Results 1 - 20 of 60
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: drbloor Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Moses appeared from where? | Matt 17:3 | drbloor | 225380 | ||
Dear Brad and 00123, I'll post a reply in the next couple of days - I've not been well and didn't want you to think I was being ignorant. Many thanks. |
||||||
2 | Moses appeared from where? | Matt 17:3 | drbloor | 225372 | ||
Thank you all for your replies on the subject of The Transfiguration. There are quite a few and I am going to try and address them all in one go, so forgive me if I miss anything. I believe that the vision was just that - visual - so yes it could be described as "illusory" as 00123 mentions, but I do not believe a vision is simply a figment of imagination as Ariel states. I believe a vision to be a divinely granted and controlled visual and auditory revelation received while awake or asleep and which has no physical, material substance. This would class it as a communication from God and far more than simply an individuals personal ruminations. Ariel mentions several types of Biblical incidents but for now I am going to concentrate solely on the Horama visions of the New Testament and this vision in particular. Furthermore on the matter of substance of visions mentioned by Tim I see no evidence of material substance in the other examples of New Testament Horama visions. They appear to be visual, audible apparitions the content of which tends to preclude them from having any physical manifestation. Pauls vision of Ananias, Peters vision of the sheet, Pauls vision of the man of Macedonia etc. - none of these things would have physically existed in front of the people receiving the vision. It is possible that the burning bush existed in miraculous physical reality, but certainly not provable. Therefore the weight of evidence would remain with the event being a vision. In addressing Brads post, I believe that the context of the passage does support the proposal that Moses and Elijah were seen in a vision. If we take a look at the context starting in the previous chapter we have two or three events I believe are related to the transfiguration (not all of which prove the vision, but all of which build the contextual picture). In Matt 16:1 we have the Pharisees tempting Jesus to show them "a sign from heaven" to prove that he was the Christ; Jesus refuses. Juxtaposed with this we find his disciples who do not request such a sign, and yet are shortly to receive one in the transfiguration - the transfiguration being a divinely bestowed confirmation that Jesus was indeed the Christ. The next event begins in verse 13 with Jesus questioning his disciples on who people believe him to be and with Peter on behalf of the disciples confessing him to be the Christ, the Son of God. In the last verse of chapter 16 Jesus tells his disciples, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Then six days later we have the transfiguration when some of those standing there were present and saw what I believe to be a vision of Christ in his kingdom. The immediate context of chapter 17 is that not only do we have Moses and Elijah miraculously appearing, but we also have Christ transfigured (Greek: Metamorphosis) into his post-resurrectional glory. At the time of the transfiguration he was not yet risen in glory so the way in which the disciples saw Jesus at this point was with attributes which he did not at that time possess. Therefore with a miraculous vision enveloping Christ himself I see no contextual issue with Moses and Elijah being part of the same apparition. The reason for the transfiguration seems to be to reward the disciples for their faith in confessing Christ and to supernaturally confirm to them that Jesus was the Christ and had come in fulfilment of the law (Moses) and the prophets (Elijah). It appears allegorical of Malachi 4 in which Malachi depicts Messiah in his kingdom as the radiant "Sun of Righteousness", commends his readers to remember the Law of Moses and to await the return of Elijah. Would a plain, straight-forward reading of the text reveal that this was a vision? That depends on your definition of "plain" and "straight-forward". If you mean "superficial" then maybe, maybe not. I admit that the proposal that the transfiguration is a fulfilment of Mat 16:28 is not provable, but I do not believe that would have any necessary bearing on whether or not this was a vision. Bringing the passage down to basics I think it is fairly plain that if we read the word Horama that the New Testament consistently uses to refer to visions and if we realise that Christ applies this word to the appearance of Moses and Elijah, then we should accept that it was a vision. I think that this is the simplest reading and explanation. The alternative is to arbitrarily declare without corroborating evidence that the transfiguration is somehow an exception to the rule and that we should be inconsistent with our reading and understanding of the event. That, to me, requires more convolutions than to simply accept the words as read. I submit these considerations in the humility and knowledge that I am certainly not infallible and would be pleased to hear and learn from anyone else with a love of Gods word. |
||||||
3 | Moses appeared from where? | Matt 17:3 | drbloor | 225362 | ||
Thanks for the note but I completely disagree. I think you are basing your interpretation of the passage on a very subjective reading of the English rather than taking the original Greek into consideration as well. With respect I would also point out that nothing in your post provides any evidence that Moses and Elijah were actually there. You have only managed to prove that Moses and Elijah were seen, which is of course in complete agreement with my previous statement. In Matthew 17:19 the word you read as "vision" is the Greek word "Horama". Horama is used another 11 times in the New Testament and without exception refers to visions: Peters vision of the great sheet, Ananias' vision of an angel, Pauls vision of Ananias, Cornelius' vision of an angel, Moses' vision of the burning bush, etc., etc. The consistent scriptural evidence provided by the original language of the New Testament therefore is that the appearance of Moses and Elijah was indeed a vision. I hope that this information will be constructive to you. |
||||||
4 | What does lamp and oil symbolize? | Matthew | drbloor | 223241 | ||
(Should point out I've just found my old password - hence the name change!) | ||||||
5 | What does lamp and oil symbolize? | Matthew | drbloor | 223240 | ||
Brad, Oops! You're 100 percent correct. Someone told me that once and I swallowed it. Thank you for educating me on the glyceridic structure of olive oil! Having said that it would be a shame to ignore scriptural symbolism where it occurs (even if a poor uneducated poster makes an irrelevant mistake with his oil definition!). Certain things in the Bible hold symbolism - light, dark, gold, water, olive oil etc. and it is always an interesting study to see how the meaning of these symbols can help inform our understanding of scripture. The parable can be understood without further investigation as can much of the gospel. As Paul says - (speaking symbolically of course!) there is milk and there is meat. |
||||||
6 | Dr. B. Biblical support Angels can't sin | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171869 | ||
Hi Jeff, Check the original Hebrew. What you read as "adversary" is the Hebrew word "Satan". "Satan" means "adversary" - it doesn't mean that guy with horns. He's not in the Bible. On a lighter note, from looking at that verse I've just discovered that the Hebrew word "Derek" means "In the way", which is just one more reason not to call any of your children Derek. Okay, Dr. B. |
||||||
7 | Dr. B. Biblical support Angels can't sin | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171868 | ||
Dear Searcher, I'm saying that the angel of the Lord in Numbers 22:22 was Satan, just as David was Satan in 1 Sa 29:4, and God was Satan in the parallel accounts of 1 Chr 21:1 and 2 Sa 24:1, and Peter was Satan in the New Testament. The word "Satan" has taken on a totally unBiblical meaning when you take it to mean a supernatural fallen angel monster. In the Bible the word is only used to refer to an adversary. But anyway, enough of that, we've been through all that before. I'm taking a sabbatical from the forum for a while - it's eating up far too much of my time...! Okay, Dr. B. |
||||||
8 | Dr. B. Biblical support Angels can't sin | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171737 | ||
Dear Jeff, With respect, I would like to refrain from discussing this point with you. My Bible only contains one angel that is referred to as a "Satan" and that is in Numbers 22:22, and he was an obedient angel of the Lord. Above and beyond that the issue is one that I have covered here before, and would rather not raise again for the good (or ill) of all. I think the conclusion we reached was that the subject may have generated more heat than light. I hope you understand. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
9 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171735 | ||
Dear Mark, In 2 Peter 2:4 I would put it to you that in context, which seems to clearly speak of the death of sinful men at the time of the Flood, the chains (or cords) of darkness are the same chains or cords that David spoke of and they simply refer to death: Psalm 18:6 The cords of Sheol tightened; the snares of death lay in wait for me. Psalm 116:3 I was caught by the cords of death; the snares of Sheol had seized me; As for the angels, you said: "I would suggest that for angels, it will be the first and final death." First or second death, if they can't die, they can't die either death. What would be the point of us being made like the angels if all we will be rewarded with is another existence where we can sin and die again? If angels can sin and be killed, then we will be able to do likewise in the next life. That is not salvation, that's a charade. The only alternative is that angels cannot die (1st or 2nd!), and they cannot die because they cannot sin, and in the Kingdom to come we will be unable to die because we will be unable to sin, like the angels. That seems to me to be true salvation. I honestly struggle to comprehend a life beyond this one which is without any apparent fixed salvation. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
10 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171714 | ||
Dear Mark, Thanks for the point regarding the active voice of the verb "Anabaino" - to ascend. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think that you are necessarily correct. In Matthew 17:27 Peter is told to use a line and hook to catch a fish. When he does so the fish "cometh up" [anabaino in the active voice] Now did the fish decide to come up of its own power and choice, or did it only come up because Peter caused it to come up? The fact that when Jesus ascended he did it in the active voice, merely means that he was the one doing the action of ascending. Similarly, taking a look at the active voice of "Katabaino" - to descend - does not indicate that Jesus descended under his own power. In Luke 9:54 the disciples James and John asked Jesus, "wilt thou that we command fire to come down [katabaino] from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?" Katabaino is again in the active voice, yet it is hardly possible that the fire descended of its own power and volition - it would clearly be sent from God. Likewise with Acts 10:11 and Acts 11:5. The vessel Peter saw in a vision was sent by God - it didn't travel of its own power. And likewise James 1:17 "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down [katabaino - active] from the Father of lights" Again, this very clearly shows that something or someone that God causes to ascend or descend can be spoken of in the active voice. I hope that this helps. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
11 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171695 | ||
Dear Searcher, Thank you for your thoughts. It has certainly been interesting, but also confusing. I still don't know where you think Elijah went. As I've said, your story ends with him floating about in the air. You say you don't believe Elijah went to the Heaven where God is, so you must be saying that he went into the heaven of the sky. But then what? You seem to have no idea what happened. The sky wasn't his final destination was it? If so, is he still up there? What does he do all day? Doesn't he get bored? The Bible says he went into the sky, but that after that he wrote a letter to the King. So he must have gone via the sky to another location. After all, the Bible doesn't play games. I think you are right to call a halt to this discussion now because it will go nowhere until you figure out in your own mind what really happened to Elijah. Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts. Dr. B. |
||||||
12 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171694 | ||
Dear Tim, As we can tell from 2 Ki 3:11 that Elisha had taken on the mantle of Elijah while Jehoshaphat was alive, we know that Elijah made his disappearance during the time of the co-regency, and before the murders of Jehorams brothers. 2 Chr 21 indicates that the letter arrived after Jehoram had ruled in Jerusalem for 6 years after his fathers death. So whilst I agree that Elijah sent the letter personally, I firmly believe that his chariot ride must have taken place at least 6 years previously. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
13 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171687 | ||
Dear Searcher, That's a weird answer. I never said that. But thanks for your thoughts. Shalom, Dr. B. |
||||||
14 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171685 | ||
Dear Brad, I get the feeling I need to drop out of a few discussions around here, as they appear to have grown out of all proportion from what was originally intended - which was merely to resolve a couple of unanswered questions that had been put to me. I trust you realise however that my tendency to write whole books of answers is brought on by my absolute love for the Word of God. You are perfectly right to question my own bias, and I would be a fool to claim that I have none. What I would point out in a closing statement, as it were, is simply this: Gehenna - The Valley of Hinnom. Hades – Sheol. Tartarus - The lowest depths. That is the basic meaning of those words and as far from any bias that I can get. Anything else you read about hell has been added by a man, and we all have biases and pre-conceived ideas. After that we must all work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Thanks once again, Dr. B. |
||||||
15 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171683 | ||
Dear Tim, In answer to your two posts on the timing of Elijahs exit: If you take the simple chronology that is set out in 2 Kings then Elijah left after Ahaziah died and about the time that Jehoram began to rule in Israel. If are not sure that the chapter has been placed chronologically then we can move on to 2 Kings 3, where we read this: 2 Ki 3:11 But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD, that we may enquire of the LORD by him? And one of the king of Israel's servants answered and said, Here is Elisha the son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah. This verse tells us that the principle prophet in the land was now Elisha, not Elijah, otherwise they would have called for Elijah. The King mentioned at the start of the verse is Jehoshaphat, the father of Jehoram of Judah who received the letter. Jehoram killed his brothers after Jehoshaphat had died and they were no longer under his protection, and as we have seen Elijah must have left before Jehoshaphat died because Elisha had already taken over his role. As the letter arrives after 6 years of Jehorams reign as King, Elijah must have been absent for at least 6 years, and quite possibly several more. As for your point that "it is quite possible that Elijah could have still been alive." - that's still perfectly true. We are not told that Elijah died, but merely that he was taken through the sky on a chariot. I hope this helps. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
16 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171681 | ||
Dear Searcher, 2 Peter 2 categorically shows that the Aggelos were killed at the time of the Flood. Peter uses in parallel the two examples of the Flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah. 2 Peter 2:4 -5 describe the wicked at the time of the Flood, and the one righteous man to be saved. Likewise 2 Peter 6-7 describes the wicked in Sodom and Gomorrah and the one righteous man to be saved. In doing so, Peter is showing that, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished" This is a form of the Jewish literary device known as parallelism. But to be parallel, you have to have a balance, which is removed if you arbitrarily remove Noah from the Aggelos equation. The example of the Aggelos would not fit into this parallel if there were no "godly" men to be delivered out of their temptations. But the godly man used in comparison to the Aggelos is Noah. Thus the Aggelos were indeed killed in the Flood. Unjust reserved unto judgement: Aggelos and Old World. Godly: Noah. Unjust reserved unto judgment: Sodom and Gomorrah. Godly: Lot. For more information, please go back and read my post on Tartarus, which you seem to have missed. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
17 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171678 | ||
Dear Searcher, You have yet to provide Biblical evidence for what happened to Elijah. Your story appears to stop when he is taken up in a whirlwind into the sky. Did he just stop there and fly about? Please illuminate me on where you think the Bible says he went, and please provide Biblical support. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
18 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171677 | ||
Dear Searcher, You say that you know the letter was not written at the time because "the BIBLE tells me so" in 2 Chr 21:12. Where in 2 Chr 21:12 does it say that Elijah wrote the letter before his chariot ride? You must have a different Bible to me. You keep saying that you have proved this already, but you have yet to provide a single verse that supports your argument. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
19 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171667 | ||
Dear Searcher, My apologies if I have misunderstood. I was referring to your post no. 171501: -------------------------- 2 Chronicles 21:12 says "a letter came to Jehoram from Elijah the prophet" ... It doesn't say when Elijah wrote it. But, it was before he went to heaven (2 Kin 2:11). -------------------------- If what you meant was "the sky" and you do not believe he went to heaven where God is, then what happened to him? Provide scriptural evidence. 2 Chr 21 seems to indicate that Elijah was still alive on Earth at a later date, and I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
20 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171666 | ||
Searcher, You say - "My answer ... it is the belief of some, that they wanted something from Elijah, because "why else would they want to look for Elijah?" The Bible tells you why they went to look for Elijah: 2 Ki 2:16 "let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master: lest peradventure the Spirit of the LORD hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley." I believe what the Bible says, not what "some" believe. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |