"I Won't Waste My Time"
I replied to Sturnumdrill in a previous post that I wouldn't bother going into why some of his objections to the Bible's inerrancy were easily explained. I've tried to do this before with others, and it has been my experience that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE is hunkered down in their own ideological/spiritual bunker, and short of lobbing grenades into those individual foxholes NO one is coming out. Sturnumdrill, after lobbing grenades of his own, hunkered down with the following...
"...but they are unconvincing." Proof positive that I waste my time trying to convince anyone to abandon the bunker they have dug for themselves. Unless the Holy Spirit speaks to anyone's heart when confronted with truth, they'll never see a need to leave the comfort of familiar surroundings for better digs.
I waste my time if I allow the discussion its head, to lead where IT will rather than where truth would lead. I try to remain patient and loving, but I do not always succeed. In point of fact, I rarely succeed in remaining both patient AND loving.
Here then is a series of comments at 'the other blog' I tried to get started. I say 'tried' because no matter how hard I try not to, I always end up injecting faith into the discussion. I thought to keep my political views separate from my spiritual views by keeping them on separate blogs... but it hasn't worked out that way. Proof of this lies in the fact that the other blog is languishing. And why should I keep my spiritual and political views separate? One must necessarily direct the other, or ideological anarchy would ensue.
As with bunkers, everyone has their own preferred methods of combating competing 'truths' as well. BenT likes to throw out spike strips to impede the delivery of building supplies. ER prefers to 'Piffle' his way through the arguments, criticizing the manner in which I and others use the materials that do arrive, claiming 'God is still speaking' (which to my mind means: God is still giving mankind 'revelations', which is NOT true) and therefore the material is being used incorrectly. Dan is less subtle in that he just tries to tear down every tabernacle I and other build that do not align with his own personal revelations from God, and he does it with such finesse as to make one wonder if perhaps we might have misunderstood him all along, that he really only seeks to save us from our own flawed understanding of God's word.
I'm not attempting to criticize BenT, ER or Dan, here... Only illustrate what I see coming from them... Emanating from them. And why I see trying to argue with them is pointless.
So when I say, "I won't bother", I'm really saying, "I'm tired of rehashing the same ol' ground over and over again." To my mind, all this is nothing but a tool of the enemy to wear down my resolve... my desire to keep the shield raised and the sword sharp and at-ready. It's like Jesus in the Garden asking his disciple to watch with him and pray. Twice he caught them napping, chastising them once. But the second time he saw the truth of the matter... the Truth of the Flesh... The spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak. I am weak. I have to constantly be lifted up, dusted off, and sent back into the fray.
And it is a fray. It is an invisible war we are engaged in. The war was decided at Calvary, but battle still rages. My side has won, but I can still be killed on the battlefield, because the enemy has no desire to see me enjoy my Lord's victory. The enemy wants me to get bogged down in religion, habitual sin, pride, wealth, worldly possessions, sex... all these and more rather than see me live a victorious life. The enemy wants me to argue pointlessly, rehashing, and retracing ground that is already covered and won. He wants me to believe I have to fight for the land upon which I stand with heels dug in. But I don't. All I have to do is stand. The ground is already mine by virtue of the fact that I am a joint heir in Christ; what is His is mine. All I have to do is stand. I have to do is plant seed. God gives the increase.
If I go to a Baptist church, it's because I hear the truth there, I feel the Holy Spirit there, and my heart is spoken-to there. But you see, I don't want to be a Baptist, I don't want to be a Methodist, or a Unitarian. I don't want to be an Episcopal, a Catholic, Jesusian, or a What-have-you... That's the Enemy's game. Dividing the Bride of Christ and getting her to lose focus by engaging in pointless struggles amongst her own number. I don't want to be identified by a religion...
Me? I just want to be a Christian.
Here then is a perfect illustration of why I see no point in engaging in endless, profitless debate about points of scripture.
Fair Warning: It's a lengthy read. The post can be found here, Answering BenT - The Unbeliever... sans comments. There is a link at the beginning that will give you lead you to the questions BenT initially raised at this blog. Following the convoluted path this post takes will be, I believe, worth the effort. I probably should have left all the comments there, but frustration got the better of me.
_____________________
BenT :
Many of your replies contain something along the lines of "well that was written for the audience of the time..." or "when people in those days observed..."
and that is exactly my point. The bible is a book written to be understood by someone in the 1st and 2nd century. Today we know mustard seeds are not small, we understand about microorganisms and astronomy. If you had tried to explain amoebic dysentery to the 12 disciples they would have had their congregations stone you for preaching about spirits and devils.
Fanatic Christians however keep trying to take the modern world and make it twist and fit itself so that it will never grow to contradict this outdated manuscript. I can't speak to the accuracy of the spiritual knowledge of the bible, but using it as a guide to physical reality will only lead one astray.
March 13, 2007 3:52:00 AM
________________
BenT:
These were in fact the verses I was thinking of when I said Jesus himself reportedly tells some of the disciples they will be alive to see the end of times.
"Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. " -- Matthew 16:28
"Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. " -- Luke 21:32-33
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:20:00 AM
___________________
Eric:
"I can't speak to the accuracy of the spiritual knowledge of the bible, but using it as a guide to physical reality will only lead one astray."
You are of course entitled to believe this. I naturally disagree.
The world was a very different place "in those days". They didn't have the knowledge we do, but that doesn't make their observations incorrect... only limited. Truth is uncomplicated, and many times truth is easier to find in the construction of a log cabin than in a building of glass and steel.
Matthew 16:28 can mean a couple of things: firstly, this passage is talking about the transfiguration. In all 3 of the synoptic gospels, this promise is made immediately prior to the Transfiguration (Mark 9:1-9; Luke 9:27-36). Furthermore the word "Kingdom" can be translated "royal splendor". Therefore, it seems most natural to interpret this promise as a reference to the Transfiguration, which "some of the disciples-- Peter, James, and John, would witness only 6 days later. This comes from many commentaries. Secondly, John himself, on the Isle of Patmos while in the spirit "witnessed" all the events that would come in the end time... the rapture, the seven seals, the seven trumpets, the seven vials, world events, and the return of Jesus Christ to establish His kingdom.
Luke 21-23 is better explained by beginning at verse 7, "And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?"
Jesus spoke often enough about the end-times that prompted His disciples to ask when it would be. Jesus, in Matthew 24:36, said of that day, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."
The first chapter of Hebrews does a great job of describing the relationship between the Father and Son. It is also written somewhere (I've been unable to find it) that Jesus emptied Himself of much of His glory when He came to earth; this is beautifully illustrated by the Transfiguration in Matthew 17:1-9 and Mark 9:2-9. Jesus doesn't say in Matthew 24:36 that HE doesn't know, but it is reasonable to say He may well have not known when He spoke those words. Since God the father and God the Son are one and the same, Location probably makes a tremendous difference as to what the Son knew, specifically, at that moment in time. But telegraphing a specific date in time when His second coming would be would likely have caused many to get lazy and not work... to not be vigilant, hence the command to watch and wait, because we do not know the hour in which the son of man will come.
What Jesus does then is give a laundry list of 'signs' and speaks of the people of that day... that generation. The generation who sees all this coming to pass at once, will not 'pass away till all be fulfilled.'
Many prophesies in the Old Testament had two applications: One firmly rooted in the day the prophesy was uttered/written, and one in the distant future... a sign to those in that faraway time of the surety of God's word. Jesus likewise spoke in this manner.
In Luke 21:20 Jesus said, "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." He spoke of the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD by Titus. But with the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John on the Isle of Patmos, it becomes clear that this is also a reference to the time during the Great Tribulation when Jerusalem will be surrounded by her enemies once again, and overrun for a short time before Jesus Himself reappears and destroys the armies of the wicked.
March 13, 2007 11:05:00 AM
___________________
BenT:
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Jesus didn't come to his transfiguration with glory. He went with Peter James and John, who by the way were not rewarded for their works at such an event. And none of the transfiguration stories mentions angles either. They mention Moses and Elijah, but those are clearly men. I find your interpretation logically torturous.
Would it shake your faith to the roots for a document, written originally as stand alone texts, by multiple authors, over the course of centuries, to be internally inconsistent? Then I might say your faith is founded on the book and not the God that book represents.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:37:00 PM
___________________
Eric:
What's torturous is your objection, taken out of context and ignoring speech pattern and the natural flow of speech from one related topic to another-- though not necessarily linked.
You quote Matthew 16:27 correctly but you apply it incorrectly. How does verse 27 apply to verse 28? Sure it immediately precedes it but verse 28 is fully self-contained. Jesus finishes one pronouncement then says something new; the two statements ARE relative but not married or joined at the hip. Besides which, in my previous comment I clearly offered a second possible explanation. Here then is a third: What of His ascension into heaven? It was attended and witnessed by many, including angels. The witnesses saw him coming into 'the glory of his Father with his angels...' the fact that the next portion comes after the semi-colon, well, who's to know how long of an interval there is between Christ being received up into glory and his rewarding of the faithful?
There's nothing torturous here except this debate. You're not going to accept anything I have to say on the matter anyway. I wish that weren't so, but... I'll continue if until it runs its course.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:58:00 PM
___________________
Bent:
So let's go over this
Matthew 16:24-27 24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
So here we have Jesus giving his stump speech "You wanna follow me, you gotta commit. It'll be hard, but you'll be rewarded in the end."
Matthew 16:28 28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Then after speaking of the far future, Jesus throws out this little line "Oh yeah some of you will see it before you die" Now he could have been speaking of next week, when he transfigured, but is that really the most logical reading of the text. I mean if it was me, I'd feel a little gypped, no angels, no rewards, just a bright light and booming voice.
Luke tells the story differently
Luke 21:5-6 5And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 6As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Jesus and the disciples are in the temple watching people tithe - rich people donating gold, a widow giving up her children. The disciples got to admiring the gold and jewels adorning the temple walls. Jesus says "you know this isn't as permanent and impressive as it looks. One day this will be an empty run down city lot."
Luke 21:7-26 7And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?...
Jesus spends verses 8-26 talking about signs of when the temple will be torn down. Considering the amount of suffering and war he describes, it is certainly understandable how some of the disciples might have thought he was talking of the far future, when in fact the temple was razed just 70 years later.
Luke 21:27-32 27And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. 29And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
And then Jesus tells them "look for me then, I'm coming to take you home." After that there's a short story about how fig trees sprout in summer, but the key verses are 31 and 32. Jesus very definitely promised to return 1) when the fig tree sprouts 2) when the temple is torn down or 3) before all his disciples died. There is very definitely however no suggestion at all that he was talking about the transfiguration. And the words between the two promises are almost word for word exact.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:53:00 PM
___________________
Eric:
I readily admit I do not have all the answers. I'm no bible scholar, but I have studied the book off an on for the last 20 years. I WILL say I have a good grasp of what it says and IS SAYING.
To answer your question/argument I had to resort to books packed away in boxes (yes, I'm still living out of boxes here) and various sites on the Internet. The places I've been to agree with my second opinion on Matthew 16:28, namely, that this was fulfilled in John on the Isle of Patmos.
Here's this explanation from GodandScience.org:
"Atheists claim that there are false prophesies in the Bible, such as the one that predicts that the early saints would be there for Christ's glorious (2nd) coming, and that John would not taste death. This is the specific prophecy that they are referring to:
"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)
This prophecy was actually fulfilled in its entirety in the late first century. If you read the book of Revelation, you will see that John, the apostle to whom the prophecy was directed, saw Jesus coming in His glory to establish His kingdom. This is what the entire book of revelation describes - the second coming of Jesus Christ. John saw it all in a vision, as it will happen. The prophecy was fulfilled! The prophecy does not say that John would not die before Christ returned. It said that he would not die before seeing the return of Jesus Christ. What is awesome about the vision reported by John is that he did not understand what he was seeing, but reported it as he saw it. As such, he includes descriptions of a giant meteor collision with the earth, battles with mechanized machines that sound like tanks, and huge armies (200,000,000 men), which would not even be possible until at least the 20th century."
Now, I'm not calling you an atheist, I'm just quoting from the site. I've stated previously my belief that you found your arguments online somewhere, and that's fine. Neither of us are scholars for or against God. We do what we can with what we have available to us. Besides which, you never bothered to deny my assertion that you found your argument online; an assertion which, ultimately, is irrelevant. I'm told by the Bible I love so much to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear..."
Now, I haven't been meek, but I've been fearful in that I greatly desire to answer your objections, whether you choose to accept the answers or not.
This Blog was not created for contentious debate, it was created to spur other believers to stand up and fight for what God has given us, and to, perhaps, persuade nonbelievers of the truth of God's word, both for fear of where these people will go if they die without Christ, and fear of their blood on my hands if I don't (Ezekiel 3:18-21) But if this means 'defending the faith with contentious debate', so be it. My bible says to go into the highways and hedges and COMPEL them to come in.
That's all I'm trying to do here. So, having said all that let me be absolutely clear on one thing: while I will seek to answer every question put forward, I will not allow this blog to become the "Eric, Ben, and Dan Show" however amusing some might find it.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:08:00 AM
___________________
Bent:
I can accept your new view of Matthew 16:28. It seems a little bit pixyish but it satisfies the logical and verbal requirements of the verse.
However your argument does not address Luke 21:27-32. And when you look at those statements you have to see the similarity to Matthew 16:27-28. The words are almost exactly alike and these events are described just before the transfiguration story. Are both men relating the same episode? If so then the Revelation explanation that satisfies Matthew 16:27-28 will not also satisfy Luke 21:27-32.
I am not seeking to break your faith. I certainly do not want this to descend into acrimoniousness, but I do want to understand your belief in the infallibility of the bible.
I took these examples from The Skeptics Annotated Bible. There are hundreds more. I do not accept all their nitpicks, but if the bible is infallible, then it must be internally 100% consistent. Not only internally consistent either, it must also align with external historical and scientific data.
One day/millennium in the future a religion may be formed around the Dungeons and Dragons novels. If all those different books were bound together, would they be 100% internally consistent?
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:45:00 AM
___________________
Eric:
Luke 21:27-32 does speak of His second coming, but I think it's also important to note that, as I stated previously, many such utterances have more than a single application. It's also important to consider whom He was addressing at the time.
If you go back to verse 20, the reference is clearly the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D. But if the Bible is to be taken as a whole, it then becomes clear that this also refers to a time far distant and removed from 70 A.D., namely the Tribulation He often spoke of. The new Temple, which is yet to be built, will also be overrun and smashed when the enemies of Israel come a'conquering.
Jesus was not just addressing fellow Jews, but also, Jews who would soon be something completely different; though oddly and indescribably the same-- Jews who would soon be Christians.
Now, in verse 5 they were talking about the Temple and how nice it was, but He immediately says, "the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
[Flavius Josephus covers this in The Jewish War]
He is then asked what the signs will be.
Jesus, always a step ahead of His disciples gives them more than they ask. They asked about the temple-- and He DOES answer in verse 20: "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh”, but He sandwiches it in with a picture of what the world will be like much farther down the road. The reason this is obvious to those of us who believe is we DO take the Bible as a whole, and not simply a collection of 66 books written by some forty different authors over 1500(+/-) years. Especially when one considers the 'Law of First Mention' in the realm of prophetic interpretation...
"The law of first mention may be said to be the principle that requires one to go to that portion of the Scriptures where a doctrine is mentioned for the first time and to study the first occurrence of the same in order to get the fundamental inherent meaning of that doctrine. When we thus see the first appearance, which is usually in the simplest form, we can then examine the doctrine in other portions of the Word that were given later. We shall see that the fundamental concept in the first occurrence remains dominant as a rule, and colors all later additions to that doctrine."
Which is where "The Fig Tree" comes in. The Fig Tree is a picture of the nation of Israel. There are several prophesies that are part and parcel with Luke 21, that describe the days in which the Messiah will come to judge the nations (the Great Tribulation as it is generally called). Israel will become a rich blooming Garden. Where once were dust and desert, fruit, flowers, and green will all but cover the land of Israel. Israel today is the largest producer of fruit and vegetable exports in the Middle East. Also, no other time in history since the Babylonian and Persian Captivities has Israel EVER been an autonomous nation... until now. The Bible also says Israel will be a 'burdensome stone' to the rest of the world, and that Jerusalem will be trodden under foot of the Gentiles, until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. And Jerusalem has been under Gentile rule from centuries before Christ was born, to 1967 when Israel captured the city. According to prophecy the 'Time of the Gentiles' is over. We are nearing the end of God's prophetic purpose.
The Bible must be consistent throughout. Each book, chapter, and verse must compliment every other book, chapter, and verse without contradiction. I have seen and read nothing to suggest the Bible is anything but complimentary in all its myriad of parts. I understand skepticism, but I also understand that languages evolve, and meaning must sometimes be diligently sought. [For a look at what I mean, check out this Interlinear Greek text of Luke 21 and decide for yourself how difficult it must have been to translate ancient Greek to modern English (pdf)] Luke 21 speaks primarily of the time when Christ will return-- all those signs will be occurring simultaneously, and they will increase as a pregnant woman's contractions; increasing in frequency and intensity until something new is born out of travail.
Secondarily, Luke 21 does speaks of Jerusalem A.D. 70, but not to the extent that it speaks of Jerusalem at the end of the age.
_____
If for no other reason, I thank you for the opportunity your questions have given me to delve into this subject and gain a little more insight into events I honestly believe are right around the corner.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:37:00 PM
___________________
BenT:
We can argue these two passages back and forth ad-nauseum.
I've never heard of this "Law of First Mention" it seems to me something cobbled together to link disparate passages to find truths where there may be none to be found. I could take the 2nd letter after ever begat in the bible and if I sifted and rearranged them enough I'd have a "new" biblical insight.
Let's move on to a new puzzler:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
In fact short of Matthew 1:23 no one in the New Testament call Jesus, Emmanuel.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:59:00 PM
___________________
Eric:
The New Testament was written in Greek. The Greek texts have His name as Iesous. but Jesus was a Jew, was He not? His Hebrew name is "Yahu'shuah", which is equivalent to Yehoshua, which also happened to be Joshua's name before translators got hold of it. Messianic Jews today call Him, "Yeshua"; phonetically, yeh-SHOE-uh
"Yehoshua" in Hebrew means, 'Yahweh (or "God") is Salvation', or "God Saves". It could be broken down further to simply "Salvation". My Bible's commentary has it translated as, "He shall save His people"... Which He has.
Immanuel simply means, "God with us" and this is certainly what Peter and others called Him.
Matthew 16:16
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
John 20:28
"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."
Jesus Himself said,
"I and my father are one"
John 10:30
And also,
"...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father"
John 14:9
Martha the sister of Lazarus said,
"I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world."
John 11:27
Jesus also claimed to be God in
John 8:56-58
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
Immanuel certainly fits-- as does Yehoshua.
Remember also that to a Jew the idea of another God beside Yahweh, was blasphemous at the very least. For these people to accept Him as a Son of God... as God Himself... was like asking to be put to death by the religious leaders of the day. There was a lot of debate going on over Jesus at the time, but one fact was inescapable to these people: No man could do the things Jesus did unless God were with Him and approved of Him. And to the Jew, who knew all to well that God is a jealous God and will brook no other Gods before Him, Jesus performed great miracles DESPITE claiming to BE God, and equal WITH God.
I therefore don't see a problem here.
Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:23:00 AM
___________________
BenT:
If you prophesy that a child is to be called Wilberforce, and someone later names him William, it is not the same.
Thursday, March 15, 2007 8:16:00 AM
___________________
Dan:
I think the problem lies within the claim of taking the Bible literally.
No one does. No one should.
We ALL (all of us who find any value in the teachings therein) have to evaluate any passage as to it's a literal statement, an allegory, a historical tidbit, a "historical" tidbit (written as if a history, but without necessarily sticking to exact facts - a common story-telling approach in many cultures).
We have to determine what the context is, what relevance (if any) a passage has for today, etc, etc, etc.
The problem comes when some people say "The Bible Must Be Taken Literally," when what they mean is, "You must accept the exact meaning that I have for every passage in the Bible."
So, it's not good enough for some that I try to take Jesus' teaching to "Love your enemy" literally. No. I must also agree with some that, "loving your enemy is okay, but sometimes you've really got to blast 'em to bits. And sometimes, not only your enemies, but their children and any innocent bystanders, as well."
The Bible is a great book of Truths. What many of us consider to be God's Word.
But it too often has been made into a battering ram to try to force people to agree with you on every single point.
Not it's purpose, seems to me.
March 15, 2007 8:27:00 AM
___________________
Brent:
I guess I'll weigh in here a little bit.
What is the purpose of the debate? It sounds like a democrat and republican debating various points that matter little from their own agenda. If the purpose is for truth then so be it. You both come from completely different paradigms so you will never agree or score debate points with the other. I think it is an example of what's wrong with our system.
E your do a superb job at being a scholar but your barking up the wrong tree if you think you can convince Ben of anything. And Ben you're not scoring any debate points with E. So what are you all doing? If the goal is truth you will not find it in your current state of communication. If you're out for a healthy word duel then you've hit the mark and enjoy.
Truth can only come through revelation. Study, meditation, and process are all important but these things were hidden from the "wise" and revealed to "babes." I know that sounds like an out that says I don't have to listen to Ben but so be it. I've had my fill of debates and found them unsatisfying and unproductive. I believe that debates are fine but their end result can't be vanity. We will have differences as long as we depend on our intellect first without seeking the One who wrote it. If Ben is really a seeker of truth then it will lead him to the One who has the answers if he is willing to listen. But the same goes for you and I. Maybe Ben's problem is that too many of Father's children speak for Him without having heard His voice on the matter.
b
Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:16:00 AM
___________________
Eric:
Thanks Brent. You are, of course, right. But I like Bent... work with him in fact... and I'm not willing to give up just yet. But I can limit the discussion to just this post.
Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:01:00 PM
___________________
Eric:
The bible is more than a great book of truths, Dan. For Christians it is our faith, for without that book, we HAVE no faith. Without the Bible, what faith would there be?
---
Wilberforce?
Emmanuel and Jehoshua are synonymous.
Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:04:00 PM
___________________
Dan:
"The bible is more than a great book of truths, Dan. For Christians it is our faith"
Well, as I said, for some of us, it is the Word of God. I wouldn't call it my faith, but it is the primary source where I learn about my faith (or rather, I consider God the primary source of how I learn about my faith and God has revealed God's Self through God's Word).
Friday, March 16, 2007 4:39:00 AM
___________________
Eric:
"...it is the primary source where I learn about my faith"
And as it is the only way you CAN learn about your faith, it is THE faith. For faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the WORD of God. When Jude says to 'earnestly contend for the faith' he speaks of the revealed word of God. And that is exactly what the Bible is... the revealed Word of God. Without it we would have no faith.
Friday, March 16, 2007 7:44:00 AM
___________________
Dan:
It's not the only way. God reveals God's Self through the Holy Spirit in our lives. God reveals God's Self to us through God's creation. God reveals God's Self to us through our God-given reasoning and the imprint of God's nature in us.
Wouldn't you agree?
Friday, March 16, 2007 8:56:00 AM
___________________
Dan:
Without it we would have no faith?
You mean, for those who've not been exposed to the Bible, they can't believe in God? If some fascist gov't were able to destroy all the Bibles in the world, you think Christianity would be dead?
Not my faith. God is bigger than the printed Bible. The Bible is not our God, nor our faith; it is God's Word to us. But if it were gone, God would still be there reaching out, just as God was reaching out to Abraham, Noah and all those who came along pre-Bible
Friday, March 16, 2007 8:59:00 AM
___________________
Eric:
Naturally, you've missed my meaning. If there were no bible (specifically New Testament)... never written... we would have no Christian faith. It is through the Gospels and Epistles that we have our faith today.
Friday, March 16, 2007 1:02:00 PM
___________________
ER:
1. Bingo: "Then I might say your faith is founded on the book and not the God that book represents."
2. Wrong: "If there were no bible (specifically New Testament)... never written... we would have no Christian faith."
You limit God to the production of words on paper! THAT is your problem. You DO, in fact, worship the book over God himself.
Friday, March 16, 2007 9:12:00 PM
___________________
Eric:
If that is so, then Jesus too is a bibliolater. For, when confronting the Scribes and Pharisees of His day he held the word of God in very high esteem... perhaps TOO high:
"Have you not read what God said to you?... Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written... What is written in the Law? How do you read it? ...In your own Law it is written... Have you not read in the book of Moses?... It is written in the Prophets... Then what is the meaning of that which is written?... The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him... Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms... Begone, Satan! For it is written... It stands written... As it is written... On the other hand, it is written... Is it not written?"
You claim to love God and the teachings of Jesus yet you claim his Word is not to be taken seriously... not to be held in high esteem. It's most likely been corrupted over the centuries. Who can know what it really said? It can't be trusted.
I don't worship the bible. I worship God. And I hold His word in very high esteem, because all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works... Which is why it's called 'The Good Book'.
If I might make an observation at this point... you and Dan appear to have a form of Godliness, but you routinely deny the power thereof... and the efficacy of His word. How can you worship God without venerating His word? How can you be saved WITHOUT His word?
You can't. For faith cometh by hearing, and hearing BY THE WORD OF GOD...
Why do you think it's called the HOLY Bible? Because it's God? Or is it merely a repository for Godly wisdom? And if that be the case, why shouldn't we venerate it? Hold in high esteem?
Your focus is not where it should be, as were the Pharisees'. Jesus told them to "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
You and Dan are missing the forest for the trees... Just like the Scribes and Pharisees.
What does Jude 1:3 mean by "earnestly contend for the faith"? Why, even, are we to contend!? Because certain men are crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
They were "Filthy Dreamers". Seducing spirits perverting the word of God and "lead[ing] captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts".
Obeying and clinging to His word is not idolatry, clinging to ones own understanding is.
Saturday, March 17, 2007 12:23:00 AM
___________________
Dan:
"For faith cometh by hearing, and hearing BY THE WORD OF GOD."
Well, you know, in the Bible, Jesus tells us that HE is the Word of God made flesh. Jesus is the Logos.
That's what we're saying; we worship Jesus and follow Jesus' teachings. As such, I personally love the Bible and hold it to be God's written Word to us.
But we must rely upon God to reveal God's Word to us. If we just read and pick and choose what we want to believe, then we can stone gays and disrespectful children, dash babies heads against rocks, gouge out our eyes and do all manner of evil.
We must rely upon the God who gave us the Word for direction and teaching and THAT is the God we must worship.
Now, as to this accusation that ER and I "appear to have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof," you'd be doing both of us a favor if you'd let us know exactly how we're denying the power thereof.
I don't believe ER and I know that I am not intentionally denying God's power - quite the opposite. We're trying to preach the power of God's blessed grace and love. If you have reason to think otherwise, you'd be helping me out by letting me know.
If you don't have reason to think thusly, then maybe you owe us an apology for mischaracterizing us thusly.
Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:11:00 AM
___________________
Eric:
"We're trying to preach the power of God's blessed grace and love"
nuh uh, What you're trying to do, and doing a good job of it, is tear down every other believer who doesn't share your liberal view of God and Christianity. And when others tear the same down, you rarely... RARELY defend your "supposed" brothers and sisters in Christ.
Each day that passes, you and your coterie of likeminded scholars, demonstrate to me and the rest of your abused brothers and sisters in Christ, that you lack a genuine knowledge and understanding of the truth.
Our spirits do not agree.
Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:49:00 AM
___________________
Dan:
"What you're trying to do, and doing a good job of it, is tear down every other believer who doesn't share your liberal view of God and Christianity."
Again, brother Eric, I'm asking you to show me where I'm doing so. I'm not intending to do so; I'm intending to engage in a brother with whom I have a disagreement. I'm intending to discuss God's Word in our lives.
Where? Where have I or others torn down fellow believers? Disagreeing with your position is not the same as tearing you down. In fact, if I think your position is biblically wrong, aren't I doing a kindness to discuss the matter with you? Isn't this the process of divining the Word of God with the family of God?
Who has tore down others? I, who have disagreed with you, or you, who has repeatedly questioned some of our salvation (I've never done so towards you), who've called us names (most recently, "delusional redneck who worships pond scum"...Geez!) and who've misrepresented my position and then not allowed me to respond?
Where, brother, have I torn down?
Saturday, March 17, 2007 1:58:00 PM
___________________
[And that’s where I left it and deleted, out of frustration, all but what still resides within the original post. In recreating this dialog from email notifications, I took the liberty of correcting spelling and the more serious flaws in grammar (and surely missing some of both). Each original thought remains intact despite my editing.]
My intent in reposting all this is not get into an argument all over again with BenT, Dan, or ER, but only to illustrate my point that this kind of debate is largely pointless.
"Inerrantists are familiar with these and find rationalizations for these and other errors and contradictions, but they are unconvincing."
[emphasis mine]
"...but they are unconvincing." Proof positive that I waste my time trying to convince anyone to abandon the bunker they have dug for themselves. Unless the Holy Spirit speaks to anyone's heart when confronted with truth, they'll never see a need to leave the comfort of familiar surroundings for better digs.
I waste my time if I allow the discussion its head, to lead where IT will rather than where truth would lead. I try to remain patient and loving, but I do not always succeed. In point of fact, I rarely succeed in remaining both patient AND loving.
Here then is a series of comments at 'the other blog' I tried to get started. I say 'tried' because no matter how hard I try not to, I always end up injecting faith into the discussion. I thought to keep my political views separate from my spiritual views by keeping them on separate blogs... but it hasn't worked out that way. Proof of this lies in the fact that the other blog is languishing. And why should I keep my spiritual and political views separate? One must necessarily direct the other, or ideological anarchy would ensue.
As with bunkers, everyone has their own preferred methods of combating competing 'truths' as well. BenT likes to throw out spike strips to impede the delivery of building supplies. ER prefers to 'Piffle' his way through the arguments, criticizing the manner in which I and others use the materials that do arrive, claiming 'God is still speaking' (which to my mind means: God is still giving mankind 'revelations', which is NOT true) and therefore the material is being used incorrectly. Dan is less subtle in that he just tries to tear down every tabernacle I and other build that do not align with his own personal revelations from God, and he does it with such finesse as to make one wonder if perhaps we might have misunderstood him all along, that he really only seeks to save us from our own flawed understanding of God's word.
I'm not attempting to criticize BenT, ER or Dan, here... Only illustrate what I see coming from them... Emanating from them. And why I see trying to argue with them is pointless.
So when I say, "I won't bother", I'm really saying, "I'm tired of rehashing the same ol' ground over and over again." To my mind, all this is nothing but a tool of the enemy to wear down my resolve... my desire to keep the shield raised and the sword sharp and at-ready. It's like Jesus in the Garden asking his disciple to watch with him and pray. Twice he caught them napping, chastising them once. But the second time he saw the truth of the matter... the Truth of the Flesh... The spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak. I am weak. I have to constantly be lifted up, dusted off, and sent back into the fray.
And it is a fray. It is an invisible war we are engaged in. The war was decided at Calvary, but battle still rages. My side has won, but I can still be killed on the battlefield, because the enemy has no desire to see me enjoy my Lord's victory. The enemy wants me to get bogged down in religion, habitual sin, pride, wealth, worldly possessions, sex... all these and more rather than see me live a victorious life. The enemy wants me to argue pointlessly, rehashing, and retracing ground that is already covered and won. He wants me to believe I have to fight for the land upon which I stand with heels dug in. But I don't. All I have to do is stand. The ground is already mine by virtue of the fact that I am a joint heir in Christ; what is His is mine. All I have to do is stand. I have to do is plant seed. God gives the increase.
If I go to a Baptist church, it's because I hear the truth there, I feel the Holy Spirit there, and my heart is spoken-to there. But you see, I don't want to be a Baptist, I don't want to be a Methodist, or a Unitarian. I don't want to be an Episcopal, a Catholic, Jesusian, or a What-have-you... That's the Enemy's game. Dividing the Bride of Christ and getting her to lose focus by engaging in pointless struggles amongst her own number. I don't want to be identified by a religion...
Me? I just want to be a Christian.
Here then is a perfect illustration of why I see no point in engaging in endless, profitless debate about points of scripture.
Fair Warning: It's a lengthy read. The post can be found here, Answering BenT - The Unbeliever... sans comments. There is a link at the beginning that will give you lead you to the questions BenT initially raised at this blog. Following the convoluted path this post takes will be, I believe, worth the effort. I probably should have left all the comments there, but frustration got the better of me.
_____________________
BenT :
Many of your replies contain something along the lines of "well that was written for the audience of the time..." or "when people in those days observed..."
and that is exactly my point. The bible is a book written to be understood by someone in the 1st and 2nd century. Today we know mustard seeds are not small, we understand about microorganisms and astronomy. If you had tried to explain amoebic dysentery to the 12 disciples they would have had their congregations stone you for preaching about spirits and devils.
Fanatic Christians however keep trying to take the modern world and make it twist and fit itself so that it will never grow to contradict this outdated manuscript. I can't speak to the accuracy of the spiritual knowledge of the bible, but using it as a guide to physical reality will only lead one astray.
March 13, 2007 3:52:00 AM
________________
BenT:
These were in fact the verses I was thinking of when I said Jesus himself reportedly tells some of the disciples they will be alive to see the end of times.
"Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. " -- Matthew 16:28
"Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. " -- Luke 21:32-33
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:20:00 AM
___________________
Eric:
"I can't speak to the accuracy of the spiritual knowledge of the bible, but using it as a guide to physical reality will only lead one astray."
You are of course entitled to believe this. I naturally disagree.
The world was a very different place "in those days". They didn't have the knowledge we do, but that doesn't make their observations incorrect... only limited. Truth is uncomplicated, and many times truth is easier to find in the construction of a log cabin than in a building of glass and steel.
Matthew 16:28 can mean a couple of things: firstly, this passage is talking about the transfiguration. In all 3 of the synoptic gospels, this promise is made immediately prior to the Transfiguration (Mark 9:1-9; Luke 9:27-36). Furthermore the word "Kingdom" can be translated "royal splendor". Therefore, it seems most natural to interpret this promise as a reference to the Transfiguration, which "some of the disciples-- Peter, James, and John, would witness only 6 days later. This comes from many commentaries. Secondly, John himself, on the Isle of Patmos while in the spirit "witnessed" all the events that would come in the end time... the rapture, the seven seals, the seven trumpets, the seven vials, world events, and the return of Jesus Christ to establish His kingdom.
Luke 21-23 is better explained by beginning at verse 7, "And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?"
Jesus spoke often enough about the end-times that prompted His disciples to ask when it would be. Jesus, in Matthew 24:36, said of that day, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."
The first chapter of Hebrews does a great job of describing the relationship between the Father and Son. It is also written somewhere (I've been unable to find it) that Jesus emptied Himself of much of His glory when He came to earth; this is beautifully illustrated by the Transfiguration in Matthew 17:1-9 and Mark 9:2-9. Jesus doesn't say in Matthew 24:36 that HE doesn't know, but it is reasonable to say He may well have not known when He spoke those words. Since God the father and God the Son are one and the same, Location probably makes a tremendous difference as to what the Son knew, specifically, at that moment in time. But telegraphing a specific date in time when His second coming would be would likely have caused many to get lazy and not work... to not be vigilant, hence the command to watch and wait, because we do not know the hour in which the son of man will come.
What Jesus does then is give a laundry list of 'signs' and speaks of the people of that day... that generation. The generation who sees all this coming to pass at once, will not 'pass away till all be fulfilled.'
Many prophesies in the Old Testament had two applications: One firmly rooted in the day the prophesy was uttered/written, and one in the distant future... a sign to those in that faraway time of the surety of God's word. Jesus likewise spoke in this manner.
In Luke 21:20 Jesus said, "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." He spoke of the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD by Titus. But with the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John on the Isle of Patmos, it becomes clear that this is also a reference to the time during the Great Tribulation when Jerusalem will be surrounded by her enemies once again, and overrun for a short time before Jesus Himself reappears and destroys the armies of the wicked.
March 13, 2007 11:05:00 AM
___________________
BenT:
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Jesus didn't come to his transfiguration with glory. He went with Peter James and John, who by the way were not rewarded for their works at such an event. And none of the transfiguration stories mentions angles either. They mention Moses and Elijah, but those are clearly men. I find your interpretation logically torturous.
Would it shake your faith to the roots for a document, written originally as stand alone texts, by multiple authors, over the course of centuries, to be internally inconsistent? Then I might say your faith is founded on the book and not the God that book represents.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:37:00 PM
___________________
Eric:
What's torturous is your objection, taken out of context and ignoring speech pattern and the natural flow of speech from one related topic to another-- though not necessarily linked.
You quote Matthew 16:27 correctly but you apply it incorrectly. How does verse 27 apply to verse 28? Sure it immediately precedes it but verse 28 is fully self-contained. Jesus finishes one pronouncement then says something new; the two statements ARE relative but not married or joined at the hip. Besides which, in my previous comment I clearly offered a second possible explanation. Here then is a third: What of His ascension into heaven? It was attended and witnessed by many, including angels. The witnesses saw him coming into 'the glory of his Father with his angels...' the fact that the next portion comes after the semi-colon, well, who's to know how long of an interval there is between Christ being received up into glory and his rewarding of the faithful?
There's nothing torturous here except this debate. You're not going to accept anything I have to say on the matter anyway. I wish that weren't so, but... I'll continue if until it runs its course.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:58:00 PM
___________________
Bent:
So let's go over this
Matthew 16:24-27 24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
So here we have Jesus giving his stump speech "You wanna follow me, you gotta commit. It'll be hard, but you'll be rewarded in the end."
Matthew 16:28 28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Then after speaking of the far future, Jesus throws out this little line "Oh yeah some of you will see it before you die" Now he could have been speaking of next week, when he transfigured, but is that really the most logical reading of the text. I mean if it was me, I'd feel a little gypped, no angels, no rewards, just a bright light and booming voice.
Luke tells the story differently
Luke 21:5-6 5And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 6As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Jesus and the disciples are in the temple watching people tithe - rich people donating gold, a widow giving up her children. The disciples got to admiring the gold and jewels adorning the temple walls. Jesus says "you know this isn't as permanent and impressive as it looks. One day this will be an empty run down city lot."
Luke 21:7-26 7And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?...
Jesus spends verses 8-26 talking about signs of when the temple will be torn down. Considering the amount of suffering and war he describes, it is certainly understandable how some of the disciples might have thought he was talking of the far future, when in fact the temple was razed just 70 years later.
Luke 21:27-32 27And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. 29And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
And then Jesus tells them "look for me then, I'm coming to take you home." After that there's a short story about how fig trees sprout in summer, but the key verses are 31 and 32. Jesus very definitely promised to return 1) when the fig tree sprouts 2) when the temple is torn down or 3) before all his disciples died. There is very definitely however no suggestion at all that he was talking about the transfiguration. And the words between the two promises are almost word for word exact.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:53:00 PM
___________________
Eric:
I readily admit I do not have all the answers. I'm no bible scholar, but I have studied the book off an on for the last 20 years. I WILL say I have a good grasp of what it says and IS SAYING.
To answer your question/argument I had to resort to books packed away in boxes (yes, I'm still living out of boxes here) and various sites on the Internet. The places I've been to agree with my second opinion on Matthew 16:28, namely, that this was fulfilled in John on the Isle of Patmos.
Here's this explanation from GodandScience.org:
"Atheists claim that there are false prophesies in the Bible, such as the one that predicts that the early saints would be there for Christ's glorious (2nd) coming, and that John would not taste death. This is the specific prophecy that they are referring to:
"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)
This prophecy was actually fulfilled in its entirety in the late first century. If you read the book of Revelation, you will see that John, the apostle to whom the prophecy was directed, saw Jesus coming in His glory to establish His kingdom. This is what the entire book of revelation describes - the second coming of Jesus Christ. John saw it all in a vision, as it will happen. The prophecy was fulfilled! The prophecy does not say that John would not die before Christ returned. It said that he would not die before seeing the return of Jesus Christ. What is awesome about the vision reported by John is that he did not understand what he was seeing, but reported it as he saw it. As such, he includes descriptions of a giant meteor collision with the earth, battles with mechanized machines that sound like tanks, and huge armies (200,000,000 men), which would not even be possible until at least the 20th century."
Now, I'm not calling you an atheist, I'm just quoting from the site. I've stated previously my belief that you found your arguments online somewhere, and that's fine. Neither of us are scholars for or against God. We do what we can with what we have available to us. Besides which, you never bothered to deny my assertion that you found your argument online; an assertion which, ultimately, is irrelevant. I'm told by the Bible I love so much to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear..."
Now, I haven't been meek, but I've been fearful in that I greatly desire to answer your objections, whether you choose to accept the answers or not.
This Blog was not created for contentious debate, it was created to spur other believers to stand up and fight for what God has given us, and to, perhaps, persuade nonbelievers of the truth of God's word, both for fear of where these people will go if they die without Christ, and fear of their blood on my hands if I don't (Ezekiel 3:18-21) But if this means 'defending the faith with contentious debate', so be it. My bible says to go into the highways and hedges and COMPEL them to come in.
That's all I'm trying to do here. So, having said all that let me be absolutely clear on one thing: while I will seek to answer every question put forward, I will not allow this blog to become the "Eric, Ben, and Dan Show" however amusing some might find it.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:08:00 AM
___________________
Bent:
I can accept your new view of Matthew 16:28. It seems a little bit pixyish but it satisfies the logical and verbal requirements of the verse.
However your argument does not address Luke 21:27-32. And when you look at those statements you have to see the similarity to Matthew 16:27-28. The words are almost exactly alike and these events are described just before the transfiguration story. Are both men relating the same episode? If so then the Revelation explanation that satisfies Matthew 16:27-28 will not also satisfy Luke 21:27-32.
I am not seeking to break your faith. I certainly do not want this to descend into acrimoniousness, but I do want to understand your belief in the infallibility of the bible.
I took these examples from The Skeptics Annotated Bible. There are hundreds more. I do not accept all their nitpicks, but if the bible is infallible, then it must be internally 100% consistent. Not only internally consistent either, it must also align with external historical and scientific data.
One day/millennium in the future a religion may be formed around the Dungeons and Dragons novels. If all those different books were bound together, would they be 100% internally consistent?
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:45:00 AM
___________________
Eric:
Luke 21:27-32 does speak of His second coming, but I think it's also important to note that, as I stated previously, many such utterances have more than a single application. It's also important to consider whom He was addressing at the time.
If you go back to verse 20, the reference is clearly the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D. But if the Bible is to be taken as a whole, it then becomes clear that this also refers to a time far distant and removed from 70 A.D., namely the Tribulation He often spoke of. The new Temple, which is yet to be built, will also be overrun and smashed when the enemies of Israel come a'conquering.
Jesus was not just addressing fellow Jews, but also, Jews who would soon be something completely different; though oddly and indescribably the same-- Jews who would soon be Christians.
Now, in verse 5 they were talking about the Temple and how nice it was, but He immediately says, "the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
[Flavius Josephus covers this in The Jewish War]
He is then asked what the signs will be.
Jesus, always a step ahead of His disciples gives them more than they ask. They asked about the temple-- and He DOES answer in verse 20: "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh”, but He sandwiches it in with a picture of what the world will be like much farther down the road. The reason this is obvious to those of us who believe is we DO take the Bible as a whole, and not simply a collection of 66 books written by some forty different authors over 1500(+/-) years. Especially when one considers the 'Law of First Mention' in the realm of prophetic interpretation...
"The law of first mention may be said to be the principle that requires one to go to that portion of the Scriptures where a doctrine is mentioned for the first time and to study the first occurrence of the same in order to get the fundamental inherent meaning of that doctrine. When we thus see the first appearance, which is usually in the simplest form, we can then examine the doctrine in other portions of the Word that were given later. We shall see that the fundamental concept in the first occurrence remains dominant as a rule, and colors all later additions to that doctrine."
Which is where "The Fig Tree" comes in. The Fig Tree is a picture of the nation of Israel. There are several prophesies that are part and parcel with Luke 21, that describe the days in which the Messiah will come to judge the nations (the Great Tribulation as it is generally called). Israel will become a rich blooming Garden. Where once were dust and desert, fruit, flowers, and green will all but cover the land of Israel. Israel today is the largest producer of fruit and vegetable exports in the Middle East. Also, no other time in history since the Babylonian and Persian Captivities has Israel EVER been an autonomous nation... until now. The Bible also says Israel will be a 'burdensome stone' to the rest of the world, and that Jerusalem will be trodden under foot of the Gentiles, until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. And Jerusalem has been under Gentile rule from centuries before Christ was born, to 1967 when Israel captured the city. According to prophecy the 'Time of the Gentiles' is over. We are nearing the end of God's prophetic purpose.
The Bible must be consistent throughout. Each book, chapter, and verse must compliment every other book, chapter, and verse without contradiction. I have seen and read nothing to suggest the Bible is anything but complimentary in all its myriad of parts. I understand skepticism, but I also understand that languages evolve, and meaning must sometimes be diligently sought. [For a look at what I mean, check out this Interlinear Greek text of Luke 21 and decide for yourself how difficult it must have been to translate ancient Greek to modern English (pdf)] Luke 21 speaks primarily of the time when Christ will return-- all those signs will be occurring simultaneously, and they will increase as a pregnant woman's contractions; increasing in frequency and intensity until something new is born out of travail.
Secondarily, Luke 21 does speaks of Jerusalem A.D. 70, but not to the extent that it speaks of Jerusalem at the end of the age.
_____
If for no other reason, I thank you for the opportunity your questions have given me to delve into this subject and gain a little more insight into events I honestly believe are right around the corner.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:37:00 PM
___________________
BenT:
We can argue these two passages back and forth ad-nauseum.
I've never heard of this "Law of First Mention" it seems to me something cobbled together to link disparate passages to find truths where there may be none to be found. I could take the 2nd letter after ever begat in the bible and if I sifted and rearranged them enough I'd have a "new" biblical insight.
Let's move on to a new puzzler:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
In fact short of Matthew 1:23 no one in the New Testament call Jesus, Emmanuel.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:59:00 PM
___________________
Eric:
The New Testament was written in Greek. The Greek texts have His name as Iesous. but Jesus was a Jew, was He not? His Hebrew name is "Yahu'shuah", which is equivalent to Yehoshua, which also happened to be Joshua's name before translators got hold of it. Messianic Jews today call Him, "Yeshua"; phonetically, yeh-SHOE-uh
"Yehoshua" in Hebrew means, 'Yahweh (or "God") is Salvation', or "God Saves". It could be broken down further to simply "Salvation". My Bible's commentary has it translated as, "He shall save His people"... Which He has.
Immanuel simply means, "God with us" and this is certainly what Peter and others called Him.
Matthew 16:16
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
John 20:28
"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."
Jesus Himself said,
"I and my father are one"
John 10:30
And also,
"...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father"
John 14:9
Martha the sister of Lazarus said,
"I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world."
John 11:27
Jesus also claimed to be God in
John 8:56-58
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
Immanuel certainly fits-- as does Yehoshua.
Remember also that to a Jew the idea of another God beside Yahweh, was blasphemous at the very least. For these people to accept Him as a Son of God... as God Himself... was like asking to be put to death by the religious leaders of the day. There was a lot of debate going on over Jesus at the time, but one fact was inescapable to these people: No man could do the things Jesus did unless God were with Him and approved of Him. And to the Jew, who knew all to well that God is a jealous God and will brook no other Gods before Him, Jesus performed great miracles DESPITE claiming to BE God, and equal WITH God.
I therefore don't see a problem here.
Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:23:00 AM
___________________
BenT:
If you prophesy that a child is to be called Wilberforce, and someone later names him William, it is not the same.
Thursday, March 15, 2007 8:16:00 AM
___________________
Dan:
I think the problem lies within the claim of taking the Bible literally.
No one does. No one should.
We ALL (all of us who find any value in the teachings therein) have to evaluate any passage as to it's a literal statement, an allegory, a historical tidbit, a "historical" tidbit (written as if a history, but without necessarily sticking to exact facts - a common story-telling approach in many cultures).
We have to determine what the context is, what relevance (if any) a passage has for today, etc, etc, etc.
The problem comes when some people say "The Bible Must Be Taken Literally," when what they mean is, "You must accept the exact meaning that I have for every passage in the Bible."
So, it's not good enough for some that I try to take Jesus' teaching to "Love your enemy" literally. No. I must also agree with some that, "loving your enemy is okay, but sometimes you've really got to blast 'em to bits. And sometimes, not only your enemies, but their children and any innocent bystanders, as well."
The Bible is a great book of Truths. What many of us consider to be God's Word.
But it too often has been made into a battering ram to try to force people to agree with you on every single point.
Not it's purpose, seems to me.
March 15, 2007 8:27:00 AM
___________________
Brent:
I guess I'll weigh in here a little bit.
What is the purpose of the debate? It sounds like a democrat and republican debating various points that matter little from their own agenda. If the purpose is for truth then so be it. You both come from completely different paradigms so you will never agree or score debate points with the other. I think it is an example of what's wrong with our system.
E your do a superb job at being a scholar but your barking up the wrong tree if you think you can convince Ben of anything. And Ben you're not scoring any debate points with E. So what are you all doing? If the goal is truth you will not find it in your current state of communication. If you're out for a healthy word duel then you've hit the mark and enjoy.
Truth can only come through revelation. Study, meditation, and process are all important but these things were hidden from the "wise" and revealed to "babes." I know that sounds like an out that says I don't have to listen to Ben but so be it. I've had my fill of debates and found them unsatisfying and unproductive. I believe that debates are fine but their end result can't be vanity. We will have differences as long as we depend on our intellect first without seeking the One who wrote it. If Ben is really a seeker of truth then it will lead him to the One who has the answers if he is willing to listen. But the same goes for you and I. Maybe Ben's problem is that too many of Father's children speak for Him without having heard His voice on the matter.
b
Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:16:00 AM
___________________
Eric:
Thanks Brent. You are, of course, right. But I like Bent... work with him in fact... and I'm not willing to give up just yet. But I can limit the discussion to just this post.
Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:01:00 PM
___________________
Eric:
The bible is more than a great book of truths, Dan. For Christians it is our faith, for without that book, we HAVE no faith. Without the Bible, what faith would there be?
---
Wilberforce?
Emmanuel and Jehoshua are synonymous.
Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:04:00 PM
___________________
Dan:
"The bible is more than a great book of truths, Dan. For Christians it is our faith"
Well, as I said, for some of us, it is the Word of God. I wouldn't call it my faith, but it is the primary source where I learn about my faith (or rather, I consider God the primary source of how I learn about my faith and God has revealed God's Self through God's Word).
Friday, March 16, 2007 4:39:00 AM
___________________
Eric:
"...it is the primary source where I learn about my faith"
And as it is the only way you CAN learn about your faith, it is THE faith. For faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the WORD of God. When Jude says to 'earnestly contend for the faith' he speaks of the revealed word of God. And that is exactly what the Bible is... the revealed Word of God. Without it we would have no faith.
Friday, March 16, 2007 7:44:00 AM
___________________
Dan:
It's not the only way. God reveals God's Self through the Holy Spirit in our lives. God reveals God's Self to us through God's creation. God reveals God's Self to us through our God-given reasoning and the imprint of God's nature in us.
Wouldn't you agree?
Friday, March 16, 2007 8:56:00 AM
___________________
Dan:
Without it we would have no faith?
You mean, for those who've not been exposed to the Bible, they can't believe in God? If some fascist gov't were able to destroy all the Bibles in the world, you think Christianity would be dead?
Not my faith. God is bigger than the printed Bible. The Bible is not our God, nor our faith; it is God's Word to us. But if it were gone, God would still be there reaching out, just as God was reaching out to Abraham, Noah and all those who came along pre-Bible
Friday, March 16, 2007 8:59:00 AM
___________________
Eric:
Naturally, you've missed my meaning. If there were no bible (specifically New Testament)... never written... we would have no Christian faith. It is through the Gospels and Epistles that we have our faith today.
Friday, March 16, 2007 1:02:00 PM
___________________
ER:
1. Bingo: "Then I might say your faith is founded on the book and not the God that book represents."
2. Wrong: "If there were no bible (specifically New Testament)... never written... we would have no Christian faith."
You limit God to the production of words on paper! THAT is your problem. You DO, in fact, worship the book over God himself.
Friday, March 16, 2007 9:12:00 PM
___________________
Eric:
If that is so, then Jesus too is a bibliolater. For, when confronting the Scribes and Pharisees of His day he held the word of God in very high esteem... perhaps TOO high:
"Have you not read what God said to you?... Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written... What is written in the Law? How do you read it? ...In your own Law it is written... Have you not read in the book of Moses?... It is written in the Prophets... Then what is the meaning of that which is written?... The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him... Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms... Begone, Satan! For it is written... It stands written... As it is written... On the other hand, it is written... Is it not written?"
You claim to love God and the teachings of Jesus yet you claim his Word is not to be taken seriously... not to be held in high esteem. It's most likely been corrupted over the centuries. Who can know what it really said? It can't be trusted.
I don't worship the bible. I worship God. And I hold His word in very high esteem, because all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works... Which is why it's called 'The Good Book'.
If I might make an observation at this point... you and Dan appear to have a form of Godliness, but you routinely deny the power thereof... and the efficacy of His word. How can you worship God without venerating His word? How can you be saved WITHOUT His word?
You can't. For faith cometh by hearing, and hearing BY THE WORD OF GOD...
Why do you think it's called the HOLY Bible? Because it's God? Or is it merely a repository for Godly wisdom? And if that be the case, why shouldn't we venerate it? Hold in high esteem?
Your focus is not where it should be, as were the Pharisees'. Jesus told them to "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
You and Dan are missing the forest for the trees... Just like the Scribes and Pharisees.
What does Jude 1:3 mean by "earnestly contend for the faith"? Why, even, are we to contend!? Because certain men are crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
They were "Filthy Dreamers". Seducing spirits perverting the word of God and "lead[ing] captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts".
Obeying and clinging to His word is not idolatry, clinging to ones own understanding is.
Saturday, March 17, 2007 12:23:00 AM
___________________
Dan:
"For faith cometh by hearing, and hearing BY THE WORD OF GOD."
Well, you know, in the Bible, Jesus tells us that HE is the Word of God made flesh. Jesus is the Logos.
That's what we're saying; we worship Jesus and follow Jesus' teachings. As such, I personally love the Bible and hold it to be God's written Word to us.
But we must rely upon God to reveal God's Word to us. If we just read and pick and choose what we want to believe, then we can stone gays and disrespectful children, dash babies heads against rocks, gouge out our eyes and do all manner of evil.
We must rely upon the God who gave us the Word for direction and teaching and THAT is the God we must worship.
Now, as to this accusation that ER and I "appear to have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof," you'd be doing both of us a favor if you'd let us know exactly how we're denying the power thereof.
I don't believe ER and I know that I am not intentionally denying God's power - quite the opposite. We're trying to preach the power of God's blessed grace and love. If you have reason to think otherwise, you'd be helping me out by letting me know.
If you don't have reason to think thusly, then maybe you owe us an apology for mischaracterizing us thusly.
Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:11:00 AM
___________________
Eric:
"We're trying to preach the power of God's blessed grace and love"
nuh uh, What you're trying to do, and doing a good job of it, is tear down every other believer who doesn't share your liberal view of God and Christianity. And when others tear the same down, you rarely... RARELY defend your "supposed" brothers and sisters in Christ.
Each day that passes, you and your coterie of likeminded scholars, demonstrate to me and the rest of your abused brothers and sisters in Christ, that you lack a genuine knowledge and understanding of the truth.
Our spirits do not agree.
Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:49:00 AM
___________________
Dan:
"What you're trying to do, and doing a good job of it, is tear down every other believer who doesn't share your liberal view of God and Christianity."
Again, brother Eric, I'm asking you to show me where I'm doing so. I'm not intending to do so; I'm intending to engage in a brother with whom I have a disagreement. I'm intending to discuss God's Word in our lives.
Where? Where have I or others torn down fellow believers? Disagreeing with your position is not the same as tearing you down. In fact, if I think your position is biblically wrong, aren't I doing a kindness to discuss the matter with you? Isn't this the process of divining the Word of God with the family of God?
Who has tore down others? I, who have disagreed with you, or you, who has repeatedly questioned some of our salvation (I've never done so towards you), who've called us names (most recently, "delusional redneck who worships pond scum"...Geez!) and who've misrepresented my position and then not allowed me to respond?
Where, brother, have I torn down?
Saturday, March 17, 2007 1:58:00 PM
___________________
[And that’s where I left it and deleted, out of frustration, all but what still resides within the original post. In recreating this dialog from email notifications, I took the liberty of correcting spelling and the more serious flaws in grammar (and surely missing some of both). Each original thought remains intact despite my editing.]
My intent in reposting all this is not get into an argument all over again with BenT, Dan, or ER, but only to illustrate my point that this kind of debate is largely pointless.
from the mind of... Eric | 7:33 PM
14 Comments:
In the end, what Brent had to say goes double for me...
"I've had my fill of debates and found them unsatisfying and unproductive. I believe that debates are fine but their end result can't be vanity. We will have differences as long as we depend on our intellect first without seeking the One who wrote it."
I still admire where we had this long involved discussion, and in the end you just wiped it away. All that is left is your original rebuttal of my questions, and a post telling you that you are right. Proof that dissenting thoughts and questioning voices have no place in your reality.
Eric. I too created a different blog that addresses spiritual thoughts. It doesn't get many hits, either. But that's alright with me. My God's way/My way blog is simply a place where I post my personal thoughts and musings about God, and if I get comments, fine. If I don't that's fine, too.
When I attempted to post religiously related thoughts on my main blog, comment threads were diverted to theological discussions that were way too complicated for my humble brain to handle, so I created the other blog.
I don't set myself up as an authority on the Bible. I can only re-iterate that "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've committed unto Him against that day". Somewhere between a scholary understanding of the Bible and what I believe God has revealed to me through meditation and through reading His word, I believe I have a place prepared for me, and anything I misunderstand will be revealed to me in God's own time.
My suggestion for you is one I should follow as well:
Leave it alone. You will never get consensus. If you have an epiphany, by all means, write a post about it on your other blog, but don't allow yourself to get involved in a theological discussion that will only lead to hard feelings and pointless division among the church of God.
Keep posting your thoughts. They help me and others understand God better, whether some dare to admit it or not.
And you requested I restore it all, and so I have... every comment retrieved from email and placed in order. I've also dropped comment moderation, as you asked, though not because you asked. What more do you want?
For myself, I recognize it as a challenge I met head on with all the faith I could muster. I believe I acquitted myself well, but I don't 'admire' the exchange. I'm glad you did.
Secret Rapture's inaugural address at the Great White Throne judgment will, despite his bravado, consist of only two things.....
1) He will kneel, and
2) He will say, "Jesus is Lord"
Nothing more, nothing less.
I'm going to let his post stand as a warning to weary sailors, as a warning much like the maps of old, which said of uncharted waters.... "Here be monsters"
Hell will be filled with monsters. Repent before it is too late.
We do, finally, agree. This is pointless.
If you get to heaven first, welcome me when I arrive. I'll do the same.
The other day, Dad said something about falling weeping at the feet of the Lord upon arrival.
Each of us will, for our arrogance, mainly, and at the sight of so many who were SAVED by God's grace in spite of our own narrow ideas, and perhaps, for all the time we wasted arguing unimportant points rather than humbly embracing one another in Jesus's name. Each of us was lost, and now we're found. That's the point. And it's the only point.
This I know for I heard the Word, which is in the Bible, preached, illuminated and given life in my heart by the Holy Ghost.
And as Bro. Gump said, "That's all I have to say about that."
ER,
I'm sure you'll indeed have more to say in future postings. But I think the point of much dispute can be brought into sharper focus by pondering this question: Can all viewpoints regarding Christian teaching be correct, even amongst self-described Christians? If I say I believe this, and you say you believe that, sincerety isn't of value if one viewpoint is clearly wrong and contrary to God's Will. Nor are claims of being touched by the Holy Spirit. Even more, can one who claims to be so touched still fall short due to misperception or misunderstanding? Your faith may save in most cases, but what if you're bottomline belief is totally heretical upon examination? An epihany may have moved one to believe, but what comes next might still lead one to stray, no?
I think this is where most of the religious debates I've been a part of live, in the area of clear understanding. We see this in debates over abortion, homosexuality, how a nation cares for it's poor and needy.
I believe the debate to be worthy and another form of evangelism. What we lack most is civility, openmindedness, and the willingness to accept we might be wrong. It is for this reason claims of Biblical fallibility are irrelevant since the examples of it (or rather the alleged examples of it) make no difference. I choose to continue questioning the belief system of others, not only to persuade them to what I believe to be the truth, but also to open myself up to it as well.
"I believe the debate to be worthy and another form of evangelism."
As do I, but with my current crop of opponents, it is clear they will not be swayed. As with the example I offered in the exchange between BenT and myself, when one question is thoroughly beaten to death, and upon seeing he (BenT) will not come out on top, he moves to another question. The process is like a seige. One heavily defended keep against a force that is wisely testing the defenses, moving around the wall till a weakness is found. Naturally, my metaphor implies a struggle for the integrity of the walls and gates and who will ultimately have mastery. This in turn implies a battle of wills born of fleshly desire, rather than a battle within the spirit for the souls of men.
In such cases, to my tired mind, the debate begins to become pointless.
As far as evangelism goes, it's never a good idea to continue to cast ones pearls before swine, in a one to one, or two or three on one discussion. Why give what is holy unto the dogs? But this is not a wise move in an open air setting where many people are gathered 'round. One on one, if the Word is being mocked and ridiculed, do not present the Gospel... it is not welcome. But in a large crowd, present the Gospel despite the mocking and ridicule... someone within the crowd may be listening, and the Holy Spirit may be dealing with their heart.
All of which presents a dilemma here online. Is my debate with 2 or 3 hostile opponents really a private affair between only my detractors and myself, or are there other people who stop in and read, never bothering to comment? Is the discussion reaching others on the fringe? I guess I just have to wait on the Lord, and let Him tell me when the debate has become pointless.
it's your blog Eric, not anyone else's. It your platform. Your readers know that.
Anyone who does not agree with you can post a comment but I've got to tell you, because some of the comments drone on (and on), it's nice to read your replies. They often give me ammunition for those water cooler discussions at work!
I don't read this blog often, so am just now getting around to replying.
My comment that defenses of biblical inerrancy are unconvincing is "proof positive" of nothing. It is only a statement that I have found such explanations unsatisfying.
However, I do agree about bunkers. Several studies have actually shown that when values and attitudes are strongly held, new knowledge often is selectively received, interpreted, and remembered.
As a Christian who is also a scientist, I see this time and time again when biblical literalists deny the overwhelming evidence about evolution and geologic time. Their views are clearly at odds with what we know about biology and the universe.
I have argued my points about evolution here before, so don't want to hijack this blog with more of that.
But people with strong ideological bents (which probably describes everyone commenting here, and I don't exclude myself) tend not to be swayed by logic or new information. They only solidify their existing opinions. So beyond gratifying themselves, my guess is that everyone here is wasting their time.
Beautifully stated, Sternumdrill. Thanks for your input.
MSU gal-- Just what kind of discussions go on at your office's water cooler!? I'm honored and pleased as punch that you find something of value in my replies, but if you find value in the ammunition I'm offering here, those must be some heated discussions you're having up there! ;)
Thank you for leaving my post up.
I have no worry that I will ever be standing before the Lord.
But, within months, if not years, by my hand, we will be in the post apocalyptic world of 'Jericho' on TV! The proof is in the pudding! Stay tuned!
you how these damn yankees can be! i am always defending
God and country. what's more, it's a blue state.
Hi,I am certainly glad to find this. cool job!
Laws of attractions
Post a Comment
<< Home