Results 41 - 60 of 88
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: drbloor Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Who is the ruller of darkness | Is 45:7 | drbloor | 166550 | ||
God. | ||||||
42 | 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." |
||||||
43 | Gross or Net Income/ | Mal 3:10 | drbloor | 166552 | ||
Yet it is clear that Paul believed that the law was a curse: Galatians 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" I believe what he is saying is that all men were cursed under the law, because none could obey the law perfectly. Therefore men constantly lived in a state of sinfulness, requiring repeated sacrifices. Now that Christ has been made the perfect sacrifice, although we sin, we live in a state of sinlessness - not through our own righteousness, but by the covering of the perfect sacrifice of Christ. The law was perfect, but it had become a curse to imperfect mankind. Christ was perfect, yet the law cursed him, and this is the point at which the law was fulfilled that we might no longer live in the law, but live in faith. |
||||||
44 | What say you? | Mal 3:10 | drbloor | 166613 | ||
I appreciate that it might sound like a confusion to say that we live in a state of sinlessness, whilst yet sinning, and maybe I have not explained it clearly enough, for which I apologise. Your quote in 1 John 1 explains the dichotomy: "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin". Jesus died once for ALL our sins, and we are told that if we repent and are baptised then we partake of this forgiveness. We are not told that we will be forgiven on Sunday morning, then again on Tuesday night, and then again next Wednesday - we are told that we are Forgiven. This is not an excuse to continue to sin, or a reason not to continually pray for that forgiveness. The first sacrifice was in Genesis 3, when the Lord God made coats of skins to clothe Adam and Eve - to provide a covering to their nakedness. In like manner, God has provided us a more perfect sacrifice, that we might be clothed with Christ and that only with his covering might we be presented before God as spotless, that "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" says Isaiah. This all comes back to the idea of Law, and why it was a curse. It was a curse because with Law came sin, and with sin came death. If God had not given the Law that Adam and Eve should not eat of the fruit of the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil, they would not have sinned by eating it, and would not have been cursed with death. This example holds true with the Law of Moses, and is precisely WHY we needed Christ to remove that curse. If then we now live under Grace and not Law, then we no longer live under the sin which came by Law. This is obviously a complex idea, and one which Paul especially had to reinforce with the Romans, who believed that because they were under Grace, they could "continue in sin," which is not the idea at all! Romans 6 is a great place to examine this teaching in practice, and it contains an abundance of verses to prove the point: Verse 2. "God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" If we are dead to sin, it is because we are dead to the law which cursed us with sin. Under the law of Grace we are no longer cursed. Verse 7. (Talking of the metaphorical death of baptism) "For he that is dead is freed from sin." Verse 14. "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. " I hope that this helps to present this idea - that in Gods eyes we are held as if we were sinless, even though we are not. Yet for the sake of emphasis: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid." |
||||||
45 | What does lamp and oil symbolize? | Matthew | drbloor | 223240 | ||
Brad, Oops! You're 100 percent correct. Someone told me that once and I swallowed it. Thank you for educating me on the glyceridic structure of olive oil! Having said that it would be a shame to ignore scriptural symbolism where it occurs (even if a poor uneducated poster makes an irrelevant mistake with his oil definition!). Certain things in the Bible hold symbolism - light, dark, gold, water, olive oil etc. and it is always an interesting study to see how the meaning of these symbols can help inform our understanding of scripture. The parable can be understood without further investigation as can much of the gospel. As Paul says - (speaking symbolically of course!) there is milk and there is meat. |
||||||
46 | What does lamp and oil symbolize? | Matthew | drbloor | 223241 | ||
(Should point out I've just found my old password - hence the name change!) | ||||||
47 | How was the sin nature really created? | Matt 12:31 | drbloor | 166481 | ||
The Bible records that sin was first formed in Eden, in man, by man. God created the possibility for this to happen by creating a tree: Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. |
||||||
48 | Moses appeared from where? | Matt 17:3 | drbloor | 225360 | ||
You will note that in Mat 17:19 Jesus tells his disciples, "Tell the vision to no one", indicating that the appearance of Moses and Elijah was in fact a "vision" and not a reality - hence neither Moses nor Elijah came from anywhere as they were not actually present. | ||||||
49 | Moses appeared from where? | Matt 17:3 | drbloor | 225362 | ||
Thanks for the note but I completely disagree. I think you are basing your interpretation of the passage on a very subjective reading of the English rather than taking the original Greek into consideration as well. With respect I would also point out that nothing in your post provides any evidence that Moses and Elijah were actually there. You have only managed to prove that Moses and Elijah were seen, which is of course in complete agreement with my previous statement. In Matthew 17:19 the word you read as "vision" is the Greek word "Horama". Horama is used another 11 times in the New Testament and without exception refers to visions: Peters vision of the great sheet, Ananias' vision of an angel, Pauls vision of Ananias, Cornelius' vision of an angel, Moses' vision of the burning bush, etc., etc. The consistent scriptural evidence provided by the original language of the New Testament therefore is that the appearance of Moses and Elijah was indeed a vision. I hope that this information will be constructive to you. |
||||||
50 | Moses appeared from where? | Matt 17:3 | drbloor | 225372 | ||
Thank you all for your replies on the subject of The Transfiguration. There are quite a few and I am going to try and address them all in one go, so forgive me if I miss anything. I believe that the vision was just that - visual - so yes it could be described as "illusory" as 00123 mentions, but I do not believe a vision is simply a figment of imagination as Ariel states. I believe a vision to be a divinely granted and controlled visual and auditory revelation received while awake or asleep and which has no physical, material substance. This would class it as a communication from God and far more than simply an individuals personal ruminations. Ariel mentions several types of Biblical incidents but for now I am going to concentrate solely on the Horama visions of the New Testament and this vision in particular. Furthermore on the matter of substance of visions mentioned by Tim I see no evidence of material substance in the other examples of New Testament Horama visions. They appear to be visual, audible apparitions the content of which tends to preclude them from having any physical manifestation. Pauls vision of Ananias, Peters vision of the sheet, Pauls vision of the man of Macedonia etc. - none of these things would have physically existed in front of the people receiving the vision. It is possible that the burning bush existed in miraculous physical reality, but certainly not provable. Therefore the weight of evidence would remain with the event being a vision. In addressing Brads post, I believe that the context of the passage does support the proposal that Moses and Elijah were seen in a vision. If we take a look at the context starting in the previous chapter we have two or three events I believe are related to the transfiguration (not all of which prove the vision, but all of which build the contextual picture). In Matt 16:1 we have the Pharisees tempting Jesus to show them "a sign from heaven" to prove that he was the Christ; Jesus refuses. Juxtaposed with this we find his disciples who do not request such a sign, and yet are shortly to receive one in the transfiguration - the transfiguration being a divinely bestowed confirmation that Jesus was indeed the Christ. The next event begins in verse 13 with Jesus questioning his disciples on who people believe him to be and with Peter on behalf of the disciples confessing him to be the Christ, the Son of God. In the last verse of chapter 16 Jesus tells his disciples, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Then six days later we have the transfiguration when some of those standing there were present and saw what I believe to be a vision of Christ in his kingdom. The immediate context of chapter 17 is that not only do we have Moses and Elijah miraculously appearing, but we also have Christ transfigured (Greek: Metamorphosis) into his post-resurrectional glory. At the time of the transfiguration he was not yet risen in glory so the way in which the disciples saw Jesus at this point was with attributes which he did not at that time possess. Therefore with a miraculous vision enveloping Christ himself I see no contextual issue with Moses and Elijah being part of the same apparition. The reason for the transfiguration seems to be to reward the disciples for their faith in confessing Christ and to supernaturally confirm to them that Jesus was the Christ and had come in fulfilment of the law (Moses) and the prophets (Elijah). It appears allegorical of Malachi 4 in which Malachi depicts Messiah in his kingdom as the radiant "Sun of Righteousness", commends his readers to remember the Law of Moses and to await the return of Elijah. Would a plain, straight-forward reading of the text reveal that this was a vision? That depends on your definition of "plain" and "straight-forward". If you mean "superficial" then maybe, maybe not. I admit that the proposal that the transfiguration is a fulfilment of Mat 16:28 is not provable, but I do not believe that would have any necessary bearing on whether or not this was a vision. Bringing the passage down to basics I think it is fairly plain that if we read the word Horama that the New Testament consistently uses to refer to visions and if we realise that Christ applies this word to the appearance of Moses and Elijah, then we should accept that it was a vision. I think that this is the simplest reading and explanation. The alternative is to arbitrarily declare without corroborating evidence that the transfiguration is somehow an exception to the rule and that we should be inconsistent with our reading and understanding of the event. That, to me, requires more convolutions than to simply accept the words as read. I submit these considerations in the humility and knowledge that I am certainly not infallible and would be pleased to hear and learn from anyone else with a love of Gods word. |
||||||
51 | Moses appeared from where? | Matt 17:3 | drbloor | 225380 | ||
Dear Brad and 00123, I'll post a reply in the next couple of days - I've not been well and didn't want you to think I was being ignorant. Many thanks. |
||||||
52 | Does Satan Really Exist? | John 8:44 | drbloor | 166060 | ||
Does 'Satan' Really Exist? If 'Satan' is an actual person, how can the parallel accounts of Davids numbering of Israel be explained: 1 Chronicles 21:1 "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." 24:1 "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." If 'Satan' is an actual person, scripture would here indicate that 'Satan' is God. How is this possible? Secondly, if you believe that the 'war in heaven' of Revelation 12 is a literal war and not symbolic, how can it be understood in terms of it's correct chronological context: Revelation 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 means that the 'war in heaven' must occur some time after the giving of The Revelation - it must "shortly come to pass." This would place it historically some time after circa 70AD. In other words, if you believe that 'Satan' is a fallen angel, then you must also believe that he did not become a fallen angel until after the whole of The Bible had been written, thus preventing the 'Satan' of Revelation 12 from being the 'Satan' of the rest of The Bible. Okay, and thanks. Dr. B. |
||||||
53 | 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. |
||||||
54 | 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. |
||||||
55 | 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. |
||||||
56 | 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. |
||||||
57 | 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. |
||||||
58 | 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!) |
||||||
59 | 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. |
||||||
60 | 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. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |