• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

muffler dragon;1438038; said:
Periodically, I will think about the parables of Jesus, and re-evaluate them to see if I can decipher the same meaning, a different meaning, or glean anything more from them.

I was washing the dishes two nights ago, and I started thinking about the parable in Matthew 23:

Matthew 23
25"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For (AA)you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
26"You blind Pharisee, first (AB)clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.

I understand the distinction being laid out regarding the first portion (v.25); however, I must admit that v.26 makes (at the most) tangential sense. I have never in my life cleaned a cup, a dish, a pot, etc where once I cleaned the inside it was also clean on the outside. I must wash both sides for them to be clean. Which leads me to a question, "are parables supposed to be that much of a stretch?" If so, then that's fine and I will go about my business. I remember struggling in my walk at times with attempting to rationalize statements by Jesus with the reality around me. This is one of those that has never quite gone away.
I don't understand what you don't get from Jesus' words here..

The corrupt leaders of religion like to make the appearance of themselves and their institution look great, but the corruption, deceit, sinning, whatever on the inside still exists.

Jesus' simple teaching here is that the leaders of the religious world need to cleanse themselves and the perception of the religion/institution to the world will take care of itself.

The parables aren't meant to be taken literally - such as you cleaning dishes. Some can be, others can't. The point of the parables is to put ideas into simple terms - such as Jesus did in this passage.
 
Upvote 0
Noach's Flood (Global or Local)

bkb said:
Beyond the scope of this thread, really, but.. I would be willing to accept that the Flood story in the Bible does address a real flood. Here's what I think on Flood stories (Biblical and otherwise)
1 - Flood stories are embellishments about what the world looked like to man living on coastlines during the end of the ice age. As the ice melted, the water level arose.... Man in North Africa notices the Med is "higher" talks about it... says some god must be responsible.. since no other story makes sense to him.
2 - The Biblical Flood discusses the flooding of the plain that now lies beneath the Persian Gulf. Link

In my view my theory explains why so many cultures have flood myths and it also explains something a little more specific regarding the Biblical story (assuming the data on the link I linked is indeed correct)

Moved to the proper thread for continued discussion.

I'm in the process of finding some former known information. It's my recollection that an acquaintance of mine delved into the Hebrew regarding the flood at one time for me, and I would like to try to find her words again. I will post them once found.
 
Upvote 0
Damn, I forgot about this old thread. How many Bible discussions do we have going on here? Ubet and I were fighting in the sandbox in this one, almost 2 years ago. :lol:
 
Upvote 0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...rove-the-major-discovery-of-christian-history

British archaeologists are seeking to authenticate what could be a landmark discovery in the documentation of early Christianity: a trove of 70 lead codices that appear to date from the 1st century CE, which may include key clues to the last days of Jesus' life. As UK Daily Mail reporter Fiona Macrae writes, some researchers are suggesting this could be the most significant find in Christian archeology since the Dead Sea scrolls in 1947.
The codices turned up five years ago in a remote cave in eastern Jordan?a region where early Christian believers may have fled after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. The codices are made up of wirebound individual pages, each roughly the size of a credit card. They contain a number of images and textual allusions to the Messiah, as well as some possible references to the crucifixion and resurrection. Some of the codices were sealed, prompting yet more breathless speculation that they could include the sealed book, shown only to the Messiah, mentioned in the Book of Revelation. One of the few sentences translated thus far from the texts, according to the BBC, reads, "I shall walk uprightly"--a phrase that also appears in Revelation. "While it could be simply a sentiment common in Judaism," BBC writer Robert Pigott notes, "it could here be designed to refer to the resurrection."
But the field of biblical archaeology is also prey to plenty of hoaxes and enterprising fraudsters, so investigators are proceeding with due empirical caution. Initial metallurgical research indicates that the codices are about 2,000 years old--based on the manner of corrosion they have undergone, which, as Macrae writes, "experts believe would be impossible to achieve artificially."
cont.

Very tiny items.
 
Upvote 0
Hell, A Tale of Two Mars Hill Churches, Pascal, and Money

I read the following article today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/085992...VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNyb2JiZWxsMzlzaGU-

There are more reasons than mere theology why Evangelical Christian leaders are raising Cain over the message now being wholesaled by the Rev. Rob Bell of Mars Hill Bible Church, featured in TIME's current cover story, "What If There's No Hell?" Bell's I'm-O.K.-you're-O.K., we're-not-going-to-hell-today spin is not merely a refutation of a basic belief. If this piece of theological reordering takes hold, it's the Evangelicals' business plan that's going to hell.
Fire and brimstone has been one of the Evangelicals' main product lines. It's based on a zero-sum outcome: heaven or hell. Believe or perish. And part of the deal, at least in practical application, is that you can't get spiritually right without monetarily supporting the church. Pay to play, in other words. It's the same with most religions. No one says so in those crude terms - it's all about the mission - but a sales pitch is a sales pitch, even one accompanied by a choir. You can't build the Crystal Cathedral on prayer alone. There's a mortgage to pay. (See pictures in a brief history of hell.)
And contributing money is a perfectly reasonable investment for the faithful. You may not be able to pay your way into heaven (sorry hedge funders), but you can help build the pathway on earth. Corporations like to measure return on equity, usually expressed as ROE. But you could say that church donations offer a different kind of ROE: return on eternity. And they're tax deductible to boot.
But what happens if Bell is right? Is it possible that the return on eternity on these contributions has dropped compared with other spiritual investments? For instance, maybe there's a bigger ROE in giving to the poor or volunteering for Habitat for Humanity. Tithing your church may be too much of an investment risk if the returns are less certain. (See TIME's cover story, "Is Hell Dead?")
French mathematician Blaise Pascal famously pondered ROE in the spiritual-investment quandary called Pascal's Wager. It's an exercise in game theory. A rationalist, Pascal thought about how he might bet against God's very existence and behave accordingly: more ros?, fewer rosaries. But he also knew that had he pursued a hedonistic lifestyle and God existed, a negative outcome would ensue. And he'd be totally, eternally screwed. Better to believe, he reasoned. In Pascal's logic, the rational spiritual investor becomes risk averse and spends a big chunk of the portfolio with God. Pascal, in other words, recommended that you hedge your spiritual investment.
Preacher Bell is now positing that the endgame is different. If, in mathematical terms, you assign a zero probability that hell exists, then the rational spiritual investor reduces his exposure, since the expected ROE has been declined. "What do you give up?" asks Yale University professor Keith Chen, a game-theory expert. What's relevant in game theory is the difference between the good and bad outcomes. "If the idea is everybody goes to heaven and everybody enjoys the same privileges, then it unwinds Pascal's Wager," he says. (See reader responses to TIME's cover story, "What If There's No Hell?")
But both Chen and another game theorist at Yale, Barry Nalebuff, immediately posed another possibility: Is there a nonhell that's still not heaven? (Bell even suggests as much.) If there is heaven and a not-so-good nonhell, there's still a wager, although the spiritual investor might adjust it. Say, by moving it to a church like Bell's. Says Nalebuff: "The trick is, what's the cost of leaving? In my view he brings down the cost of leaving." In this view, Pascal's Wager is more like playing the lottery, says Nalebuff. If you win, heaven is the prize. If you don't, it's just a couple of spiritual bucks lost.
And that could be a competitive advantage. Churches operate in a marketplace of spiritual ideas, but they're directly connected to the temporal economy. The competition for the faithful can be downright unholy. Churches can and do go bankrupt if they cannot attract enough participants. (See the top 10 religious relics.)
The adverse reaction to Bell's hell among some Evangelical leaders is based first on deeply held belief, not economic consequences. But it should really put the fear of God in their accountants. There are plenty of other reasons to invest in your church other than buying eternity insurance. There's the spiritual fulfillment that faith can bring, the sense of community, the built-in support group for when you need it most. Even those awful church suppers. But these are not the zero-sum, repent-or-burn outcomes that have underwritten the business so effectively over the years. Indeed, there's no hell to pay anymore.

Here's the Time Cover Story:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2065080,00.html

This is a five page story fyi.
As part of a series on peacemaking, in late 2007, Pastor Rob Bell's Mars Hill Bible Church put on an art exhibit about the search for peace in a broken world. It was just the kind of avant-garde project that had helped power Mars Hill's growth (the Michigan church attracts 7,000 people each Sunday) as a nontraditional congregation that emphasizes discussion rather than dogmatic teaching. An artist in the show had included a quotation from Mohandas Gandhi. Hardly a controversial touch, one would have thought. But one would have been wrong.
A visitor to the exhibit had stuck a note next to the Gandhi quotation: "Reality check: He's in hell." Bell was struck.
Really? he recalls thinking.
Gandhi's in hell?
He is?
We have confirmation of this?
Somebody knows this?
Without a doubt?
And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know?
So begins Bell's controversial new best seller, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. Works by Evangelical Christian pastors tend to be pious or at least on theological message. The standard Christian view of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is summed up in the Gospel of John, which promises "eternal life" to "whosoever believeth in Him." Traditionally, the key is the acknowledgment that Jesus is the Son of God, who, in the words of the ancient creed, "for us and for our salvation came down from heaven ... and was made man." In the Evangelical ethos, one either accepts this and goes to heaven or refuses and goes to hell.

cont.

Mars Hill (Seattle) Mark Driscoll's POV. He's a neo-calvinist, fwiw.



Pastor Mark Driscoll says he doesn?t intend on ?attacking any individual? with his blog post Monday on hell. But a section in the blog addressing why a loving God would send people to hell inevitably draws him into the emotionally-charged debate surrounding preacher Rob Bell?s new book, which happens to be released tomorrow.
Driscoll, known to be a theological buff, responds to the argument ?a loving God would not send billions of people to a horrible hell? in his blog on The Resurgence, a missional theology resource site that he helped found.
In the post, Driscoll, who is founding pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, states that it is important to understand that God doesn?t send just anyone to hell, but only those who reject His revelation and choose to suppress the truth that He plainly reveals to them.
?Hell is only for those who persistently reject the real God in favor of false gods,? writes the Seattle pastor. ?To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, either people will say to God, ?Thy will be done,? or God will say to them, ?Thy will be done.??
Driscoll also responds to the argument that a loving God would be more tolerant by posing a counterargument that if God was tolerant of everyone then he should also tolerate rapists, pimps, pedophiles, and those who sin against the very people criticizing God as intolerant.
?The idea is completely absurd and unjust,? argues Driscoll. ?A loving God protects His children from sin and evil by separating them. In this way, God is a father who is tolerant of all who obey Him and are safe for His children. But He is intolerant of those who sin against Him and do evil to His children.?

cont.


Reasons behind my posting of this:

1) I found the Bell article interesting. I'm not used to seeing mainstream Evangelicals contemplating universalistic ideas.
2) The first article definitely lays out one underlying motive that is rarely discussed so openly (IMO): financial.
3) Rob Bell and Mark Driscoll both have utilized Mars Hill in the name of their churches. I looked the two up, because I couldn't remember if they were related.
4) I've been studying a LOT of Driscoll recently (along with neo-calvinism) for personal reasons. My brother-in-law recently became an associate pastor at a place in NE that is a HUGE Driscoll fan. Since I grew up in a Calvinistic denomination (Congregationalist), it's been interesting to see the differences between Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism.
5) The concepts of heaven, hell, nihilism, gehenna, etc can be interesting ideas to think about.

Personally, I no longer believe in the Christian concept of an eternal hell/damnation. I believe that there COULD be a transitional phase (a type of cleansing) or a World to Come. I also have no problem with the concept of what's now is now and after that... nada.

Just figured I'd bring this out for discussion if anyone cares to talk about it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Interestingly, I've heard of Driscoll, read and listened to him, but have never heard the term Neo-Calvinist. I like Driscoll, though I'm not a Calvanist. You've caused me to google - wiki.

And to your observations:

1.) I don't think most evangelicals consider Rob Bell an evangelical anymore. I think they would more likely label him a heretic (not that they do, just that they might think it fits better than evangelical).

2.) There are pleny of Churches that ignore Hell that still make plenty of money (Rob Bell's for instance). I think the doctrince is irrelevant to some so-called ministers and greed.

3.) My understanding is that Driscoll had the name Mars Hill irst, as did he use the name emmergant first. It is my understanding that Driscoll is no fan of Bell and his ilk stealing the terms. However, even though Driscoll used the term first, emmergant is almost always associated with Bell and his ilk.

4.) I grew up in what would probably be considered a 4 point Calvanist church. After reading and listening I don't get along well with TULIP.

5.) I have ended up exploring the concept of Heaven and Hell recently and the very topic Driscoll blogged about that was mentioned in the article.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1909276; said:
Interestingly, I've heard of Driscoll, read and listened to him, but have never heard the term Neo-Calvinist. I like Driscoll, though I'm not a Calvanist. You've caused me to google - wiki.

Neo-calvinism, according to what I've read, takes part in more parts (spheres) of life. An integration of the Christian belief system into all aspects of life.

And to your observations:

1.) I don't think most evangelicals consider Rob Bell an evangelical anymore. I think they would more likely label him a heretic (not that they do, just that they might think it fits better than evangelical).

Probably. Anyone who steps outside the fold isn't going to be a member any more.

2.) There are pleny of Churches that ignore Hell that still make plenty of money (Rob Bell's for instance). I think the doctrince is irrelevant to some so-called ministers and greed.

Indeed. I just thought it was an interesting statement by Time.

3.) My understanding is that Driscoll had the name Mars Hill irst, as did he use the name emmergant first. It is my understanding that Driscoll is no fan of Bell and his ilk stealing the terms. However, even though Driscoll used the term first, emmergant is almost always associated with Bell and his ilk.

Looking at both of these cats through wiki is interesting. Two months different in age, similar names for their churches (even though like you said Driscoll's is 3 years older), a couple other things.

4.) I grew up in what would probably be considered a 4 point Calvanist church. After reading and listening I don't get along well with TULIP.

Same here.

5.) I have ended up exploring the concept of Heaven and Hell recently and the very topic Driscoll blogged about that was mentioned in the article.

How much of a role does the afterlife play in your present belief system? What do you think the afterlife amounts to?
 
Upvote 0
Neo-calvinism, according to what I've read, takes part in more parts (spheres) of life. An integration of the Christian belief system into all aspects of life.



Probably. Anyone who steps outside the fold isn't going to be a member any more.



Indeed. I just thought it was an interesting statement by Time.



Looking at both of these cats through wiki is interesting. Two months different in age, similar names for their churches (even though like you said Driscoll's is 3 years older), a couple other things.



Same here.



How much of a role does the afterlife play in your present belief system? What do you think the afterlife amounts to?
To me this life is merely preperation for the afterlife. Also on the neo-calvanism I read that too, which unless I misunderstand I agree with. There shouldn't be anything in my life that isn't affected by my walk with Christ especially if as Paul (with whom I know you disagree ) says
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service

I still do believe in a literal heaven and hell.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Problem with TULIP questioning is that it leads to some of the bigger questions: if it is unfair for just the Elect Christians to obtain grace, then why is it fair for just Christians in general and not other Godly Golden Rule following people?

And if God already knows in advance who will be saved (he has to...because, well He's God and sort of planned it all) - then why would he want to have us all working away on our little lives when for most of us it won't make a bit of difference? Sort of a cruel God using us as ant farm entertainment -no?

Still - what to do about the Scripture* that says his Grace is for "many" and not all? I guess you can label it as leaving room for the people accepting his Grace, knowing that many will not, but the quotes that indicate he already knows who that will be - makes it all interestingly problematic.

*

  • John 15:16: "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."
  • Acts 13:48: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."
  • Romans 9:15-16: "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."
  • Romans 9:22-24: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory - even us whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?"
  • Ephesians 1:4-5: "even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,"
  • Ephesians 1:11: "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,"
  • Philippians 1:29: "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake"
  • 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5: "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake."
  • 2 Thessalonians 2:13: "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification [by the Spirit] and belief in the truth."
  • 2 Timothy 1:9: "who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,"
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1909323; said:
To me this life is merely preperation for the afterlife. Also on the neo-calvanism I read that too, which unless I misunderstand I agree with. There shouldn't be anything in my life that isn't affected by my walk with Christ especially if as Paul (with whom I know you disagree ) says

I actually don't disagree with the Pauline concept. I tried to live it to the best of my ability when I was a Christian. I don't fault any Christian who decides to do the same. What's the purpose in a belief system if you're not full on?

Gatorubet;1909327; said:
Problem with TULIP questioning is that it leads to some of the bigger questions: if it is unfair for just the Elect Christians to obtain grace, then why is it fair for just Christians in general and not other Godly Golden Rule following people?

And if God already knows in advance who will be saved (he has to...because, well He's God and sort of planned it all) - then why would he want to have us all working away on our little lives when for most of us it won't make a bit of difference? Sort of a cruel God using us as ant farm entertainment -no?

Still - what to do about the Scripture* that says his Grace is for "many" and not all? I guess you can label it as leaving room for the people accepting his Grace, knowing that many will not, but the quotes that indicate he already knows who that will be - makes it all interestingly problematic.

*

  • John 15:16: "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."
  • Acts 13:48: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."
  • Romans 9:15-16: "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."
  • Romans 9:22-24: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory - even us whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?"
  • Ephesians 1:4-5: "even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,"
  • Ephesians 1:11: "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,"
  • Philippians 1:29: "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake"
  • 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5: "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake."
  • 2 Thessalonians 2:13: "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification [by the Spirit] and belief in the truth."
  • 2 Timothy 1:9: "who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,"

I concur on what questioning TULIP brings about. Hence, the reason why I left Calvinism first (before Christianity in general).

The interesting part for me (which delves into my departure overall) is the fact that the Christian doctrines of heaven and hell don't have much support in the "Old' Testament. Thus, it left me wanting when it came to a religious system that was around for a few millenia and THEN supposed illumination after the fact regarding what some considered the meat and potatoes of the argument. Just my personal issue.
 
Upvote 0
I actually don't disagree with the Pauline concept. I tried to live it to the best of my ability when I was a Christian. I don't fault any Christian who decides to do the same. What's the purpose in a belief system if you're not full on?



I concur on what questioning TULIP brings about. Hence, the reason why I left Calvinism first (before Christianity in general).

The interesting part for me (which delves into my departure overall) is the fact that the Christian doctrines of heaven and hell don't have much support in the "Old' Testament. Thus, it left me wanting when it came to a religious system that was around for a few millenia and THEN supposed illumination after the fact regarding what some considered the meat and potatoes of the argument. Just my personal issue.
I do believe the teachings of heaven and hell are important, but they aren't what I put my faith in. I think another one of Paul's writings sums it up nicely:
1 Corinthians 15:17; said:
And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

I think it also implies the reverse: if He did indeed rise then it means everything. Then it means that for whatever reason God in His sovereignty chose not to reveal Heaven and Hell until He came to this earth.
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1909330; said:
. . .The interesting part for me (which delves into my departure overall) is the fact that the Christian doctrines of heaven and hell don't have much support in the "Old' Testament. Thus, it left me wanting when it came to a religious system that was around for a few millenia and THEN supposed illumination after the fact regarding what some considered the meat and potatoes of the argument. Just my personal issue.

You make an important point in that the law and the prophets do not use the word hell.
What is mentioned is the abode of the dead, sometimes referred to as Sheol in Hebrew, Hades in Greek. Some scholars think it refers to the grave solely and others believe it was a subterannean place for the souls of the dead to gather. Saul had a necromancer bring up the spirit uf Samuel in I Samuel 28. Whether this was actually the spirit of Samuel caused some problems for the early teachers. It also contributed to a major split among Rabbis who divided into the Pharisees who believed in eternal life, and the Saducees who did not (that is why they were sad u see).:wink2:

Sheol in the Old Testament is a dark and gloomy place, but no thought of punishment is connected with it until the prophet Daniel uses a brief reference to Gehenna--the place reserved for the wicked Jews.
By the time Jesus came, the idea of Sheol had been developed at least among Pharisees that it was a real abode for the souls of the dead. Sheol was a place of both reward and punishment (some believe heat, others believed cold). The concept of hell is rooted in justice, if evil people prosper on earth and die without judgment will they ever get the punishment they deserve?
Jesus used a parable of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 to clarify eternal justice. It is usually not a good idea to construct theology from Jesus' parables, however, I believe if Jesus was omniscient, he would not intentionally teach a truth by using fictional or mythological imagery.

His parable teaches that Lazarus lived right, died and went to reside in a place called Abraham's bosom or Paradise. The rich man ignored justice, died and went to a place called torment. There was a physical chasm between these two places but somehow the existence and activities in both were known. Lazarus experienced contentment, the rich man was suffering severe agony.

This place of dead as described by Jesus is divided into two separate sections,
Abraham's bosom-paradise and
the place of torment.
Jesus promised the thief on the cross, today he would be with Him in paradise.
After His death, many Bible scholars believed Jesus descended into Hades, preached to those in torment, and led those captive in paradise to heaven, the place where God dwells.
IOW Jesus emptied paradise portion of Hades.
This is not the first mention of heaven in the Bible, but I believe it is a real place as well as Hell (the place of torment).
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top