Did Jesus know his death would only last three days?

[HitchSlap]

However. I wouldn’t use the word telepathically.


I don’t like it
It doesn’t reflect GOD’s TRUTH regarding THE PROMISE of GOD

NOPE.

 

[HitchSlap]

So is Matthew 13 and Matthew 10 (regarding what HE whispers in our ear)
So no HitchSlap


You’re wrong

 

[ViaCrucis]

How do you account for the story of the rich man begging for a drop of water in Luke 16:19-31. I don't see any discernible message from that other than a warning against eternal conscious torment.

It's a parable. That's the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

Jesus utilized the language and concepts common at the time. In Hebrew/Jewish thought there was She'ol, the place of the dead. By the time of Jesus She'ol (translated as Hades in Greek, effectively borrowing the word the Greeks used to speak of the place of the dead) was comprehended as being divided into two parts, the place of the righteous dead known as Gan-Eden ("Garden of Eden") which the New Testament renders as Paradise (paradeisos, a Greek word borrowed from Persian that meant "an enclosed garden"); and Ge-Hinnom ("Valley of Hinnom") which is Hellenized as gehenna. Both of these are taken from well recognized concepts and ideas from Jewish belief and history, the Garden of Eden is more self-explanatory, but the Hinnom Valley was a very real valley located outside of ancient Jerusalem (it is currently inside the modern city), which the Old Testament texts identify as the major site for the cult of Molech which was remembered in Jewish memory as involving horrific acts of human slaughter and child sacrifice, the Biblical texts speak of "passing through the fire to Molech" by which has been understood to mean that children were sacrificed by burning them alive in honor of the god. As a horrific place its imagery was associated with the place of the wicked dead, hence fire, darkness, etc.

There's really no imperative to understand that such language is intended literally. The combined use of fire and darkness seems somewhat bizarre if taken literally, though certainly many have.

Effectively we can speak of two major historical perceptions throughout Christian history; the Western perspective which has largely followed Augustine that the ultimate fate of the wicked is more-or-less literally described in the Apocalypse of St. John as a lake of fire with conscious external torment of the wicked. Though this view really only seems to really come and dominate the Western imagination over the course of the middle ages. On the other hand, the Eastern perspective has tended quite a ways away from such literalistic perspectives, and has largely followed the view of those like St. Isaac the Syrian, who describes the ultimate fate of the righteous and the wicked as being identical: Both those in "heaven" and those in "hell" are in the same "place"--they are in the presence of God who showers all with His love and goodness completely and impartially. The difference between heaven and hell is internal, not external. Ultimately, in Isaac's view, the fires of hell are also, as they were, the fires of heaven; because they are the fires of God's love. What makes hell hell, ultimately, is the person who chooses to make it hell for themselves.

And the great unanswered--and unanswerable--question: Will all ultimately be saved? Is still a valid question to be asked, even if it cannot be answered dogmatically. I do hope for it. I am hopeful that, in the end, there will be reconciliation for all. As I have already said earlier in this thread, I am of the position that the only thing that keeps a person in "hell" is themselves. Hell has no warden, no guards, no gate keeper.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sam91]

Topic

Yes. Jesus says that the only sign the would receive was the sign of Jonah. Jonah was in the whales belly 3 days. Same as Jesus in the tomb.

Matthew 12:39

 

[Larniavc]

Yes. Jesus says that the only sign the would receive was the sign of Jonah. Jonah was in the whales belly 3 days. Same as Jesus in the tomb.

Matthew 12:39

How would Jonah being in the belly (somehow) of a whale have any connection with Jesus knowing his death was a temporary set back?

 

[Sam91]

How would Jonah being in the belly (somehow) of a whale have any connection with Jesus knowing his death was a temporary set back?

Because Jesus said so.

Matthew 12:40 explains further

 

[Larniavc]

Because Jesus said so.

Matthew 12:40 explains further

But Matthew was written 40 or 50 years afterwards.

That doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Sam91]

But Matthew was written 40 or 50 years afterwards.

That doesn’t make any sense.

The gospels were written as a record from eyewitness accounts. Jesus said those words.

 

[miknik5]

HE also said tear down this temple and I will raise it up in three days

After HE was crucified and risen the disciples then understood that HE had meant HIS body

 

[HitchSlap]

HE also said tear down this temple and I will raise it up in three days

After HE was crucified and risen the disciples then understood that HE had meant HIS body

Unless this was written after the destruction of the temple.

 

[HitchSlap]

The gospels were written as a record from eyewitness accounts. Jesus said those words.

Not sure where you’re getting your info, but the gospels were written in third person narrative, by anonymous persons, in a language Jesus never spoke and from countries Jesus never visited.

 

[Sam91]

Not sure where you’re getting your info, but the gospels were written in third person narrative, by anonymous persons, in a language Jesus never spoke and from countries Jesus never visited.

I think most people know that. Although, they weren't anonymous. I'm not responding further

 

[Larniavc]

The gospels were written as a record from eyewitness accounts. Jesus said those words.

You think eye witness accounts are reliable 40 years after the event when the life expectancy was around 35?

Really?

 

[HitchSlap]

I think most people know that. Although, they weren't anonymous. I'm not responding further

Of course they are anonymous, as they aren’t signed, they never claim to be written by MMLJ, and they’re written in third person narrative. They also include conversations that in no way all four authors could have witnessed at the same time. It’s only church tradition over the next several decades that label these anonymous accounts as “the gospel according to...”.

I understand your reluctance to respond, as you know you were wrong, but rather than do the right thing and admit you’ve made a mistake, you’re compelled to double down and dig your hole even deeper. No doubt you’ll chalk this up to you being Christian and me being atheist.

 

[Sam91]

Of course they are anonymous, as they aren’t signed, they never claim to be written by MMLJ, and they’re written in third person narrative. They also include conversations that in no way all four authors could have witnessed at the same time. It’s only church tradition over the next several decades that label these anonymous accounts as “the gospel according to...”.

I understand your reluctance to respond, as you know you were wrong, but rather than do the right thing and admit you’ve made a mistake, you’re compelled to double down and dig your hole even deeper. No doubt you’ll chalk this up to you being Christian and me being atheist.

You are incorrect there. I did not realise which forum this thread was in. I have 3 children running around and can not be bothered debating with atheists. It isn't just atheists, I tend to avoid the debate threads in general, too tiresome.
Would rather spend those few minutes I get between tasks in light hearted fellowship. It just isn't relaxing. It isn't likely that you are wanting an answer to explore beliefs; rather to debate minutiae in which you could educate yourself more expediently with a google search.

Have a good day.

 

[HitchSlap]

You are incorrect there. I did not realise which forum this thread was in. I have 3 children running around and can not be bothered debating with atheists. It isn't just atheists, I tend to avoid the debate threads in general, too tiresome.
Would rather spend those few minutes I get between tasks in light hearted fellowship. It just isn't relaxing. It isn't likely that you are wanting an answer to explore beliefs; rather to debate minutiae in which you could educate yourself more expediently with a google search.

Have a good day.

And likewise to you.

Take care.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It's a parable. That's the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

Jesus utilized the language and concepts common at the time. In Hebrew/Jewish thought there was She'ol, the place of the dead. By the time of Jesus She'ol (translated as Hades in Greek, effectively borrowing the word the Greeks used to speak of the place of the dead) was comprehended as being divided into two parts, the place of the righteous dead known as Gan-Eden ("Garden of Eden") which the New Testament renders as Paradise (paradeisos, a Greek word borrowed from Persian that meant "an enclosed garden"); and Ge-Hinnom ("Valley of Hinnom") which is Hellenized as gehenna. Both of these are taken from well recognized concepts and ideas from Jewish belief and history, the Garden of Eden is more self-explanatory, but the Hinnom Valley was a very real valley located outside of ancient Jerusalem (it is currently inside the modern city), which the Old Testament texts identify as the major site for the cult of Molech which was remembered in Jewish memory as involving horrific acts of human slaughter and child sacrifice, the Biblical texts speak of "passing through the fire to Molech" by which has been understood to mean that children were sacrificed by burning them alive in honor of the god. As a horrific place its imagery was associated with the place of the wicked dead, hence fire, darkness, etc.

There's really no imperative to understand that such language is intended literally. The combined use of fire and darkness seems somewhat bizarre if taken literally, though certainly many have.

Effectively we can speak of two major historical perceptions throughout Christian history; the Western perspective which has largely followed Augustine that the ultimate fate of the wicked is more-or-less literally described in the Apocalypse of St. John as a lake of fire with conscious external torment of the wicked. Though this view really only seems to really come and dominate the Western imagination over the course of the middle ages. On the other hand, the Eastern perspective has tended quite a ways away from such literalistic perspectives, and has largely followed the view of those like St. Isaac the Syrian, who describes the ultimate fate of the righteous and the wicked as being identical: Both those in "heaven" and those in "hell" are in the same "place"--they are in the presence of God who showers all with His love and goodness completely and impartially. The difference between heaven and hell is internal, not external. Ultimately, in Isaac's view, the fires of hell are also, as they were, the fires of heaven; because they are the fires of God's love. What makes hell hell, ultimately, is the person who chooses to make it hell for themselves.

And the great unanswered--and unanswerable--question: Will all ultimately be saved? Is still a valid question to be asked, even if it cannot be answered dogmatically. I do hope for it. I am hopeful that, in the end, there will be reconciliation for all. As I have already said earlier in this thread, I am of the position that the only thing that keeps a person in "hell" is themselves. Hell has no warden, no guards, no gate keeper.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for replying here, but I will no longer be engaging you until I'm assured that you will cease your practice of whimsically abandoning conversations.

 

[miknik5]

It's a parable. That's the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

Jesus utilized the language and concepts common at the time. In Hebrew/Jewish thought there was She'ol, the place of the dead. By the time of Jesus She'ol (translated as Hades in Greek, effectively borrowing the word the Greeks used to speak of the place of the dead) was comprehended as being divided into two parts, the place of the righteous dead known as Gan-Eden ("Garden of Eden") which the New Testament renders as Paradise (paradeisos, a Greek word borrowed from Persian that meant "an enclosed garden"); and Ge-Hinnom ("Valley of Hinnom") which is Hellenized as gehenna. Both of these are taken from well recognized concepts and ideas from Jewish belief and history, the Garden of Eden is more self-explanatory, but the Hinnom Valley was a very real valley located outside of ancient Jerusalem (it is currently inside the modern city), which the Old Testament texts identify as the major site for the cult of Molech which was remembered in Jewish memory as involving horrific acts of human slaughter and child sacrifice, the Biblical texts speak of "passing through the fire to Molech" by which has been understood to mean that children were sacrificed by burning them alive in honor of the god. As a horrific place its imagery was associated with the place of the wicked dead, hence fire, darkness, etc.

There's really no imperative to understand that such language is intended literally. The combined use of fire and darkness seems somewhat bizarre if taken literally, though certainly many have.

Effectively we can speak of two major historical perceptions throughout Christian history; the Western perspective which has largely followed Augustine that the ultimate fate of the wicked is more-or-less literally described in the Apocalypse of St. John as a lake of fire with conscious external torment of the wicked. Though this view really only seems to really come and dominate the Western imagination over the course of the middle ages. On the other hand, the Eastern perspective has tended quite a ways away from such literalistic perspectives, and has largely followed the view of those like St. Isaac the Syrian, who describes the ultimate fate of the righteous and the wicked as being identical: Both those in "heaven" and those in "hell" are in the same "place"--they are in the presence of God who showers all with His love and goodness completely and impartially. The difference between heaven and hell is internal, not external. Ultimately, in Isaac's view, the fires of hell are also, as they were, the fires of heaven; because they are the fires of God's love. What makes hell hell, ultimately, is the person who chooses to make it hell for themselves.

And the great unanswered--and unanswerable--question: Will all ultimately be saved? Is still a valid question to be asked, even if it cannot be answered dogmatically. I do hope for it. I am hopeful that, in the end, there will be reconciliation for all. As I have already said earlier in this thread, I am of the position that the only thing that keeps a person in "hell" is themselves. Hell has no warden, no guards, no gate keeper.

-CryptoLutheran

This place exists separate from GOD’s presence and is not in heaven

If it were in heaven there would have been no need for Christ to go into the earth ( by THE SPIRIT) preach to those held in captivity and ascend leading captivity captive in HIS TRAIN

That place in that one time event was emptied

 

[ViaCrucis]

This place exists separate from GOD’s presence and is not in heaven

If it were in heaven there would have been no need for Christ to go into the earth ( by THE SPIRIT) preach to those held in captivity and ascend leading captivity captive in HIS TRAIN

That place in that one time event was emptied

How can something be separate from God's presence when God is everywhere? The Psalmist has even written,

"Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to the heavens, You are there; if I make my bed in She'ol, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold onto me. If I say, 'Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light around me becomes night,' even the darkness is not dark to You; the night is as bright as the day, for darkness is as light to You." - Psalm 139:7-12

Further, the Apostle has said,

"Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after He has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For 'God has put all things in subjection under His feet.' But when it says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is plain that this does not include the One who put all things in subjection under Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who put all things in subjection under Him, so that God may be all in all." - 1 Corinthians 15:24-28

Where, exactly, is outside the divine presence which fills all things? How can there be anything where God is not when, in the end, God is all in all?

Christ's descent into Hades, and the harrowing of it, doesn't mean it is outside of the Divine Presence. We confess that Christ descended into hell because Christ, by His death and resurrection, has overcome death and liberated the captives--ultimately that's all of us--in order that by His life we might have life with God. Now by grace through faith, and in the resurrection fully in the Age to Come when God has restored all things.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Liza B.]

You think eye witness accounts are reliable 40 years after the event when the life expectancy was around 35?

Really?

Yes, and certainly as reliable if not more so than other documents from ancient history.