Search results

If apostasia means the rapture, Paul's argument becomes, 'The day hasn't come because you haven't been raptured,' which the Thessalonians already knew. The context fits better with a recognizable rebellion or falling away that precedes the revelation of the man of sin. Therefore, 2...

John 8 and the Syriac question are two very different issues. The evidence for the overall accuracy of the New Testament text is indeed remarkably strong. We possess thousands of Greek manuscripts, along with ancient translations in Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and citations from the church fathers...

I'm not arguing against the Bible, and I'm certainly not claiming my beliefs are infallible. My point is simply that faithful Christians look at the same Scriptures and disagree precisely because they are trying to account for all of them, not because they are rejecting some of them. You say...

There's nothing inherently wrong with the Syriac. The issue is the same one I raised about the Greek: which Syriac text are we talking about, what manuscripts preserve it, and how do we know its readings are original? The Peshitta is an important witness to the biblical text, and textual...

I appreciate that you've laid out the soul-sleep case carefully, and I agree that the language of "sleep" is used repeatedly for death, that the resurrection is essential, and that believers ultimately await bodily resurrection. Where I remain unconvinced is that your interpretation actually...

What impresses me about the older commentators is not that they never made mistakes, but that they tended to have an extraordinary grasp of the unity of Scripture. They were often less interested in constructing a detailed prophetic timeline and more interested in tracing how the Law, the...

"You are free to reject the Pastorals if you wish, but simply declaring them fraudulent does not prove they are fraudulent. If a letter truly belongs in Scripture, then removing it because it conflicts with a conclusion you have reached is not handling the evidence impartially. As for the...

I think you're assuming the very point under dispute. Ezekiel 18 certainly teaches that God does not hold a son accountable for his father's personal sins in the ordinary sense of individual judgment, and I fully agree that Christ never committed sin and was never personally guilty of sin. But...

I think you are arguing against a position I have not actually stated. I have repeatedly said that Christ never became a sinner, never committed sin, and remained the Father's beloved Son throughout His suffering. The question is not whether Christ was personally guilty. The question is whether...

I agree that the Servant's suffering is tied to the sins, transgressions, and iniquities of men, but the question is how Isaiah says they are tied. Your interpretation assumes the connection is simply that sinful men sinned against the Servant. Yet Isaiah says more than that. He does not merely...

No, I am not belittling the suffering of Christ. My point is the opposite: Isaiah 52:14 and 53:3-5 portray suffering so severe that it cannot be reduced to a mere example of injustice. I fully agree that Christ's body was marred beyond recognition by sinful men, and that every sinner bears...

I agree that there is only one true meaning intended by God, but 2 Peter 1:20 is not saying that believers may never disagree about the interpretation of a passage; Peter's point is that prophecy did not originate from the prophet's own will or private source, because "holy men of God spake as...

I do not believe what you are arguing follows from the texts you cite, because no one here is claiming that the Father stopped loving the Son, that Christ became a sinner, or that the Father abandoned Him as morally guilty. The Father repeatedly declared His pleasure in the Son, and Christ...

I agree there is no debate that men sinned against Christ, falsely accused Him, and physically abused His body; the question is whether Isaiah 53 says only that. The difficulty with your interpretation is that Isaiah does not merely describe what men did to the Servant, but repeatedly explains...

I do not deny that those passages are part of the discussion, but I don't think they settle it as decisively as you suggest, because the Bible also contains passages that appear to speak of conscious fellowship with the Lord prior to the resurrection, such as 2 Corinthians 5:8 ("absent from the...

What questions have I "dodged"? As far as I can tell you ask nothing. You copy and paste Greek lexicon and pass it off as ,,, well not sure but you don't know the language as well as you think. This is an online chat room. Worldwide even. You had to expect to run into a Greek speaker eventually...

No

If you say so. I find it very interesting that English speaking folks will try to tell a Greek how to use his language. It's remarkable actually.

I don't think 1 Corinthians 5:3 and Colossians 2:5 establish your interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:8, because in those passages Paul explicitly says he is still alive and physically separated from the churches while present with them "in spirit"; in 2 Corinthians 5, however, the contrast is not...

2 Corinthians 5:8: "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." In the context, Paul contrasts his present earthly existence in the body with being in the Lord's presence. He says that while believers are "at home in the body," they...