Recent content by claninja

So what’s your take?

Why can’t Revelation 11:8 be understood in the same manner as Luke 13:33? In other words, Luke 13:33 says a prophet cannot perish outside Jerusalem. That is a locational phrase, yet Jesus died outside the walls (John 19:20; Heb 13:12), and Luke himself calls the crucifixion something that...

My point with Luke 13:33, is that Jesus says he must press on because it is not possible for a prophet to perish “outside Jerusalem” (exō Ierousalēm). That is a locational phrase, but Luke does not apply it at the level of the city walls. The very next verse addresses the city as an agent...

Make up my mind? As already stated previously, I agree Jesus was crucified outside the literal and physical, city walls. That being said, in regards to a prophet not dying outside the city - you wrote in post 357 “it should be obvious” that In Luke 13:33 he was talking about the people that...

Would you agree that when Jesus said He would “accomplish His departure at Jerusalem” (Luke 9:31) and that a prophet could not “perish outside Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33), He was using “Jerusalem” to mean the city as a community, even though He was crucified outside the gate?

I agree John 19:20 and Hebrews 13:12 place the crucifixion outside the gate at the time. I’m not disputing that. But “outside the gate” and “in Jerusalem” aren’t mutually exclusive in Scripture. Jesus himself said a prophet cannot perish outside Jerusalem (Luke 13:33), and he said his departure...

When Jesus was crucified, Golgotha was outside Jerusalem’s city walls. Between AD 41 and 44, Herod Agrippa I began construction of the Third Wall on Jerusalem’s northern side, which would have enclosed the traditional site of Golgotha. The Jewish rebels later completed the wall before the Roman...

Lol, you are the one who always first responds to me, just saying……. Let’s get it straight. He did not say “those who are alive and remain”. Grammatically, he said “WE who are alive and remain. Grammatically, the first person construct “we” defaults to include Paul himself living AND...

The irony. Dismiss linguistic and contextual analysis while simultaneously relying on your own interpretation of a text that was translated into English by Greek textual and linguistic experts.

I don’t understand the argument the AI is making here. Can you elaborate? Is it arguing that it’s grammatically impossible in Greek to say “we who have fallen asleep” or “those of us who have fallen asleep”? Because that would be incorrect. Or is it simply arguing that the phrase “those who...

Your question is somewhat oxymoronic. If we’re not supposed to rely on grammar or context, then what is the point of reading Scripture in the first place? We read words to understand what the author is communicating. If we cannot examine how those words are used or the circumstances in which...

I understand that the first person “we” is sometimes interpreted as the church corporately. But this runs into the problem of “those who have fallen asleep” which is third person. Paul could have said “those of ‘us’ who have fallen asleep”. He didn’t. The contrast between the third person...

From a grammatical standpoint, in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 and 17 Paul writes “we who are alive, who are left.” Compare that with how he refers to the dead: “those who have fallen asleep” (vv. 13-14). Paul never says “those of ‘us‘ who have fallen asleep.” He keeps the dead in the third person and...

So your position is that the nature of the 2nd coming is not observable, political, or with physical plantings, but is instead a spiritual event?

Those are good ones. We could also add Matthew 24:33-34, 1 John 2:18-19, 1 Peter 4:7, James 5:8-9, Hebrews 10:37, and revelation 1:1,3- all which pretty much reflect a belief that it would happen within the lifetimes of the NT authors. So the question is, how does the NT present the “nature”...