Reputation
2,472
Next tag badge:
25/100 score
1/20 answers
Badges
5 28 68
Impact
~168k people reached

Nov
7
comment Terminology of “goodness” in Romans 7
Actually, you do have to be a master to spot when something that seems obvious to untrained eyes actually involves important subtleties. I may not know Greek but I am bilingual and I know from experience that the sort of thing your asserting is obvious might actually have other explanations. And it seems you are unable to rule out other possibilities because you don't even know what they might be. Ergo my assessment that this unconvincing.
Nov
7
asked What sort of phrasing is “the many” in Romans 5?
Nov
7
comment Terminology of “goodness” in Romans 7
I'm sorry but this is utterly unconvincing. You may even be right —the mastery of Greek that would be needed to verify or debunk this is above my paygrade— but I don't see any evidence presented there that backs up your conclusion. You've taken a couple disparate texts from different authors with different immediate contexts, ignored seemly a lot of uses where each term could potentially be construed differently, and drawn out something tenuous based on the English renderings. I would expect an answer to teach something about the Greek approaches concepts such as "inner" vs. "outer".
Nov
7
revised Melchizedek: He was a priest of the Most High?
removed content not related to answering the question—if you have questions about how the site works and the rep system please ask on the meta site
Nov
5
comment Does the original Hebrew support the NLT of Genesis 6:3?
@seedy3 This and several other "unanswered" questions you might run across actually did get answered early on, but more recently the contributor, for personal reasons, went through a process to have their contributions removed. Normally such posts would be anonymized and remain visible to the community, but there were complications and we ended up having to remove them entirely in this case. Hence a few old questions around here are again in need of answers.
Nov
5
comment Does Revelation 22:5 contradict 1 Corinthians 15:28?
@WoundedEgo SE sites are community moderated. If you think my answer is crappy down-vote it. If you think it doesn't answer the question or show its work or otherwise doesn't qualify to be on this site then flag it as such. Flags first go to high rep community members for validation and even if it escalates to moderators to for review I recuse myself from handling flags on my own posts. If you don't want just a binary pass/fail review then post on meta and ask the community what they think of the post and invite discussion on whether it should be deleted or not.
Nov
5
comment Does the original Hebrew support the NLT of Genesis 6:3?
Please see the discussion on our meta site about this answer. I have undeleted it on the benefit of the doubt and to make discussion about it earlier. That being said I think it needs to be edited to at least touch on the specifics of this verse to really fit this site.
Nov
5
revised Why did the Masoretes take away 100 (or 50) years from the age of the fathers at their first sons' dates of birth?
edit content from second answer into original post
Nov
4
reviewed Approve patristics tag wiki excerpt
Nov
4
comment Does the original Hebrew support the NLT of Genesis 6:3?
This answer only presents an argument from authority: scholars were involved in the translation ergo their translation must be good. This does not answer the actual question asked or fit the motif on this site of actually examining the text in question. This is interesting tangential information but answering this question on this site will require diving into the actual Hebrew text.
Nov
3
revised According to the original Hebrew, how did Moses's Red sea crossing look?
edit content from second answer into original post
Oct
30
awarded  Famous Question
Oct
6
comment 1 Cor 13:10 - Did Paul use “perfect” [teleios] in the sense of maturity?
Even with the edits I'm having trouble seeing how this question is really unique. Whether or not to open the related cessation can of worms or not is up to answers depending on how they think it factors into the text, but the basic question about what the word means in context seems to have been asked already. On the other hand it sounds like you have a very definite answer in mind. Perhaps what you mean to do is answer one of those other questions? If you think the extant answers are straw-men, why not posit an answer that you think isn't?
Oct
6
comment What does Paul mean by 'Completeness' in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10?
@Jas3.1 I'm not sure it's fair to call that "the cessation position". Yes this verse gets cited by a lot of cessationists in support of their position, but many others (myself included) will cringe at that handling of this verse even if they agree with the gist of the position.
Oct
5
answered Does Revelation 22:5 contradict 1 Corinthians 15:28?
Oct
4
awarded  Yearling
Oct
3
comment Was Paul arguing that Christians are the “true Temple,” in contrast The Temple?
Honestly as worded it's a little puzzling to me what you see as the alternatives here, but maybe that's for answerers to sort out anyway…
Oct
3
comment Who is the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thess 2?
Trying to turn the passage around to make this a "confession" that Jesus wasn't God at all is a bizarrely misguided interpretation that takes the plain sense of the words and twists them to say the opposite of what they say. This is a terrible application of basic hermeneutics. Argue that the book is corrupt or the author disillusional or whatever you like — virtually anything would be more rational than taking words that specifically disprove your point and trying to pretend that they support it.
Oct
3
comment Who is the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thess 2?
I'm quite aware of that. That's the point of the verse! But whole reason this verse makes a big deal about “Jesus Christ coming among humans” is that because Jesus was being considered as one with God then his taking on flesh — “being found in appearance as a man” — was a big deal and tantamount to a claim that the divine took on a physical form. The heresy that was common at the time that the author had in mind was one that claimed that God appearing as Jesus was not really physically human, that he was just a mirage. Hence the need for a confession that God really did take on flesh.
Oct
3
comment Who is the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thess 2?
You should read the whole of 1st John because the very verse you quote in support of your position is, in the context of the book, making exactly the opposite claim. Confessing that Jesus came in the flesh is a meaningful test for true vs. false prophets specifically because Jesus had, in the sentences immediately prior, been labeled as God's Son and hence the divine being taking on human flesh is a big deal. The essence of the necessary confession acknowledges that Jesus was God in the flesh and hence more than human—quite the opposite of denying him being anything more than human!