Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
83 online now:
PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (2 members, 81 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,006 Year: 22,042/19,786 Month: 605/1,834 Week: 105/500 Day: 2/61 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 106 of 479 (539872)
12-20-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Peg
12-20-2009 6:08 AM


Re: Inerrancy question or interpretation question?
if you have a greek translation of Acts, you will see that the original does not use the word 'church' in this verse. Your translation of bible obviously does, but this is not found in Peters writing...

Pegster, only the merely obvious in necessary, not the overly obvious. It should be obvious to even the casual reader that the greek word for church initially means 'a called out group' for what ever reason. Changing it, to use the word number, or church, or group, does not change the meaning when Jesus said I will build my Chruch. if you you use the word number or church it means the same thing. The group is not important, what and whos group it is does matter

The greek word only has menaing to a group, the context will decide what type of group. In this case, it was that failure Jesus' group that he spoke about building, that is under consideration. You streching to avoid an obvious point that Jesus uses the words, church, group, number and kingdom interchangably and within the same paragraph and nearly in his same breath.

this means these new diciples were added to the current group of diciples...not to any church because at that time in their history, there was no 'church'

This is silliness to avoid an obvious point. The Church or any church is not a building w/ a witty sign in front of it. Unless it is one of those delightful sentiments like, "Sign is broken, get message inside", or "If you think its hot now, just wait"

So if it could be said (colosians) that people were being bought into the 'kingdom', it obviously wasnt dependent upon the existence of any church.

So what group, NUMBER or kingdom were they being translated into PRESENTLY, that took them out of darkness. So if it was Jesus' group does it matter if the writer refers to it as church, since that is what the root word means. Really Peg!!!!

Romans 14:17

For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but of righteouness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit

Here Paul speaking to, for, and about the Number, the Church, the group, the called out, describes it as the kingdom of God, using the terms interchangably, describing what it is at its heart, verses some physical aspect. Paul in his writings seems to reflect and echo Christs words in Matthew 16. Imagine that, they were on the same page.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 6:08 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 6:58 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 107 of 479 (539935)
12-20-2009 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dawn Bertot
12-20-2009 11:18 AM


Re: Inerrancy question or interpretation question?
EMA writes:

Pegster, only the merely obvious in necessary, not the overly obvious. It should be obvious to even the casual reader that the greek word for church initially means 'a called out group' for what ever reason.

I dont agree. the use of the word 'church' is misleading and inaccurate.
the Greek word is ekklesia, or in english “ecclesia”
It comes from two Greek words, ek, meaning 'out' and kaleo meaning 'call'
So you are partly correct that it means a group of persons called out or called together but the greek word is not translated as 'church' but rather 'congregation' or 'assembly'

Get yourself a greek interlinear and you'll see

EMA writes:

The greek word only has menaing to a group, the context will decide what type of group

thats all well and good so long as the translator isnt the one deciding what the context is and basing it on his pre concieved ideas.

EMA writes:

This is silliness to avoid an obvious point. The Church or any church is not a building

i agree

but to say that the kingdom will come by means of the 'church' implies exactly that.

EMA writes:

So what group, NUMBER or kingdom were they being translated into PRESENTLY

the Apostle Paul explained it in Ephesians 2:19
19 Certainly, therefore, YOU (new diciples) are no longer strangers and alien residents, but YOU are fellow citizens of the holy ones (apostles) and are members of the household of God, 20 and YOU have been built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. 21 In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. 22 In union with him YOU, too, are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit

The congregation was a spiritual 'church', not a physical one.

EMA writes:

So if it was Jesus' group does it matter if the writer refers to it as church, since that is what the root word means. Really Peg!!!!

yes it does matter because many people think of a church as a building for religious services rather than a congregation engaging in worship. Its misleading.

EMA writes:

Here Paul speaking to, for, and about the Number, the Church, the group, the called out, describes it as the kingdom of God, using the terms interchangably

I dont see anywhere in that verse where Paul mentions a church.

For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but of righteouness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit

Perhaps you are linking the kingdom of God with a church, but the apostle did not link it with a church.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-20-2009 11:18 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1232 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 108 of 479 (539996)
12-21-2009 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Peg
12-20-2009 12:19 AM


Re: Inerrancy question or interpretation question?
Peg writes:

My further question about why Jesus said "Not Everyone saying Lord Lord" is also pertintent to your arguement because his own words show that not all who claim to be christian would have his approval thus ruling out some churchs' from being the representation of Jesus in his kingdom.

The New Testament definition of church has nothing to do with who claims what (as I have already made clear to you a couple of times) so your question is indeed off topic.

If you dont want to address this, then perhaps we shouldnt speculate that Jesus kingdom is present on earth in the form of 'the chruch'

My opinion regarding the kingdom=church was on topic, because it addressed the apparent contradiction referenced in the OP. Your repeated attempts to divert into a discussion as to who is in and who is out is not. The points I make are my responsibility but I accept no responsibility for how you respond to them. That is on you.

I am not going to respond to anything else on this issue as you are clearly baiting at this point and my patience has run out.

See # 10 in Forum Rules "....Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 12:19 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
obarak 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 3533 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 01-07-2010


Message 109 of 479 (542145)
01-07-2010 9:30 PM


amar
Hi.
good morning.
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.
obarak.

{Spam links deleted}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Deleted spam links.


  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 110 of 479 (542649)
01-11-2010 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peepul
10-12-2009 1:29 PM


Simple
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.

Simple. First assume it's true and accurate.
Then focus on that part that troubles you.

Perhaps those who sleep in Jesus, don't actually have to "Taste Death". We rally don't know the details of the last moments of the disciples. Perhaps Jesus came down and personally greeted each believing disciple so they never tasted death.

Them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 1 Thessalonians 4:14

The lack of a thorough explanation covering every prophetic statement, suggests a wiser power and bigger picture. The story tellers all had time to add in a clear fulfillment to the prophesy if they were just making it all up.

Then perhaps seeing Jesus after the resurrection, or after the transfiguration, or even witnessing his death on the cross qualifies as seeing Him in his power.

Further study will point to one of those options.

Edited by Sky-Writing, : .


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Iblis, posted 01-12-2010 2:58 AM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 2235 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


(1)
Message 111 of 479 (542698)
01-12-2010 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Sky-Writing
01-11-2010 3:22 PM


Re: Simpleton
First assume it's true and accurate.
Then focus on that part that troubles you.

This process of assuming the conclusion and then working backwards to organize the data is known as apologetics. It is remarkably effective.

Example: "Invisible pink unicorns saved my ass."

The unbeliever will tell you that this is obviously false. A unicorn cannot be both invisible and also pink. But do not be deceived.

Once you accept the truth of the invisible pink unicorns, the answer becomes obvious. Pink, as we know, is actually a pale shade of red. Now, there is a kind of red which is not visible at all, every scientist knows about it, though they are in denial as to its significance. It is called infra-red.

This is a very pale shade of red, indeed. Embrace the unicorns!

Numbers 23:22 writes:

God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Edited by Iblis, : Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? -- Job 39:9


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-11-2010 3:22 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-12-2010 3:58 AM Iblis has not yet responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 112 of 479 (542700)
01-12-2010 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Iblis
01-12-2010 2:58 AM


Re: Simpleton
First assume it's true and accurate.
Then focus on that part that troubles you.

This process of assuming the conclusion and then working backwards to organize the data is known as apologetics. It is remarkably effective.

It is. I wouldn't have survived Calculus without it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Iblis, posted 01-12-2010 2:58 AM Iblis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by deerbreh, posted 01-21-2010 10:13 AM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Statman
Junior Member (Idle past 3377 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 12-06-2009


Message 113 of 479 (543419)
01-17-2010 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ICANT
10-14-2009 3:44 AM


Re: Kingdom
Who is Jesus speaking to? Verse 24 tells us His disciples. What is Jesus speaking about? He is speaking about the bema seat judgment when those who have been born again are judged according to their works. When will this take place? In the future yet. This verse says absolutely nothing about His kingdom.

1. I agree this is a claim about an event that has not happened.
2. ‘bema seat judgement’? I heard the phrase more than once about 50 years ago in parochial HS & college. If it means God’s judgement seat, fine. If it means something else, you need to clarify.

Who is Jesus speaking to? Still His disciples. What is Jesus speaking about? Them seeing Him coming in His kingdom.
When did this take place? Within a couple of weeks of the announcment. How did it take place? When Jesus made His triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on the colt of an ass. Jesus was received and announced as the son of David. He came into Jerusalem in royal power, and was announced as heir to the throne of David. Matthew chapter 21. The Greek word that is translated kingdom, transliterated basileia and means royal power, kingship, dominion, rule. It has to do with the right or authority to rule over a kingdom and has nothing to do with the actual kingdom. The kingdom authority was already in existence on earth. Jesus had given the troops orders to announce the Kings arrival to the Jews.

1. You claim these 2 verses refer to two different events. That is not evident from the context. You’d have to substantiate that.
2. You are claiming this refers to the Triumphal Entry’. You’d have to substantiate that too.
3. Regarding your definition of basileia, Several sources said it was the name of a female or a festival. I did find this also and it does not support what you say:

http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon
Basileia - kingdom

4. You make some other claims which I won’t comment on.
5. I find it absurd that anyone would take Matthew 16:2, “ 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.” to be equivalent to “Some of you will see me stage a big entrance into Jerusalem.”
6. I’ve seen 3 different explanations for how this verse was fulfilled. I find all of them disingenuous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 3:44 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Statman
Junior Member (Idle past 3377 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 12-06-2009


Message 114 of 479 (543420)
01-17-2010 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by ICANT
12-18-2009 1:11 PM


Re: Matthew 16:27, 28
Icant says:

Maybe it is all those years I spent in language school studying Hebrew and Greek.

Or it could be the 47 years experience in studying the scriptures.

Or it could be those pieces of framed paper hanging in my office.

Maybe all this has me deluded into believing I know a little bit about what I am talking about.

Now if you would like to correct my thinking please do as I asked deebreh to do and take Message 19 and show me where it is wrong.

Please try to present a convincing argument. A msg that boils down to 'trust me' is unacceptable. It also gives me nothing I could use if I were convinced by you and found myself in your shoes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ICANT, posted 12-18-2009 1:11 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1232 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


(1)
Message 115 of 479 (543854)
01-21-2010 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Sky-Writing
01-12-2010 3:58 AM


Calculus is nothing like apologetics.
It is (Apologetics is remarkably effective). I wouldn't have survived Calculus without it.

Not so. In calculus, if one assumes a conclusion, works backwards and runs into a contradiction they must reject the conclusion and start over. Otherwise they would not "survive calculus" unless failure is considered survival.

In Apologetics, there is no such penalty. The contradiction can just be ignored because "if God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Big difference. So unless you took faith based calculus there is no comparison whatsoever.

Edited by deerbreh, : Provide relevant subtitle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-12-2010 3:58 AM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-10-2010 4:00 PM deerbreh has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 116 of 479 (546415)
02-10-2010 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by deerbreh
01-21-2010 10:13 AM


Re: Calculus is nothing like apologetics.
You found it easy enough to compare the two.
Pretty much mooting your own point.

I assume Calculus works, so I took the course.
I assume the Bible is Correct, so I keep looking for the answer.

Many highly trained Christian / Scientists do the same thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by deerbreh, posted 01-21-2010 10:13 AM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by deerbreh, posted 02-17-2010 4:14 PM Sky-Writing has responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1232 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 117 of 479 (547245)
02-17-2010 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Sky-Writing
02-10-2010 4:00 PM


Re: Calculus is nothing like apologetics.
You found it easy enough to compare the two.
Pretty much mooting your own point.

I think you lack an understanding of the difference of meaning between "compare" and "contrast".

Maybe I should put it another way:

Calculus relies on logic.
Apologetics relies on dogma.
As I said, they have nothing in common.

I also think you don't have much understanding of either apologetics or calculus, based on your statements and examples here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-10-2010 4:00 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-17-2010 5:46 PM deerbreh has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 118 of 479 (547261)
02-17-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by deerbreh
02-17-2010 4:14 PM


Re: Calculus is nothing like apologetics.
You are certainly welcome to say what you wish.
It's interesting you would defend your position with
"Apologetic relies on dogma. " which is incorrect.
Dogma being a set of beliefs or values which a group of adherents are expected to follow without question.
Apologetics is the whole of the consensus of the views of those who defend a position in an argument of long standing. Yet even Satan attempted Apologetics against Jesus. So Apologetics is not even limited to believers.

Fortunately I have the ability to compare things when others are less able to do so:

Dogma : Christianity has four major branches, Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox church, Anglican, and Protestantism. Becoming a Christian requires change. As a fundamental element of religion, the term "dogma" is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt. Dogma is distinguished from theological opinion regarding those things considered less well-known. The Bible can help people solve family and societal problems for which humanism is insufficient.

Calculus: It has two major branches, differential calculus and integral calculus, which are related by the fundamental theorem of calculus. Calculus is the study of change...A course in calculus is a gateway to other, more advanced courses in mathematics devoted to the study of functions and limits, broadly called mathematical analysis. Calculus has widespread applications in science, economics, and engineering and can solve many problems for which algebra alone is insufficient.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
http://www.gospelway.com/christianlife/change_yourself.php
http://www.bible.ca/f-family-problems.htm

Edited by Sky-Writing, : No reason given.

Edited by Sky-Writing, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by deerbreh, posted 02-17-2010 4:14 PM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by deerbreh, posted 02-18-2010 9:13 AM Sky-Writing has responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1232 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 119 of 479 (547329)
02-18-2010 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Sky-Writing
02-17-2010 5:46 PM


Re: Calculus is nothing like apologetics.
Dictionary definitions are not the same as understanding. I stand by my assessment.

Apologetics is the defense of dogma - a set of beliefs based on propositional truths.

Calculus is a set of mathematical formulas based on logical proofs of mathematical theorems.

One begins with propositional truths. the other begins with demonstrable truths. They couldn't be more unlike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-17-2010 5:46 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-18-2010 6:13 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 120 of 479 (547364)
02-18-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by deerbreh
02-18-2010 9:13 AM


Re: Calculus is nothing like apologetics.
"1. One begins with propositional truths.
2. Other begins with demonstrable truths.
3. They couldn't be more unlike."

Hmmmm
propositional truths
demonstrable truths
I wonder if there is anyone in the entire world who could not come up with 2 word phrases that are more dissimilar in spelling, meaning, concept, sound, visual impact, etc.

Nope. I've checked with everyone in the Sprint Network I could get a hold of.
It seems you are the only one in the universe who cannot come up with (#3) two things that are more unalike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by deerbreh, posted 02-18-2010 9:13 AM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019