Reputation
1,398
Top tag
Next privilege 1,500 Rep.
Approve tag wiki edits
Badges
1 11 25
Impact
~63k people reached

May
20
comment 1st Thessalonians 4:13-14: “those who sleep in Jesus”
@fumanchu - Ah, I see now. Thank you. Quite an interesting insight.
May
19
comment 1st Thessalonians 4:13-14: “those who sleep in Jesus”
@fumanchu - so your main point is it should be "lead" instead of "bring", right?
May
19
comment 1st Thessalonians 4:13-14: “those who sleep in Jesus”
@fumanchu - Hm... "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so will lead through Jesus will God bring with him" - doesn't make any sense to me!
May
4
comment 1st John 2:12-14: little children, young men and fathers
(2) Indeed, if I were to write about a spiritual growth, I would naturally follow the "little children -> young men -> fathers" sequence - that would be clearer and more consistent with my thought. There would be no reason fro me to change that sequence. However, John chose another order of things. Why?
May
4
comment 1st John 2:12-14: little children, young men and fathers
(1) "These verses in 1 Jn. 2:12-14 allow us to understand that there is a correlation between how in the natural there is a growth process of children to young men to fathers" - Throughout your whole answer you are stressing this spiritual-growth progression: little children -> young men -> fathers, and you are completely ignoring the fact that John is, in fact, follows quite another sequence: little children -> fathers -> young men; and he does so twice! Do you have any explanation as to why John chose that sequence?
May
3
comment 1st John 2:12-14: little children, young men and fathers
Honestly, quite confusing.
Apr
27
comment Rev 9:4: Do not hurt the non-existing grass?
So, what you are saying is that this verse should be rendered as something like "and they were told to hurt – not any grass of the earth, not any green thing, not any tree – but the people who have no seal...". I mean it is a kind of poetical way, so to say, to emphasize the locusts' main object of their pain-inflicting, right? Well, that makes perfect sense to me.
Apr
26
comment Rev 9:4: Do not hurt the non-existing grass?
However, even if we take the figurative approach, it still doesn't answer my question. My question was how come the locusts are told not to hurt the grass when the grass is already gone, be it literal grass or figurative.
Apr
24
comment 1st John 2:12-14: little children, young men and fathers
@Susan - Thanks. Just made it more focused.
Feb
14
comment Does 2 Tim.1:16-18 imply that Onesiphorus is already dead?
Thanks for your answer. "By that I mean that we should build a doctrine upon this as a key text" - Did you mean to say "we should NOT" instead?
Feb
14
comment Does 2 Tim.1:16-18 imply that Onesiphorus is already dead?
2) the person Onesiphorus did really exist, except he might've gone by some other name, that is, not by name "Onesiphorus" that the author chose; but, on the other hand, in your answer you said "Onesiphorus in this case is further evidence that he was a literary construct and existed only within Second Timothy. Onesiphorus was not dead if he never lived." So, what's your point here about that person's existence? If this is the case of "a literary construct", did the person still exist regardless of what name he really had?
Feb
14
comment Does 2 Tim.1:16-18 imply that Onesiphorus is already dead?
1) "I am saying that when the anonymous author of 2 Tim was looking around for a name, he chose a name appropriate for the situation and was perhaps inspired by Onesimus, who also helped Paul in prison." - I am sorry for being such a dummy, but I still don't get it. I know that some names have meaning, for example, the name "Carpus" in 2 Tim. 4:13 means "fruit", but I am a bit puzzled by the apparent contradiction in your words. On one hand, you say "the anonymous author of 2 Tim was looking around for a name, he chose a name appropriate for the situation", which I take as your agreeing that ↙
Feb
13
comment Does 2 Tim.1:16-18 imply that Onesiphorus is already dead?
You've made a valid point here. Thank you.
Feb
13
comment Does 2 Tim.1:16-18 imply that Onesiphorus is already dead?
".. so it is likely that Onesiphorus was a literary construct invented by the actual author of 2 Timothy" - So you are saying here that the name Onesiphorus here is not actually a name that would be a reference to one particular person, but rather some phrase with the meaning of "bringing advantage", right? If so, then how should this verse be translated then? Something like "The Lord give mercy unto the house of the one who was to my advantage; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain" or something? Will this rendition not be quite a stretch and rather awkward looking?
Feb
11
comment What is “that day” in John 14:20?
@LWise - I don't deny that option, but... how is the fulfillment of a promise of another comforter is not on the day of His resurrection (John 20:22)? Well, it's kind of point of controversy between different traditions, as we know.
Feb
6
comment What is “that day” in John 14:20?
@Susan - I see. Thank you.
Jan
13
comment Are the unlearned and unstable in 2 Pet 3:16 regenerated Christians?
Very interesting input! Thank you.
Jan
12
comment Are the unlearned and unstable in 2 Pet 3:16 regenerated Christians?
I understand that, but still... is it possible to stay only within the context of 2nd Peter and - regardless of any tradition - try to infer from the text whether or not the author includes the unlearned and unstable ones in 2 Pet 3:16 in the number of those he had mentioned earlier in 1:4? Or is it an impossible task?
Jan
11
comment Are the unlearned and unstable in 2 Pet 3:16 regenerated Christians?
"The issue of "regeneration" παλινγενεσίας (palingenesias), is not the issue in this passage" - What if we looked at this issue in the way of "being regenerated = being the one who has partaken of God's divine nature at least once in his lifetime" (see my replies to Dan's comment right below my question for detailes). So, could these unlearned and unstable ones in 2 Pet 3:16 be from among those who have at least once partaken of the divine nature of God mentioned in 2 Pet. 1:4?
Jan
5
comment Are the unlearned and unstable in 2 Pet 3:16 regenerated Christians?
@Dan - (2) Along these lines, I am also quite curious if the people that Peter is talking about in 2 Pet. 2:20 are also the ones that have partaken at least once in the past, that is, are the partakers: "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome..."