", “which will be heard by everything between the east and the west”, “except by men and jinn”. This is the broadest possible language. It would include our devices.

We’re also explicitly told it includes animals. At https://dorar.net/h/nERNGki9?osoul=1 we get “تسمع كل دابة إلا الثقلين, “every creature hears it except humans and Jinn”. Yet animals near funerals never react to the supposed hammer blow and screaming.

>Paul and his companions detected the same sound but only Paul heard the speech
Only Paul *understood* the speech. In both of your cases the sound was heard by all, but only understood by some. All sound detectors (the people’s ears) detected it. Here at graves these supposed screams are not being detected at all.

>If you took a spectrogram of these sounds from a microphone placed at the ears of these distinct groups of people it should show you no real difference
Same for if someone was speaking in, say, Spanish – some people would understand and some wouldn’t. But the sound itself exists whether you understand it or not.

>>18553138
>the comma before "today" could also be placed after "today"

There was no punctuation at all actually.
They didn't even have any spaces between words man.
No comma is necessary in fact, a high fidelity literal translation should ideally reflect that style.

If Jesus wanted to be vague he wouldn't have said "today".
Because it's already obvious to the thief that he was speaking to him on that particular day, it wouldn't need to be said.

Here's how I think about it.
Jesus could have harrowed the bosum of Abraham too, where Lazarus from the parable is said to be.
That's the paradise people referred to at the time. So the thief would in a sense accompany Jesus in death at least that far.
This is rich in symbolic meaning, because Jesus compared himself previously to a thief coming unexpectedly.
Well, Jesus literally steals away with souls that had been trapped in hell. I'm sure their captors didn't see it coming. Food for thought.

Or, Jesus' soul can be multiple places simultaneously.
You posted Augustine's letter last thread and he mentions that possibility.

Finally, there is the sense that Jesus' sacrifice *immediately* opened the door to salvation and heaven proper.
The penitent thief is the first person to enter into heaven proper from death. In that sense, he would be with God the Father. As we know, the Son and the Father are one God. So that would deal with the problem too.

I'm not going to endorse any particular one of these solutions.
Just put them out there. I like the idea Jesus literally heisting hell itself though.

File: Screenshot 2026-06-30 at (...).png (66 KB, 721x351)

66 KB PNG

>>18552457
Notice how you cut off the discussion right after you started running, I can't even see the image you uploaded there you dishonest little fuck. Do I have to repost every single point you have failed to address? It's hilarious even in the very post you are replying to you have failed to explain how the reasoning of Irenaeus is wrong independent of any apostolic authority

17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.


Wow Jesus, where did you find the key to literally hell?
Did you pull a "Prison Break" and deliberately go there just steal it from the inside and help the other prisoners escape or what?
That's pretty metal if you think about it.

>>18553214
>There was no punctuation at all actually. They didn't even have any spaces between words man.
I enjoy understatement
>Because it's already obvious to the thief that he was speaking to him on that particular day, it wouldn't need to be said.
I explained in the post why I don't believe the "today" would be superfluous. It would serve as an indicator that Jesus is contradicting the man's expectations.
>That's the paradise people referred to at the time
The most relevant adjacent literature that could indicate what "paradise" means are Paul's letters and the Septuagint. When Paul talks about paradise, he means one of the heavens, not a place in Hades. And in the Septuagint it mean the Garden of Eden, again not a place in Hades. The wikipedia page says in Second Temple Judaism, paradise was associated with the Garden of Eden and Heaven, in line with Paul and the Septuagint. It says that many early Christians identified Paradise with Abraham's bosom, but it looks like this may have only arisen from the usual interpretation of Jesus' conversation with the thief, so it can't be evidence that this is what it was actually intended to mean.
>You posted Augustine's letter last thread
I did not, that was someone else
>As we know, the Son and the Father are one God
I believe trinitarianism is a late development from after the new testament
>I like the idea Jesus literally heisting hell itself though
Yes

>>18553233
It's definitely not a later development.
John in particular seems really emphatic on that whole point.

>inb4 muh John 1 doesn't mean that actually
dude it's all over the place, not just a single line at the beginning of the gospel

just look at John 17, and even his letters
the most airtight argument I can convince of for the Trinity is based on 1 John's affirmation that God is love


5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

...

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

File: Screenshot 2026-06-30 at (...).png (55 KB, 461x919)

55 KB PNG

>>18553205
>that's because head canon and reverting to already refuted nonsense
Nice I see you want to shift the discussion somewhere else now. Notice how you aren't addressing the distinction being made between qualia and stimulus.
>In both of your cases the sound was heard by all
Yes that's the point you idiot! The same sound waves sounded completely differently to different people. In Paul's case he didn't even speak in a foreign language so why the fuck didn't they understand the speech? And with the case of the voice from heaven to those people the angle did not even sound like it was speaking at all no matter the language.
>But the sound itself exists
The sound didn't exist for Eli (a trained high priest who is listed as a prophet by the Jews themselves) but it did for Samuel. In fact he was confused why the boy thought he was being called multiple times. This matches what we observe where "hearing" something does not require sound waves, as in the case of hallucinations which of course is yet another point you're dodging.

>>18553234
>John in particular seems really emphatic on that whole point
Yeah, that's why in John 10:31-39, when some Jews say they're going to stone him for making himself out to be God (or perhaps, "divine" or "a god"), he defends himself by referring to Psalm 82, which mentions "gods" aside from the one true God, and then he asks why they're accusing of blasphemy for calling himself *God's Son.* Not God. God's Son. He had a perfectly good opportunity to say "Yup, you got me, I'm the one true God." But he didn't. If that's what he intended everyone to think, then him quoting Psalm 82 in his defense would be entirely random and out of place.

The full argument over every individual point that could be made in John is so long that I don't want to bother with it, but I don't believe I've come across anything that can't be explained without invoking trinitarianism. Is Jesus a divine being? Sure. Is he the image of God, does he occupy a unique position in the divine hierarchy, is he one with God in some sense, was he God's instrument in creating the world? Sure. But all that is subtly different from him being rightly called God.

>>18553247
>accusing of blasphemy
*accusing him of blasphemy

File: Screenshot_20260630-00195(...).jpg (73 KB, 432x589)

73 KB JPG

>>18553220
>Notice how you cut off the discussion
I most emphatically did not. The only part of your message that was missing was ">b-but muh isleeem! No," because that would confuse it as it tries to figure out what "isleeem" is referring to exactly. Would you like me to rerun the query with that included?

>I can't even see the image you uploaded there you dishonest little fuck
Anon it's your exact screenshot. I've attached a screenshot of the screenshot in the chat. All I did was download the image you attached and attached it there.

>you have failed to explain how the reasoning of Irenaeus is wrong independent of any apostolic authority
Why would I? Am I gonna change his mind? P: There's no point in arguing with dead men. Absent the times he has goodies from the Apostolic Circle, he's just a private theologian giving his own thoughts, no different from an N.T. Wright or an R.C. Sproul.

>>18553252
You absolutely did, you should include every point being made including all the images backing it up. I asked multiple different models with the full text from Irenaeus they all back up the clear interpretation I have presented to you.
>Why would I? Am I gonna change his mind?
Thank you for admitting that you aren't addressing his arguments. You literally have nothing to refute him with even if I am wrong. The truth is you're afraid of even attempting to do that because then you'd be challenging the man you need for your religion to have any foundation

>>18553240
>Notice how you aren't addressing the distinction being made between qualia and stimulus.
>"hearing" something does not require sound waves
Isn't it funny how anytime something would prove Islam like the metal wall holding back Yajuj and Majuj or Jinn snatching children, utensils, and water from non-Muslims or the torture of non-Muslims in their graves being audible to non-humans, once we get to a stage where we should be able to detect it (universal camera coverage around homes for Jinn-crimes, universal world exploration and satellite coverage for Alexander's wall against Gog and Magog, non-human audio detectors for the torture of the damned) suddenly it's not there and it was really all along something you can never ever ever detect no matter what at all ever?

So here, it was never really making any sound, Allah directly makes everything that isn't a human or a Jinn hallucinate these sounds in their brains?

Even that obvious, blatant cope doesn't work. Why don't animals near the funerals of the damned ever react to these hallucinated sounds? Real or not the animals wouldn't know, they would react the same either way.

>In Paul's case he didn't even speak in a foreign language
Where are you getting that? Speaking in tongues and understanding tongues is a thing in the New Testament, including even angelic languages, as it says in 1 Corinthians 13:1. There's something already in the New Testament that this fits.

>And with the case of the voice from heaven to those people the angle did not even sound like it was speaking at all
That could simply be a matter of distance. When someone is speaking far off, you can't make out the words, and if they're speaking with a voice like thunder, you could think that's what it is.

>The sound didn't exist for Eli
That's an assumption. We don't know how loud it was. They were in different rooms, Eli may simply have not heard it from his room.

>>18553247
So who else shared in the *eternal* glory of God the Father, before all things were made?
Literally, that would mean you are God. That's how glorious that glory actually is.

Jesus didn't actually need to defend himself.
There were plenty of other times people tried to kill him and he just disappeared.
He could have called down a whole legion of angels on them.
That's not the point.

His quoting from the psalms happens elsewhere too, like when he quotes Psalm 22 on the cross.
He's indicating his fulfillment of prophecy.

The reason he speaks in parables is to fulfil prophecy too.
He doesn't reveal everything to the public immediately, because they need to hear without understanding and see without perceiving according to the scriptures.

>they know not, neither will they understand, they walk on in darkness
In this psalm, God exercises judgement among the host of heaven.
He rules, confusingly, that they will die like men.
Jesus says something similar in the Temple and elsewhere, that the children of the kingdom would be cast out, while many from east and west would eat with Abraham. That the kingdom, their inheritance, would be taken away and given to a nation bearing it's fruits instead. Because they neglected right judgement, mercy, and faith, they would die and their house be desolate.

You see, the same exact topics touched upon in Psalm 82 are reiterated.
But they did not understand what he meant.

>>18553255
>You absolutely did
Tell me exactly what you want me to include of your's and I'll re-run the query.

>Thank you for admitting that you aren't addressing his arguments.
Again: why would I? If this isn't something from the Apostles then it's no different from talking to any given private theologian.

>you're afraid of even attempting to do that
I've done it with plenty of people in these threads, even making his same arguments like taking the rich man and Lazarus parable too literally. It's not like Irenaeus has some sort of wonderargument in his works about this stuff, it's the same ones you see today.

>the man you need for your religion to have any foundation
Those men are the Apostles. Irenaeus is useful insofar as he is close to them. But on matters that don't come from them, he's no different from anyone else with his personal theological stances.

>>18553263
And of course you can't actually address the distinction so you rapid fire irrelevant refuted nonsense in an attempt to shift the discussion.
>they would react the same either way
You have to prove that!
>Where are you getting that?
Because it tells you explicitly what the voice said lmao? And Paul was answering in his own tongue?
>That could simply be a matter of distance
What a stretch lmao. It mentions the people there and that "this voice was for your benefit" They even responded to Jesus
>The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from the Law that the Messiah will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this ‘Son of Man’?”
It's clear there were non believers in the angelic voice there that Jesus was addressing
>We don't know how loud it was.
We do, it's loud enough for Samuel to believe Eli was calling him form wherever he was

>>18553266
>Jesus didn't actually need to defend himself
Right, so he could totally have acknowledged that, yup, they got him. He's claiming to be the one true God. And then he could have magically evaded their attempt to stone him because it wasn't his time yet. But he didn't.
>In this psalm, God exercises judgement among the host of heaven....
None of what you said explains why Jesus used it in the way he did.
>If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled—can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?"
In fact, in the same verse in psalm 82 that says "you are gods" it also says "you are all sons of the Most High."

>>18553267
I already gave you the questions I asked
>then it's no different from talking to any given private theologian
Except this one was very persistent in using the words of the disciples, he understood the language better since he was a contemporary, he had more access to their words, etc. In any case you have admitted that you will simply not argue against Irenaeus. I can literally just copy paste his arguments and pretend they are mine to force you to argue against him. But this is very telling you're a dishonest coward
>I've done it with plenty of people in these threads
They weren't making his argument, they were simply referring to the same text
> too literally
In other words a literal reading completely invalidates your points so you have to resort to shit you only have in your head
>Those men are the Apostles
And you only know what they have said because of Irenaeus and other like him you're rejecting. You were very persistent on saying you can use him specifically to know their words.

>>18553268
>You have to prove that!
Animals aren't sentient, they have no capability of meta-thought, they cannot use abstract reasoning to evaluate their minds and think "this is a hallucination".

Which, again, the hadith never says. It says nothing about it being not real sound or not really heard. Muhammad believed animals and other things could perceive real realities that we can't. When he says animals react to angels, are angels not actually real, just hallucinations?

>Because it tells you explicitly what the voice said
That's like saying per the NT the OT prophets must have been speaking Greek because it quotes them in Greek

>What a stretch lmao
Ultimately we can only "stretch" because the passage just says "the people who stood by and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, 'An angel has spoken to Him.'". We're not told why some said one and others said another. But there's no indication this wasn't a real sound. If anything, people hearing it differently suggests it was a genuine sound, if it was some sort of information beamed into everyone's head making it the same for everyone would make more sense. Different perceptions are what you get with an actual sound.

>it's loud enough for Samuel to believe Eli was calling him form wherever he was
And is that loud enough for Eli to hear it? It could easily be Samuel hearing it and, since there's no one there but him and Eli, him assuming any voice is Eli.

>>18553278
>I already gave you the questions I asked
Give me word for word what you want me to have Person A say so that there are no accusations of misrepresentation.

As it stands I consider this resolved. You thought he cited extrabiblical Apostolic tradition for this. He does not. You wanted to see an AI evaluate it and agree. We did.

Now you're looking to change the subject to the authority of Irenaeus *himself*, but that's a separate topic.

>you only know what they have said because of Irenaeus and other like him you're rejecting
Do you remember when I cited someone for something about Preterism and you then started saying I must therefore agree with him about NDEs?

You have a quite odd all-or-nothing approach with citing people. In reality, everyone has varying areas of expertise or other qualities that make them especially citable for a specific subject, and other areas where they are no different from a layman.

I use Irenaeus as a historical source for information about the Apostles, same as I would use, say, Cassius Dio as a source for information about men of history. Does it matter that I don't agree with Cassius Dio's theology? (He was a polytheist). No, not in the slightest, because I am citing him as a historical sources.

Irenaeus is useful for telling us who wrote what books because he knew men he knew those who wrote them. That's a solid grounding as a historical source. His skill as a theologian isn't of any relevance to that. Otherwise it's like saying that because I don't like, say, Cassius Dio's approach to carpentry or fishing or whatever else that I shouldn't use him as a source for history.

Do you see what I'm saying?

File: Screenshot 2026-06-30 at (...).png (32 KB, 756x255)

32 KB PNG

>>18553283
>Animals aren't sentient
Yes they are what?
>That's like saying
Absolutely not this is a record of things that happened in that very moment not a retelling of what happened long ago.
>But there's no indication this wasn't a real sound.
Strawman, I am saying the sound was real and pretty much identical for every listener and yet it didn't even register as a voice to some people while to others it was clear speech
>And is that loud enough for Eli to hear it?
Yes! It means that Samuel believed it was loud enough to come from Eli. If you're in a mansion with 100 rooms and there is only 1 other person on the complete other side of the building you wouldn't go to him automatically. It could be from outside it could be in your mind, it could be anything. But once it registers as loud enough as the other guy shouting then it is reasonable that it could be him. Remember this happened multiple times so Samuel knew exactly how far Eli was and in his mind it was clear that this distance was appropriate for the sound source being Eli too

>>18553272
He could have told his apostles to publicly declare he was the Christ too, once Peter realized it.
But he actually instructs them to do the opposite. Because it was not yet time.

There were plenty of messianic claimants running around saying they were the one at that time.
It was important, ministerially, for Jesus to distinguish himself from them.

Jesus is not diminishing his divinity through identifying this figurative godliness (which is actually condemned) in Psalm 82 to the people around him.
It actually serves to heighten the contrast.

>ye are gods
>if he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came
>say ye of him, who the Father sanctified and sent into the world, thou blasphemeth

it's ironic, that these gods so called should riot over the true God identifying himself and call it blasphemy
the fact they kept trying to kill him afterwards is evidence he wasn't "defending" what he said previously, or trying to qualify or walk it back, but actually doubling down and providing even greater detail (the mutual indwelling)

>>18553290
Go to the link I posted and copy it from there. In any case I've posted 3 different ones and most on the highest settings available all agreeing with me. Even if it somehow says the opposite thing then it still means my interpretation is charitable and very possible
>Do you see what I'm saying?
Yes you appeal to authority whenever it suits you but when that very same authority goes against you then suddenly he's not so good anymore. Even the guy you called your greatest theologian is now just wrong because he disagrees with you. You can NEVER explain how their arguments are wrong though because you're a lying coward that knows it will discredit the other statements you like from them

>>18553297
>Jesus is not diminishing his divinity through identifying this figurative godliness (which is actually condemned) in Psalm 82 to the people around him.
He doesn't identify the people around him as gods. At least, in the English translations I'm using, the group called "gods" are referred to in the third person.
>If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods
He doesn't say, "If you to whom the word of God came were called gods." And I don't believe the gods in Psalm 82 are necessarily figurative. Although some English translations assume they're humans, I lean toward the original reading being that they're the literal gods of other nations, the "rulers and authorities in the heavenly places" Paul talks about in Ephesians 3:10, against whom he says we struggle in Ephesians 6:12. Hence why verse Psalm 82:7 says they will "die like mortals" (as if that isn't what would happen by default) and then verse 8 says "for all the nations are your inheritance." (the gods of other nations die, so the psalmist's God obtains their nations by inheriting them.)

>>18553318
>why verse Psalm 82:7 says they will "die like mortals
Actually, a more literal translation than the one I was using has, "But as man ye die." And in the hebrew "man" is "adam." So yeah, if they're *like* humans. They're not humans.

>>18553294
>Yes they are what?
Is this the part where you try to find an inclusive "or" to drag things down with? I explained what I meant immediately after the words but, as always, you want to have a semantic argument. I mean the word in the sense https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sentient or
https://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/sentient lists as one of the definitions: "possessing human-like awareness and intelligence". In this case, abstract thought. As I clearly explained.

Are you going to actually respond to my point, or just try and make a bad-faith semantic argument? Again: they have no capability of meta-thought, they cannot use abstract reasoning to evaluate their minds and think "this is a hallucination".

Which, again, the hadith never says. It says nothing about it being not real sound or not really heard. Muhammad believed animals and other things could perceive real realities that we can't. When he says animals react to angels, are angels not actually real, just hallucinations?

Why do animals never react?

>I am saying the sound was real and pretty much identical for every listener
All the passage says is that some people thought it was thunder and others the voice of an angel. It provides no details beyond that. We can infer it was grand and booming but trying to read some sort of point about it being an auditory hallucination that different people experienced differently goes way, way beyond anything the text says.

>It means that Samuel believed it was loud enough to come from Eli
Because "the word of the Lord was rare in those days" if it was just he and Eli there, he's going to figure anything he hears comes from him before he thinks it's God.

>>18553304
>Go to the link I posted and copy it from there.
I already copied your words and you objected. Write, here, specifically, the exact words of your's you want me to use.

>goes against you then suddenly he's not so good anymore
Respond to my point about Cassius Dio.

File: Screenshot 2026-06-30 at (...).png (34 KB, 509x679)

34 KB PNG

>>18553358
>claims animals aren't sentient
>gets proven wrong and then chimps out
>still doesn't know the difference between qualia and stimuli
You're truly the gift that keeps on giving. Your point is also a strawman, the instance of hearing is produced by a real event and hearing itself does not necessitate sound waves as your own bible and observed reality testifies. You also haven't proven that in every single case subjective experience has to produce reaction.
>All the passage says is that some people thought it was thunder and others the voice of an angel.
Yep meaning the same sound produced different subjective experience. A spectrogram would produce nearly identical information from a microphone placed at their ears but they all have heard it completely differently. Matches exactly what your bible says where they can observe the same thing but not truly see the extent of the reality being presented to them because they are spiritually blind
>Because "the word of the Lord was rare in those days"
Irrelevant, in Samuel's mind the sound was still loud enough for Eli to be the sound source. It's true he "did not yet know the Lord" but that does not change the fact that the volume was appropriate to make that a reasonable conclusion. So Eli did not hear a sound that should have been heard by him as well
>refuses to use the requested wording
lol okay, my interpretation is still sound and Irenaeus' arguments unchallenged
>Respond to my point about Cassius Dio
These people you're going against but whose arguments you're not challenging directly (in a cowardly manner) are being rejected in the field of expertise you yourself consider them highly authoritative for. In fact for one of them you specifically consider him to be the greatest, meaning he's better than you

>>18553394
>gets proven wrong
Are you going to respond to what I said? I showed you dictionaries that define the word as I use it.

You also keep refusing to respond to:
Again: they have no capability of meta-thought, they cannot use abstract reasoning to evaluate their minds and think "this is a hallucination".

Which, again, the hadith never says. It says nothing about it being not real sound or not really heard. Muhammad believed animals and other things could perceive real realities that we can't. When he says animals react to angels, are angels not actually real, just hallucinations?

Why do animals never react to the screams and torture of the damned that per Muhammad they can hear? You keep refusing to engage with this. The hadith says it outright that they hear: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6366

As for your points about voices in the Bible, we could keep going back and forth on that: you're wrong about them but even if you weren't, no one is denying that God could manipulate brains to give them hallucinations if he so wished. The issue is that even when you retreat to that explanation to defend Muhammad's claim, it still is demonstrably untrue. Muhammad believed it because he was a superstition nut who thought a noise he heard at night was the ghosts of Jews being tortured in their graves: https://sunnah.com/muslim%3A2869

>refuses to use the requested wording
Anon I am ASKING you what the requested wording it. Feel free to double-post just give me the wording you won't raise a fuss about. I will enter it exactly.

>are being rejected in the field of expertise you yourself consider them highly authoritative for
As I said anon, Irenaeus is useful for telling us who wrote what books because he knew men he knew those who wrote them. That's a solid grounding as a historical source. Same as Cassius Dio knowing emperors and those who knew them. I don't therefore need to agree with CD on all of his theology. That doesn't make sense.

File: Screenshot 2026-06-30 at (...).png (8 KB, 400x104)

8 KB PNG

>>18553658
>actually I was talking about science fiction here! not the definition most involved with animal cognition use!
Cope, I never said it was a hallucination you idiot, just that auditory hallucinations are examples in the real world that do not require sound waves for hearing perception to happen in sentient beings. Your bible attests to this as well in a manner that does not constitute an actual hallucination but you're too much of a coward to even challenge that anymore. Furthermore nobody but you made the claim they needed abstract reasoning. And it is a fact that animals are observed to experience hallucinations anyway https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5216861/ so your strawman does not even work. Also notice how you cannot provide evidence of your positive claim?
>You're just wrong about the bible because "nu uh"
Nope! But thanks for conceding that the bible records hearing events that have no associated sound waves which map 1 to 1 to what is being perceived by those present or any at all. And I already told you where to get the wording, I am not going to post well over 4 fucking entire posts here just because you cannot follow a link.
>because he knew men he knew those who wrote them
And this belief of yours is why every theological opinion of his based on those texts is automatically more authoritative than yours. So your argument from authority backfires spectacularly as usual. His arguments are still not refuted and the obvious link to apostolic teachings still stands.

File: Screenshot 2026-06-30 at (...).png (108 KB, 480x1561)

108 KB PNG

>>18553689
I already asked this of you before but back then you were larping as an atheist. So tell me why can't human being distinguish between the behavior of animals that are normally hard headed and others that are caused by sword wielding angels ready to slaughter you for walking where he doesn't want? Why can we only tell that their behavior is unnatural when our eye gets opened by the Lord?

>>18553689
I'll reply in full but first I want to establish real stakes:

>Also notice how you cannot provide evidence of your positive claim?
Tell me what, if I were to show it, you would conclude is evidence from animal behavior that they do not hear a scream or sounds of torture at a nearby graves right at someone's funeral. When I did the earlier analysis with the sound data, I genuinely gave myself an open and scientific mind and told myself "if I do see a spike on the waveform I cannot hear, I should probably become a Muslim". Not that I consider Islam probable in the least of course usually, but when testing something, you must put your mind in as neutral a space as possible. I made myself a mixture of excited either way: one way I get strong evidence against Islam, the other way I get virgins in Paradise and big rewards for proving it.

I ask you, if you can, join me in putting on the same neutral mindset which values both conclusions, and tell me: what data could I reasonably gather with readily available resources that would demonstrate that animals do, or do not, hear the screaming of the damned buried at their funerals, as Muhammad taught?

File: Screenshot 2026-06-30 at (...).png (94 KB, 1092x611)

94 KB PNG

>>18553713
The bible implies you can't make that distinction based on behavior alone hence the poor donkey getting beaten senseless because he wanted to protect the owner from sword wielding angels ready to chop off his head. Equines also see less colors than us so how is it possible for photons bouncing of the angel to be detected by donkey eyes but not human?

>>18553720
In other words, you are replying that no evidence brought forward from the external world would ever persuade you that this point is incorrect, you will instead always place your unfalsifiable opinions on textual interpretation above any objective and observed data I could ever bring forward on this issue?

File: Screenshot 2026-06-30 at (...).png (139 KB, 676x405)

139 KB PNG

>>18553732
According to the bible donkeys (who see less colors than us) somehow still see things we do not regularly observe. Was the angel an example of animal hallucination? If no, I need the specific wavelength from the electromagnetic spectrum which is only detectable to donkey eyes. The angel had a sword so we can see how metals behave if you don't know the specifics of angel bodies

>>18553754
I think this being your line reply, instead of responding to what I directly asked, answers my question more than any direct answer would have. You're saying "I believe X. I choose to unfalsifiably interpret texts as supporting X. No falsifiable data will be considered for my belief in X."

Which, if that's your standard it's your standard but it makes conversation with you unproductive since there is, by your own admission, not data I could ever present which would change your mind. Textual interpretations are not something we can falsify unless we can ask the author, and all authors here are now dead. I don't interpret the text you're bringing forward the way you do. We could discuss it, but if no objective, observable, falsifiable data will change your position on something in the external world, then how could subjective, unobservable, unfalsifiable matters of textual interpretation ever do so for something on paper? Words can be infinitely malleable. The external world cannot.

If you're telling me that nothing, even on a conceptual level, that I could bring forward could ever persuade you, there's simply nothing to be gained from the conversation.

I can only hope one day you see that the only thing that needs to take refuge in the unfalsifiable is the false.

File: Screenshot 2026-06-30 at (...).png (74 KB, 510x360)

74 KB PNG

>>18553785
No we are following your standard of evidence here because you refuse to accept anything else beside your materialism. The Septuagint identifies it as a "long Thracian javelin"
>The blade was constructed of iron and used a triangular cross section to accommodate the single cutting edge with a tang of rectangular cross section. Length varied, but a typical rhomphaia would have a blade of approximately 60–80 cm (24–31 in) and a tang of approximately 50 cm (20 in). From the length of the tang, it can be presumed that, when attached to the hilt, this portion of the weapon would be of similar length to the blade.[1]
Okay so we have identified the material as being composed of primarily Iron, can you show me one example where donkeys detect iron weaponry while humans cannot? I don't need you to invoke angels or anything else supernatural. I just need to see donkey eyes detect iron blades where human eyes find them completely invisible

>>18553090
>>18553138
I think the issue with the thief on the cross is simply reading all of the baggage of many centuries into the word "Paradise".

What is "paradise"? Consulting Strong's Concordance (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3857/kjv/tr/0-1/):

"the part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of pious until the resurrection"

So it's just a reference to Sheol/Hades, where the dead have always been said to go and sleep in the Bible. Just saying you'll be counted amongst the righteous dead there.

>>18553843
I already responded to that suggestion here >>18553233

File: Screenshot 2026-06-30 at (...).png (596 KB, 1067x761)

596 KB PNG

>>18553796
So are you going to show me which wavelengths from the iron sword are perceptible only to donkey eyes but not humans or not? Swords are smooth metal surfaces so it should match the data provided here more or less. It also says "Balaam got up in the morning" meaning it was daylight so very well lit, and "the angel of the Lord standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand" meaning the shiny flat metal surface of the blade was well exposed.

>>18554227
Your response seems to see exactly the issue though. "Paradise" refers to different things. It refers to Eden, which was a place on Earth. It refers to some sort of place in the sky in some way but Paul knows little about it, he isn't even sure if the man who went there did so bodily or if it was some sort of vision.

"Paradise" means "pleasant enclosed place", hence it referring to different things. And one of those meanings, as we see, includes Hades.

Indeed we know for a fact that Jesus went to Hades when he died, everyone acknowledges that. That's the hell in the "harrowing of hell" that those who believe in it refer to.

So since Jesus went to Hades when Jesus went to Paradise, Paradise is Hades.

And we can tell it is not some conscious experience better than life since Acts 2:24 says Jesus was "freed from the trevail of death" when he was resurrected. So whatever the Paradise Jesus went to is, it was not something desirable. We are explicitly told it is negative.

>>18554520
>Paradise" means "pleasant enclosed place", hence it referring to different things
In the absence of actually good evidence for it, I think it's unlikely that paradise would be the name of two distinct major cosmological locations, one in Hades and one in Heaven.
>And one of those meanings, as we see, includes Hades
You're assuming the conclusion. We don't see that it refers to Hades because that depends on taking for granted one of two possible interpretations of Luke 23:43 depending on where the comma is placed (and also that Jesus couldn't go up with the man's spirit to the paradise in the third heaven and then come right back down, or one of the other alternatives which I would prefer to exclude but only because they're epicycles, not because they're fully ruled out by anything).
>It refers to Eden, which was a place on Earth
It's seemingly a place on earth in Genesis, but given how non-literally Genesis could be interpreted by early Christians, I don't think it should be assumed that the New Testament authors understood it this way. The book of 2 Enoch has a preferred dating to the late 1st century according to its wiki page, and in it Enoch is at one point taken to the third heaven, which is said to be the location of Eden and the tree of life, prepared for the righteous in the future but only inhabited by angels in the present. Similarly, Revelation 2:7 talks about Jesus giving permission "to eat from the tree of life that is in the paradise of God," and later the tree of life is mentioned as being in the New Jerusalem which comes "down out of heaven."

So that's Paul, 2 Enoch, and Revelation all referring to a Paradise located in heaven with some indication that it's the same as the Garden of Eden. And standing against them is one ambiguous statement in Luke that could be interpreted as implying the existence of another Paradise in Hades. But it doesn't have to be.

>>18553843
Except Jesus says Lazarus is straight chilling with Abraham, while the rich man is parched and suffering flame.

Like, say "it's just a parable" all you want.
Jesus used the parable of the workers of the vineyard to refer to something which actually happened, it allegorically points to reality.

You're simply not applying his logic consistently.