Discussions Relating to Universal Reconciliation > Bible Threatenings Explained

Salted with fire

(1/4) > >>

WhiteWings:
For ETs it's a reference to hell. To URs to purification. As usual the URs are right. I'll try to explain/prove the background of it.

(Mark 9:49 [ACV]) For every man will be salted with fire, and every sacrifice will be salted with salt material.

Fire is always the word the commentators focus on; but a (even) greater key is the word "sacrifice".
I'm sure all of you know the Jews made burned sacrifice offerings. Meat was burned on the Altar of/before God. Wet stuff burns badly so the priests took great care to drain the animal of every drop of blood. That was mainly the blood that was in the veins and organs. To further drain out blood the priests rubbed the carcass with salt.

According to the Mishnah, the temple priests put salt into the carcass of a bird that had been slaughtered for a whole burnt offering, to draw out the blood: "He [the priest] would wring off its head…slit open the body…soak up [the excess blood on the inside of the body] with salt and throw it on the altar fire" (Zevahim 6:5).

(Lev 2:13 [JPS]) And every meal-offering of thine shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meal-offering; with all thy offerings thou shalt offer salt.

So it seems Mark was using a shorthand form of the Leviticus commandment.
Of course a salted sheep was still a very dead sheep so that doesn't sound very good for the person being salted. That's true but if we draw parallels between death of the sheep and the human we must draw all the other parallels too. The sheep was clean and God gladly accepted it on His altar. He didn't accept swine for example. So the parallel is that only clean/worthy sacrifices are salted. So if God accepts the "human offer" as clean why should we assume it will be cast in the ET hell pit with all sorts of filth?


The ET interpretation is "to destroy"

(Judg 9:45 [EBR]) And, Abimelech, fought against the city, all that day, and captured the city, the people also that were therein, he slew,––and brake down the city, and sowed it with salt.

Here salt is used for complete destruction.

That interpretation may fit in the Judges verse (maybe cleaning out the city is a correct interpretation too)
But why does Mark state salt is good? He can't have meant good for destruction because in the same verse he states we should carry salt within ourselves. Did Jesus really thaught we should carry destruction/agression within? Think not... so that in itself refutes the ET/ED interpretation.

(Mark 9:50 [EBR]) Salt is, good: but, if, salt, become, saltless, wherewith will ye, prepare, it? Have, within yourselves, salt, and be at peace, one with another.
The Temple sacrifice is: salted for the fire (on the Altar).
Mark wrote: salted with fire.
Just saying the same thing with different words? Maybe. Maybe we should read salt=HS? Seems a reasonble assumumption until "become, saltless". That would mean a degrading HS. That's not possible unless it means the HS leaves.
 :dontknow:

Cardinal:
Water cleanses, salt purifies. Salt burns, the HG salts us with fire. We are the offering that gets salted to remove all the "bad blood". Babies were salted (rubbed with) at 8 days of age, then given their NEW NAME.

lomarah:
 :dsunny: :bgdance: :banana:

lomarah:
8=New?

WhiteWings:
I think so.

http://tentmaker.org/forum/lounge/development-of-an-unborn-baby-compared-to-jewish-feasts/msg130239/#msg130239

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version