Maybe.... but I challenge you to see if my views pass the "man in the street test" . Try it on the next two or three people you meet, see if they agree with me. In my view Christian Interpretation is biased towards what they want it to be. I presume the Bible was written for me just as much as you. I find Christian apologetics similar to Mormon apologetics. Christians will point to this Mormon "God given"prophecy. (D&C 114 11 April 1838) and say it is false prophecy because unfortunately for Patten he got shot dead on 25th October 1838. Now is this a false prophecy or a correct one? As the Mormons will say Patten did accompany them in spirit , (no mention of him having to be alive in their scriptures is there) and probably for good measure they will add, you don't seem very good at accurately reading or understanding scripture. Ps. Sorry if this sounds a bit hostile, it's not meant to be. I just get a bit frustrated at times
I agree, God didn't intend to destroy Nineveh at that time. If He's wanted to destroy them outright, why would He bother sending Jonah to warn them? Why give them a chance to repent if He really would rather blast them and be done with it?
I kept thinking you must be halfway around the world from me, so why are you online so late at night? Then I looked it up and learned that your time is actually just 7 hours different from here (we're on daylight saving time). So, 1/4 way around the world, or thereabout. That's practically next door nowadays. Personally, I'd have said it's false prophecy for the mere reason that D&C is false "scripture" and its author (a mere human) was a self-serving fraud. Comparing the lives of Jesus and Joseph Smith would be somewhat like comparing a microchip-production "clean room" to a chock-full vacuum cleaner bag after sucking up vomit.
I don't have much confidence in the "man in the street's" ability to read accurately or fully understand what they read, whether they be reading Scripture or The News of The World, (not that I equate the two). The "man in the street" is not renouned for his consistently rational thought, judging from the kind of politicians he often elects. .
That's exactly the attitude of the pre 1500 Curia. They too had not " much confidence in the "man in the street's" ability to read accurately or fully understand what they read, whether they be reading Scripture or The News of The World" Like you they were scared of independent interpretations of the Bible. This is why it was largely left written in Latin in Western Europe, to stop the man in the street reading it and discovering their own truths. I tend to agree with you here, but from a textual point of view, is this a true or false prophecy? My point is, if this pericope was in the Bible, I would say it was false and you would come up with some reason why it was true. The same wording in the BoM you would probably interpret as false.
This is an aunt sally and a straw man you are putting up to knock down and claim you have 'reasoned' your way to a conclusion. You know perfectly well that any text is possible to read many ways and misinterpret the meaning of, not all of which are valid or according to the author's original intentions or conveying the sense of the original text. You have given some Mormon examples yourself of twisted interpretation and false prophesy. Your quotation seems to imply that ALL interpretations, no matter how whacky, cockeyed or off the wall they may be, are equally, truthfully, valid. They simply are not. C S Lewis was a Professor of English Literature and he went on record as saying he was utterly amazed at the confidence with which some supposed literary critics assumed they understood what he had written. Some even seemed to understand it's meaning better than even he himself had intended. Exactly the same lunacy prevails with the Bible and the notion that every possible interpretation of every lunatic sect or deranged religious fanatic is equally a valid exposition of the Biblical narrative. Scripture has a limited range of possible meanings. It is not a matter of personal preference, it is a matter of discerning the author's inspired intention. Your straw man argument for a multiplicity of possible meanings, each decided upon by the whim of the reader is simplistic and crass. The Anglican Church no longer dictates, (if indeed it ever has), nor seeks to control what 'the man in the street' understands when he reads the Bible. That is entirely the business of the man in the street. The Anglican Church however has the right to decide what it's ministers are permitted to preach, teach and expound from the Biblical text and this will sometimes conflict with the uneducated opinions of 'the man in the street'. This however will not be, as you wrongly suggest, "to stop the man in the street reading it and 'discovering their own truths' ". It is to educate the 'man in the street' out of his ignorance, superstition and false beliefs, which may be mortally dangerous to their own and other's souls. .
Well I know how C S Lewis feels. I guess we will just have to disagree on what "according to the author's original intentions or conveying the sense of the original text " means . Maybe the mods might like to give us some insight here on the Nineveh issue as they seem to have special abilities in the " according to the author's original intentions or conveying the sense of the original text" issue. We can tell this from their ability to correctly discern what the N.T. writers were saying and meant on issues like, ordination of women , aspects of homosexuality and gender issues about God" And now for something completely different, Any thoughts on my observation. "God is all knowing; For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 1 john 3:20. But does Jesus know everything? But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. Math 24:36." Incidentally as I typed Math 24:36 I realised I had a 590 pg book "The Trinity Evidence and Issues" by Robert Morey sitting next to me, but hey this verse wasn't in the Scripture index!
In the event that you missed seeing my reply (in post #7), I'll copy and paste it here. Or did you discount it for some unstated reason? ------------ snip -------------- Let's talk about Matthew 24:36. Suppose you were the greatest, strongest wrestler in the world and you could very easily whup any other wrestler who entered the ring. Now suppose you had them tie one arm behind your back so you'd make yourself about equal in wrestling ability to all the other wrestlers. Would you still be a two-armed man? Yes. But you'd go through your wrestling career fighting as a one-armed man, because you'd have restrained your other arm. When God the Son humbled Himself to become a mortal man, He restrained Himself. He chose live life as a man, not as the Almighty. He allowed Himself to experience temptation as a man would experience it... and He resisted all temptation. He voluntarily chose to not exercise His omniscience, omnipresence, and so forth, because men don't have those characteristics. That's why they saw Jesus spending so much time in prayer; He was relying on the Father and the Holy Spirit to inform Him of what He needed to know. (That's also why they didn't see Jesus 'teleporting' Himself all over Judea or appearing physically in multiple locations at once.) Restraining Himself from coming down off the cross must have been particularly difficult, especially when they tried to goad Him into doing so.
Sorry Rexlion it's my fault I completely overlooked your post. Now I'll acknowledge that that the Trinity thing can be valid even though it isn't a logical thing in a 1+1=2 sort of way. As one theologian said (and I paraphrase) Unlike most other Gods the Christian God is a complicated one. You seem to be saying Jesus didn't know the date of his return because he chose to be a mortal man or possibly more accurately "man like". But to me this then begs the question why was he then able to forgive sin? A most un-manlike thing. No but lets be honest he did after the crucifiction and Moses and Elijah did before hand.
Well, the first verse you quoted obviously refers to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit since it refers to God not specifically to Christ. Its focus is not to make observations concerning God's omniscience but to assure believers of God's approval and providence to all who love Him. Even if our consciences are troubling us, God knows our heart's intent and accepts our sincerity of motive, because "God knows everything", even our most secret and subconscious thoughts. Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action. And by this we will know that we are from the truth and will reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have boldness before God; and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we obey his commandments and do what pleases him. 1 Jn.3:18-22. The second verse you quoted is concerned with eschatology and Jesus' acknowledgement as a human being, that even he, (as a mortal man at that moment in time), did not know The Holy Trinity's appointed day and hour, set in eternity for his second coming. At the time Jesus said this God alone knew when that future event would take place, but Jesus did at least know it had been decided upon, (or foreseen), and was therefore fixed at some future date. “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man." Matt.24:36-39. The focus of the passage is about the temporal unpredictability of the second coming, not about the extent of Jesus omniscience on earth as a mortal human being. Such foresight as Jesus undoubtedly had, (according to scripture), was dependent upon his relationship with God through prayer, just as it is with any other human being, even a sinless one. A sinless human being would be perfectly capable of absolving others of sin if, like God, "he knew men's thoughts". If thou sayest, Behold, we knew not this; Doth not he that weigheth the hearts consider it? And he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? And shall not he render to every man according to his work? Prov.24:12. This is with reference to God The Father or indeed The Triune God. Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. Luke 16:15. And so was this. And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. Matt.9:4-6. This was not divine omniscience on Jesus' part, but human psychological insight. There was no forgiveness of sins though for those who 'thought evil in their hearts' that day, only for the man 'sick of the palsy'. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: Matt.12:25 Same with this, not divine omniscience, just heightened human awareness of others motives and intentions. .
You're right, of course. At that point Jesus was changed; His body looked the same but it had ceased to be mortal, and He was no longer acting in accordance with so many of mortal men's limitations. It makes me happy to see that you believe Jesus did move about supernaturally after the crucifixion. This implies that you do accept the idea that He rose from the dead! How could Jesus, as a man, forgive sins? To address your question, let me relate how I understand it, with the caveat that not every Christian sees it the same way as I do. Here goes. John 5:19,25-27,30 relates Jesus' words, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.... Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.... I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. When we read the gospels, we see passage after passage relating the prayer life of Jesus. He spent loads of time talking to the Father and being sensitive to the Father's instructions which were transmitted via the Holy Spirit indwelling Jesus. Luke 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit... Jesus is fully God and fully man. Jesus came to earth, not as God, but as 'fully man.' Although He had knowledge of His true identity (see v. 25-27 above), He was committed to living life as a man. With the guidance and enablement of the Holy Spirit, Jesus knew where He should go and what he should do. (I don't mean that the Holy Spirit micro-managed Jesus to the point of saying, "Laugh now," or "Eat in a half hour", but the important things Jesus should say and do were told to Him when He needed to know.) For example, Jesus didn't send His disciples onto the Sea of Galilee without Him just because He felt like it; He did it because He knew He was supposed to send them while He went and prayed, and then (perhaps because of instruction received during that prayer time) He knew when and how He was to join them on the water-- literally! Countless generations have benefited from learning about Jesus' walk on the water. 1 Corinthians 12 lays out the gifts of the Holy Spirit: word of wisdom, word of knowledge, special faith, gift of healing, working of miracles, gift of prophecy, and so on. These are all gifts from the Father, through the Holy Spirit, for and upon men. Jesus was committed to living on earth as a full human being who was full of the Holy Spirit. Thus the spiritual gifts were in full operation during the mortal life of Jesus. When Jesus healed the sick, cast out demons, fed five thousand, and told the man his sins were forgiven, Jesus wasn't acting as God but as man obedient to the Father and yielded to the Spirit (He was God-who-became-man, but nonetheless He was living here as a man). He didn't descend one day out of a cloud and announce to all Israel, "I am God; come to me and I will heal you all." Instead He did things the way any mortal man fully obedient to God would do them... the way we are meant to do things, if we will be willing and obedient enough to be intimately guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit. (The vital difference between us and Jesus is, unlike Him we know for certain that we are not God, but merely His vessels of clay).
Yes He is Almighty God: “Awaiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” - Titus 2:13 “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,” - Colossians 2:8-9 “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. 9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") 16 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” - John 1:1-17 “15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. 21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.”- Colossians 1:15-23 “1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"? 6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 Of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire." 8 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." - Hebrews 1:1-9
I'd like to draw one more minor detail out of Revelation 22:16. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. Just three verses earlier, Jesus identifies Himself as Alpha and Omega, first and last, beginning and end. Here in v. 16 He identifies Himself as "the root and the offspring of David." It's easy to see Jesus as David's offspring since we have His lineage traced to David through Mary. An offspring is fruit coming from the family tree of King David. This is Jesus the 'son of man.' But at the same time, Jesus says He is "the root" of David. A tree's root is its beginning, its source of nourishment, and its firm anchor and foundation. This is Jesus our God and David's God; He is our source and provider, our rock, and our firm foundation. No mere created being could be all these things.
It is Jesus. A brighter-than-most 'star' is often visible at dawn. Besides being a beautiful sight, it heralds the passing of night's darkness and the coming of a new day. In the context of Rev. 22 where this is found, Jesus causing the end of spiritual darkness and ushering in the dawn of a new 'day' (or era) for all of God's children would likely be the main significance.
Ok so I suppose a bright morning star, doesn't mean these things, such as when it referes to Lucifer. " King of Babylon, bright morning star, you have fallen from heaven! In the past you conquered nations, but now you have been thrown to the ground. Isaiah 14:12
I would say there's a bit of sarcasm in there. Vain, proud Lucifer fancied (maybe still does fancy) himself to be better than Jesus.
The root of David is an expression not found in the Old Testament. There are references to a root of Jesse (Isa. 11:1, 10, LLX), and in Ecclesiasticus we read that God gave 'unto David a root out of him' Ecclasticus 47:22 but these seem to denote a 'shoot' rather than a 'root'. They refer to someone who has sprung from David rather than one of his ancestors. John probably means to emphasise that Jesus was born of David's line. Jesus' descent human from David is pretty well irrefutable for two distinct reasons. (1) As you already said his lineage appears at Matt. 1:1-17 and in Luke we have the angelic pronouncement "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." So scripture attests that Jesus was a descendant of King David on both his mothers and his adopting father's side. Only the rightful descendant of King David can legitimately occupy his throne. But (2) King Solomon, one of David's Royal sons had 700 wives, who were princesses, and 300 concubines. 1 Kings 11:3. Just about every Jew in The Gallilee rightly claimed descent from David through one of his possibly hundreds of grandchildren. I had not, previously to your insightful reference to 'roots' considered the fact that Adam and Eve themselves as prototypes of the human race must have owed their 'roots' to Jesus, since he was the likeness and image of which they were both copies. "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Gen. 1:27 .
Yeah I know, I'm a tease aren't I But incredibly Tiffy, Isa 11:1 is used as an explanation for this conundrum. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (As you know it's Matt 2:23)