Search results

Q.E.D., folks!

I am NOT immune from misinterpretation of Scripture. Are you?

So, is your answer "Yes, I am now immune from misinterpretations," or is it "No, I can still be mistaken on how to interpret something"?

Are you now at the stage where you are immune form misinterpretations of the Bible?

Good to know. Now, would you mind answering my question?

And in that nearly half-century, did you ever misunderstand a passage, and later come to understand it differently?

So am I.

True. Have you ever experienced one yourself in reading through the Scriptures? If so, how did you come to see that your initial understanding was incorrect?

Thank you, finally! (That was exhausting.)

No doubt, but what future event was Jesus referencing when he said "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

What else would Matt. 16:28 be referring to, then?

That wasn't my question. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 aside (good verse for the conclusion, though), do you agree or disagree that Matt. 16:28 supports the conclusion that Jesus will return? Why is it so hard for you to answer this simple question?

If it will help me get a straight answer from you, I'm happy to give the quote: "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Not sure whether to take that answer as "Yes, I agree with your interpretation of Matt. 16:28" or "No, I don't agree with your interpretation of Matt. 16:28." To be clear, I am not asking whether Jesus will return. I am asking whether you think Matt. 16:28 supports that conclusion.

No I don't. To the contrary, I think Matt. 16:28 suggests a return of Jesus. Just wondering if you agree with me. Some folks don't, and see the verse as a reference to an event that has already occurred.

I wonder if you have a different interpretation of Matt. 16:28 than I do.

I've noticed a lot of folks on this site who point to 2 Tim. 3:16 as support for NT writings being God-breathed -- as if Paul in using the word graphē was also referring to his own letters, and other letters and gospels (some of which hadn't yet been written when 2 Timothy was penned). It has...

It's not, I agree. I just like the God-breathed reference when I'm thinking about what it means to be inspired.

Glad you cleared that up. :)

Nope. I'm not defending him. Not attacking him either. That's not my style.