Search results

Isaiah 14:12 has nothing to do with the devil. Context is king there. And "satan" is not even a proper name. In the OT, it was used for "the satan" or "the adversary" (i.e. Job) always with the article. Devil is just transliterated form of the word for "slanderer". So it too is not a proper...

Great explanation as to Luke's motivation for "changing" the account. What does this do to inerrancy though?

See my siggie :D

Bias: Using not only Burgon's first name but also his title "dean" vs. Westcott and Hort (no names or titles) Just sayin'

My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk 6 sec vid.

Do you even know what "arbitrary" means? I was very intentional about my statements and concepts. And I'm not alone!

And got healed 2x's???

You misunderstand me. I am not saying election has a "plural function." I am saying there are plural elections of various types. I'm not sure I agree that the election of Jesus is a dangerous statement since Peter uses that language himself. While Jesus did lay down his own life, it was the...

The main assertion in the OP makes an extremely fallacious blunder by equating all uses of "election" to 1 kind of election: Israel's election. The Bible points out various elections. Angels are elect, but they certainly aren't ethnic Israel. Jesus was elect, but in the context of Peter not...

I wonder if you have considered other reasons why Jesus would only go to Israel. First of all, the best way to make sense of Israel, her mission, and why God chose a nation is imperative. Israel's election was not for privilege but for ministry: to bless the nations. Second, when Jesus...

Two issues. I think you think that the OT was written much in the same way the NT was written. However, many OT documents exhibit editorial remarks that made its way into the text. So one would have to ask, when was it inspired? When Moses wrote much of the Law. Or when someone (Ezra?)...

That is stretching plausability. Same town, same ailment, same cry for help, same response from the crowd. This is the same story passed down from Jesus tradition. Luke may have had some redactional motivation, or after his research he found out more accurately this story and so amended it.

Neither text indicates there were 2 encounters with the same man. So this harmonization strains Mark and Luke individually.

That is the typical harmonization answer... 2 different accounts exactly the same thing. I have a hard time thinking that this tradition of Jesus was actually 2 stories where the 2 blind men said the exact same thing. That is far fetched.

Is this a contradiction in the gospel accounts? Luk 18:35 As he drew near to Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. Luk 18:36 And hearing a crowd going by, he inquired what this meant. Luk 18:37 They told him, "Jesus of Nazareth is passing by." Luk 18:38 And he cried...

And yet, that is what we have.

When people bring up conflicts between various accounts (did Jesus heal the blind man while entering Jericho or exiting?), I don't see that as a bad thing but good. It confirms that these evangelists did not forge their accounts but were motivated by the gospel to communicate the gospel in the...

Inerrancy is over rated

So what does the Kingdom of God do then?

Good retort (seein' as how you didn't really deal w/ the scripture I posed). But what do you do w/ Gal. 1:13 that draws a distinction between local churches and the general/universal church that Paul persecuted (not on local body but the body of Christ in general).