Results 41 - 60 of 88
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: drbloor Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Jesus decneded into hell. | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171504 | ||
Hi Leia, and apologies for the late reply. What I meant by saying "Hell isn't underground" is that scientists know the precise make-up of the crust, core and mantle of this planet, and Hell as you know it simply isn't there. The idea that there is a demon-filled place called Hell physically situated under our feet is about as smart as saying that Heaven is situated on top of the clouds over our heads. What is below us and in the heart of the earth is a place where dead people go, and it is called the Grave. "Hell" the supposed fiery place, is not below us or in the heart of the earth. So either the writers of the Bible got the location of "Hell" wrong, or the location is right and they are just talking about the Grave. And that's what I believe. Jesus "descended into hell" by dying and being placed in a grave. And like it or not, we are all going to the same hell that Jesus went to. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
42 | 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. |
||||||
43 | Elijah went where? | Genesis | drbloor | 171499 | ||
If Elijah went to Heaven how and why was he back on Earth writing a letter to Jehoram King of Judah nearly ten years later? (2 Chr 21:12) How can Enoch or Elijah have been taken up to heaven if "no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jhn 3:13). Did Jesus lie? |
||||||
44 | 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!) |
||||||
45 | 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. |
||||||
46 | 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. |
||||||
47 | 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. |
||||||
48 | 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. |
||||||
49 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 169216 | ||
"The lower parts of the earth" Unless 'Hell' is underground (which it isn't), then this is just talking about the grave (which is). Try comparing Acts 2:27 in the NIV and KJV to see what I mean. |
||||||
50 | what man was born but never died | Gen 5:24 | drbloor | 168951 | ||
Congrats Kalos, I don't believe that Melchisedec had neither father nor mother, nor do I believe that he lived for ever. Nor do I believe that Enoch and Elijah never died. These events are simply [not recorded]. Goodnight from here, Dr. B. |
||||||
51 | what man was born but never died | 2 Kin 2:11 | drbloor | 168923 | ||
Hi Brad and thanks for the answer, 1. I think this may be a point to agree to disagree on. I see that Jacob, being dead, was transported somewhere, not by his power, but by the power of someone else. That is how I see the translation of Enoch, Elijah and Jacob as being the same - a transportation not of their own power. As I've said, if you were reading it in the original Greek you'd be lead to believe that whatever happened to Enoch in Hebrews happened to Jacob in Acts. It's the translation from Greek to English that changes it for us. Translation may seem like mere semantics but it is important. For example, your translation of Hebrews 11 which uses the phrase "taken up". That phrase simply doesn't exist in the original Greek - it's the word we've discussed "metatithemi". And it doesn't mean "taken up" - that's an incorrect human translation based on a pre-conceived idea that Enoch went up to heaven. 2. The reason that we are not told explicitly that Enoch died in Genesis may actually be self apparent. The writer knew exactly how long every one else lived, so he records that age and notes that they died. But if no one could find Enoch after he was translated then it would be impossible for any human writer to know when he died. All that could be done was to record how long he lived until his translation. 3. Again, this may boil down to semantics. You believe that God translated Enoch so that he would never, ever experience death. I believe God translated Enoch so that he could temporarily avoid death – I would say that Enoch was threatened with death but because he walked with God, God took him away from that situation. Both of these stem from what we understand of the phrase "not see death." I suppose that could be argued either way. 4. I would however differ on the point in Hebrews 11. The phrase "these all" grammatically includes those who precede as well as those which follow - the relative pronoun embraces all those named in the list of the righteous. "These all" in verse 13 applies to those of the whole chapter, just as "these all" in verse 39 does. To say that it applies to some and not all is an arbitrary choice which ignores the grammatical and contextual setting. Anyway, it's late here and I really could do with getting home. I'll just leave you with a few things to ponder: 1. If Elijah was translated from Earth to Heaven how and why did he write a letter to the King of Judah nearly ten years later? (2 Chr 21:12) 2. How can Enoch or Elijah have been taken up to heaven if "no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jhn 3:13). 3. The person whose death is not recorded that you overlooked was Melchisedec, of whom it was written he was, "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." (Hebrews 7) Okay and as always, thanks, Dr. B. |
||||||
52 | what man was born but never died | 2 Kin 2:11 | drbloor | 168889 | ||
Hi Brad, I doubt that we will stand before the judgement seat and be divided based on what we believe happened to Enoch, but, for what it's worth, I do believe he was simply transported and died just like everyone else. If we are told that "No man hath ascended up to heaven" then I have to accept that. If Enoch didn't go to heaven then he must have gone somewhere else, and the language of Hebrews seems to back that up. When we are told that Enoch "walked with God", we know that's not a reference to his being in heaven because Noah also "walked with God" without being translated. Jacob was 'translated' because he was "metatithemi'd". Acts 7:16 says that Jacob was "carried over into Shechem", "metatithemi'd into Shechem" or "translated into Shechem". By comparing Acts to Hebrews I am trying to get a better understanding of what the word we read as "translated" actually means. And it seems to me that it just means transported in this case. If the Genesis account doesn't refer to Jacob being translated but Acts does, then either one is wrong or "translated" just means "transported". Finally, Enoch is mentioned amongst the righteous in Hebrews 11:5 and just a few short verses later Paul says in verse 13: Heb 11:13 "These all died in faith, not having received the promises,". He is at this point referring to Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Sara. Therefore I have to accept that Enoch died just like the others because Paul says he did. Personally I believe that the curse of death passed upon all men and that all of us (including Enoch, Elijah and Christ) had/have to die at some point. While we are on the subject of men whose deaths were not recorded, you did miss one: Which man is recorded as having never been born and never dying? Yrs Faithfully, Dr. B. |
||||||
53 | what man was born but never died | 2 Kin 2:11 | drbloor | 168823 | ||
We are not told that Enoch did not die - we are told that God "took him". In Hebrews Paul tells us that Enoch was not found because he had been "translated." Hbr 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him" The original Greek word for "translate" is metatithemi which means to transfer, transport, exchange, or change sides. So put simply, it appears that Enoch was transported by God so that he wasn't killed by someone or some event. He wasn't found because no-one knew where he'd been transported to. He can't have gone to heaven because "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man" (John 3:13). And he wasn't the only person in the Bible to be "translated". Jacob was translated in Acts 7:16, but the word "metatithemi" is translated as "carried over" (i.e. transported). |
||||||
54 | Show him the truth | Lev 18:22 | drbloor | 168561 | ||
Leviticus 18:22 tells us that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Note that verse 21 tells us not to sacrifice our children by burning them to death, and verse 23 tells us not to have sex with animals. Clearly this chapter is dealing with what God views as the most terrible human perversions. This is why homosexuality is not only prohibited, it is called an 'abomination'. |
||||||
55 | Was Cain the son of Adam? | Gen 4:1 | drbloor | 166764 | ||
Hank, without getting too deep into the point, I would not agree with the sentiment of the first half of your last sentence. That is why I asked the question. I just wanted to know what the prevalent interpretation of the birth of Cain was, and I believe my question has been answered. Thanks! |
||||||
56 | Was Cain the son of Adam? | Gen 4:1 | drbloor | 166702 | ||
Thanks - I believe Cain WAS the son of Adam - I was simply interested to see how widespread the alternate belief is. | ||||||
57 | Was Cain the son of Adam? | Not Specified | drbloor | 166699 | ||
One of the strangest Biblical claims I have come across is that Cain was not the son of Adam. Any thoughts? | ||||||
58 | Was Cain the son of Adam? | Gen 4:1 | drbloor | 166700 | ||
One of the strangest Biblical claims I have come across is that Cain was not the son of Adam. Any thoughts? | ||||||
59 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | drbloor | 166621 | ||
Christ taught that "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This would indicate a physical (water) baptism and the spiritual baptism that you mention. If he had only meant spiritual baptism then he would have only mentioned spiritual baptism. The baptism of Moses was through the physical water of the Red Sea. The baptism of John was with the physical water of Jordan. The baptism of Christ is with physical water (as witnessed by Christ, his disciples and the apostles) and with spirit. Show me your faith without your baptism, and I will show you my faith by my baptism. |
||||||
60 | In Ez 9:6 why were the children killed? | Ezekiel | drbloor | 166614 | ||
How do you explain, for example, Joshua 6 then? "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." This was clearly a commandment of God, in that he commanded "And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD:" Or Exodus 32:27 "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour." Or Psalm 78:31 "The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel." Or Genesis 38:7 "And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him." And Genesis 38:10 "And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also." Or Exodus 13:15 "the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt" Or 2 Kings 17:25 "therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which slew some of them." Or Numbers 21:6 "And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died." Or 2 Kings 19:35 "And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand (185,0000): and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses." Hebrews 12:29 "For our God is a consuming fire." |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |