Results 21 - 40 of 60
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: drbloor Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171663 | ||
Dear Searcher, If you believe that Elijah was taken into the heaven of the sky in 2 Kings 2, then where does your belief that he went to Heaven to be with God come from? Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
22 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171658 | ||
Searcher, Please, please, please go back and read what I have written regarding Tartarus and the chains of darkness, otherwise you're just going to keep repeating the same pointless comments over and over again. The Bible says that the aggelos were thrust into the depths - by definition of the ocean - at the time of the flood. And this means that they were killed. Look at the use of Tartarus in the LXX Septuagint for proof of this, or have the courtesy to read my previous post on the subject. You can think what you want, but the Bible disagrees with you. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
23 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171650 | ||
Dear Searcher, Quite the pedant. Let me rephrase. Please prove that the letter was written before Elijah departed, and that it was not written at the time. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
24 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171649 | ||
Searcher, An explanation of a word does not mean that I have changed it. If I read in the newspaper that a man had been eaten by a Hippo, I would be quite correct to say that he had been killed. It does not mean that I have changed any of the words. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
25 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171645 | ||
Dear Searcher, Regarding the letter which you claim is prophecy, you have yet to prove that it is a prophecy. The context of the chapter and the proof I have given that Elijah did not go to Heaven render your discussion of prophecy pointless. Come back to me when you can prove that it is prophecy. Dr. B. |
||||||
26 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171644 | ||
Dear Searcher, I can only assume you have not read a word I have written. I have not changed any words - I directed you to the original Greek word "Tartarus" to explain what was being referred to by "hell". I directed you to the examples in the Psalms to explain what the "chains of darkness" are. And I proved from Peter that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are "reserved for judgment" in precisely the same way as these aggelos are. The similarity in their state is obvious because they are all dead humans. Please do not accuse me of changing words when I have not done that. In answer to what happened to the others, have you read 2 Peter 2 or Genesis 6? The aggelos of Peter were not spared and neither was "the old world". Everyone died apart from Noah and his family. Jude 1:6 and 7 are direct references to Peters letter, so there is no reason to cover the same issue twice. I don't understand this sentence - "Plus, if those in Genesis 6:2, how did they have relations?" You are very good at asking questions but not very good at answering them. So here's a few to start with (some of which you have already blatantly ignored): Please explain how angels can sin, when Christ told us that they can't. Please explain how the 50 men looking for Elijah thought they'd find him when Elisha had already told them that Elijah was in Heaven and, according to you, they had most probably watched Elijah go there. Please explain why you have invented a belief that they were after Elijahs spirit, when 2 Kings 2 actually tells us that they "afar off" and on the other side of the river Jordan during the conversation about double portions of spirit, and also tells us the exact reason they went to look for Elijah – that they were concerned about Elijahs safety and went to make sure he was okay? They urged Elisha until he was "shamed", not until he got angry with them for wanting Elijahs spirit! It is clear they cared about Elijah. Your claim they wanted double portions of Elijahs spirit is invented un-Biblical nonsense. In your own words, "Where is your Biblical support?" Please prove that the heaven we are referred to in 2 Kings 2 is the Heaven where God abides and not the heaven of the sky. Please prove your convolution that Elijahs letter was a prophecy and not simply a letter written at the time. Please explain why when Jesus said, "No man hath ascended up to heaven," he was actually lying. I look forward to your answers. In future, please read what I have written before you write your answers. It will help prevent you from making false accusations. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
27 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171634 | ||
Dear Searcher, I have already proved that Elijah did not go to Heaven, and that the letter was not just written, but came directly FROM Elijah, which would be impossible if he were in heaven. So your prophecy issue is moot. Dr. B. |
||||||
28 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171632 | ||
Dear Searcher, I have proved from Peter that the aggelos in Peter were people who sinned at the time of the flood and were killed. I went on to prove from Genesis that these people were men. Case proved. Dr. B. |
||||||
29 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171619 | ||
Dear Brad, I think you may have mixed up two separate issues here and become hung up on Dr. Powell. I introduced the critique of Dr. Wuest in order to show the fact that Dr. Wuest has his own detractors on the simple veracity of his translation, and that even other Greek translators may disagree with him. The point in doing so was to show that you cannot simply wave a copy of Dr. Wuests work around as if it were gospel truth. Like any other source of information, it should be verified instead of being swallowed whole. I then introduced the Wikipedia quote to show that Dr. Wuest has other critics who claim that he brings what they call "preconceived theological and doctrinal considerations" into the task of pure exegesis. I did so to explain that the majority of the information Dr. Wuest provides regarding hell is not taken from the Greek words he uses to construct his vision of hell around, but from his preconceived notions of what he wants to talk about. I then provided information on the words Gehenna, Hades and Tartarus, and I must point out that this information was certainly not taken from Dr. Powell, so any aspersions on his bias are irrelevant to that part of the discussion. Gehenna - The Valley of Hinnom. Hades – Sheol. Tartarus - The lowest depths. The rest of the information that Dr. Weust brings to the table is clouded by his preconceived notion of hell as a fiery, subterranean world of demons. None of those words describe any such thing. Okay and thanks, Dr. B. |
||||||
30 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171605 | ||
Dear Brad, The way to discover if Dr. Powell is a more credible authority than Dr. Wuest is to analyse the information for yourself. I admit I have been unable to put much effort into it myself because I have none of Dr. Weusts works and only the words of Dr. Powell. But equally the question can be asked - "Why is Dr. Weust any more of a credible authority than Dr. Powell?" The more poignant point was raised from the Wikpedia page, which is far more easily verifiable. Dr. Weust in his examination of hell is clearly influenced greatly by pre-conceived Christian beliefs regarding hell, hades, tartarus and gehenna which have arisen since the New Testament was written, and quite clearly does not limit himself to an anaylsis of what the words meant when they were written. I don't need Dr. Powell or Wikpedia or anyone else to make that any more apparent than it already is. Okay and goodnight! Dr. B. |
||||||
31 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171597 | ||
Dear Searcher, Apology accepted and thanks. Sometimes the written word can be misinterpreted and a statement can be read in a way which the writer did not intend. Yrs, Dr. B. (Answer to follow shortly) |
||||||
32 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171594 | ||
Searcher, Give me a break please and stop being quite so rude. I will answer your question as soon as I can. In fact, I have been composing the answer for the last half hour. Please note the length of the last response I gave to Brad. I have a job and I am not some kind of magical speed-typist that can work and type and read the Bible and answer all of you at once. Please have a little patience and grace. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
33 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171585 | ||
Dear Brad, Hello again, and thanks for your reply! As you may know, Ken Wuest has his own critics. A study of his corruption of parts of the book of Romans can be found here: http://members.citynet.net/morton/others/greekpre.htm And even a quick trip to Wikpedia will tell you that "Some critics have charged that in specific instances, Wuest’s translations and commentaries go beyond a strict analysis of grammar and word meaning, and bring preconceived theological and doctrinal considerations into the task of exegesis." Kens study of hell is a prime example of this. GEHENNA: Gehenna is a place, better known as the Valley of Hinnom. You should not translate place names. Would you translate the words Paris, Rome or London? Of course not. Gehenna is a source of misunderstanding for many Christians because of what happened there. Refuse, dead animals and executed prisoners were burnt in Gehenna. Fires were kept burning continually for this purpose. When you realise that there was an everlasting fire in a physical place just outside Jerusalem, you can see that it is not referring to any imaginary place called "hell" but simply to the physical location of Gehenna. HADES: Hades, as has already been said, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, which means "Grave". The representations that Mr. Kenneth Wuest makes about Hades are his own pre-conceived notions, and are not derived from the word Hades. The fact that Hades is used as a translation of Sheol can be seen from the Septuagent OT. TARTARUS: Strangely enough, Mr. Wuest makes no attempt to explain the meaning of the word Tartarus. I will attempt to do so with an explanation of II Peter 2:4. The misunderstanding of this verse has arisen mostly because it is taken totally out of the context of the passage. II Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; An interesting and clearly deliberate contrast. God spared not those which sinned, and spared not the old world, but saved Noah from the flood. Clearly one and the same incident is referred to here - the flood. Those that sinned were killed in the flood, but righteous Noah was saved. The "angels" being referred to then are not the angels of heaven but humans - the "sons of God" from Genesis 6:2 who "kept not their first estate," but saw the daughters of men and did evil in the sight of the Lord. II Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: Again, a contrast. Sodom and Gomorrha were condemned and overthrown, while Lot was saved. One and the same incident is referred to here - the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha. Peter is therefore using these two incidents to contrast the judgment on the wicked with the salvation of the righteous. This lesson of Peters is then summed up in verse 9: II Pet 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: Thus both the "angels" and Sodom and Gomorrah are reserved in exactly the same way. His argument is that God is consistent in His judgment of the ungodly and His preservation and reward of the righteous, but he is clearly talking about judgments upon men, not spirit angels. So why claim that these people were kept in "chains of darkness"? Well chains or bonds are used in the Bible as symbols of death: (NAB) Psalm 18:6 The cords of Sheol tightened; the snares of death lay in wait (NAB) Psalm 116:3 I was caught by the cords of death; the snares of Sheol had seized me Just like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (Mat 10:15), these people were punished with death until their final judgment before Christ. So what or where is Tartarus? Well, rather than refer you to Greek mythology, I will refer you back to the version of the Old Testament that Peter was using – the LXX Septuagint. Speaking of the Leviathon: Job 41:31 ... he regards the sea as a pot of ointment, 32 and the lowest part of the deep [Tartarus] as a captive: he reckons the deep as his range. The word Tartarus literally means "the lowest depths" and is used in the Septuagint to refer to the lowest depths of the sea. Thus it is an excellent word to use when Peter refers to the people killed by the flood. They were cast into Tartarus, the lowest depths of the sea, and killed. They remain to this day in chains of darkness (death), but they will stand before the judgment seat at the last day, just like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and just like us. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
34 | Elijah went where? | Genesis | drbloor | 171518 | ||
Dear Searcher, My apologies that the question on Heaven and Elijah was not posted under a verse, but it was a direct response in a discussion thread, not a new question. Thank you for directing me to those two answers, but I must admit that if those are the best answers that can be given then the answerers are grasping at straws. 1. "No man hath ascended up to heaven". The answer given to this is basically to dismiss the words of Christ because you disagree with them. That's unacceptable. Your claim is that "Jesus insisted that no one has ascended to heaven in such a way as to return and talk about heavenly things". I have no doubt that Jesus is stating his authority to talk about heavenly things, but he does so by explicitly stating that no-one else has ever ascended to heaven. Your Bible may well add the words "and returned to talk about it", but mine doesn't. Also, your argument about context is simply wrong. You claim that Jesus is refuting teaching that people went to heaven and returned with revelations. Yet that issue is not addressed once in the entire chapter, so your context doesn't exist! (In fact, I'm uncertain whether that issue is raised in the entire length and breadth of scripture.) If Jesus said that "no man hath ascended up to heaven" then you either agree with him or you call him a liar. 2. "A letter came to Jehoram from Elijah the prophet"... Again, the answer to this is to dismiss what is obvious in favour of the fantastical. The answer given to this is to claim that the letter was written before Elijahs disappearance. However, this would necessitate not only the foreknowledge of the specific particulars of the letter – events that had not occurred at the time of Elijahs disappearance, such as Jehoram murdering his brothers – but it would also require for God to have condemned Jehoram before he committed any sin and it would require Elijah to have allowed these murders to take place without attempting to stop them. That is an implausible reach. In addition, we are not told that the letter was written by Elijah, but that the letter "came ... from Elijah". If Elijah was in Heaven, then the letter came from Heaven! Your attempt to force 2 Chr 21 to fit your version of events is like hammering a square peg into a round hole. You are right to say that the Bible does not contradict itself, but respectfully that does not mean that the Bible does not contradict you. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
35 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171502 | ||
Apologies for the late reply - I had not seen your note! You said that, "Sheol is the only word translated as hell in the Old Testament. I realize it is also translated grave in other verses but if you change it to grave at every instance then the word hell is never used in the Old Testament." This statement actually hits the nail on the head. If you replace the word "hell" with the correct translation "grave", then you suddenly have an Old Testament with no "Hell". And that's the way it was written! Hell as a fiery place full of demons simply does not exist in the Old Testament, only Sheol - The Grave. I appreciate that it is a big step to realise that each and every time the word "hell" appears in the Old Testament it actually means "grave", and that "Hell" as such does not exist. The New Testament is slightly different in its use of the word hell, but basically the same. In the New Testament the word "Hades" is the equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol. In the Septuagint - a translation of the Old Testament into Greek, compiled approximately two hundred and fifty years before the birth of Jesus - this word is used almost without exception to represent Sheol. Hades equals Sheol equals The Grave. Another word used in the New Testament is "Gehenna", which is a place-name - The Valley of Gehenna, and should never have been translated into the word hell at all - it should have been left as the place-name Gehenna. Gehenna was a valley on the edge of the city of Jerusalem. It was primarily a place for Jews to burn the refuse of the city but in the time of Christ they also used it to dispose of the carcases of animals and unburied criminals after execution. For this purpose and to avoid the stench of putrefaction, fires were kept burning there continually and it became synonymous with death and condemnation. So Gehenna is simply another type of grave. So again, every time the word "Hell" is read in the New Testament, you need to understand that the writer is talking about the grave. The idea of Hell as a fiery underground place full of demons and tortured souls arrived after the Bible was written and on examination is simply not supported by The Bible. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
36 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 169516 | ||
Dear Mark, Thanks for the kind reply. I can understand where you are coming from and I suppose we shall have to leave this subject as one to agree to disagree on. I find no evidence in Scripture for anything or anywhere called "the bosom of Abraham" or any teaching related to anything similar. I do however find it in some strange writings of the Pharisees of Christs time. My suppostion may be that Lazarus is Simon (though that does not really matter), your supposition is that the bosom of Abraham exists. I suppose the best I can say is that neither is explicitly stated in the Bible. And similarly, I see no evidence that the event is historic and I find nothing that would prohibit it from being parabolic, exactly as Jesus told it. Anyway, I haven't answered all your points, but be sure I have considered them. Indeed, although you didn't mention it, I am beginning to wonder myself whether John 12 and Matthew 26 actually relate the same incident. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, as always, Dr. B. P.S. Not having my notes around here, the passages on Antiquities probably slipped in from a point I removed for the sake of brevity (which you may notice I can struggle with!) |
||||||
37 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 169476 | ||
Dear Tim, Thanks for your response re: Lazarus and the Rich Man. Firstly, I have to concede that there is a slim possibility that Lazarus is not Simon the Leper, because it is not explicitly stated. On the other hand, all the evidence points to the fact that Simon was Lazarus. 1. The meal occurs straight after the account of the resurrection of Lazarus, when Jesus had visited the house of Mary, Martha and Lazarus. 2. John 12:1 indicates that they came to "Bethany, where Lazarus was" – they had come to see Lazarus. 3. This was days before Jesus was to be crucified – whose house would Jesus want to go to more in Bethany for comfort than those he loved: "Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus." 4. Apart from Christ and his disciples only Mary, Martha and Lazarus are said to be there - no surplus Simon. 5. Martha served at the meal indicating it was her familys house. Your source, Mr. A. T. Johnson, says this means nothing, yet totally fails to indicate why. When was the last time Mr. A. T. Johnson walked into someone elses house and started cooking a meal? 6. Comparing with Luke 10 when they were at Marthas house, Martha served while Mary sat at Jesus feet – exactly as in John 12. 7. Neither writer mentions Simon by name at the meal at all. In one gospel we are told Jesus went to see Simon the Leper, and in the other we are told he went to see Lazarus, and Lazarus is the only one named as being there. 8. "Simon the Leper" must have been a previous name, as they could not have eaten at the house of a leper. But what if in reality Simon the Leper was not Lazarus? Well it makes virtually no difference to the parable, as it is eminently clear that the parable IS about Lazarus, whether he was Simon or not. It can be put no plainer than the very words of Christ: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though [Lazarus] rose from the dead." Your second point is addressed in the above list. Thirdly, we are told that the Lazarus in the parable was a beggar, and you say he could not have owned a house. Simon the Leper would have been a beggar but not by poverty. It is quite possible that he could have owned a house, but under Mosaic Law (Lev 13:46) he could not enter it. Also he could not enter the inner court of the Temple, which would explain why he is, in the parable, laid at the rich mans gate, Caiaphas gate, the gate of the Temple. You have simply compared a beggar in your own vernacular to one at the time of Christ, which is a mistake. Fourthly, you claim that naming Caiaphas as the rich man is a "major stretch", yet fail to provide any evidence why. I have provided 9 identifying factors between the rich man and Caiaphas, (and there are many more secondary ties – such as the rich mans gate being the Temple gate etc.) and the only detracting point you make is that we are told he had "5 brothers", not "5 brothers in law". And this can be very easily dismissed: 1. The term "brother in law" does not occur once in the entire Bible. Not once. You have to therefore conclude that the term was not in popular use, and hence they are called brothers. 2. I am not trying to prove that this is a 100 percent accurate historical record as you are. I claim it is a parable, in which case the description of the men as "brothers" identifies them accurately enough for us to know exactly who they are. Fifthly, you say that this could not possibly be a parable, because we are not told it is a parable. But this is not the only parable which is not described as such by Luke: Luk 7:41 The parable of the Two Debtors. Luke 10:30 The parable of the Good Samaritan. There is no mention that these are parables! If Luke does not always state that a parable is a parable, then it does not matter if it is explicitly stated or not. We must deduce from the evidence provided if it is a parable or not. And the evidence here is overwhelming. With respect it seems to me that you strain at a gnat: "the brothers could not possibly be brothers in law!" But you swallow a camel: The Pharasaaic superstition mocked by Christ - the completely unscriptural, pseudepigraphical teaching of a place called "Abrahams Bosom." "Abrahams Bosom" can be found in "The Apocalypse of Zephaniah" and "The Testament of Abraham" as evidence of an unscriptural superstition held by the Pharisees of the time (and even there it differs from your own view of the place), but it can only be found once in the Bible in this parable where Jesus uses it to deride the Pharisees just as they derided him in Luke 16:14. The parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus must be a parable because Christ gave us a wealth of information to understand every aspect of it – who it was spoken to, the characters in it and the reason it was given. On the other hand there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is an historical account. God bless, Dr. B. |
||||||
38 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 169265 | ||
Mark, The story of Lazarus and The Rich Man is a parable and that can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is largely because it is possible to identify who Lazarus and The Rich Man were - we know who they were, we know their names, and we know that they were in fact both alive and well at the time of the parable. The first thing to do when approaching a parable is to identify the characters in it. Starting with the easiest first, we can identify Abraham as Abraham of the OT. Next up, Lazarus. Well there is only one other person in the Bible called Lazarus, so we would immediately think of him. Interestingly though, the parable categorically points us to this man. If you compare the accounts of the anointing of Jesus in John 12:3 and Matthew 26:6 you will find that Lazarus was also known as "Simon the Leper". This explains why the Lazarus in the parable was "full of sores" (Luke 16:20) – he was Simon the Leper. His begging in the parable was not directly from poverty, but because he was ceremonially unclean under OT law. So we have two men, both called Lazarus, both lepers, both beggars, both of whom died, and both of whom would not convince people by their resurrection (compare Luke 16:30-31 and John 12:10.) I think we can safely conclude then that Lazarus in the parable was Jesus friend Lazarus. Now the rich man. We are told many specific details of this man, too many in fact for this to merely represent "all rich men" – let's see if we can identify him from the facts: 1. he was rich (vs.19) 2. dressed in purple and fine linen (vs.19) 3. lived in luxury every day (vs.19) 4. in his lifetime he received good things (vs.25) 5. he had five brothers (vs.28) 6. they lived in his father’s house (vs.27) 7. they had Moses and the Prophets (vs.25) 8. but they did not listen to them (vs.29) 9. they would not be convinced even if someone were to rise from the dead (vs.31) Now it might not be obvious to us who this person was, but it would have been instantly obvious to the Pharisees listening, because there was in fact only one person in all of Israel who dressed in purple and fine linen, and to whom ALL of the above clues matched perfectly – the High Priest Caiaphas. The Jewish historian Josephus records that Caiaphas meets the first 4 criteria above. Caiaphas was rich, dressed in purple and fine linen, lived in luxury and received good things. (see Antiquities of the Jews, XIII: 10:vi:p.281, XVIII:1:iv:p.377, also Wars of the Jews 11:8:xiv: p. 478). Furthermore, Exodus 28 records the instructions given to Aaron for making the High Priests garments, and tells us that they were "purple, and scarlet yarn and fine linen". There are no two ways about it - this man must have been a High Priest. Caiaphas the High Priest also had five brothers-in-law. Again, as recorded by Josephus: "Now the report goes, that this elder Annas [father in law of Caiaphas, John 18:13] proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons, who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and he had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. . ." (Antiquities, Book XX, chapter 9, section i, p.423)" They served as High Priest as follows: Eleazar 16-17AD Jonathan 36-37AD Theophilus 37-41AD Matthias 41-43AD Annas the Younger 62AD The reference to "their fathers house" is obviously to Annas, their father, and High Priest before Caiaphas. It is not difficult for us to agree with Jesus conclusion that these men had Moses and the prophets (vs. 25) but did not listen to them (vs. 29). And finally, John 12:10 confirms the last connection in our list. The resurrection of both the Lazarus of the parable and Simon the Leper was rejected by Annas, Caiaphas and his five brothers. So now we have established the identities of the characters of this parable: Abraham is Abraham Lazarus is Lazarus, also known as Simon the Leper of Bethany The Rich Man is Caiaphas the high priest His father is Annas His 5 brothers are Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, Annas the Younger And now that we have done this, we can also prove that Jesus cannot be recounting an historical event, because both Caiaphas and Lazarus were both still alive. There is obviously more to say about this parable, but I think I will leave it at that for now. I will just leave you with the following conclusions: The parable cannot be literal. Caiaphas did not literally die and descend to Hades. He was still very much alive in Acts 4:6. Likewise although Abraham refused to raise Lazarus in the parable, in reality Jesus did raise Lazarus. The only thing that is literal about the parable is the prophecy of Luke 16:31 that was fulfilled in John 12:10 when Caiaphas and his family tried to kill Lazarus rather than accept the fact that Jesus had raised him from the dead. Okay for now, and God bless, Dr. B. |
||||||
39 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 169247 | ||
Mark, I'd be interested to hear your scriptural basis for a belief in 'Abrahams bosom' - a place only mentioned once in a parable which is (I was going to say parabolic..!) is at best not entirely literal. In fact it is in a parable which Jesus himself uses to mock the pharisees, their high priest and their belief system... The description you missed out when describing Gehenna was that it was not only an OT place of idolatry, but also a place where the bodies of executed criminals were burned. Which explains a lot about why people today think it was "Hell". As you say, Gehenna was translated badly and should never have been translated out of the original Greek into english as "Hell" or "Lake of Fire" or anything else. It's a placename "Gai ben Hinnom" - the valley of the son of Hinnom. |
||||||
40 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 169224 | ||
Hi Theresa and thanks for your note. However... Eph 4:9 doesn't mention Hell. Mat 12:40 doesn't mention Hell. Psm 63:9 doesn't mention Hell. And in your examples of Is 14:9, Pr 9:18, Pr 15:24 and Ez 31:14-18 the word translated "Hell" is the Hebrew "Sheol" which simply means "grave", not what you'd think of as "Hell". For examples of this, note that the word "grave" used in Ps 30:3, Is 14:11and15, Is 38:10and18, Pr 1:12 and Ez 31:15 is actually the same word as "Hell", but it just means grave. If nothing else, it's a good word study, but I will leave it at that! God bless and goodnight, Dr. B. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |