Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


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


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

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

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


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


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

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

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

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


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


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

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

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

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 52 of 479 (538193)
12-04-2009 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Peg
11-30-2009 10:29 PM


Re: Inerrancy question or interpretation question?
do you think the worlds governments and mobstars and multinational corporations are going to let this happen?
Well some will, but is not a matter of world governments "allowing it". The Kingdom of God has a different kind of power which cannot be defeated by the sword. They really can't do anything to stop it or to overtly encourage it. Christians get into trouble when they think that the tools of governments (i.e., the sword) can be used to bring about the Kingdom of God. Jesus specifically says that this is not the way it works (John 18:36). In fact, persecution tends to expand the Kingdom of God and overt governmental support tends to diminish it.
and do you think that the whole world are going to be converted to the kingdom of God???
No but I do believe that governments can be persuaded that the best course of action is to allow freedom of religion - which in the long run will expand the Kingdom of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Peg, posted 11-30-2009 10:29 PM Peg has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 58 of 479 (538425)
12-06-2009 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peg
12-06-2009 5:51 AM


Re: Inerrancy question or interpretation question?
which one is christs church? is it the church of England, or the catholics, or the united church, or the lutherans, or the greek orthodox, or the roman orthodox, or the roman catholic, or the protestants....
As EMA noted, you are thinking in human terms. There is only one church. Humans have created many denominations but there is only one body of Christ. There are individuals in all denominations and even some not a member of any formal denomination who are part of the body of Christ. Humans divide, Christ unites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 12-06-2009 5:51 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 1:41 AM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 60 of 479 (538482)
12-07-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Peg
12-07-2009 1:41 AM


Re: Inerrancy question or interpretation question?
Well you keep missing the point I and EMA are making. I don't see any point in repeating so I will say it a different way and leave it go at that... God looks on the heart, humans look at outward things so why don't you let God be the judge of who might be in and who might be out if that is a concern for you? As for me, I am too busy making sure I am doing the Lord's work to be keeping score on others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 1:41 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 5:56 PM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


(1)
Message 62 of 479 (538490)
12-07-2009 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Statman
12-06-2009 1:53 AM


Re: False prophecy of Tyre
statman writes:
In reading history, I found that it (Tyre) had been rebuilt multiple times. Then I read the Lebanese tourist site and found it was a thriving city. Finally, (somewhat later), I got on Google Maps and looked at it from the satellite view. Sure enough, the island, the causeway and the mainland are covered with a thriving city!
You underestimate the versatility of the word for word fundamentalists. I am sure the answer would be - well, there may have been other cities built on the same site but the original city was not rebuilt. It is a battle not worth fighting, imo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Statman, posted 12-06-2009 1:53 AM Statman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Statman, posted 12-08-2009 8:58 AM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 81 of 479 (539577)
12-17-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Peg
12-07-2009 5:56 PM


Re: Inerrancy question or interpretation question?
Peg writes:
You havnt commented on why Jesus said Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens".
No and I am not going to:
It is off topic. The OP had to do with whether there was a contradiction in the promise of Jesus to return in the lifetime of his disciples. I argued that the one way to reconcile the contradiction was to see the return of Jesus as the establishment of the church. Your question has nothing to do with the argument and in fact creates a new tangent. I was trying to cut off the discussion because it was wandering way off topic. Answering your question would only take it further afield.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 5:56 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 12:19 AM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 83 of 479 (539668)
12-18-2009 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by ICANT
12-17-2009 12:29 PM


Re: Matthew 16:27, 28
ICANT writes:
Since that message was marked off topic I wanted to resubmit my invitation to Statman or anyone else who would like to point out errors in my analysis of Matthew 16:27, 28 in Message 19.
If is not so much that there are "errors in your analysis" as that you make the assumption that anyone who has had seminary training could not disagree with your analysis (Message 19 statement to Peepul).
ICANT writes:
I take it you have not had formal training in the study of the Bible or the languages of the Bible.
If you had you would know there is no problem with the text.
You present a Premillennialist analysis/interpretation, as I see it. There are in fact, many, (if not as I suspect, most) who have had seminary training who would disagree with that analysis/interpretation.
So what you are doing is "appealing to authority" here in order to defeat the logic of those who disagree with you. This is not a valid debating technique. Therefore there is no point in anyone debating you, as you resort to a scripted sectarian interpretation (Premillennialism) rather than actually addressing the apparent contradiction in the text - which IS real, whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 12:29 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 12-18-2009 1:01 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 87 of 479 (539678)
12-18-2009 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by ICANT
12-18-2009 1:11 PM


Re: Matthew 16:27, 28
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.
What part of "appeal to authority" do you not understand? It is not the pieces of paper hanging on your wall that matter. It is the quality of your arguments. You just confirmed my judgment that there is no point in anyone debating with you on this board. You ask Statman if he is a believer and then maintain that if he is not he cannot possibly interpret the biblical text correctly. That is a religious argument. As is the implication on your part that the Premillennialist interpretation is the only interpretation a properly trained (seminary) individual could adopt. Even though this thread is about the Bible, it is in the context of a scientific forum. Thus religious arguments are not valid. You are on the wrong board if you want to appeal to religious belief and sectarian interpretations of biblical texts. It is impossible to use scientific arguments to "show you (me)where it is wrong" if your definition of "wrong" is based on religious dogma, which is obviously the case by your own admission.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ICANT, posted 12-18-2009 1:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 12-18-2009 2:22 PM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 93 of 479 (539706)
12-18-2009 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ICANT
12-18-2009 2:22 PM


Re: Matthew 16:27, 28
No thanks. Debating Premillennialism is something I see as a waste of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 12-18-2009 2:22 PM ICANT has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 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 replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 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 replied

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

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 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 replied

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

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 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 replied

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024