94 replies to this topic

[Pa Pa]

Rob Bowman, on 09 November 2010 - 09:22 AM, said:

Pa Pa,

I do not appreciate insinuations of this kind. The maturing process of which verse 13 speaks will continue until it is finished, when people in the church will no longer be subject to deception, as verse 14 says. Going on to verse 14 in no way undermines my exegesisof verses 11-13.

May I also point out that the emergence of the LDS Church has not brought spiritual deception to an end? Far from it.

#1...yes it does undermines your "exegesis" which is one of the stated purposes for Apostles and Prophets!

#2...You don't like "insinuations", but you are OK with coming right out and running down my faith! What arrogance...

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

Pa Pa, on 09 November 2010 - 09:39 AM, said:

#1...yes it does undermines your "exegesis" which is one of the stated purposes for Apostles and Prophets!

I have no idea what that statement means.

You wrote:

Quote

#2...You don't like "insinuations", but you are OK with coming right out and running down my faith! What arrogance...

Give me a break. It is possible to express disagreements with someone's religion without impugning the motives or character of every individual who adheres to that religion. Some of your fellow LDS here understand that. Apparently, you don't.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 08 November 2010 - 09:15 PM, said:

Vance,

Okay, I'll bite: who was that Greek scholar?

He is a friend of mine.  I realize that it may shock you, but yes, I have friends.

I just got a response back him regarding this topic.

'(ebeddoulos') reading of the Greek is completely correct. ed?ken is in the Aorist proleptic tense - which can be used for something that has not yet happened but assumed that it will happen, it is used to stress the certainty of the event. You can see Romans 8:30 for the same usage, "whom he justified, them he also glorified." Both justified and glorified are in this same tense.'

So much for your "zero chance" drivel.

[Pa Pa]

Rob Bowman, on 09 November 2010 - 11:50 AM, said:

Pa Pa,

You wrote:



I have no idea what that statement means.

You wrote:



Give me a break. It is possible to express disagreements with someone's religion without impugning the motives or character of every individual who adheres to that religion. Some of your fellow LDS here understand that. Apparently, you don't.

What I mean is these 4 scriptures support the first are anything other than this is an incomplete statement…and you know it.

Quote

Ep 4: 11-14
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Your last two or three posts have been designed to tell us we have no Apostles and Prophets, which is our foundation with Christ being the “Chief Cornerstone”. This is not “disagreement; you are striking at our very “foundation” to collapse our faith…thus demeaning us. So give me a break!

Forgive me for seeing the truth...You can cloak it in scholarship all you like…”I can” see the forest for the trees.

Edited by Pa Pa, 09 November 2010 - 03:57 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

His name, please, and his scholarly credentials.

Vance, on 09 November 2010 - 12:38 PM, said:

He is a friend of mine.  I realize that it may shock you, but yes, I have friends.

I just got a response back him regarding this topic.

'(ebeddoulos') reading of the Greek is completely correct. ed?ken is in the Aorist proleptic tense - which can be used for something that has not yet happened but assumed that it will happen, it is used to stress the certainty of the event. You can see Romans 8:30 for the same usage, "whom he justified, them he also glorified." Both justified and glorified are in this same tense.'

So much for your "zero chance" drivel.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 09 November 2010 - 02:45 PM, said:

Vance,

His name, please, and his scholarly credentials.

Rob,

The only thing I provided him was your quote.

Quote

I must be honest with you, though, and say that your suggestion that ed?ken ("gave") in Ephesians 4:11 is proleptic has zero chance of being correct.

And he provided the response I posted.

Unlike you, he doesn't have an agenda nor a bias (in your case a blatant bias).

[jmordecai]

Rob Bowman, on 09 November 2010 - 02:45 PM, said:

Vance,

His name, please, and his scholarly credentials.

Ditto.

[ebeddoulos]

Rob Bowman, on 09 November 2010 - 06:50 AM, said:

ebeddoulos,

Thanks for your response; let me explain why I do not find it persuasive.

I understand.  I have little expectation of persuading you.  It is most obvious that you are far too invested in your current theory at this moment to see the full extent of its folly.  To quote the 15th century satirist and poet, Samuel Butler:

“He that complies against his will is of his own opinion still.” (Samuel Butler, “Hudibras”, pt.  III, canto III, l.  547)

I am patient.  I am sure that with further study you will eventually find the error and shortcomings of this chapter in your studies.  That out of the way, let’s look at your latest, shall we?

Rob Bowman, on 09 November 2010 - 06:50 AM, said:

1. There is no reason to think that Paul has the resurrected saints of Matthew 27:52-53 in view when he says "these he also glorified" (Rom. 8:30). We don't even know if Paul knew about this particular incident, which is recorded only in Matthew (written almost certainly after Romans) and is at best a minor and obscure footnote even in Matthew's account.

And you think that Paul, the agent provocateur of the Jewish hierarchy, had not heard of the resurrected personages who appeared to a segment of the Jewish/Christian populace?  Seriously?  Is this naiveté on your part or a desperate, stubborn, clutching at straws denial?

Rob Bowman, on 09 November 2010 - 06:50 AM, said:

2. There is no reason to think that the resurrected saints of Matthew 27:52-53 were "glorified." I accept as most likely the view that the passage does refer to a resurrection of some departed saints near Jerusalem (alternate exegesis of the text is possible), but even so the text says nothing about them being resurrected to immortal, glorious life. They were more likely resurrected in the same mode as Lazarus, returning to mortal life. Paul's description of resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 has to do with the eschatological resurrection, not the historically past resurrections such as those that Jesus performed prior to his death and resurrection. In fact, Paul's teaching that Christ is the "firstfruits" of the resurrection (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:20, 23) has to do precisely with the point that Christ was the first person resurrected to glorified, immortal life. Thus, Paul's teaching strongly supports the conclusion that the resurrected saints of Matthew 27:52-53 were not "glorified" at that time.

Isn’t it interesting that just as I predicted, you did choose door number three.  Color me unsurprised.  I suggest that you learn the difference between resuscitation (Lazarus) and resurrection (Jesus).  You do realise do you not, that when you conflated the Lazarus' resuscitation (They were more likely resurrected in the same mode as Lazarus) with those who were resurrected following Jesus, that you made Lazarus the first fruits of the resurrection?

Before we delve deeper into your predictable and fallacious argument, let’s first dispense with your strawman fallacy.  I did not say or even suggest that Christ was not the first fruits of the resurrection nor is that what Matthew says.  As a matter of fact, Matthew 27:53 goes out of its way to state that the dead “came out of their graves after his resurrection” and in doing so actually provides witnesses that Christ was first and that through the others that closely followed him, he provided the proof that for us all a glorified resurrection is possible.

Your final sentence above is nothing more than a nude assertion without evidence to clothe it.  Its converse on the other hand, has a full wardrobe.  At the risk of being accused of the fallacy of authority, I offer the following excerpts from notable commentaries which range from Catholic to a variety of Protestants.  I have placed the complete quotes in context at the bottom of my remarks.

John McGarvey said that “the natural presumption is, that they ascended to heaven.”
  
John Gill agreed: “These saints, I apprehend, continued on earth until our Lord's ascension, and then joining the retinue of angels, went triumphantly with him to heaven, as trophies of his victory over sin, Satan, death, and the grave”

Matthew Henry felt that “it is more agreeable, both to Christ's honour and theirs, to suppose, though we cannot prove, that they arose as Christ did, to die no more, and therefore ascended with him to glory.”

On the other hand, Cornelius Lapide felt that if your opinion is correct that “their happiness would have been but brief, and their misery greater, if they had died again so speedily. It would have been better, indeed, if they had not risen at all.”

Rob Bowman, on 09 November 2010 - 06:50 AM, said:

3. I see no reason to consider the theological explanations or speculations of church fathers concerning this matter, certainly not where they are not supported by what the NT says. I am sure if I were to cite church fathers to support my view you would object to such an appeal to persons you regard as part of the Great Apostasy!

Come on.  Be honest.  At least with yourself. You do not consider the theological explanations or speculations of church fathers because to do so would impact negatively on your current pet theory.  Just an FYI, the Ante-Nicene cite I proffered is of Addai aka Thaddaeus, one of the Seventy, (though Jerome identifies him as the Apostle Thaddaeus) sent by the Apostle Thomas to preach the Gospel to Syrians at Edessa.  Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, the great chronicler of church history corroborates the account.  Edessa, now in Turkey, still lays claim to being the burial site of said Thadaeus.  Edessa also played a key role in the Peshitta, Syriac translation of the Old Testament, which in turn has a role in New Testament Textual Criticism today.  All that aside, please continue in your denial if you still feel the need to preserve your illusion.

Rob Bowman, on 09 November 2010 - 06:50 AM, said:

4. Paul's wording in Romans 8:30 is generalized, affirming the glorification of all those whom God predestined and justified. It is not referring to a select group of people who had already been glorified.

Do not forget that according to Paul (1Corinthians 15:42-44), one is not glorified unless one is resurrected.  Therefore while Romans 8:30 may be generalized, it is also inclusive.  By inclusive I mean those originally resurrected and those who will be resurrected.  In short it actually is referring to a “select group of people who had already been glorified” plus all those awaiting to be.  In much the same manner, Ephesians 4:11 is generalized and inclusive, i.e., those called and those yet to be called.

Rob Bowman, on 09 November 2010 - 06:50 AM, said:

5. The theological contexts of Romans 8:30 and Ephesians 4:11 are significantly different. Romans 8:30 in context reflects the characteristic Pauline tension between the two ages -- this age and the age to come -- in which our salvation has been decisively accomplished (the "already" aspect) but not consummated (the "not yet" aspect). This already-not yet tension dominates Romans 8 and is directly relevant to Paul's affirmation that those whom God justified he also glorified.   No such perspective is at play in Paul's statement that Christ gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11). There is no reason to inject such a perspective or theological motif into Ephesians 4:11. Christ "gave" those gifts after he ascended to heaven and soon afterward poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (see Eph. 4:7-10 for the ascension as the context in Paul's explanation; cf. Acts 2).

You are so wrong or as Jeremiah says: “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not” (Jeremiah 5:21- KJV) which the great Matthew Henry brilliantly summarized as: “none so blind as those that will not see.” (Matthew Henry, “Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible”, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, vol.  4, [1991], pg.  346)  There is tension aplenty. Verse 11 describes the organization as assembled by Christ.  Verses 12 explains the purpose of that organization.  Verse 13 describes how long that organization will be necessary and verse14 describes the consequences of not having Christ’s organization.  There is your “already-not yet” tension.  However, I suspect that you will be hard pressed to prove that tension is a requirement for Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist.

Rob Bowman, on 09 November 2010 - 06:50 AM, said:

6. Ephesians 4:11 makes perfectly good sense taking the aorist indicative in its usual sense as a simple past-tense verb. This is the customary (virtually uniform) usage of the aorist indicative, and its usage throughout this passage ("were called," v. 1; "were called," v. 4; "was given," v. 7; "took captive," v. 8; "gave," v. 8; "ascended," v. 9; "descended," v. 9). We should not look for any other meaning unless the text itself drives us to consider another understanding of the verb, which is simply not the case here.

You forgot one thing. The simple and straightforward LDS interpretation makes perfect sense when reading the Bible in English, Spanish and German and most likely every other language.  Compare that to your long-winded convoluted justification which leaves people scratching their heads.  Did you see how long your OP was?!!?  If anybody is doing an injection it is you and no offense but the size of your injection in medical terms would be termed a super bolus.  .

One final note: Ephesians 4:11 has had some interesting translations made of it.  Please take note of the "GIVES":

Quote

(ANT) and He gives the certainly delegates {He gives} the but forecasters {He gives} the but preachers {He gives} the but shepherds and teachers
(CLV) And the same One gives these, indeed, as apostles, yet these as prophets, yet these as evangelists, yet these as pastors and teachers,

Again, nice try.

Those above mentioned commentaries in context said:

“There has been much speculation as to what became of these risen saints. We have no positive information, but the natural presumption is, that they ascended to heaven. These resurrections were symbolic, showing that the resurrection of Christ is the resurrection of the race” (John William McGarvey, “The New Testament Commentary”, Delight Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company, [1875], vol. 1, pg. 247)

“The resurrection of Christ; for he rose as the first fruits, as the first begotten of the dead, and the firstborn from the dead; for he was the first that was raised to an immortal life; for though others were raised before him, by himself, and in the times of the prophets, yet to a mortal life; but these saints came forth to the resurrection of life, and therefore it was necessary that Christ the first fruits, should rise first. The Arabic version indeed reads, "after their own resurrection"; and the Ethiopic version, "after they were raised"; both wrong, and scarcely sense: and went into the holy city; the city of Jerusalem, which though now a very wicked city, was so called, because of the temple, and the worship of God, and his residence in it: the burying places of the Jews were without the city (a), and therefore these risen saints, are said to go into it: and appeared unto many; of their friends and acquaintance, who had personally known them, and conversed with them in their lifetime. These saints, I apprehend, continued on earth until our Lord's ascension, and then joining the retinue of angels, went triumphantly with him to heaven, as trophies of his victory over sin, Satan, death, and the grave” (John Gill, “Exposition of the Bible” http://www.ewordtoda...l/matthew27.htm , accessed 11/9/2010 )

“Some think that they arose only to bear witness of Christ's resurrection to those to whom they appeared, and, having finished their testimony, retired to their graves again. But it is more agreeable, both to Christ's honour and theirs, to suppose, though we cannot prove, that they arose as Christ did, to die no more, and therefore ascended with him to glory. Surely on them who did partake of his first resurrection, a second death had no power.” (Matthew Henry, “Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible”, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, vol.  5, [1991], pg.  350)

“Did, then, these saints die again after their resurrection, or continue in life and glory? Some think they did die, and are to rise again at the last day, and this from S. Paul's words, "That they without us should not be made perfect." (See S. Augustine, Epist. xcix. ad Evodium.) Others suppose, and more correctly, that they died no more, but were raised up to life immortal. Because it was but fitting that Christ should manifest at once in their resurrection the power of His own. It was also meet that happy souls like these should be united only to glorious and immortal bodies. But their happiness would have been but brief, and their misery greater, if they had died again so speedily. It would have been better, indeed, if they had not risen at all. It was also but fitting that they should adorn Christ's triumphant ascension, as captives redeemed by Him, and the spoils He had won from death; and, lastly, that He should have them with Him in Heaven, and that His human nature, enjoying their presence and society, might never be solitary and void of human consolation. So Origen, S. Jerome, S. Clemens Alex. (Strom. lib. vi.), and others.” (Cornelius a Lapide, “The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide”, London: John Hodges, [1887], pg. 313)

[ebeddoulos]

Rob,

You seem unable or unwilling to respond.  I hope there are no hard feelings.  I did enjoy our conversation.  I was serious when I said that you made a good try.

Ebed

[Zakuska]

ebeddoulos, on 10 November 2010 - 03:35 AM, said:

“The resurrection of Christ; for he rose as the first fruits, as the first begotten of the dead, and the firstborn from the dead; for he was the first that was raised to an immortal life; for though others were raised before him, by himself, and in the times of the prophets, yet to a mortal life; but these saints came forth to the resurrection of life, and therefore it was necessary that Christ the first fruits, should rise first. The Arabic version indeed reads, "after their own resurrection"; and the Ethiopic version, "after they were raised"; both wrong, and scarcely sense: and went into the holy city; the city of Jerusalem, which though now a very wicked city, was so called, because of the temple, and the worship of God, and his residence in it: the burying places of the Jews were without the city (a), and therefore these risen saints, are said to go into it: and appeared unto many; of their friends and acquaintance, who had personally known them, and conversed with them in their lifetime. These saints, I apprehend, continued on earth until our Lord's ascension, and then joining the retinue of angels, went triumphantly with him to heaven, as trophies of his victory over sin, Satan, death, and the grave” (John Gill, “Exposition of the Bible” http://www.ewordtoda...l/matthew27.htm , accessed 11/9/2010 )

So if these "resecitated saints" (Robs idea)  "appeared unto many".  I guess then Lazarus merely... "Appeared" unto the two Mary's also.

[ebeddoulos]

Zakuska, on 15 November 2010 - 03:45 PM, said:

So if these "resecitated saints" (Robs idea)  "appeared unto many".  I guess then Lazarus merely... "Appeared" unto the two Mary's also.

John Gill, unless I am abysimally mistaken, did not make the mistake of conflating the miracle of the resuscitation of Lasarus with the resurrection of those who "came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matthew 27:53) It appears to me though that Rob Bowman has made such an error.

I know that Jesus appeared to the two Marys (Matthew 28:1-10) following his resurrection and I know an angel did so (Mark 16:1-8 ) but I am unfamiliar with where Lazarus appeared to them after his resuscitation.  Can you enlighten me?

Edited by ebeddoulos, 15 November 2010 - 04:29 PM.

[Zakuska]

ebeddoulos, on 15 November 2010 - 04:24 PM, said:

John Gill, unless I am abysimally mistaken, did not make the mistake of conflating the miracle of the resuscitation of Lasarus with the resurrection of those who "came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matthew 27:53) It appears to me though that Rob Bowman has made such an error.

I know that Jesus appeared to the two Marys (Matthew 28:1-10) following his resurrection and I know an angel did so (Mark 16:1-8  ) but I am unfamiliar with where Lazarus appeared to them after his resuscitation.  Can you enlighten me?

I can't but perhaps Rob Bowman can.  In fact, I am unaware of any scripture were "resuscitated' people are said to "appear" to anyone.  Ressurected people on the other hand... Jesus "Appeared" unto Paul on the road to damascus.

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

I have too much on my plate, so I may not get to everyone's comments. That doesn't mean I would have no answer. I'll do the best I can.

ebeddoulos, on 15 November 2010 - 03:22 PM, said:

Rob,

You seem unable or unwilling to respond.  I hope there are no hard feelings.  I did enjoy our conversation.  I was serious when I said that you made a good try.

Ebed

[Rob Bowman]

The word translated "appeared" in Matthew 27:53 occurs only ten times in the New Testament, so I don't think much of an argument can be developed based on its non-use in the context of resuscitated persons being seen by other people.

[Zakuska]

Quote

“There has been much speculation as to what became of these risen saints. We have no positive information, but the natural presumption is, that they ascended to heaven. These resurrections were symbolic, showing that the resurrection of Christ is the resurrection of the race” (John William McGarvey, “The New Testament Commentary”, Delight Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company, [1875], vol. 1, pg. 247)

I think the scriptures do tell us what happened to them... And it is exactly the "natural presumption".

Jude 1
  14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, <A name=15>  15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

of course this prophecy is located in a book that was removed from the Bible... so then I don't fault him for saying we have no positive afermation.