Results 41 - 60 of 61
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: alanh Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | What must I do to be saved? | Rom 10:9 | alanh | 147073 | ||
If there are only two cases of Holy Sprit baptism yet baptism is mentioned over 100 times in the New Testament you figure out the math. | ||||||
42 | What must I do to be saved? | Rom 10:9 | alanh | 147074 | ||
“baptism” is – in those passages that associate the rite with salvation – it is the same type of “baptism” in all the verses. In other words, the “baptism” of Matthew 28:19 is of the same kind as that in Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; etc. In view of this, consider the following: The baptism mentioned in Matthew 28:19 had human administrators. Christ commissioned the apostles to go and make disciples, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Inasmuch as an apostle could not baptize “in the Spirit” (only Christ could do that – Mt. 3:11), one is forced to conclude that the baptism of Matthew 28:19 is water baptism, not Spirit baptism. I am unaware of any reputable Bible scholar who contends otherwise. If, then, the other passages that mention baptism (see above) are of the same import, it follows that they likewise refer to water baptism, not Spirit baptism. Both Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 make it clear that the baptism of these passages involves both an immersion in “something,” and a “being raised” from the same substance. This makes perfectly good sense if water baptism is in view. On the other hand, if the “Spirit” is the element of the baptism, this would suggest that one is buried in the Spirit, and subsequently “raised from” the Spirit. This would imply further that the new convert would not have the Spirit, and therefore, would not belong to the Lord (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6). This conclusion obviously is wrong – thus demonstrating that the element of the baptism in Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 is not the Holy Spirit. By default, it must be water baptism. Water is specifically associated with baptism in 1 Peter 3:21. If the allusion here, then, is to water baptism, and yet 1 Peter 3:21 refers to the same sort of baptism as the other passages cited, then clearly they speak of water baptism as well. The passage that would come closest to teaching a “Spirit” baptism would be 1 Corinthians 12:13, but, the fact is, a careful analysis of related passages reveals that not even this text teaches a baptism in the Spirit. Note the following logic: The baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 puts one into the one “body,” which is the same as the “church” (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18,24). But the church is identified with the kingdom of Christ (Mt. 16:18-19). Thus, the baptism of the text under consideration introduces one into the Lord’s kingdom. However, a related passage demonstrates that it is through the birth of “water” that one enters Christ’s kingdom (Jn. 3:3-5). One is forced to conclude, therefore, that the baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is water baptism. In this connection, one should also carefully study Ephesians 5:26, and note the reference to the “washing of water.” Finally, there is a principle of interpretation that is paramount in sound Bible exegesis. Frequently it is the case that Bible words will form a pattern. That is, a consideration of several passages containing a term will reveal that the word has a commonly understood significance. Such being the case, that normal meaning is to be attached to the term unless an exceptional context suggests that it has taken on a special significance (i.e., a figurative sense). The term “baptize,” and its cognate “baptism,” occur together about 100 times in the New Testament. A consideration of these passages will reveal that the word may, on occasion, take on a figurative application (cf. Mt. 3:11; Lk. 12:50; Acts 1:5). Unless, though, there is clear contextual evidence that a symbolic sense has been employed, the conclusion must be that the common usage (an immersion in water) is in view. In view of this principle, there is no reason to conclude the baptism mentioned in Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12, and 1 Peter 3:21 is anything other than water baptism – an act of obedience, predicated upon faith and repentance, which secures forgiveness of sins and brings one into union with Jesus Christ. To all of this we add this point. The clear cases of “water” baptism in the book of Acts (chapters 8 and 10) very obviously were not examples of Jewish ritualism. The indisputable fact is that the Mosaic law had been abolished by the cross (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14), and no Jewish rite was henceforth tolerated in connection with the salvation process (cf. Acts 15:1; Gal. 5:2-4). |
||||||
43 | What must I do to be saved? | Rom 10:9 | alanh | 147153 | ||
Acts 8 the Ethopian Nobleman he went down into the water and came uput is that Holy Spirit baptism or water? | ||||||
44 | What must I do to be saved? | Rom 10:9 | alanh | 147246 | ||
And that is all we can do is water. | ||||||
45 | What must I do to be saved? | Rom 10:9 | alanh | 147254 | ||
Laying on of hands to receive gifts came only by the apostles. | ||||||
46 | Are tongues a world language or not? | 1 Corinthians | alanh | 171756 | ||
Tongue speaking is definitely a foreign languages as witnessed by the dialog in Acts chapter 2. There it lists the various nations of which the Jews came from and states hear we, every man in our own language wherein we were born? The Holy Spirit gave the apostles the power to speak in tongues to confirm their word. In Acts 10 Cornelius and his household spoke in tongues as the Holy Spirit came upon them confirming that the Gentiles were also clean and the word of God was for them also. When the Holy Spirit alit upon someone there was manifest some form of miraculous gift. 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and 14 tell about these gifts in detail. One thing that must be remembered is that not everything in the NT pertains to us in the 20th century. this is true of the gift of the Holy Spirit. We do not receive the Holy Spirit today as the Christians of the first century did. In fact 1 Corinthians 13 tells of the cessation of miracles. The means by which we could receive the Holy Spirit does not exist today. If we read Scripture we find that the Holy Spirit was endowed directly on two occasians possibly 3 if Paul received the Holy Spirit directly. The other way is by the laying on of the apostles hands since there are no apostles living today the Holy Spirit is not endowed upon Christians as in the 1st century. |
||||||
47 | Cessation of the gift of tongues | 1 Cor 13:8 | alanh | 124436 | ||
The kingdom of Christ has come else how would the Colossians be "transferred...tothe kingdom of His beloved Son." All thru the Bible up until Acts 2 we are told of the kingdom coming after Acts 2 the kingdom is spoken of as a fact. The church and the kingdom are one and the same thing note Jesus words in Matthew 16 where church and kingdom of heaven are used interchangably, "Blessed are you Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter(Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you (plural) the keys to the kingdom of heaven (used instead of church); and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heave, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." The miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit were designed to aid the fledgeling church in its establishment. They were not designed to continue indefinetly. When Paul said they would cease that is exactly what he meant. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 tells when the gifts would cease; "when that which is perfect is come." This reference to that which is perfect in construction is not referring to Christ because He had already come. This passage does not say anything about coming again. The passage is referring to the completed New Testament once it had come we would no longer know in part but would know fully. As to your reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, this only happened twice (Acts 2 and Acts 10). The gifts of the Holy Spirit were passed on by the laying on of the apostles hands (Acts 8:14-17). If you read Acts 8 you find that Philip altho he had miraculous power could not pass it on, the apostles came from Jerusalem and laid their hands on the believers in order to impart the gofts of the Spirit. There are no apostles today to impart the gift onto believers and the belivers of the first century have long ago died. How are the gifts passed on today? Did God decide to try something new? The evidence indicates that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased. I know of no one today who speaks in a tongue (known language)not studied. |
||||||
48 | Did Jesus go to hell after dying? | Ephesians | alanh | 124721 | ||
Hades, on either side, is not to be depopulated until Christ returns. The dead reside in Hades until that time. Hades and Hell are not the same thing. | ||||||
49 | Did Jesus go to hell after dying? | Ephesians | alanh | 124722 | ||
The full penaty for our sins is "death" (Romans 6:23). We are not condemned to "Gehenna" (Hell) or Heaven until the judgment. Christ descended into Hades A place of the unseen, divided into two sides--"Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22,23), also known as "Paradise" (Luke 24:43), and "torments" (Luke 16:23), also known as "Tartarus". The divisions can be observed as follows: I. In the world innocent and saved / lost DEATH II. Sheol or Hades paradise // tartarus RESURRECTION III. Final Judgment rewarded (come to heaven) // condemned (depart to Gehenna the lake of fire) / equals gulf not fixed // equals gulf fixed |
||||||
50 | Is the bride of christ the church? | Eph 5:32 | alanh | 144459 | ||
The bride of Christ and the body of Christ are two among many metaphors used to discribe the church. The metaphor is used in the 5th chapter of Ephesians and the 21st and 22nd chapters of Revelation. | ||||||
51 | The Law has been nailrd to the cross | Col 2:14 | alanh | 171901 | ||
The question may be asked "if the Ten Commandments have been removed, how can Christians oppose worshipping idols, taking the Lord's name in vain, and committing adultery?" Our reasons for not dishonoring God and for not engaging in immoral behavior are not tied to the Ten Commandments, but to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We can know it is wrong to commit adultery, for example--not because Moses wrote in the Ten Commandments--but because what Jesus and the apostles taught (Matt 5:28-29; 1 Cor 6:9-11). The Judaizers among the Galatian churches were seeking to bring Christians under the "yoke of bondage" (Gal 2:4; 5:1). Who can doubt that the yoke of bondage included keeping the Sabbath? The gnostics (or pre-gnostics or incipient gnostics)--teachers who had combined some Christian doctrine w/ Jewish mysticism and Greek philosophy--at Colosse were attempting to bind Sabbath keeping on the church. Paul refuted their false doctrine by arguing that the death of Christ on the cross "blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us" (Col 2:14). Paul then forbad the Colossian Christians from allowing anyone to judge others on the basis of meat, or drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days (Col 2:16). If the Sabbath had been binding on the early Christians would it not have been legitimate and even mandatory yo judge others' faithfulness on the basis of Sabbath keeping? 2 Corinthians 3 provides one of the most powerful arguments concerning the removal of the law of Moses and the institution of the Gospel of Christ. The Corinthians were "manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart" (2 Cor 3:2-3). In using this language, Paul does not intend to deny the inspiration of the Old Testament (or covenant), but to show that it had been removed and the New Testament had been given to bring us to faith in Christ and to obedience to His word. The writer of Hebrews stress the same truth (Hebrews 10:9-10). The law God gave to Israel yhrough Moses included the Ten Commandments which were written "in tables of stone." The Old Testament writers speak only of the Ten Commandments as being written in tables of stone. This fact is very significant as one examines the rest of 2 Corinthians 3. In contrast to the law's being written in tables of stone, the Gospel of Christ is written in "fleshly tables of the heart." Both covenants originated in the mind of God, but the old was temporary and carnal; the new was bound on mankind to the end of the age. "For if that first covenant (or testament: diathéké same word in both contexts) had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second...In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:7 ,13). If the old covenant were waxing old and ready to vanish away more than 2000 years ago, how could anyone imagine it is still binding on anyone? 2 Corinthians 3 teaches plainly as any passage could that the covenant of God made w/ the Jewish people was better than any law any nation had ever known. But when it served the purpose God sent it to accomplish--"to bring us unto Christ (Galatians 3:24)--it faded away. This does not mean that Christians should not read the Old Testament, but that the precepts and the laws--including the Ten Commandments--are not binding on anyone during the Christian era. |
||||||
52 | The Law has been nailed to the cross | Col 2:14 | alanh | 171902 | ||
The question may be asked "if the Ten Commandments have been removed, how can Christians oppose worshipping idols, taking the Lord's name in vain, and committing adultery?" Our reasons for not dishonoring God and for not engaging in immoral behavior are not tied to the Ten Commandments, but to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We can know it is wrong to commit adultery, for example--not because Moses wrote in the Ten Commandments--but because what Jesus and the apostles taught (Matt 5:28-29; 1 Cor 6:9-11). The Judaizers among the Galatian churches were seeking to bring Christians under the "yoke of bondage" (Gal 2:4; 5:1). Who can doubt that the yoke of bondage included keeping the Sabbath? The gnostics (or pre-gnostics or incipient gnostics)--teachers who had combined some Christian doctrine w/ Jewish mysticism and Greek philosophy--at Colosse were attempting to bind Sabbath keeping on the church. Paul refuted their false doctrine by arguing that the death of Christ on the cross "blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us" (Col 2:14). Paul then forbad the Colossian Christians from allowing anyone to judge others on the basis of meat, or drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days (Col 2:16). If the Sabbath had been binding on the early Christians would it not have been legitimate and even mandatory yo judge others' faithfulness on the basis of Sabbath keeping? 2 Corinthians 3 provides one of the most powerful arguments concerning the removal of the law of Moses and the institution of the Gospel of Christ. The Corinthians were "manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart" (2 Cor 3:2-3). In using this language, Paul does not intend to deny the inspiration of the Old Testament (or covenant), but to show that it had been removed and the New Testament had been given to bring us to faith in Christ and to obedience to His word. The writer of Hebrews stress the same truth (Hebrews 10:9-10). The law God gave to Israel yhrough Moses included the Ten Commandments which were written "in tables of stone." The Old Testament writers speak only of the Ten Commandments as being written in tables of stone. This fact is very significant as one examines the rest of 2 Corinthians 3. In contrast to the law's being written in tables of stone, the Gospel of Christ is written in "fleshly tables of the heart." Both covenants originated in the mind of God, but the old was temporary and carnal; the new was bound on mankind to the end of the age. "For if that first covenant (or testament: diathéké same word in both contexts) had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second...In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:7 ,13). If the old covenant were waxing old and ready to vanish away more than 2000 years ago, how could anyone imagine it is still binding on anyone? 2 Corinthians 3 teaches plainly as any passage could that the covenant of God made w/ the Jewish people was better than any law any nation had ever known. But when it served the purpose God sent it to accomplish--"to bring us unto Christ (Galatians 3:24)--it faded away. This does not mean that Christians should not read the Old Testament, but that the precepts and the laws--including the Ten Commandments--are not binding on anyone during the Christian era. |
||||||
53 | The rapture, A comming event, Pg 3. | 1 Thess 4:16 | alanh | 126009 | ||
Where do you read the word "rapture" in the Bible? It is not there nor is the concept there, the "raopture" is not a coming event it is not an event at all.. Read Matthew 24 closely and notice how many times the Lord says "you," this is because those events were to happen in their life time not centuries from then. All of chapter 24 with the exception of verses 36ff have been fulfilled. Notice what Jesus says in verse 34: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished" (Matt. 24:34). Jesus is predicting the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE and with that destruction ends Judaism. There can be no more sacrifice because there is no more priesthood (with the temple destroyed there are no more genealogical records). When one looks to the book of Revelation for information there are 4 things that must be remembered about the prophesies: 1) It is a Revelation (1:1);(2) to seven churches in Asia (1:11); (3) in signs [He sent and sign-i-fied it](1:1); (4) of things that must shor,tly come to pass (1:1; cf. 1:3; 22:6,10). Now with this information in hand we find that Revelation cannot be referring to events in the far future because the apostle plainly states the events will "shortly come to pass." Revelation also has little meaning for any but the 7 churches of Asia to whom they were written. John in the fist chapter of Revelation states that the tribulation was in his own time "I John, your brother and partaker with you in tribulation and kingdom and patience which are in Jesus, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (Revelation 1:9) and then in signs and symbols tells of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. It is a message of hope to the Christian of the first century. The Scripture you have referenced 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is referring to the end of the age when Christ returns. The time of judgment. 1 Thessalonians 4:18 "Wherefore comfort one another with these words." |
||||||
54 | The Rapture, a comming event. | Titus 2:13 | alanh | 124393 | ||
Where exactly do you read about "the rapture" these words are no where found in the New Testament much less the Bible. "The rapture" is a misconception of what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24 where He is talking of the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE | ||||||
55 | The Rapture, a comming event. | Titus 2:13 | alanh | 124506 | ||
This Scripture has nothing to do with the so called rapture, butis referencing the end of time when Christ returns to judge all. | ||||||
56 | The Rapture, a comming event. | Titus 2:13 | alanh | 124508 | ||
You are correct most ministeries do espouse this belief, but it is not biblically based. The church of Christ does not teach this. | ||||||
57 | The beginning of what? | 1 John 1:1 | alanh | 171761 | ||
I believe John is referring to the beginning of the church or kingdom in Acts chapter 2. Peter uses the same words in Acts chapter 11-" And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning." | ||||||
58 | Millions led by Satan equal Goat Nations | Rev 20:8 | alanh | 126021 | ||
My fellow Bible student you are reading things into the Scriptures that are not there by taking prophetic language and reading it literally. The book of Revelation is a book that tells of the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. When you read the first chater you find that it is (1)a Revelation (1:1); (2) to the seven churches of Asia (1:11); (3) in signs (He sent and sign-i-fied it) (1:1); (4) of things that must shortly come to pass (1:1; cf. 1:3; 22:6,10). The 1000 year reign of Christ. The text says, "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." The pronoun "we" is a personal pronoun of the first person, but "they" is a is a personal pronoun of the third person; the verbs "lived" and "reigned" are verbs of the past tense, but "shall live and reign" are verbs of future tense. No person can claim the right to change the sentence of the text from the third personal pronoun "they" to the first personal pronoun "we," nor to chage the verbs "lived" and "reigned" of the past tense to "shall live and reign" of the future tense. That is too much change for any man to make who has an ounce of respect for the word of God. In his vision John "saw thrones" and the ones that "sat on them." And those whom he "saw" were the "souls" of the "beheaded." They had not "worshipped" the beast. They had not "received" the mark, and they "lived" and "reigned" with Christ. First: "They lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." It does not mention the second coming of Christ, a bodily resurrection, a reign on earth, or a literal throne in Jerusalem or elsewhere. It does not mention us, and it does not mention Christ on earth. Revelaton 20 mentions none of these things, and a curse was pronounced on the one who add to the words of this book (revelation 22:18). Second: "They" lived and reigned with Christ. It says "they"-the souls of the martyrs who were beheaded. Only those who were beheaded entered the 1000 yrs. If the 1000 yrs is literal then the behading is literal, and only those literally beheaded entered into that millennium. If the beheading is figurative, the 1000 yrs. is figurative, and that cuts us out; for there could be no literal millennium. If a literal 1000 yrs, then a literal behading; if a figurative beheading, then a figurative 1000 yrs, and either way there is no millennium for us. Third: They "lived" and "reigned." If the term "reigned" is limited by a thousand years, the verb "lived"is also limited by those thosand years. If the reigning ends with the thousand years, the living ends with a thousand years, and the millennium will end with everybody in it ceasing to live. That would be quite a hopeless millennium. There is no millennium. |
||||||
59 | Millions led by Satan equal Goat Nations | Rev 20:8 | alanh | 126125 | ||
The point is if the beheading is figurative then the 1000 years is figurative and if the 1000 years is literal then the behheaded souls on the throne is literal. Think about it. You cannot have part of this passage literal and part of it figurative. Also, If the reigning ends with the thousand years, the living ends with a thousand years, that is not a millennium I would look forward to. I prefer the idea of eternal life espoused in the Scriptures (Mat 19:29; Joh 3:15-16; Heb 5:9; 9:15; 1Jo 2:25; 5:13; Jud 21). | ||||||
60 | Hell/Lake of Fire | Rev 20:14 | alanh | 171758 | ||
What Is Death Physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body (Eccl 12:7; James 2:26). The Bible does not say the spirit is dead w/out the body but that the "body is dead w/out the spirit." The spirit does not die. The spirit departs the body at death (Genesis 35:18). Death is described as "giving up the ghost" (Genesis 25:8). On the cross Jesus said "into Your hands I commend My spirit" (Luke 23:46). Paul spoke of death as a departing in 1 Timothy 4:6 and Philippians 1:23-24. The miracle of bringing a person back to life in Biblical times was simply the returning of the spirit to the body. Elijah prayed that the son of the widow of Zarephath might be restored to life. "I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again... and the soul of the child came into him again and he revived" 1 Kings 17.21-22. David did not consider his dead child non-existent (2 Samuel 12.23). That the dead continue to live is further emphasized by Christ when He said to the dying penitent robber, "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise" Luke 23.43. The spirits disembodied state between death and the resurrection is taught in the account of the transfiguration of Christ w/ Moses and Elijah (Matthew 17.1-8). He appeared and talked w/ them. Moses had been dead 1500 yrs and his body buried in an unknown grave. Yet both he and Elijah were still in existence, retaining their personal id and individuality. Mark 12.26-27 "But as touching the dead, that they are raised; have ye not read in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the Bush, how God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living..." Are The Dead Conscious What is the condition of the soul after death and before the resurrection? Is the departed soul conscious? Read carefully Luke 16.19-31. Two great facts can be learned from this teaching: 1) death is not extinction; the spirit survives the dissolution of the body, 2) disembodied spirits are conscious between physical death and the resurrection, and either happy or miserable, depending upon the life they lived on earth. Eccl 9.5 is often used to prove that the dead are unconscious. This passage has reference solely to what the dead can know or do "under the sun," that is in the world they once lived. After death ones activity ceases on earth therefore he knows nothing about what is happening on earth. Where Are The Dead Where is the spirit after it leaves the body. The soul is not in the grave w/ the body, nor does it hover near the grave nor has it enter some other body. Any idea of transmigration or reincarnation of souls is at odds w/ Biblical teaching. The Bible says: “…the spirit returneth unto God who gave it” (Eccl 12.7). Where then do the souls go at death? Is it to their eternal abode or to some intermediate abode? Matt 25.31-46 describing the final judgment says: “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world…Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire…And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.” Hence, souls do not enter their eternal state, either heaven or hell, at the moment of death. The place where all disembodied spirits dwell between death and the resurrection is Hades. In Luke 16.23 the spirits of both Lazarus and the rich man were in Hades. “And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” In Acts 2 we learn the spirit of Jesus went to Hades at His death. “For David saith concerning Him…because Thou wilt not leave My soul unto Hades.” When a man dies his spirit goes to Hades, his body to the grave. Hades is divided into compartments. Paradise (abode of the righteous) and Tartarus (abode of the wicked). At the resurrection all will come before Jesus for judgment then sent to their final destiny heave or hell. Four words translated “hell” in the KJV of the Bible: 1) Hades – The place to which all spirits go at death, regardless of moral character. Signifies only the region of disembodied spirits. The grave denotes only the receptacle of the body. 2) Gehenna – denotes the final abode of the wicked, the hell of fire. Used 12x in the Greek NT. 3) Tartarus – Only 1x in Greek NT, 2 Pet 2.4. The compartment of Hades occupied by the wicked between death and the resurrection as they await final judgment. This is where the rich man was in Luke 16. In this place he suffered torment. Although he was in anguish he was not in Gehenna (cf. 2 Pet 2.9). 4) Sheol – An OT word translated “hell” (in the KJV) parallels the Greek term Hades. Both mean the unseen realm of departed spirits. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |