Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 31 of 479 (530686)
10-14-2009 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by greyseal
10-14-2009 11:58 AM


Re: Circular Reasoning
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes:
sorry for making it more complicated, but I've a nasty feeling where you're going, and I feel you're trying to set up a strawman which I wouldn't agree with.
You didn't make it more complicated.
I simply wanted to know if two men who knew each other and had collaborated on different things could be used as support for the other's position.
You agreed that it can.
So what is your problem with Apostles who have written about the same subject giving their personal account of events being circular reasoning, when I use one to verify the other? When they never saw the others work. As the only one writing letters that was in circulation at the time was Paul.
What is wrong with me using something written 3,000 years ago to verify something written 1950 years ago?
Would it have given more weight to the different books had they not been gathered into one volume of 66 books?
BTW I have a set of single books.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by greyseal, posted 10-14-2009 11:58 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by greyseal, posted 10-14-2009 2:46 PM ICANT has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 32 of 479 (530698)
10-14-2009 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
10-14-2009 1:54 PM


Re: Circular Reasoning
I simply wanted to know if two men who knew each other and had collaborated on different things could be used as support for the other's position.
did you get the bit where I said unconnected and independant?
I specifically said that if their work was independant (in my overly-complicated example I suggested different methods entirely to arrive at the same mathematical conclusion) then they could be taken as corroboration.
That's entirely different from two people who know each other writing about the same thing at the same time together.
If they didn't know each other then you'd need to prove that the later work was not based on the earlier, and that the later author was not familiar with the earlier work.
This is all really simple stuff...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 1:54 PM ICANT has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 33 of 479 (530749)
10-14-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ICANT
10-14-2009 2:33 AM


Re: Circular Reasoning
Can I take a statement from vol a of the encyclopedia Britannia and prove something said in vol c of the same encyclopedia?
No. That would be at best an argument from authority. The studies that support scientific information aren't read somewhere but observed or inferred from observations. A scientific text is never the source of the evidence for the science.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 2:33 AM ICANT has not replied

  
FullCircle
Junior Member (Idle past 5212 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 11-27-2009


Message 34 of 479 (537111)
11-27-2009 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peepul
10-12-2009 1:29 PM


I believe that the Bible makes it pretty clear, by the very fact that Jesus died, that his kingdom is Heaven, and earth is more or less Satan's domain. Since Christ did die and return to Heaven, his quote can easily be taken literally.
BTW... I'm a believer of science and evolution, and a god somewhere...
Anyway, he didn't say that people witnessing him speak would still be living when he returned to earth, but when he returned to his Kingdom, which was Heaven, and took place shortly thereafter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peepul, posted 10-12-2009 1:29 PM Peepul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by deerbreh, posted 11-30-2009 6:14 PM FullCircle has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 35 of 479 (537123)
11-27-2009 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peepul
10-13-2009 12:22 PM


Peepul writes:
It seems to me that John and Paul (or someone else) had a 'preview' of the kingdom, but that Jesus is talking about the arrival of the kingdom in real time, on earth, for everbody.
the 3 apostles who witnessed the transfiguration also had a preview of Jesus in the kingdom. The words of the above scripture came 6 days before the tranfiguration.
According to Lukes account the tranfiguration was as follows
As [Jesus] was praying the appearance of his face became different and his apparel became glitteringly white. Also, look! two men were conversing with him, who were Moses and Elijah. These appeared with glory and began talking about his departure that he was destined to fulfill at Jerusalem. Then, a cloud formed and began to overshadow [the apostles]. As they entered into the cloud, they became fearful. And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: ‘This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him.’
This was a confirmation of the power that Jesus would recieve as head of the Kingdom of God. So the apostles who witnessed this, did see Jesus in kingdom glory before they died...they saw it as a vision accompanied with a verbal confirmation by God.
However it does have a greater fulfillment in the last days because there will be many who will not die before they see Jesus Kingdom go into action and restore the earth to its original purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peepul, posted 10-13-2009 12:22 PM Peepul has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 36 of 479 (537443)
11-28-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peepul
10-12-2009 1:29 PM


In Matthew 16:27-28, Jesus says (ESV) :-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the bible is inerrant, then Jesus said this. Not only that, but if Jesus said this, it must be true, by the divine nature of Jesus.
This is impossible to reconcile with reality. If taken literally, the implication is that some of Jesus' audience are still alive today OR that Jesus has already come again, neither of which are true.
This is a challenge to a literal interpretation of the bible. How do those who believe the bible is inerrant respond to this?
This was one of the first serious questions I had as a young Christian.
I think that many people read the words "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" but mentally insert the words "the Second Coming of Christ".
My suspicion is that Matthew purposely follows Christ's prediction by recording the event of six days latter when Jesus was transfigured before three of His disciples. This could be a preview of the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. His concealed divine glory was temporarily released from the shell of His humanity. And Elijah and Moses were seen by three of the living disciples conversing with Jesus.
Look at the 28th verse followed by the first verse of the next chapter:
"For the Son of Man is to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will repay each man according to his doings. (16:27)
Truly I say to you, There are some of those standing here who shall by no means taste death until the see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. (v.28)
And after six days Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and brought them up to a high mountain privately. And He was transfigured before them, and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as the light." (17:1,2)
The three got a glimpse of the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. At least they witnessed a foretaste or preview of Christ's eventual appearance at the end of the church age.
The passage does not bother me. Rather it indicates to me evidence of the truthfulness of what Jesus said. For it could have been easy for Matthew to exclude embarressing material which might have the potential to discourage belief in the words of Jesus.
Matthew's candid inclusion of these words, as in other similar instances in other Gospels, to me, testify of the faithfulness of the gospel writers to include problematic sayings of Jesus.
That argues for the candid truthfulness of their account. They included difficult sayings and potentially embarressing sayings of Jesus. There does not seem an attempt to hide problematic recollections as would be the case if this was false propaganda.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peepul, posted 10-12-2009 1:29 PM Peepul has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


(1)
Message 37 of 479 (537740)
11-30-2009 5:52 PM


Inerrancy question or interpretation question?
The whole problem is rather neatly solved if we consider the "second coming" to be Pentecost and the subsequent founding of the church. So in that sense this may just be a matter of interpretation. In other words, the "second coming" is nothing more than the Kingdom of God on earth embodied in the church. If this view prevailed how much better of a place would the world be? Instead of trying to frighten people and selling "fire insurance" the church would be inviting people to join the Kingdom of God. What a concept!

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Peg, posted 11-30-2009 6:14 PM deerbreh has replied
 Message 44 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-03-2009 1:19 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 38 of 479 (537745)
11-30-2009 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by FullCircle
11-27-2009 1:51 AM


and earth is more or less Satan's domain.
Really??? Where does the Bible say that?
"the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein." Psalm 24:1
"The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." 1 Corinthians 10:26
"For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving," 1 Timothy 4:4
Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by FullCircle, posted 11-27-2009 1:51 AM FullCircle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by FullCircle, posted 12-02-2009 1:11 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 39 of 479 (537746)
11-30-2009 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by deerbreh
11-30-2009 5:52 PM


Re: Inerrancy question or interpretation question?
Deerbreh writes:
So in that sense this may just be a matter of interpretation. In other words, the "second coming" is nothing more than the Kingdom of God on earth embodied in the church.
that would be nice, but the 2nd comming is described as Jesus coming with his powerful angels to execute judgement
the church is not here to exectut judgement. Its here to direct people to that Kingdom so that when that Kingdom arrives, people are behaving in a manner that warrents divine favor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by deerbreh, posted 11-30-2009 5:52 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by deerbreh, posted 11-30-2009 6:28 PM Peg has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 40 of 479 (537751)
11-30-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Peg
11-30-2009 6:14 PM


Re: Inerrancy question or interpretation question?
I know the arguments. I happen to like my interpretation better. And it makes a lot more sense with no need to try and explain things in pretzel logic. Jesus said "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men." He told the rich young ruler to sell everything that he owned and give it to the poor if he wanted eternal life. That sounds to me like the formula for building the Kingdom of God here and now. Evangelicals need to get their heads out of the clouds and look around their neighborhoods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Peg, posted 11-30-2009 6:14 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Peg, posted 11-30-2009 10:29 PM deerbreh has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 41 of 479 (537790)
11-30-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by deerbreh
11-30-2009 6:28 PM


Re: Inerrancy question or interpretation question?
deerbreh writes:
That sounds to me like the formula for building the Kingdom of God here and now. Evangelicals need to get their heads out of the clouds and look around their neighborhoods.
do you think the worlds governments and mobstars and multinational corporations are going to let this happen?
and do you think that the whole world are going to be converted to the kingdom of God???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by deerbreh, posted 11-30-2009 6:28 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by deerbreh, posted 12-04-2009 12:31 PM Peg has not replied

  
FullCircle
Junior Member (Idle past 5212 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 11-27-2009


Message 42 of 479 (537989)
12-02-2009 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by deerbreh
11-30-2009 6:14 PM


Matthew Chapter 4
the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 4, when Satan is tempting Christ. He shows him the earth and says he will give it to Christ if Jesus will only worship him.
Christ does not respond, "The Earth is not yours," or anything else along those lines. He did not say, "How can you give me what is not yours?" or anything like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by deerbreh, posted 11-30-2009 6:14 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 43 of 479 (538069)
12-03-2009 9:19 AM


There seems to be some misunderstanding about the world and distinct from the earth.
The earth is the Lord's yes. The world is what the apostle John said lies in the wicked one, the devil. This is Greek cosmos, a system, an arrangement belonging to Satan that usurps man.
The earth is God's. The system of the cosmos, meaning the world system, is Satan's domain.
At the second coming it is said that the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. The world kingdoms will be turned over to Christ.
The meek are to inherit the earth, the planet. Christ has overcome the world. And the church is on the earth but called out of the world, the EKKLESIA. If it becomes rooted in the world or part of the world it is the apostate harlot. That is to be judged.
"Fear not I overcome the world" says Jesus.
This is very brief. Can you all see the difference between the earth as the physical planet and the world as the system devized by Satan to usurp man away from God ?
Now more could be discussed for we also have "For God so loved the world ..." in John 3:16. In this case the world really means all the people of the world.
Sometimes the world refers not to the Satanic system but to the people. Sometimes the world refers to an age or segment of history.

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 44 of 479 (538087)
12-03-2009 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by deerbreh
11-30-2009 5:52 PM


Re: Inerrancy question or interpretation question?
The whole problem is rather neatly solved if we consider the "second coming" to be Pentecost and the subsequent founding of the church. So in that sense this may just be a matter of interpretation. In other words, the "second coming" is nothing more than the Kingdom of God on earth embodied in the church. If this view prevailed how much better of a place would the world be? Instead of trying to frighten people and selling "fire insurance" the church would be inviting people to join the Kingdom of God. What a concept!
Ditto. This ofcourse is the very thing that Christ addressing. While I do not agree, that Pentecost is the second coming, he is partly correct, as Mark 9:1 indicates
Mark 9:
1And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."
Paul puts it this way.
"He has translated us out of the power of darkness, into the KINGDOM of his dear Son."
The only place to be saved out of darkness, is of course the Church, the Church is the Kingdom.
ICANT is correct in his assesment, in the respect that the kingdom was here in a SENSE before the actual establishment of that described by CHRIST in Matt 16
Christ in Matt 16 and Acts 2, Speaking of the Church and Kingdom, he uses the words in connection with each other, speaking of building the Chruch in Matt 16, and then in the same chapter he then he tells Peter, I will give to you Peter the keys to the KINGDOM (not literal keys), on that Pentecost he preaches the first Gospel sermon after Christ's departure, to show entrance to the Kingdom or Chruch
Matt 16 :15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,(a) the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, (b) and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades (c) will not overcome it. (d) 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be (e) bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be (f) loosed in heaven."
Notice how he uses the words Kingdom and chruch, interchangeably
Before these events they collectively were told to go to the city to wait for power from on high. Peter however, is the first to speak and uses the figurative keys to show entrance to the kingdom or chruch as Christ described it in Matt 16
Matthew 16:27-28
27For the Son of man is about to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will render to each according to his doings.
28Verily I say unto you, There are some of those standing here that shall not taste of death at all until they shall have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
verse 27 refers to a time future, the actual second coming, when he will come as a judge, in verse 28, christ begins to be less general and specifies about events that were about to happen.
He might have have said it this way, Even now, I say before that time, (second literal coming), some standing here will not die until they see me coming in the kingdom of God to be established presently
For a more complete exposition on the topic the Kingdom/Church question, I would refer you to the Neal-Wallace debate held in the thirties, Where Bro. Foe E Wallace,Jr., dismantles the doctrine of premillennialism. You can find it at Amazon books or by typing his name into the search engine. It is a very extensive and exhaustive, exposition of that topic.
Christ said "My Kingdom is not OF this world", he did not say it wasnt IN the world
As ICANT stated earlier he was speaking to his deciples, they therefore would have understood the nature and source of the POWER they witnessed that day, especially since Peter and the others told them, the source of that power. They therfore, would have recalled Christ's words about seeing him come in power.
I would disagree that the transfiguration could explain in detail what christ was speaking of in Mark 9:1. I would say that Matt 16 and Acts 2 would be more specific illustrations for the literalness of his words.
Purchase or read that discussion'debate, its the best one Ive ever seen. Another not so complicated is the Nichol-Bradley debate.
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Fix quote box.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by deerbreh, posted 11-30-2009 5:52 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 12-03-2009 9:23 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 45 of 479 (538123)
12-03-2009 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dawn Bertot
12-03-2009 1:19 PM


Re: Inerrancy question or interpretation question?
Hi EMA,
EMA writes:
I would disagree that the transfiguration could explain in detail what christ was speaking of in Mark 9:1. I would say that Matt 16 and Acts 2 would be more specific illustrations for the literalness of his words.
is there any particular reason why you doubt the transfiguration could be the fulfillment of Jesus words?
I only ask because the Apostle Peter indicated that the transfiguration was a significant event linked with his rulership in Gods kingdom.
Peter testifies to the transfiguration at 2Peter 1:16-18 & 1Peter 4:17
It was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we acquainted you with the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but it was by having become eyewitnesses of his magnificence. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when words such as these were borne to him by the magnificent glory: ‘This is my son, my beloved, whom I myself have approved.’ Yes, these words we heard borne from heaven while we were with him in the holy mountain.
Peter here says that he was an eyewitness to the 'power and presence' of the Lord and to the 'glory and magnificence' that he received from God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-03-2009 1:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-04-2009 1:05 AM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024