Results 41 - 60 of 60
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: drbloor Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | 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. |
||||||
42 | 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. |
||||||
43 | 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. |
||||||
44 | 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. |
||||||
45 | 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. |
||||||
46 | 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. |
||||||
47 | 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. |
||||||
48 | 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. |
||||||
49 | 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. |
||||||
50 | 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. |
||||||
51 | 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. |
||||||
52 | 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. |
||||||
53 | 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. |
||||||
54 | 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. |
||||||
55 | 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. |
||||||
56 | 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. |
||||||
57 | 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. |
||||||
58 | 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. |
||||||
59 | Abel's sacrifice better than Cain's? | Heb 11:4 | drbloor | 166039 | ||
Just a quick note in agreement (apart from the last sentence) with your statement. Take note of the start of Genesis 4, verse 4 and you will see that Abel brought two (2) offerings to The Lord. He brought an offering of the fruit of the ground, just as Cain did, but he "also brought of the firstlings of his flock". There was nothing wrong with offering "of the fruit of the ground", the problem was Cains ommission of sacrifice which was necessary for atonement. 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: |
||||||
60 | The Fall of Satan | Rev 12:4 | drbloor | 166226 | ||
Hi Ocelot, And thanks for your post. A lot of my posts appear to have been sucked into the void for good or ill ... Either way, I'll certainly only make a non-doctrinal, non-argumentative point here. Revelation is a book of future prophecy, not a book of history. You can see this in the very first verse: Rev 1:1 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass." This indicates that the book of Revelation concerns future incidents which "must shortly come to pass." The book of Revelation was written somewhere between AD 67 and AD 96, which means that anything recorded in the Revelation must happen after this date. So whatever Revelation 12 is discussing, I don't believe that it could have occurred prior to the date of the Revelation, and so could not be the origin of the fall of Satan. That is something I am still searching for :). I think you may have made the same mistake I did, which is to assume that the fall of Satan was a physical fall from heaven, but I am now learning that the doctrine of this forum is actually that of metaphorical fall from a state of perfection/grace. Okay for now and thanks, Dr. B. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] |