Reputation
2,471
Next tag badge:
25/100 score
1/20 answers
Badges
5 28 68
Impact
~168k people reached

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!
Oct
3
comment Does God send a “Strong Delusion”? What is the Context of understanding 2 Thess. 2:11?
Did you mean this to have some relation to the text being asked about? Because in all honestly this sounds like random gibberish — I've seen more cohesive argumentation out of Flack Overstow. I know that's really harsh criticism, but I hope it makes the point that this answer makes flying leaps in unexplained directions and does not connect the dots showing how you got from the text to your interpretation. This is a recurring issue with many but not all of your posts. I know you can do better.
Oct
1
comment 2 Corinthians 5:21 - When and how was Christ, who knew no sin, made “sin”?
This is a fine question but as written it has two parts. One of those parts asking for analysis for how this verse should be interpreted is very much off limits for Christianity but quite on topic for Biblical Hermeneutics. As a result I have migrated the question here to be answered. On the other hand the bit about church history and how the church fathers interpreted this is not on topic here but would be on C.SE. I would encourage you to re-post a version of this question over there that asks just the latter part (and also specifies what group of church fathers you're interested in).
Sep
30
comment In Mark 5:9 does Jesus ask for a name or a title?
You can only assume what you claim to assume in this answer if you have previously assumed that nothing else the Gospel accounts tell us about Jesus knowledge about things that weren't readily observable (e.g. Philip under the fig tree or the Samaritan woman's marital history). If you've started with the presupposition that Jesus was not divine then this argument could make sense, but as far as arguing from this passage you've done nothing but beg the question based on a presumption that other accounts in the same text must be false.
Sep
27
comment Who were the Hellenistic and Hebraic Jews of Acts 6:1?
This may be relevant, but it leaves a lot to be desired as an answer. How do you know this? What were key characteristic differences? What would one study for more information?
Sep
15
comment Does Apostle Paul give a warning against different denominations?
This is really really poor hermeneutics; in fact it has more of the trappings of you going off on a personal rant than it does textual analysis. To top it off your personal opinions an this matter are very unbalanced. I don't dispute that there are aspects of what this text talks about at work today, but the idea of denominations itself involves other factors other than divisiveness. Sometimes they a framework in which the "better way" can actually be lived out. This answer simply fails to engage either the original text and its context or the modern issue and its various facets.
Sep
14
comment What was meant by “paradise” when Jesus spoke to the thief on the cross?
Please edit your supporting reasoning into your answer. Comments are ephemeral and may eventually removed.
Sep
13
comment What was meant by “paradise” when Jesus spoke to the thief on the cross?
You've not shown how you're getting from "garden" to "paradise" being the same thing. You've asserted it but shown no evidence. Furthermore you didn't address the actual concerns from my first comment (which should be done by editing your post to cover the bases rather that commenting by the way). Lastly I have a hard time the thief would find any comfort at all in Jesus' statement given your interpretation. If the statement doesn't have any bearing on an afterlife and is just about where he's to be buried I imagine he's past caring too much about that.
Sep
13
comment What was meant by “paradise” when Jesus spoke to the thief on the cross?
So your interpretation of this saying is roughly "Today you will be six feet under right along side me"? Doesn't that seem a bit incongruous with the start of the remark? Why make such a big deal about it if he's about to say something mundane? Verily verily I say unto you, today I had scrambled eggs for breakfast. See how odd that sounds? Most people don't start their unremarkable sayings that way, and Jesus hadn't made a habit of saying "Truly I say to you" right before stating the patently obvious.
Sep
1
comment Why were the Ten Commandments written on two tablets?
I've removed the unrelated (and very nearly spam) parts of this. What's left sort of talks about the issue, but you do a ton of asserting random things as fact and virtually zero showing how or why you connected those pieced which is a requirement for this site. What citations can you give to show how you reached your first major assertion?
Aug
14
comment What are the implications of calling Jesus “the son of Mary” in Mark 6:3?
Mod Notice: Comments are not the place to debate theological issues. They can be used to request clarifications or suggest improvements to posts, but let's not use them as a make shift debate platform. You can use the Biblical Hermeneutics Chat system if you want to discuss something.
Jun
16
comment Meaning of the Parable of the Sower
Even after reading this twice I have no idea what point you are trying to make or how you think this directs us to the meaning of the parable as asked about in the question. Notably lacking is anywhere that you actually show how you arrived at the connections you have.
Jun
6
comment Why did Jesus tell the demon-possessed man to tell others about his healing in Luke 8:39?
We expect a bit more than "I would like to think" as the basis for answers around here. Rather that "he might have", can you actually propose an interpretation and defend how you arrived at it from the text?
Jun
4
comment Matt. 27:52 “tombs also were opened” apocalyptic symbolism?
@Tau Please see my follow up comments in chat starting here. I'm cleaning this space up a little as our comments now are likely not helpful to the original poster or readers.
Jun
4
comment Matt. 27:52 “tombs also were opened” apocalyptic symbolism?
@Tau It is really distracting (and not useful to others) when you use technical terms with broadly agreed upon meanings to mean something different than everybody else does by them. As this is not the first instance of this error, please note the normative use of the term Textual Criticism refers to a specific aspect of hermeneutics that deals with discrepancies between different source manuscripts of the same document. As far as I can make out your comment is not actually a reference to the issue of textual criticism, modern or otherwise.
Jun
1
comment Meaning of (et)“את” and (v'et)“וְאֵ֥ת” in Genesis 1:1
Hey man please no more new posts! I already explained this once and have now done the cleanup work for you twice. If you have an improved version of an answer to post you need to edit this answer and replace its content. This allows people to compare previous revisions and see what you fixed and keeps to post ranking system consistent.
May
31
comment Meaning of (et)“את” and (v'et)“וְאֵ֥ת” in Genesis 1:1
I think you've miss-understood the format here. Please don't make new posts. If you have a better to answer to offer than your original attempt, please edit the original post. If voters see an improvement they will then be able to change their votes and re-rank the post. But please don't throw stuff at the ceiling to see what sticks...put your best foot forward and then improve it. I've gone ahead and merged the content from your three answers into one, but you might want to review the history and see if there are things that need to be edited into the final version to make it complete.
Apr
30
comment What are the many Sabbaths referred to in scripture?
@Tau I avoided getting into the specifics of that issue because ① it didn't seem like the main problem the OP was facing, ② the issue of plurals still applies as described and ③ the sabbath years are an extension of the day concept but applied to the land rather than the people. On the other hand I did mention how that passage it different. If you thing there is a better way to clarify this all please feel free to post another answer.