In the lesson study for this Quarter, the author posit that that there were two messianic prophecies, and that the first century Jewish Messianic expectation was one-sided. Can this argument be substantiated? Are there two Messianic prophecies? If it is found that there isn't two messianic prophecies and that Jesus had not fulfill any of the prophecies given by God, would you give up the Christian walk, or would you continue to have a relationship with God and look for Jesus to come? How do you reason.
Rabbittroup, my apologies. I thought that when you said, "This is where his soul would have went once he died" that you were referring to where his soul went once he died.
Similarly, when you said "It's a place for souls" I assumed that you literally meant it was a place for souls.
Apparently that's not what you meant, hence my confusion. If I had taken a moment to think and research perhaps I would have realised that when you said "this is where his soul would have went", "it's a place for souls" you didn't mean that his soul went to a place for souls.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Actually in terms of what was written in Acts by Luke I was. The thing is I think more along the lines of She'ol when I see hell referenced the way Luke did in the bible about Christ soul returning from it.
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell.
You can't leave something in a place it never went to, but If you substitute Hell for She'ol it makes more sense to me.
The funny thing is places people often associate with hell in the bible never actually call it hell by name. It's just been some thing passed a long much like how people like to say the 3 days/nights time line started when Jesus shell/body was put in Joseph's tomb. However, if I take that view it completely throws things like Acts 2:31 out of whack from my perspective.
The best reasoning I can find is that the hell Luke speaks of is more aptly called She'ol in Hebrew. So when I think of Hell I think She'ol. Sorry if that confuse you. But, that's why I recommended reading about She'ol. It's interesting reading to me. Some Hebrew belief is that it is broken into two sections. One for the righteous and the other for the un-righteous. However they still believed all went to She'ol upon death and it was typically irreversible.
It's possible that in order to make sense of She'ol; the word hell started to become synonymous with the unrighteous side of She'ol. However, to only think that would throw Acts 2:31 out of whack in mind since it states Jesus' soul was not left there.
I'll just end with scripture from Romans 14
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Trust me when I say me posting my thoughts is not to pass judgement on anyone who thinks other than I do on the matter. The only thing required for Salvation is faith in God and the message of Jesus Christ. Not that we understand and have full knowledge of what Jesus had to go through to attain it.
I have to make sense of it in my head just like everyone else does. And for me the Hell/She'ol reference was the one that led me in a more sensible direction based on my understanding.
I trust all is well?
Your point is noted, and from looking at the Biblical narrative it is possible that is where Jesus went, for He alluded to that in the Book of Revelations when He said He have the keys of death and hell.
James said: Friday to Sunday is a tradition of men.
Clearly James you only read the parts of the Bible that suits your Paradigm. It has been pointed out by several of the posters here that the Gospel of Luke shows you when Jesus was laid in the tomb and the time He did arise a timespan of about 30 hours. I have not seen you say the Gospel of Luke is wrong as I remember you have said on other times. Only a fool disregards the word of God.
See REV pdf’s above and lets see if you can read, analyze and reason and think?
Good morning John,
This is an another interesting argument you posit here. As such my question to you is if one believes this argument then can it be taken that whenever Jesus speak of his death, He is speaking of something else? For given this argument one can see how Jesus' words can swing either way in interpretation. Because what is before us is Jesus making pronouncements, these pronouncements not fulfilled, and parties attempt to justify or make the pronouncements fulfill.
For when one takes Matthew 12 and the latter part of the chapter a question that needs to be answered is what is the sign of Jonah, or Jonah's sign. For the author said that "Jesus said that “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."" So what is that? Is it the situation where the Ninevites/Assyrians repented? Is it the gourd that provide Jonah shade and then God let it vanish away?
I am of the view that for one to subscribe to Bullinger and his theories is a very risky one - for one is not only subscribing to an individual who has skewed views and but his arguments on the Jesus Crucifixion can not be substantiated.
This is a double post. I have replied to the first one. I suggest that you delete your duplicate post. Thanks.