A Very Instructive Case Study (part 1)
I have already shared a few posts about an email exchange I have had with one person over Shavuot, Pentecost and when the day of Ascension is. These are important issues for eschatology, but are not items of the faith once for all delivered. As Paul said in Colossians
Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
If no one is to judge us with respect of a holy day that would include a debate over Pentecost and Shavuot.
Anyway, he has responded to my response on this topic and this is it, in full, unedited.
I'm at work now, so I'm typing on my phone, but I'd like to get this over and done. I see now how you are getting your interpretation. You are assuming 40 different appearances instead of a span of 40 days. In your email, you are paraphrasing to your own liking and not really quoting the Bible. It does not say that He ascended on the 40th day that He appeared. In fact, the NIV says, "He appeared to them over a period of 40 days", which most definitely would be a span of 40 days. The KJV is more vague and just says, "being seen of them 40 days", which could be taken either way. However, since Jesus skipped 6 days between the meeting without Thomas and the meeting with Thomas, it means He would have to appear 37 more days with only a few skips. In other words, since He had already skipped 6 days during the first 3 appearances, it is unlikely that the next 37 only had a few skips. Granted, it is possible, but very unlikely, especially when the NIV gives a very different perspective. You accused me of only using one verse, but you are cherry-picking one translation of one verse that is the most vague. And before you go on a rage about the NIV, it is actually better than the KJV. Both were translated from the original Greek and Hebrew. The NIV used 100 scholars and modern English where the KJV used 50 scholars and Old English from the 1600's. I know what people say about the publisher, but it was all translated by the International Bible Society (IBS). It took a long time and the original publisher ran out of money, so a secular publisher stepped in and provided the funds, but the translating was still the IBS. Anyway, all that talk about new wine is meaningless because you are just making a mountain of speculation out of a joke yelled from the crowd. The notes say it could also be translated as "sweet wine." Only the KJV has the word "new" and I did not see where Peter responded with the word "new" in either KJV or NIV. Like you said, there was no actual wine, so the jokester could have said "new wine" just to make it funnier, since wine is known to get better with age. In any event, you are just making a lot of speculation from just one work from a jokester in the crowd. Anyway, saying that Jesus ascended on Shavuot was just one of many mistakes you made in your emails. It became a big deal because you said, "I think it can be confirmed from the Bible that Jesus ascended on Shavuot", which it cannot be confirmed, especially if you check the NIV, but not even definitely with the KJV.
And I don't know why you are so against saying that Shavuot and Pentecost are the same. Acts 2:1 even says "Pentecost" in both the KJV and NIV. In modern Judaism, Shavuot is 50 days from Passover and for Christians, Pentecost is 50 days after Easter, but they are essentially the same. Christians are actually more correct because like the passage in Lev I pasted before, the Bible says to start counting on Sunday, which was the resurrection, as Easter celebrates. One more thing, now you are saying that Moses went up the mountain on Shavuot, which is also incorrect. I think you are just throwing things against the wall now to see what sticks. I can't get the exact chapter right now because I'm typing on my phone, but the Israelites arrived at MT Sinai on the "third month to the day" after leaving on the original Passover, so it was either 60 or 90 days later, certainly not 50 days. This is my last time to write to you, so don't bother to respond. I won't read it. You are exactly as I said in the beginning when I said your mind was made up and would not accept the truth no matter how many Biblical facts I provided. You said something about fellowship, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you might be different, but that was wrong. I should have just deleted the original email. I learned a long time ago that most everyone who posts on those blogs and chat sites are set in their ways and just want to argue. As Paul said (I think to Titus), " Warn a divisive person once and warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him." As such, I'm done with you. I tried, but you can't be helped.
I think this is a very important to discuss this because we can learn a few lessons that I think are important.
1. He accuses me of being a divisive person. That is a very serious accusation. To be divisive is to attack the things that make us one. Paul listed them in Ephesians 4:
Ephesians 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Hopefully everyone reading this can see that this debate does not impact any of these points. Jesus was made Lord when He ascended, whether you believe He ascended 40 days after the resurrection or whether like myself you believe He ascended on Shavuot it does not impact your testimony that Jesus is Lord. So the first lesson I would hope everyone will take from this is to be careful about judging others, with what judgment you judge you shall be judged. It is a very big thing to accuse someone of teaching a damnable heresy, which is what a divisive person is doing. A heresy is simply a school of thought, all of us have our own schools of thought, but a damnable school of thought is one that includes blasphemies, or divisive doctrine. The truly divisive doctrine here is that either you agree with his interpretation of when Pentecost and the Ascension are or else you are cut off from fellowship.
2. I presented many different references from Acts, the gospel of John, gospel of Matthew and Exodus. He did not address any of those verses or any of the issues they raise. Nor did he argue that the key verse in question in the KJV does not say a period of 40 days. Rather he went looking for an interpretation that does agree with him. So there are two key principles here that this violates. First is that no verse is of its own interpretation. I would never have made my case by only referencing the one verse in Acts 1. Although I did not directly reference ten verses, I could have. I did reference seven, but felt that was sufficient to make the case without being overkill, but indirectly I referenced many more. So I hope everyone can learn from this, do not build an entire doctrine on a single verse. The second lesson is do not go seeking for a translation that fits your interpretation. Instead, if there is a question about the interpretation go to the original Greek or Hebrew. You can find this on the BlueLetterBible, a website on the internet that will give you the original manuscript for free. Because he raised this issue I did go back to the Blue Letter Bible, which I had looked at previously, but just wanted to make sure there is no hint of "a period of forty days" and there isn't. The manuscript is clear that He appeared to them 40 days. And the Bible is clear those were not 40 consecutive days.
3. The third lesson is ego. I seek out fellowship from many different corners of the globe because I have learned to not despise the day of small things. Many times the brother or sister that does not appear to have anything is the one who has this treasure hidden in earthen vessels. None of us have arrived, we are all pursuing the Lord. If the Lord has revealed something to another brother or sister there is no reason I should not receive that light. Do not be so arrogant that you cannot receive correction or insight or light from another brother or sister. I enjoy being challenged because iron sharpens iron. But his response to being tested was not to present a solid case built on the word of God but rather to accuse me of being divisive, and seek for a translation that adds something to the word of God that is not in the original manuscript.
I have already shared a few posts about an email exchange I have had with one person over Shavuot, Pentecost and when the day of Ascension is. These are important issues for eschatology, but are not items of the faith once for all delivered. As Paul said in Colossians
Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
If no one is to judge us with respect of a holy day that would include a debate over Pentecost and Shavuot.
Anyway, he has responded to my response on this topic and this is it, in full, unedited.
I'm at work now, so I'm typing on my phone, but I'd like to get this over and done. I see now how you are getting your interpretation. You are assuming 40 different appearances instead of a span of 40 days. In your email, you are paraphrasing to your own liking and not really quoting the Bible. It does not say that He ascended on the 40th day that He appeared. In fact, the NIV says, "He appeared to them over a period of 40 days", which most definitely would be a span of 40 days. The KJV is more vague and just says, "being seen of them 40 days", which could be taken either way. However, since Jesus skipped 6 days between the meeting without Thomas and the meeting with Thomas, it means He would have to appear 37 more days with only a few skips. In other words, since He had already skipped 6 days during the first 3 appearances, it is unlikely that the next 37 only had a few skips. Granted, it is possible, but very unlikely, especially when the NIV gives a very different perspective. You accused me of only using one verse, but you are cherry-picking one translation of one verse that is the most vague. And before you go on a rage about the NIV, it is actually better than the KJV. Both were translated from the original Greek and Hebrew. The NIV used 100 scholars and modern English where the KJV used 50 scholars and Old English from the 1600's. I know what people say about the publisher, but it was all translated by the International Bible Society (IBS). It took a long time and the original publisher ran out of money, so a secular publisher stepped in and provided the funds, but the translating was still the IBS. Anyway, all that talk about new wine is meaningless because you are just making a mountain of speculation out of a joke yelled from the crowd. The notes say it could also be translated as "sweet wine." Only the KJV has the word "new" and I did not see where Peter responded with the word "new" in either KJV or NIV. Like you said, there was no actual wine, so the jokester could have said "new wine" just to make it funnier, since wine is known to get better with age. In any event, you are just making a lot of speculation from just one work from a jokester in the crowd. Anyway, saying that Jesus ascended on Shavuot was just one of many mistakes you made in your emails. It became a big deal because you said, "I think it can be confirmed from the Bible that Jesus ascended on Shavuot", which it cannot be confirmed, especially if you check the NIV, but not even definitely with the KJV.
And I don't know why you are so against saying that Shavuot and Pentecost are the same. Acts 2:1 even says "Pentecost" in both the KJV and NIV. In modern Judaism, Shavuot is 50 days from Passover and for Christians, Pentecost is 50 days after Easter, but they are essentially the same. Christians are actually more correct because like the passage in Lev I pasted before, the Bible says to start counting on Sunday, which was the resurrection, as Easter celebrates. One more thing, now you are saying that Moses went up the mountain on Shavuot, which is also incorrect. I think you are just throwing things against the wall now to see what sticks. I can't get the exact chapter right now because I'm typing on my phone, but the Israelites arrived at MT Sinai on the "third month to the day" after leaving on the original Passover, so it was either 60 or 90 days later, certainly not 50 days. This is my last time to write to you, so don't bother to respond. I won't read it. You are exactly as I said in the beginning when I said your mind was made up and would not accept the truth no matter how many Biblical facts I provided. You said something about fellowship, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you might be different, but that was wrong. I should have just deleted the original email. I learned a long time ago that most everyone who posts on those blogs and chat sites are set in their ways and just want to argue. As Paul said (I think to Titus), " Warn a divisive person once and warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him." As such, I'm done with you. I tried, but you can't be helped.
I think this is a very important to discuss this because we can learn a few lessons that I think are important.
1. He accuses me of being a divisive person. That is a very serious accusation. To be divisive is to attack the things that make us one. Paul listed them in Ephesians 4:
Ephesians 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Hopefully everyone reading this can see that this debate does not impact any of these points. Jesus was made Lord when He ascended, whether you believe He ascended 40 days after the resurrection or whether like myself you believe He ascended on Shavuot it does not impact your testimony that Jesus is Lord. So the first lesson I would hope everyone will take from this is to be careful about judging others, with what judgment you judge you shall be judged. It is a very big thing to accuse someone of teaching a damnable heresy, which is what a divisive person is doing. A heresy is simply a school of thought, all of us have our own schools of thought, but a damnable school of thought is one that includes blasphemies, or divisive doctrine. The truly divisive doctrine here is that either you agree with his interpretation of when Pentecost and the Ascension are or else you are cut off from fellowship.
2. I presented many different references from Acts, the gospel of John, gospel of Matthew and Exodus. He did not address any of those verses or any of the issues they raise. Nor did he argue that the key verse in question in the KJV does not say a period of 40 days. Rather he went looking for an interpretation that does agree with him. So there are two key principles here that this violates. First is that no verse is of its own interpretation. I would never have made my case by only referencing the one verse in Acts 1. Although I did not directly reference ten verses, I could have. I did reference seven, but felt that was sufficient to make the case without being overkill, but indirectly I referenced many more. So I hope everyone can learn from this, do not build an entire doctrine on a single verse. The second lesson is do not go seeking for a translation that fits your interpretation. Instead, if there is a question about the interpretation go to the original Greek or Hebrew. You can find this on the BlueLetterBible, a website on the internet that will give you the original manuscript for free. Because he raised this issue I did go back to the Blue Letter Bible, which I had looked at previously, but just wanted to make sure there is no hint of "a period of forty days" and there isn't. The manuscript is clear that He appeared to them 40 days. And the Bible is clear those were not 40 consecutive days.
3. The third lesson is ego. I seek out fellowship from many different corners of the globe because I have learned to not despise the day of small things. Many times the brother or sister that does not appear to have anything is the one who has this treasure hidden in earthen vessels. None of us have arrived, we are all pursuing the Lord. If the Lord has revealed something to another brother or sister there is no reason I should not receive that light. Do not be so arrogant that you cannot receive correction or insight or light from another brother or sister. I enjoy being challenged because iron sharpens iron. But his response to being tested was not to present a solid case built on the word of God but rather to accuse me of being divisive, and seek for a translation that adds something to the word of God that is not in the original manuscript.