Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Ephesians 4:9 (Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Ephesians 4:9 (Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had previously descended [from the heights of heaven] into the lower parts of the earth? |
Subject: Jesus decended into hell? |
Bible Note: Hi Dbloor, As I look over again what you have written, it looks to me like a house of cards, supposition built upon supposition. It is your identification of Lazarus with Simon that claims Lazarus was a leper. Your idea that he was a leper places him outside the temple. (wouldn't he have had to been outside the city?) Putting him outside the temple puts him in contact with Caiaphas. But it all falls apart without the identification of Lazarus as Simon, of which there is no actual evidence. And since Jesus calls them by different names, I think He meant different people. Now, I know different people sometimes know the same person by different names, but how many of us would call the same person by different names? I know that's purely subjective, but still, it makes much more sense the other way. And "when the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense..." Now for Caiaphas. All of your nine points with the exception of the five brothers could as easily be applied to any of the rich of Israel, of whom there were many. He described "one of the elite", with the single specific feature being that he had five brothers, who lived in his father's house. I do not have the Wars of the Jews handy, although I do have Antiquities on my computer. I do not see any reference to Caiaphas, or these other things written about him, in your citations. In fact, what I have for 18.1.4 is as follows: "4. But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies; nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them; for they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent: but this doctrine is received but by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them." There is a certain connection in the thought, but not to identify Caiaphas as the rich man. 13.10.6 didn't seem to have any relevence whatsoever. Do you perhaps have a different edition? Prov. 31:22 talks about women wearing linen and purple. Certainly there were other men wearing this also. I find nothing that would prohibit this from being historical, exactly as Jesus told it. Even the analysis of the non-fictitious Abraham in the non-fictitious Side of Comfort, (Luke 16:31) "And he said to him, If they will not hear Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if one from the dead should rise." - Which thing could not be a prophecy unless Abraham actually said it, and if he wasn't in this side of comfort being confronted by the rich man, well, I think you understand. Love in Christ, Mark |