Scargy Class is In Session
Filed Under (Paul's posts) by Paul on 27-06-2010
Tagged Under : Glorification, John Scargy, Romans 8:11
John “Death” Scargy has a history of putting his foot in his mouth which we’ve documented here. Well he has done it once again. Attempting to avoid addressing the questions of an opponent he makes the astonishing claim,
Once again Sharon “If your not glorified, your not redeemed, or regenerated. If your not glorified, your not saved.”
One wonders what the Apostle Paul, the man who wrote the majority of the New Testament would have made of Scargy’s claim. After all Paul certainly looked forward to something future in God’s redemptive plan. He clearly writes in Philippians 3,
that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Philippians 3:11
And a little late in that same chapter
… we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body,… Philippians 3:20, 21
And from the book of Romans,
and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. Romans 8:17
Based on Scargy’s logic, because the Apostle Paul clearly looks to his future for glorification he must not have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb even though he wrote,
But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, …Ti 3:4,5
And,
…when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus…Ephesians 2:5,6
The simple fact is Scargy’s position is irrational because his logic dictates the Apostle Paul, the man who wrote the majority of the New Testament, a book Scargy supposedly believes is THE authority on the matter, claims the Apostle Paul was not regenerated when he explained he had been made alive in Christ, and was “saved”. How Scargy can maintain his astonishing view in light of the fact the Apostle clearly explains “Christ SAVED us”, (PAST TENSE JOHN) and he tells the Ephesians they HAD BEEN saved, (AGAIN PAST TENSE JOHN) prior to AD70 is truly mind boggling.
Indeed according to John A.T. Robinson, not exactly the hallmark for conservative theological views, the book of Philippians where we find out the Apostle Paul looked to the future to be glorified was written in the spring of AD58. But the book of Ephesians was written later that same year while both Romans and Titus a year earlier. I guess the Apostle Paul should have checked with John “Death” Scargy to secure the correct understanding of the way of salvation. What an amazing irrational claim Scargy foists on the reading public. What next Scargy, was Stephen when he committed his spirit into the hands of the Lord not redeemed? Do you guys ever think through any of the logical implications of your muddled thinking?
What is the basis for Scargy’s irrational view that he is glorified while the Apostle Paul was not at the time of writing the New Testament. Scargy believes AD70 when an empty building was destroyed glorified the saints. However, is this how the Apostle Paul defined the concept, did the Apostle believe the destruction of the temple “glorified” the saints?
The basis for Scargy’s irrational claim begins with the opening post wherein his later astonishing claim seen above comes from. The foundational text he employs to support his absurd position sets forth “glorification” as a quality to be obtained in the future,
…if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Amazingly Scargy posts this text then proceeds to provide a couple of Old Testament passages, then 2 New Testament passages one from 1 Peter, the other from 2 Peter to support a begged question which is did the Apostle Paul define glorification of the saints as the destruction of an empty temple. Scargy, without providing any exegesis of Romans 8, concludes by stating,
Sharon has her sins washed but still sees a time of future glorification.Unfortunately this isn’t scriptural.This is a futurist invention in trying to disprove “full preterism”. I guess we could call it “progressive glorification.”
Yes, John all reformed evangelical Christians believe they have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, but all await their future glorification, just like the Apostle Paul does in the text you quote from Romans 8. And no, “glorification” isn’t progressive, it is something like Paul to which all Christians of the reformed evangelical bent look “forward”. That you think this glorification took place in AD70 without any supporting exegesis is simply astounding. However, allow me to help you understand from the immediate text what the Apostle was looking for in his definition of the term “glorification”.
The passage you lift your text from, Romans 8, but noticeably never return to develop a foundation for your ignorant claim has already covered a couple of concepts. Beginning in v.10 we read,
“if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.”
Now I realize you hold the Gnostic like view claiming the term body when employed by the Apostle Paul to discuss “our” or the believers body is really discussing “His” body, the church, so it is likely you think the above text is suggesting the church, the entity Paul was suffering for to build was “dead”. But allow me to suggest, reformed evangelical Christians who have the Spirit living in them understand the “body” under discussion in the text is truly “our” body, which because of sin is under the penalty of death. In case you hadn’t noticed it, “our” body will die. But here, you don’t have to take my word for it, I will give you the commentary of Douglas Moo on the subject.
…the body is the physical body specifically, its deadness consisting in the penalty of physical death that must still be experienced by the believer. (NIC, The Epistle to the Romans, Douglas J. Moo, Eerdmans, pg 491)
This comment is footnoted by Dr. Moo who points out,
An important point in favor of this interpretation is that Paul refers to resurrection as the solution to this “deadness” in v. 11
Moving on, to v. 11 sure enough just like Dr. Moo states we find the Apostle Paul assuring the believers in Rome that,
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you
I’ve seen some really ignorant hyperpreterists claim the Apostle Paul is redundant in this passage, claiming a live body is alive, but I trust you aren’t this obtuse. The fact the Apostle Paul makes as Dr. Moo points out,
…reference to resurrection is so plain in the first part of the sentence, “will make alive” must also refer to the future bodily transformation…And in keeping with Paul’s focus throughout this part of Rom. 8. it is the Spirit who is the instrument by whom God raises the body of the Christian. (Ibid, pg 493)
Scargy, I have a question for you. Is the reason you provide no exegesis of the text you lifted the verse from to support your eisegesis that the glorification of the believer took place in AD70, that down deep inside you realize the event the Apostle Paul looks forward to, the event known as the resurrection of the dead whereby the dead bodies of believers are brought back to life and transformed to be immortal, that it is this concept the Apostle Paul was looking forward to in the text and not the destruction of some abandoned building? Be honest with us, is the reason you didn’t provide any exegesis in support of your assertion, is that you know deep down inside you can’t support your argument from the text? Moving on, to a few verses after the text you employ we find in v. 23 and 24,
we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved….
Well what do you know Scargy, we find that the “hope” the Apostle was waiting for, indeed “eagerly” waiting for was what? Was it the destruction of a building, some abandoned edifice? No, it is the redemption of the “body”, note “our” body, which the ESV translates as “bodies”. Its as if the ESV translating committee understands the hyperpreterist Gnostic like view easily confuses the matter.
I’ve seen some hyperpreterist complain that the term “body” in v. 23 is really singular and therefore can’t be the bodies of believers. This reveals ignorance on their part of the original language and grammar. Douglas Moo points out regarding the term “body” in the text in question, which he himself translates “bodies”,
The genitive, in light of the biblical stress on the permanence of “bodily” life through resurrection and transformation, must be objective – it is the body that is redeemed – rather than ablatival-“redemption from the body” (contra Lietzman) (Ibid, pg 521, footnote 67)
This comment shoots a hole in your Gnostic like hope of being redeemed from your body, doesn’t it Scargy? But here is another thought for you on the text in question. From Gordon B. Fee’s commentary on 1 Corinthians we find where he is commenting on 1 Corinthians 6:19 the Pauline use of the term “body” in a similar grammatical situation as Romans 8:23,
…this reflects semitic preference for a distributive singular, where “something belonging to each person in a group of people is placed in the singular.” Cf. Rom 8:23 (NIC, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon B. Fee, Eerdmans, pg 263, footnote 67)
Scargy if you want to argue the rendering of the text by the ESV and Drs. Moo and Fee, be my guest. But here is an easy way around the issue. Just produce one text from the Bible that claims the church referred to metaphorically as “His” body is really “our” body, what the Apostle Paul explicitly states will get redeemed. You won’t be able to, so trust me, the rendering of the ESV is correct. Which means the exegesis of the text reveals the “hope”, the “glorification” the Apostle Paul was looking forward to in the text you based your astonishing example of eisegesis upon is the “glorification” of the believers body, the redemption of “our” bodies.
Scargy, although this example of exegesis is brief, at least I reviewed some of the concepts in the text from which you lifted your foundational verse. Why don’t you provide some actual exegesis of the text to affirm your extraordinary idea that the “glorification” the Apostle Paul was hoping for was the destruction of some building? We all know why you won’t, first it is likely you can’t, second there is nothing in the text suggesting the redemptive goal of God is the destruction of a building let alone the judgment of one of God’s enemies, namely second temple Judaism.
Scargy, I look forward to your reasoned rebuttal of my exegesis either that or the explanation that you who claim to be a believer that your body has been redeemed and therefore, transformed to be like the “glorious” body of Jesus Christ. If not, then for you to claim you’ve been “glorified” is patently absurd, and you owe Sharon a huge apology. Oh yea, it would also be helpful if you provided just one text that supports the hyperpreterist “invention” that “His” body is really “our” body. Your Gnostic like slant of reality is a bit much. John, if you are going to criticize Sharon for not providing “exegesis” you ought to first provide a bit of your own. Linking together unrelated proof texts is eisegesis, didn’t you know that?
Oh, and if you think my charge against you, that you are foisting upon the reading public a Gnostic like view is unfair or inaccurate here are some thoughts from the Global Dictionary on Theology.
At the resurrection the history of the person who has died will not be obliterated but raised as the reconciled, rectified, healed and completed history of the person’s whole life. Furthermore the resurrection of the body implies that salvation has to do not just with the soul as the Greeks believed, but the whole person. (Global Dictionary of Theology, edited by William A. Dyrness and Veli-Matti Karkkainen, IVP, pg 278, 279)
Scargy, why is your theology based on Greek thinking and not the Bible? It is no wonder you Green, Hassertt and Sullivan have all banded together, you guys all believe God’s plan of redemption is the salvation of Casper.
Did you laugh when you wrote that? I know I laughed reading it, and the thought that pigs might take flight out of my rear would happen first also was part of that moment.
Dee Dee,
You thinking I’m being sarcastic?
or hopelessly optimistic
Dee,
We got a “response” from Scargy,
Well, when you can’t back-up your views with Scripture what else can you do but cry foul of your opponent. I guess when Scargy writes, “If your not glorified, your not redeemed”, that isn’t an “asinine” tone.
Hey, it is nice to know though my arguments are “typical futurists”. Hey John, there is a reason for that, I avow the Christian point of view. You may not have come to your “beliefs” overnight, but I sure hope you arrived at them based on what the text actually states rather than your convoluted eisegesis as demonstrated in the OP to Sharon. Didn’t you realize your logic requires the Apostle Paul, the guy who wrote what you claim to believe, not to have been redeemed. ROFL!
BTW, Scargy, if you willing to admit your are wrong, are you willing to recant your hyperpreterism, because your Gnostic like view is as wrong as you can get.
Dee,
You got to love these guys. Rather than offering a rebuttal to the post above Scargy has the audacity to post a paper by the neo-orthodox John A. T. Robinson regarding the Pauline understanding of the “body” claiming that is a “standard” work.
From the excerpt on John A.T. Robinson in The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology edited by Walter A. Elwell, “He is best known for his radical views put forth in “Honest to God” (1962). In this small but widely influential book, Robinson combined and popularized the views set forth by of other thinkers, most notably Tillich, Bultmann, and Bonhoeffer. Rejecting worldviews that espouse either naturalism or supernaturalism, he sought to sketch out a model for Chrisitianity that goes beyond both.”(pg 1036)
Scargy, Tillich wa a liberal (DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?) theologian who this same dictionary explains, “he is attempting to use traditional Christian vocabulary to express essentially alien philosophical concepts” Bultmann denied the supernatural spending his entire career to remove the supernatural from scripture. The dictionary explains “For Bultmann NT ideas sucha as the virgin birth, the diety of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus…are primiative “mythological” ideas that need to be reinterpreted in existentialist terms.”
Scargy, I provide you a reasoned rebuttal employing solid biblical scholars and you respond with sources that are flaming liberals who denied the reality of the resurrection and the supernatural? Where is your head at Scargy? Are you in agreement with these guys, Christ didn’t rise from the dead? Don’ you get why Robinson went out of his way to redefine what the Apostle Paul meant when he used the term “body”?
No wonder you have a view similar to Gnostic concepts, you are basing your understanding of the terms in Scripture on liberals who deny the supernatural. Your posting of the neo-orthodox John A.T. Robinson in response to this rebuttal speaks huge volumes about where you head is at. It is no wonder we clearly don’t read Scripture the same way, heck I believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead, while your sources Scargy don’t. “Standard” what a joke.
Dee,
It’s getting better, Scargy’s rebuttal is,
Yes, John we know, this is why I pointed to the statement from the Global Dictionary of Theology. You are avowing a Gnostic like viewpoint which is the material isn’t redeemed, just the immaterial. But more than that, as demonstrated the text of Romans 8 doesn’t support your assertion. Are you going to provide exegesis that backs up you claim?
PaulT
Dee,
Evidently Scargy is stuck for an answer, instead of providing any exegesis he thinks he discovered a nugget here
Yes, John, I used Robinson as a source for the dates of the books of the N.T. Didn’t you realize his book on redating the N.T. is conservative, unlike his theology. I used him as a source for “dates”, not the meaning of the text that has theological references. Indeed I find it more than interesting a liberal theologian comes up with extremely conservative date for the New Testament. Just because the guy thinks Christ’s resurrection is a myth doesn’t mean he got the date when Paul wrote Romans wrong. You do understand that logic, don’t you John? But, you won’t find me sourcing him as to what resurrection means, nope, I don’t need a Gnostic leaning neo-orthodox explaining to me what the Word of God doesn’t mean, although the language is explicit.
Not very discerning of you John, your argument is similar to that of a reactionary dispensationalist. Geez, don’t you have something better? Still waiting on that exegesis.
Plus, HELLO, you explicitly put a disclaimer that he is not exactly a proponent of conservative views. Sheesh, “Death” doesn’t have much of a sting does he?
Dee,
Barrister extraordinaire Hassert must once again be sleepless in Seattle as he has added to the confusion over at Death’s site regarding the meaning of glorification.
The incoherence in the above comment is a hallmark of those sleepless in Seattle. One has to assume his remarks are in reaction to the above OP. Evidently a review of what Romans 8 really does entail as can be viewed in the OP is now defined as “no amount of biblical response”. Or perhaps he is commenting on my notation that Scargy has simply posted up unrelated texts in support of his Gnostic like view instead of actually providing exegesis of the text, who knows. Typical Ed, baseless charges he doesn’t attempt to substantiate. I trust he is simply preoccupied, I guess he is still feeling the effects of the thrashing Sam gave him. There is a common theme here though; it seems Sam has been accused of misquoting the Preteristcosmos crowd as well, if I’m not mistaken.
You have to love the way Scargy thinks,
How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Matthew 23:37
I guess, Scargy must believe hens resurrect their chicks, now don’t that beat all.
ROFL!
Demonstrating the inability of Scragy to come up with any exegesis to refute this OP, he continues to search for ways to justify his eisegesis we’ve exposed above. You really have to feel sorry for a guy whose position requires hens to have the supernatural ability to resurrect their chicks. But any way here he has misconstrued a concept one more time.
John, think about it, just once think about it. When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11, 12 did he consider himself to be in the body of Christ? Here is a hint, yes he did which is why he wrote, “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.” That means according to your really poor use of John 17 he should have considered himself “glorified”. However, here is what he told the Philippians, “the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body”.
John, now think real hard, why would the Apostle Paul claim there was something yet future if according to your logic, he should have already considered himself “glorified”? This really isn’t that hard of a concept, most Sunday school kids could get the answer.
Scargy continues to entertain…
…what can I say, perhaps John has been paying attention to some of the lessons we write over here for him. What he thinks I’ve done has been continual pointed out as violation of the hyperpreterist, something about the word “redemption” comes to mind.
Scargy goes on to offer something about “like manner” evidently not realizing he just conceded the point the term “gather” doesn’t mean resurrect.
Yes, John the elect after having been resurrected will be gathered, just like the saints are gathered on Sundays to worship. However, the term “gather” doesn’t mean to resurrect, a point clearly you’ve never considered and a point Sullivan has been working on over a month to justify his erroneous view of Matt 24:31. Do you understand the difference in concepts, gathering live people like hens gather their live chicks with raising dead people back to life? Here John, let me help you out, you quote Dr. Beale,
On Page 135 of 1-2 Thessalonians By Gregory K. Beale “For
bringing or “gathering” with the notion of resurrection,see also Thessalonians 2:1 and Matthew 24:31…
What do you think “with the notion of” means. Likely this is another concept you will need to think upon. I trust that question isn’t over your head.
BTW, I haven’t misrepresented Dr. Beale, I pointed out long ago, he views Matthew 24 as a yet future fulfillment, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4666. However, do you have the word from Matt 24:31 that Dr. Beale claims means “resurrection”? Oops, I didn’t think so. That would be hard given Dr. Beale concedes, “though Matthew does not explicitly mention the ideal of resurrection” Which is my point John. BTW, thanks for the quote. What you guys seem to miss is that Dr. Beale should he ever argue Matthew 24 was dealing with the local judgment in AD70 then he wouldn’t be tying the term “gather” to a “notion” not explicitly mentioned. That would be the position of Dr. Gentry, Dr. Wright, Dr. Mathison, Dr. Gill etc, etc. This is also why Dr. Beale would define you guys as Gnostic like in your view of the resurrection, a position which would be accurate.
Please don’t think about these questions to long, you are cheap entertainment. Scargy, you don’t even realize the impact of the quotes you employ. It is good to know Sullivan’s expert concedes the resurrection isn’t explicitly mentioned in the text in question. If he didn’t realize it already, you made it clear, he lost his argument. With friends like you John, Sullivan doesn’t need any enemies. ROFL!
Sullivan why are you arguing a position that isn’t explicitly contained in the text? Indeed, why didn’t you reveal Dr. Beale acknowledged the concept of resurrection isn’t explicitly mentioned in the text? Why do you guy’s redefine the nature of the dead to conform with your view of Matthew 24, when the concept isn’t in the text? This isn’t very honest of you guys. You ought to at least make note, that we believe the resurrection is in the text although it isn’t explicitly mentioned because we believe resurrection as defined per our 2nd Century forerunners, guys who like use believe redemption is all about escaping the body.
MG2,
Weighs in,
Actually MG2, if you check out the OP, the criticism of John’s position is based on his less than adequate exegesis of Romans 8. Scargy makes the astonishing claim,
Which is based on a really poor understanding of Romans 8.
I still don’t think John has figured out yet how to explain the Apostle Paul wasn’t saved when he wrote Romans 8. Remember he could not have been according to Scargy, because the Apostle clearly looks forward to his future glorification.
However, In context, the redemption which would be revealed when the sons of God were made manifest according to the inspired Apostle is clearly about the believers body being redeemed. I offer plenty of support for my position. The audacious claim “our” body becomes “His” body doesn’t hold water.
Oh, yeah, I’m still waiting for Sacrgy to come in out of the rain and explain where my exegesis is off. Maybe when he does he will offer some more great quotes from Dr. Beale.
Scargy finally gets one…
…correct, although how an unrelated word can be symbolic of an event would be interesting to understand. But yes John, the elect are gathered, that is called building the church. The resurrection happens at the consummation when the dead in Christ get raised back to life. However good progress, nevertheless John I must point out gather means to assembly just like a hen “gathers” with her chicks and this is a key point you are missing. Resurrect means to bring back to life a dead person, you do understand the difference. If you don’t understand the difference just think about what distinguishes Good Friday from Easter. And yes, John the “gathering” that is foretold in Matthew 24 is a different “gathering” than will occur with the saints who have been resurrected from the dead. Just like the “gathering” that goes on every Sunday when the saints “gather” to worship is a different event than either of the two aforementioned.
John goes on,
Why would I need to do that, I’m not a Jew. Don’t you like the rest of Christianity believe in the authority of Jesus Christ and his apostles which “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” You don’t believe the teaching of the Apostle Paul was/is the word of God? And as such the final authority on the matter?
John retracts a bit,
I’m not sure why you think Dr. Witherinton’s quote helps you he doesn’t claim the term “gather” means resurrection. John, do us all a favor will you, while clicking your heals 3 times repeat after me “gather” does not mean resurrect. Then perhaps you will come out of your comatose state. That the saints both those whom were dead but are now risen in Christ and those alive whose bodies have been transformed will be gathered, isn’t the point. The point is, in Mark 13 and Matt 24, the text doesn’t say anyone who is dead gets raised back to life. A point Witherington doesn’t dispute.
However, this is what absolutely kills me about the lack of intellectual honesty of your sort when quoting a scholar like Dr. Witherington. Why didn’t you quote what he wrote on page 212, the very page preceding what you did quote?
John what were the culminating eschatological events. For that you might have turned to pg 215.
Odd, Dr. Witherington agrees with me. Indeed John you would fall in the many today. Take a gander as to what that means. Gnostic like might cross your mind. Why are you basing your view of Scripture on an over realized spiritualized pagan notion of the resurrection?
Oh, btw, N.T. Wright, a guy who happens to agree with Dr. Witherington has this to say about the nature of the resurrection discussed in 1 Thessalonians 4.
John are you starting to catch a drift why “gather” is not synonymous with the term “resurrection”? If you want to claim Matt 24 contains the concept of resurrection and the chapter is dealing with and event that occurred in the past you will find yourself, as you do, looking from the outside in. Why, because you are applying pagan principles to Christian terminology. Guy’s advocating a view similar to yours appeared in the late 2nd Century. They were called Gnostics. If that is what you want to avow, have at it, however, you need to understand here is what another one of the experts you rely on has to say, Dr. Beale says of this same text.
John I trust you now realize why it is week six and counting since Sullivan said he would respond in 3. I have a suspicion he figured out he is avowing Gnostic like views, but just wasn’t honest enough to admit it. So the question comes down to are you going to avow a Gnostic like view of the resurrection, and be honest about it? Or are you going to admit the concept of resurrection is not explicitly discussed in Matthew 24? Scripture is clear, the Apostle Paul wasn’t discussing your release of Casper. The decision is up to you, Scritpure or Scargy’s denial of the power of God i.e. a Gnostic like view, at least according to your very own sources.
John oddly continues,
The Apostle Paul said his very words were from God, why don’t you accept that? Are you of a mind you have a better understanding of the issues than the Apostle Paul himself? If you do, that may be the heart of the issue. Christianity accepts what the Apostle Paul had to say on the subject while you evidently think you are just as authoritative on the subject as he was. Makes sense and is a plausible reason as to why you deny what it is he taught.
John continues,
Oh, boy, I can hardly wait. Will this time you opt to quote your sources in full? Oh, I guess you can always quote a neo-evangelical or perhaps some guy like Bultmann who denied the idea of resurrection altogether. After all this would fit with your denial of Genesis account of Creation, right? Heck if God isn’t capable of creating the cosmos out of nothing but must rely on naturalistic mechanisms he clearly can’t bring the dead back to life. Your logic is impeccable.
Scargy,
I trust this lengthy post…
…proven my point that Matthew 24:31 is about the Gospel call to the elect wasn’t what you had in mind as way of response to the points made in the OP or follow-up. This really isn’t a novel concept, John Gill has maintained that view for a very long time.
I guess this quote without reference from you,
Means you didn’t click your heals 3 times repeating “gather” does not mean “resurrect”. I trust you own experts testimony about the pagans natural inclination to spiritualize away what resurrection is all about wasn’t lost on you. I wonder if Dean would have had something of substance to argue his case or would he like you have held the view that would have been understandable for one coming out of paganism?
Scargy the amazing is back at it,
I guess John doesn’t understand the difference in views between Jews who do not accept the authoritative teaching of Jesus Christ and his apostles and Christians who do, go figure. One wonders why he references any New Testament text as he seemingly thinks the Old Testament is the entire story.
However, he continues his mind numbing confusion between a metaphor and independent “notions” that may be found together. This time he has confused the term “sleep” which is used “metaphorically” to describe death or those who have died in Christ, with recognition different “notions” may be found together. One wonders if he even contemplates the quotes of his experts before he posts them. This is simply a smoke screen because “gather” is never used, as a metaphor for “resurrection”, although as his own expert points out the concept of resurrection can be found with the “notion” of gather. John, have you figured out that ‘allusion to’ an event is not a ‘parallel concept’? I trust you understand now after having it pointed out your own expert recognizes the terms are different “notions” you understand why you never got a retraction. That those who are “resurrected” are also “gathered” or “assembled” doesn’t mean the concept “gather” is a metaphor for resurrect.
Here, John, let me help you out. Apparently you like Ben Witherington so I will give you his take. Writing in his book Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol 2, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1-2 Peter he explains “The verb ekoimethesan, “fell asleep” is a common metaphor for death,” pg 372. John, do you have a similar quote from any expert that states something to the effect, “gather is a common metaphor for resurrection”? I mean you claimed, “the word “gather” and “gathering” used in the NT as metaphor for “resurrection” Do you have something that actually backs up that statement? Or were you just making it up? Do you understand the phrase “with the notion of” doesn’t mean “metaphor”? Do you understand what the term “metaphor” means? Do you understand what “notion” means. If you don’t that means the “notion” of one concept is found with “notion” of another concept, i.e. two entirely different concepts, not that one concept is a metaphor or analogous for the other concept. Man, this is like really basic stuff.
Here is Webster’s definition for metaphor, “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them” John, why do you think sleep is analogous to death? However, what is analogous about bringing a group together with restoring a dead body to life? Why did your own expert recognize one “notion” is not explicitly taught in Matt 24:31? Hey, because they are not analogous terms, thus “gather” is NOT a METAPHOR of “resurrect”. There is a reason you don’t have a quote from an expert backing up your claim, while I easily found one from your own guy explaining “sleep” is a METAPHOR for “death”. Surely even you can understand why your observation above is just plain dumb in light of the current discussion. You really do need to close your eyes, click your heals together 3 times repeating “gather” doesn’t mean “resurrect”. Either that or back up your thus far unsupported claim.
BTW, it appears as though you will have to actually provide some exegesis of Roman 8. This will really be a hoot watching you explain how Douglas Moo, Gordon Fee and the ESV translating committee are wrong when it comes to the Greek grammar. This will be really interesting reading the detailed exegesis of a guy who doesn’t even comprehend what the term metaphor means confusing that term with the idea of independent “notions”.
John,
It is interesting you accuse me, “In your hateful zeal Pault you have clearly misrepresented what Dr. Beale” yet the full quote from Dr. Beale’s commentary reveals he supports my very position.
You unwisely employed a very small portion of the above quote, “For bringing or “gathering” with the notion of resurrection, see also Thessalonians 2:1 and Matthew 24:31…” I say unwisely because you didn’t recognize the implication of the term “notion” you provided. I’ve already pointed out that this means “resurrection” is a different concept than “gather”, which proves my point. However, the full quote of the footnote from which you extracted a very small portion reveals something about your actions. Clearly Dr. Beale sees “gathering” as a different concept from “resurrection” because in the full quote he writes, “they will be raised from the dead and gathered to Jesus together with living saints” You do realize this statement affirms my position that “gather” and “resurrection” are two independent concepts don’t you? Turns out I haven’t misrepresented Dr. Beale. The “and” in the sentence proves my point.
John, you owe me an apology. Oh, and why don’t you find a quote from Dr. Beale who goes into great detail on the “metaphorical” use of sleep for the state of death that backs up your position, “the word “gather” and “gathering” used in the NT as metaphor for “resurrection” Your inability to back up your claim is NOT looking to good.
Oh, yea, one final thought on your employment of quotes. The quote from Dr. Wanamaker’s commentary doesn’t help you. He acknowledges one text is dealing with the gathering of the elect while the other is dealing with the resurrection of the dead. That is my point. The fact that trumpets (the actual context of the quote) are employed in both texts doesn’t necessarily mean the 2 independent texts are dealing with the same event. Why because as he points out on the preceding page, “The “trumpet of God” is an image occurring frequently in the OT in context of theophany and eschatological judgement…as well as in both Jewish and Cristian apocalyptic traditions…” pg 173. Are you claiming every time trumpets are used in Scripture the text is dealing with the same event? Surely not.
I agree, Matthew 24 was a local judgment though a providential act. I also agree that at the consummation when the dead in Christ are “resurrected” and “gathered” with those living who have been transformed is also a divine event. Why because the symbolism of trumpets signaling a divine event are found in both texts. The point is, in my view they aren’t connected and because “gather” Is NOT a metaphor for “resurrection” you don’t have a passage that places the 2 distinct divine events together. There isn’t anywhere in Matthew 24 as Dr. Beale points out, (again thank you for that quote) the “resurrection” is explicitly taught. Therefore John, like Dorothy, you need to click your heals 3 times while repeating “gather” doesn’t mean “resurrect” and you may come back to the land of reality.
John,
Surely you can do better than this…
Thank you for the compliment. Setting aside the compliment, you indeed make a very good point. Agreed, Dr. Moo, Dr. Fee and the ESV translating committee aren’t inspired, but then neither are you. And while they no doubt have a bias, the scholarship they employ is meant to remove that from their critical analysis. Are you suggesting you don’t have a bias? However, to the point, the Apostle Paul was inspired. He claimed his very words were the words of God.
Therefore, his teaching is authoritative on the matter, not your understanding of what you think the O.T. is saying, a text the Apostle Paul said himself was delivered by men who saw in part. The Apostle Paul had the full story. You are wrong claiming the 1st Century Christians only had the O.T. They had that plus the inspired teaching of Jesus Christ and his apostles who spoke the very words of God on the matter. Don’t you get why the Jews base all their understanding on the Old Testament, seemingly like you are attempting to do? John, you aren’t a dispensationalist in disguise are you?
John continues,
Yes, John the elect are gathered, it has been going on since the Gospel call first went out,
To your question, Dr. Beale believes the text pursuant to Matthew 24 is addressing our yet future, I don’t. Dr. Beale presupposes something into the text you’ve noted he concedes is not explicitly taught which is the resurrection of the dead has already taken place at Matt 24:30,31.
You’ve conflated the way of Salvation. The elect are called, “gathered” i.e. believe, (Acts 13:48) live their lives “gathering” in the Lord’s house worshipping (Heb 10:25) then at some point die, (which is why they are identified as the dead or “asleep” in Christ to denote the difference between the dead and living in Christ). At the consummation those “asleep” in Christ get raised back to life, (Rom 8:11, 23, 1 Cor 15, 1 Thess 4:15-18, Phil 3:11). At the consummation after the dead in Christ have been raised they will be “gathered” with the living who have been transformed, in a twinkling of an eye, (1 Cor 15:51)
Because the “notion” of resurrection of the dead is not “explicitly” taught in Matthew 24 and the text is dealing with a local judgment the term “gather” is referring to the Gospel call. You will note, there aren’t any dead people discussed in the text as being raised or “resurrected” back to life. The only way you can accept Dr. Beale’s understanding of the text while maintaining the event took place in AD70 is to adopt a Gnostic like view. What does Dr. Beale in his commentary you quoted the other day say about the Gnostic’s view of the resurrection. I know what he says about it in this work,
Isn’t what you avow akin to what Dr. Beale outlines as deceptive teaching? Why are you redefining a Christian concept along Pagan lines of thinking?
However, it appears you have figured out the concepts “resurrection” and “gather” are discussing different notions as indicated by your use of the term “they”. Don’t you think you should apologize to me?
John continues,
Is the point of this question to distract the reader from the fact you clearly have misrepresented the term “gather” as a METAPHOR for “resurrection”? However, I’m not sure what you mean when you use the term “second coming”. The term “coming” derived from the Greek word ‘parousia’ which means “presence” has confused many a hyperpreterist. Ones “presence” can be and is manifest in many ways. You won’t find in the N.T. the term “second presence” anywhere.
However, If you are referring to the second “appearance” yes, the elect, those ordained or appointed to believe have been “gathered” every since the Gospel call went out for now, close to 2000 years. I’m not aware of any time parameter placed on how “soon” the second appearance will take place. The Apostle Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 15 EVERY enemy of God will first be DESTROYED before that second appearance occurs. Are you one of those who thinks EVERY really means just ONE OF? I would suppose you are of the opinion there no longer exists opposition to God in this evil world?
John continues,
John, I didn’t see in the quote of Saint Augustine you provided the explanation that “gather” is a METAPHOR for “resurrect”. Why then do you think he agrees with you? I trust you are working hard to come up with a quote from someone, somewhere who really does agree with you. I trust you weren’t making up, “the word “gather” and “gathering” (is) used in the NT as metaphor for “resurrection” Please John say it ain’t so, tell us you do have some basis for this assertion. If you don’t readers may get the impression you were attempting to deceive by claiming something for which you had NO basis.
Oh, and what did Saint Augustine say about the N.T.? Does he agree with you that your understanding of the O.T. overrides the authoritative teaching of Jesus Christ and his apostles on the subject? I think he wrote something about hidden/revealed. May want to look that up. Hey, here is a thought, you can always claim, “its a paradox”, I mean when Green got taken to the cleaners that is what he did and it appears you two are thinking along the same lines.
John Scargy continues,
Your ability to admit you were wrong would seem to be unconfirmed at this point. For example, you write,
You should have highlighted the rest of the text. The fact you didn’t indicates your bias. He isn’t talking about the O.T. he is talking about his words, the words of men, words which reflect concepts given to him directly by God. This very same concept is seen in 1 Corinthians 15:3 “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,”, and “For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Gal 1:12
This is why in the Evangelical Dictionary on Theology we find, “The N.T. apostles…speak of divine revelation in the form of definite ideas and words (cf. 1 Thess 2:13,…) (pg 1023)
OK, so I’ve given you text, and the scholarship which confirms the assessment of the text. Are you willing to conceded you are wrong?
Yes John, the OT is the inscripturated Word of God, but so are the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles. When you hold the apostle to your understanding of the O.T. you are denying his apostolic authority and according to yourself his same status. Which is wrong because you’ve already conceded you don’t have divine revelation. You were just pointed out to be wrong, will you admit it?
John your use of this text is out of context,
Why did you stop at the colon? Do you realize, had you kept going your point would have been lost? Had you included the rest of the thought you would have realized his point wasn’t that he taught only what Moses taught, but he was focused on a particular subject at that point in time which was, “that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”
This doesn’t negate the fact that the words which the Apostle spoke, the words of men, were NOT words of men, but words of God as he himself claimed.
And then why when you employed this,
did you forget to include this,
“But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.” Acts 2:14
The simple fact is John you deny the interpretation and inspired teaching of the apostles on the matter replacing that teaching for how you understand the O.T., just like the second temple Jews did.
However, you contend,
Ahem, I’m not the one denying the authority of Jesus Christ and his apostles, you are. You are holding the exact same position the apostate Jews did who rejected his teachings and the teachings of his apostles on the subject. I would say this is an example of the pot calling the kettle black.
John, what you showed earlier was an amazing ability to not take into consideration the full text. Christ claimed his words were the very words of God. What else could Paul be referring to? Ah the teaching he received directly from Jesus Christ, “Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father” Paul wasn’t a disciple. Yet he claims his teaching came straight from Jesus Christ. He ain’t saying he got it out of the O.T. because he was well schooled in that text.
As to the parallels, you got trumpets which are found in most texts dealing with divine events, (wanamaker pg 173, 174) and that’s about it. As you own “expert” Dr. Beale concedes the concept of resurrection isn’t explicitly taught in the passage. So unless you want to advocate a Gnostic like view of redemption, if you want to maintain that Matthew 24 was about an event that occurred in AD70, you have to concede 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 is dealing with an independent event.
Frankly, how you can keep a straight face accusing me of holding the position of apostate Israel while quoting Dr. Beale is the real question. Not only do you like apostate Israel deny the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles as authoritative you adopt pagan concepts to boot. Nevertheless, I’m not the only guy who understands the text this way, N.T. Wright, John Gill, are a couple that come immediately to mind. The fact you think just because trumpets get blown that means the accounts are parallel is what brings a smile recognizing humor to my face.
John continues,
Ahem, we are talking specifically about 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18. How many motifs are in that text that are in the Olivet discourse? Why do you presuppose like the dispensationalist that the concepts in the letters are all referring to the exact same event? I’m “hanging” my view on what is explicitly taught in Matthew 24 and the distinguishing concept of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18. Your expert has conceded the concept of resurrection isn’t explicitly taught in Matthew 24 and because I’m a reformed evangelical Christian I don’t buy into Pagan concepts as in redemption is simply about the release of the spirit at death.
John, why when discussing the texts of Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 do you quote a bunch of O.T. text? Why when attempting to justify your claim the term “gather’ is used in the NT as a METAPHOR of “resurrect” do quote a bunch of O.T. texts?
John continues,
Actually there are more than two gatherings of the saints, every time they assemble for worship is a gathering of the saints. However, perhaps your problem stems from the fact you don’t want to deal with what 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 is actually stating. Why are you reading that text through Pagan colored glasses? I’m not sure how much more I can provide, clearly you’ve adopted a Gnostic like view of the text.
John concludes,
John, thank you for your apology, but it wasn’t your “distasteful” tactics that is the issue. It was your suggestion that the term “gather” as a metaphor for “resurrect”. Clearly Beale sees the term as a different “notion”. The fact you claimed I misrepresented what Beale said in commenting on how Sullivan employed the quote I was discussing isn’t exactly intellectually honest. Now, you’ve moved from proving something you’ve recognized you can’t which is that the term “gather” is a METAPHOR for “resurrect” to claiming it is a “synonym”.
Dr. Beale is presupposing the resurrection is in the text because he understands Matthew 24 as our yet future. Clearly Dr. Beale isn’t a Gnostic so within that presupposition is a physical resurrection of the dead, a concept based on the quotes you’ve provided he concedes isn’t in the text. Does Dr. Beale claim the term is a “synonym” for resurrection?
If you go back to the quote of mine you referenced in critiquing Sullivan’s use of Dr. Beale you will note I was commenting upon the quote of Dr. Beale to which Sullivan made reference. In the list of Dr. Beale’s Sullivan quotes there was no reference to resurrection. This was the basis for my comment. I had already explained that he viewed the text of Matthew 24 as dealing with a yet future event, clearly implying that would include the resurrection which as pointed out is of a physical, material nature. Dr. Beale concedes this “notion” of resurrection isn’t taught in the text, a quote I thank you for. Your attempt to equate the term “gather” is synonymous, analogous or a metaphor for “resurrect” is intellectually dishonest, why because you are presupposing in that view a definition of resurrection which is Gnostic like.
I don’t have the commentary you’ve lifted the quote to which you reference so I don’t know the surrounding text it is found within. We’ve already found where you misused one of his footnotes hiding his view that “resurrect” and “gather” are two independent notions. However, if after securing a copy of the commentary I find that his view is that the phrase “gather the elect” incorporates the concept of resurrection I will amend my point made in argument to Sullivan.
John continues,
John, “believe it or not” please. Were you at some point going to provide your basis for the claim the term “gather” is a metaphor for “resurrect”. Clearly you do have a problem. You have failed to offer up any evidence that “gather” is a metaphor in the N.T. for “resurrect”. Your expert concedes the concept is not explicitly taught in the text of Matthew 24 and you clearly don’t submit to apostolic authority. Oh, and after all this you still haven’t addressed why it is you are reading into the text Gnostic like concepts. Yes, you and the hyperpreterists have a problem. BTW, still looking for that exegesis of Romans 8.
A rare concession from the hyperpreterist camp is exhibited from MG2.
Thank you for admitting what is patently obvious. However, Mark 13 doesn’t help your cause, all that is doing is reflecting the scope of activity of the Kingdom. Matthew puts it like this, “And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” Matthew 28:18, 19 Oh yea, when have all the NATIONS become DISCIPLES? Seems to me this nation rather than acting as a DISCIPLE is moving away at a fairly quick rate over the last couple of years. Tis work to be done.
PaulT
John,
You really need to try harder, you write.
As I’ve already pointed out, I’m not the one rejecting the authoritative teaching of Jesus Christ and his apostles, you are. You consistently disdain their interpretation of the events and the O.T. text replacing that clear and explicit teaching for your Gnostic like view of reality.
You continue,
I’m not sure why you think it funny I point out the text explicitly states the Apostle Paul got his words from God. And yes, your bias is revealed in misusing the text of Acts 26 to suggest the apostles teaching was based solely on the O.T. The context is clear, what you read into the text wasn’t what he was conveying.
You continue,
I’m not sure why you think this has anything to do with the subject at hand, or the fact that the apostles teaching on the subject is authoritative.
You continue,
Because it doesn’t have anything to do with the topic of apostolic authority. Oh, yeah, not to take the discussion off course, I’m enjoying reading your misdirection clearly indicative of someone who recognizes his entire position has been blown up. Nevertheless, you do understand the implications to the current discussion the above text has to the current argument, “he interpreted”. That is my point, the interpretation and teaching of the Jesus Christ and his apostles about the events were/are authoriatitve. However, which text did Jesus Christ take them to that teaches the Messiah, the King was to come, die and then 3 days later get raised back to life?
John continues,
Great text, do you think it relevant to the discussion at hand. You know the one wherein you claim the apostle’s teaching on the subject wasn’t authoritative. I doubt this was your intention but v.8 would seem to be an indictment against you.
John continues,
Are you suggesting the apostles were false prophets, for unless you are I don’t understand how these 2 texts immediately above have anything whatsoever to do with the Christian understanding of the apostles authority.
I didn’t think you would live up to what you claimed. I provide you Scripture and the scholarship that backs up what I’m stating the text means, conditions you claimed would cause you to admit you are wrong and you flee. The fact is on this matter you entirely discounted the texts I offered rejecting them out of hand, so your statement that you “take the scriptures” would seem to be based on your terms rather than the terms of Scripture.
John continues,
You have an interesting definition of “prove”.
John continues,
Not a very good reply. It wasn’t the end of the thought!! I will take it that you realize you were foisting on the reading public a misrepresentation of the apostle’s claim in the text. You guys really ought to come up with some better arguments. Perhaps it is time for another seminar.
John continues
Based on my calculation, according to your view, 14,600. However, based on the way I understand the text, that would depend on how you define the “days”. I’m not sure why you would be surprised I would limit my discourse to any text. The point is Peter claims to have authority, which is the topic under discussion, no?
John you aren’t doing very well, but we will keep going.
Your entire position is that the apostle’s are limited to your understanding of the O.T. and you claim you aren’t operating as an apostate Jew? Surely you jest.
Actually, I’m looking for what Jesus Christ and his apostles proclaimed will happen. The restitution of all things when EVERY enemy is destroyed. However, the fact you’ve employed the term, “the physical kingdom” would seem to be in keeping with your Gnostic view of reality discounting the physical is every much apart of God’s good creation as the spiritual.
John continues,
John, this may be part of your problem. The discussion above has been about the fact you deny the authority of Jesus Christ and his apostles. What you demonstrated was that you took a text out of context and read into it what you wanted. When confronted with that fact you came up short for an answer. Additionally you didn’t engage any of the text’s I offered which explain to you the authority and revelation the apostles had to “interpret” and spell out the facts. That isn’t eschatology.
John continues,
One, but are you suggesting every-time a trumpet is used in the text to denote a divine event it is the last trumpet?
John continues,
Why would I need to? As I pointed out, I’m not a Jew therefore I don’t limit my understanding of what God is conveying to me to the OT. You seem to be confusing the issue, are you asking me about a word or a concept. That the dead will come back to life is certainly a concept in the OT.
John continues,
Where did you get this definition? Do you understand the two words or concepts share something analogous? If you do, that doesn’t seem to come out in your definition.
You continue,
Where does it never mean an assembly of something like chicks or the saints going to church. Where does it ever mean bringing something dead back to life?
John continues,
Given you take such liberties with words and what they mean, I can understand why it is you don’t like to be held accountable, but terms are important. I take it then you don’t have a quote from Beale claiming “gathering” is a synonym for “resurrect”. However, if you have a quote from N.T. Wright stating “gathering” is a metaphor for “resurrection” then I would love to see it.
John continues,
If that was the source for your partial quotes, I’ll wait for my copy to arrive.
John continues,
John, you’ve gone over the top. The concept conveyed in Ezekiel 37 is the reconstitution of a dead nation, not “gathering” people. The nation of Israel when Ezekiel was written were in exile, the nation had been destroyed. The prophet Ezekiel employs the concept of raising a dead body back to life to inform his flock that the nation will one day be raised back to life. The metaphor is based on the concrete concept of a dead body coming back to life and is used to explain the dead nation will too one day rise. As N.T. Wright puts it, “It is still possible, of course, that here resurrection is, as we shall see in Ezekiel, a metaphor for national restoration”. The rising of a dead nation. It has nothing to do with “re-gathering”. So yes my criticism is more than fair.
However, you have just answered one of your own questions. For a metaphor to have any meaning whatsoever it must be based on a concrete concept. Therefore when the prophet Ezekiel employs the concrete concept of the reconstitution of a dead body you know the people then understood what raising the dead was all about. For if they didn’t the metaphor explaining to them that one day their dead nation would one day rise would have had no meaning. There you go, resurrection of dead bodies is taught in the O.T.
John what you are doing, is playing fast and loose with the concepts. Thus far we are all still waiting on you to come up with the goods. You claimed, “the word “gather” and “gathering” (is) used in the NT as metaphor for “resurrection”…” You haven’t come up with ONE quote to back up your claim but demonstrated that you’ve mistaken “gather” for the “raising” of a dead nation, what Wright puts as national restoration. What else have you been mistaken about? Not a very solid showing coupled with the fact, you like the apostate Jew reject the apostolic teaching. This is NOT looking to good we all now know that not only are you rejecting the apostolic teaching like the apostate Jews, but you are acting like a Hellenized apostate Jew, reading everything through Pagan views of reality, advocating God’s plan of redemption is salvation of Casper. That’s a pretty bad combination, a cross between an apostate Jew and a Greek Pagan.
.
John,
This isn’t any better…you write,
Where did I suggest you claimed Dr. Beale indicates “gathering” is a synonym for resurrect? You claimed it was, through your contrived use of definitions. I asked you if you had gotten that from Dr. Beale. Pointing out you are arriving at erroneous conclusions through questioning your source isn’t suggesting you based that bogus claim on a source it is sarcastically pointing out you have no source and your logic is amiss. The “obfuscation” is entirely on your part. You’ve made a claim that “gather” is a METAPHOR for “resurrect’ on (charitably) the slimmest of evidence. When you are asked if one of the sources you are quoting gave you that information and you respond in silence we are left to conclude you didn’t get the bogus concept from the source.
You continue,
Indeed you wrote,
Were you not implying Dr. Beale believes the phrase “gather the elect” is a “synonym” for “resurrect” This is why I asked you if Dr. Beale claims “gather his elect” is a synonym for “resurrect”
I rest my case.
John continues,
Really,
John continues,
Thanks, but as I’ve already demonstrated you ability to provide quotes in context is questionable. Like I said, when I get the book, I will review it and amend my comments if appropriate. However, the fact you conclude I’ve been “deceitful” when my comments that you pulled out of context were in response to a quote one of your colleagues offered is hardly the case. You do realize my comments were made in context of a quote your colleague offered regarding 1 Thess 4:15-18 not 2 Thess 2:1 don’t you? Look we all understand that you’ve been embarrassed, but you need not resort to false accusations. It doesn’t make you look to good. This coupled with the fact you have as yet offered NO basis for the claim you made that in the NT “gather” is a METAPHOR for “resurrect” is beginning to demonstrate you aren’t being forthright.
Although I’m beginning to understand why it is you arrive at some of the stuff you come up with. After all you equate “gather” to the reconstitution of a dead nation which is illustrated by the raising back to life of a dead body and thereby deduce, wrongly of course, but nevertheless deduce that must therefore mean “gather” is a METAPHOR for “resurrection”. What a tangled web we weave…
BTW, loved the picture…
John,
I only focus on your glaringly obvious mistakes so I don’t know why I let this go by.
You mean something as in dead people coming back to life inclusive of their body, is that the something you had in mind? Kind of like the dodge here.
Wow, I can’t believe your defense is this,
My question was related to the Gnostic like view of the nature of the resurrection Dr. Beale claims some in Corinth and Thessalonica were advocating. The fact you don’t think you are redefining the concept along Pagan lines which you seem to indicate here,
Doesn’t seem to jive with your dodge above. Why didn’t you honestly answer the question. It isn’t anything to be ashamed of, you are advocating the escape of the spirit of man at death as the resurrection. That is what the Gnostics held. If you acknowledge the heritage of your view, you would gain credibility. BTW, I didn’t realize the pagans had a view of the doctrine of Justification.
I do have a question for you. When you fell into the heresy of hyperpreterism did you know that you were adopting Pagan concepts? Did you know you were avowing a Gnostic like concept?
John, why don’t you just focus on supporting your claim that in the NT the term “gather” is a METAPHOR for “resurrect”. Once you get done offering some semblance of argument validating that claim then you can move onto the much anticipated exegesis of Romans 8. Your audience is awaiting.
That was really a good one, according to your logic the guy who wrote the majority of the NT wasn’t saved. Is that why you don’t recognize him as authoritative on the matter, you don’t think he was saved and therefore not inspired?
John,
You aren’t doing very good…you write…
Did you finally find the basis for you claim, “the word “gather” and “gathering” (is) used in the NT as metaphor for “resurrection”…”
You continue,
John, provide the quote wherein I stated you claimed Beale stated “gathering” is a synonym for “resurrect”. Now, John think real hard. Why would I need to provide a quote for something I never claimed you said?
John, this won’t work,
I’m not playing word games at all. I feel like Tom Cruse examining Jack Nicholson in a Few Good Men. You claimed “gather” is a METAPHOR for “resurrect” You later offered a partial quote attempting to impugn my comments about a quote offered by Sullivan in which Beale employs the term “implies”. A quote of mine in observation to a quote Sullivan offered that states Beale doesn’t suggest resurrection is a topic in Matt 24:30,31. You offered a definition of the term “implies” used in the quote you provided that indicates the term is a “synonym” for suggest. On the heals of you inserting the definition of “synonym” which included the term “implies’, you ended that stanza indicating you “ think Dr. Beale certainly does suggest (imply).” This was why I asked you if Dr. Beale claims “gather” is a synonym for “resurrect”. Evidently the problem you have is that you don’t have a quote from him wherein he explains “gather” is a synonym for “resurrect”. The only thing missing is the airmen from Clark to get you to admit you’ve attempted to weave a tangled web.
John continues,
So what, I never said you did. Why do you falsely accuse me? However, the fact you have no basis for claiming, “the word “gather” and “gathering” used in the NT as metaphor for “resurrection”, comes out loud and clear.
John continues,
John that you’re not embarrassed isn’t surprising. No, I don’t believe I’m having difficulty providing quotes in context as evidenced by the fact I’ve already demonstrated once that you misrepresented one of Dr. Beale’s.
However, what takes the cake is your claim I’m an apostate Jew when it is you who rejects the teaching of Jesus Christ and his apostles as authoritative. And no, you haven’t demonstrated I misrepresented Dr. Beale. As I’ve already pointed out a couple of times, I was commenting on a quote provided by your colleague. If your disingenuous use of a quote of mine taken out of context is the best you’ve got, then we all understand, you understand how thoroughly whipped you realize you are.
John continues,
Thanks, but the apostate Jews had a thorough understanding in the OT background and the context of salvation of Israel. I’m a Christian, therefore, unlike you and the apostate Jews, I bow to the authority of Jesus Christ and his apostles.
John continues,
Concede, what? That a concrete concept is used metaphorically to describe the raising of a dead nation? Man, you don’t even understand the basics. Did you just chuck your Bible out the window?
John the resurrection discussed in 1 Thess 4:15-18 and the subsequent “gathering” of those raised from the dead and the living transformed isn’t a metaphor, it is a concrete concept when dead people come back to life. Read your Dr. Beale on the subject,
This concrete concept was used as a metaphor for the reconsistution of the nation of Israel, the raising back to life of a dead nation occurred under Zerubbabel. Therefore the events couldn’t be the same thing even if your Gnostic like view were a fact, which we all know it isn’t. I’m amazed you don’t know your OT better than this.
John continues,
I’m not sure what you think this has to do with the subject at hand. You seem to have confused the idea of regeneration with the concept of resurrection of a body. John, think, why would Romans 11:15, which states, “rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?” have anything whatsoever to do with 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18. Surely even you will admit those said to be “dead in Christ” in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 were dead people. When was the last time you saw a dead person reject or accept anything?
The audacity continues,
So the dead people in Christ were waiting to either reject of accept something is that really your position? This is as bad as when you claimed the guy who wrote the majority of the NT wasn’t saved. BTW, I turst the reader hasn’t lost sight of the fact John here has gone from claiming “gather” is a METAPHOR for “resurrect’, to inferring the terms are synonymous to now claiming the are “synchronous”. Talk about a guy in the midst of covering his tracks.
John continues,
I don’t follow Dr. Gentry, but I do know this, what you are advocating is a revised view of God’s plan of redemption along Gnostic lines. No doubt this is why you got dead people waiting to reject or accept something.
John continues,
Yes John, as your expert concedes the resurrection isn’t explicitly taught in the text. John you Gnostic stuff is getting a bit thick, I think I will skip to you final faux pas.
John continues,
No, John, you aren’t just adopting pagan views but those of apostate Israel as well because you like them reject the authoritative teaching of the apostles. And when shown this is the case you aren’t even honest enough to admit you are wrong. So if you want continue to be the shinnng example of the post calling the kettle black, while we all await for you to produce the basis for your claim, “the word “gather” and “gathering” (is) used in the NT as metaphor for “resurrection”, comes out loud and clear”, be my guest. Have you checked out Bultmann, he may be of assistance to you. Oh, I guess your charade isn’t over.
John,
Preston doesn’t help you…
…I’ve already pointed out resurrection as in bringing something dead as in a body back to life is used in the O.T. metaphorically to give hope to the dead nation Israel living in exile, that their nation will be reconstituted. Remember you helped me illustrate the point. How can I be guilty of ignoring something when I used your text to point out the concept of resurrection of the dead as dead bodies coming back to life is clearly and OT concept. If you are going to call in what you think is an expert, you should at least get him to help you out.
We are still waiting for an reasoned response to not only that point, (do I need to refresh your memory?) but you coming up with something somewhere that indicates “gather” is a METAPHOR for “resurrect” To bad in the bundle of Preston’s assertions he didn’t help you with that dilemma. Thus far we are still waiting for you to come up with the goods.
One day, eh!
PaulT
John BTW, Preston’s position can’t be supported from Scripture. I assume the 1st sentence is yours the 2nd is Preston’s of this quote.
John here is the text Preston claims foretells what is retold in Matthew 24:30,31
Actually what I claim is that resurrection isn’t taught in Matthew 24. And according to Paul the resurrection of the dead isn’t taught in Isaiah 26:19,
John, I think if you check Izzy 26:19 is the basis for v. 14 above. The employment of Izzy 26:19 by the Apostle Paul isn’t about the fact the Ephesians had been “gathered” although they certainly had but is used to describe what the Apostle Paul claims in chapter 2:5, “even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,”. This is an allusion to the regeneration that occurs in the elect which enables the believer to be gathered like a hen gathers her chicks. It is resurrection language used metaphorically to describe the bringing to life of the dead spirit within the unbeliever. You might want to ask you expert to explain why according to the Apostle Paul what he, (Preston) claims is in Matthew 24, a text dealing with events that would happen some 20 years later, according to the Apostle Paul had already occurred. Not very logical.
Like I said John, if you are going to call on an expert, you may want to get one that actually can help you out. I trust you can understand the problem Preston has created for you. According to him Izzy 26:19 is dealing with an event yet future to Ephesian 5 when the Apostle Paul claims Izzy 26:19 had already happened clearly indicating he was a part of the fulfillment of Izzy 26:19 at the time he wrote Ephesian 5. Therefore, what resurrection was the Apostle Paul hoping to attain when he wrote, Phil 3:11, “by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”. It can’t possibly be Matt 24:30, 31, which Preston claims is the fulfillment of Izzy 26:19, because the Apostle Paul quotes that as fulfilled in the regenerative work of the believer. And you guys really think Preston knows what he is talking about?
Please bring me some more Preston. It doesn’t get any better, the first doctor of disaster; Don Preston talks himself into a huge contradiction with the Apostle Paul. What a fitting graduation party!
John writes,
John, you are right, I shouldn’t have given Mr. Preston the title Doctor of Disaster. Although he is advocating a Gnostic like view of God’s plan of redemption which leads to the redefinition of resurrection a concept that means to be brought back to life, Mr. P claims means death, there is no call to give him the title of Dr. of Disaster. Mr. Preston I apologize for titling you based on the view you advocate.
However John listing out a bunch of Scripture to hide the dilemma Mr. Preston has created for you isn’t going to help. I understand the already/not yet, that is my view. The point being though, what Preston claims what was to come in Matthew 24, according to Paul had already occurred. I don’t have that problem because I don’t claim the resurrection is taught in Matthew 24, a point G.K. Beale recognizes isn’t explicitly taught in the text and a text which he recognizes the event over which is in dispute.
I’m glad you like Ephesians, the problem you have is the event Preston claims is yet future to the group in Ephesus, Paul claims already happened to them. That isn’t, “the already/and becoming”. Indeed what Mr. Preston’s position if it were correct would be more aptly identified as akin to what, I don’t know, “already/ not becoming”.
I like the fact you quote Romans 8:23, will this be a part of your promised exegesis of Romans 8? However, you left out what was in store for our future according to the Apostle Paul the redemption of what John. Oh, yea “our” body.
I think I will end here asking you to do two things. 1, resolve the dilemmPreston created for you claiming the event foretold in Matthew 24 while the Apostle Paul states it has already happened. 2, provide one text from the entire 66 books which stipulates “our” body is something other than the persons body. If you bring the Liberal John A.T. Robinson into play I will then ask you where is it taught “our” body is “His” body, so you may as well bring that text along.
Good luck,
BTW, John, all 3 men, G.K.Beale, N.T. Wright and Kenneth Gentry agree, you are advocating a Gnostic like view. Would you like to see the quotes?
PaulT
John,
Thank you for your follow-up but,
The question should be put to the Apostle Paul who explains that was something that had already occurred some 20 years or so before AD70. That was my point, Preston contradicts the Apostle Paul. Not a very good position to be in. The fact the Apostle Paul can and does employ resurrection language metaphorically to describe the call of the elect fits in just fine with Matthew 24:30, 31. Remember John, my position is that the text is dealing with the “gathering” of the elect through the Gospel call.
John continues
Why would Gentry presuppose the resurrection had already occurred in the passage of Matthew 13? Based on what you’ve provided I would assume because of the judgment associated with the return of Christ. The passage is dealing with the final judgment.
John, were you going to provide the text that supports the concept the redemption of “our” body is something other that the body of the individual? I was really hoping you would as you would go on record as being the first hyperpreterist who could actually validate that claim from Scripture. Green struck out acknowledging it was only “implied”.
Oh, were you going to even attempt to resolve the dilemma Preston created for you? And finally were you going to explain how it is “gathering” is a METAPHOR for “resurrect”? Your attempt to create the illusion the term “gathering” is a metonymy which would include the concept of “resurrect” didn’t hold up to examination. Your use of the term contiguity to conclude the event which is clearly in stages in the text leads to the event being “synchronous” didn’t work. As I pointed out synchronous means concurrent, contiguity means one follows the other. You’ve contradicted yourself with you own terms. Also why would Dr. Beale claim something is “implied” if in fact the term is a “metonymy” which would include all the concepts related.
Are you making this stuff up as you go along? It seems you have some work cut out for you John. Are you coming to the point of understanding why it is Dr. Beale points out the view you advocate is like what the false teachers, the opponents of Paul were preaching?
John,
Why in the world,
Would you suggest I misrepresented Preston, what I pointed out is that the Apostle Paul contradicts Preston causing you a significant dilemma. Unlike you I don’t think Preston got it correct, and I demonstrated why, which casued you a huge dilemma that you’ve yet to resolve.
Are you suggesting Preston’s understanding of the text trumps the Apostle Paul’s? Please, you need to resolve the dilemma. Why does the Apostle Paul claim Izzy 26:19 happened 20+ years before Matthew 24. IOW, let me put it like this, according to the Apostle Paul what Preston claims fits just perfectly doesn’t. Now who you going to believe?
John continues,
Why would I be upset about something you’ve yet to demonstrate? The fact the concrete concept of the resurrection is used metaphorically to describe the regeneration of the unbeliever doesn’t mean “gather” is a metaphor of “resurrect”, what you’ve claimed yet have been unable to substantiate. You’ve made a huge leap and got caught red handed. Do you understand the difference? Perhaps you are confused, but when a concrete concept is employed metaphorically to describe another concept, it doesn’t become synonymous with that concept. Your entire line of argument has no basis.
I will be waiting for you to support your claim which was something to the effect, “In the NT “gather” is a METAPHOR for “resurrect”. Thus far all you’ve provided is a lot of smoke. Where’s the beef so to speak.
John continues,
John, I’m not sure what this has to do with the fact you seemingly didn’t understand that the men agree on a given topic. However, allow me to suggest, as you helped demonstrate with Sullivan if the men’s work is fairly represented it doesn’t help to advance heresy. It is only when the intellectually dishonest heretic fails to include in the context of the quote that it “appears” their work assists in furthering the heresy. Again, thank you for assisting me in validating my claim against the authors of “House Divided”. That was like an early Christmas present.
BTW, according to Phil Naessens Preston has declined to debate him, maybe Dr. Beale and Dr. Gentry have declined for the same reason Preston has. If Preston has time on his schedule maybe you could set something up.
John continues,
John it isn’t very honest of you to suggest you’ve posted enough information to support what you claimed. You claimed “the word “gather” and “gathering” [is] used in the NT as metaphor for “resurrection”. Thus far all you provided is that the concept of resurrection is used metaphorically to describe the regeneration process within the unbeliever. We all knew that resurrection language, bringing something dead to life can be the basis to explain other concepts but that isn’t what you claimed was used in the NT. You claimed the concrete concept of “gather” metaphorically is used to represent the idea of bringing something dead back to life. You haven’t come close to providing anything that would support that idea.
John concludes,
MG2 certainly got that impression you were going to provide exegesis of the text. But hey I understand why you wouldn’t want to support your view with exegesis, why attempt to do the impossible. Sure John, we all know you are interested in discussions. Look forward to you finally producing the basis for you claim, “the word “gather” and “gathering” [is] used in the NT as metaphor for “resurrection”. It appears your bark is a lot worse than your bite. When asked to back up your claim you’ve come up empty. Hey, maybe next time, just rephrase your statements to what you can actually prove.
John, where did I say you said, “”our” body is “His” body”” You may want to recheck the record, this is a false allegation. However, I take it then you won’t be making the argument that the “body” in Roman 8:23 is His body, but indeed it is “our” body as in the body of the believer that will be redeemed. Looks like you just walked into another dead end ally John.
BTW, John, remember it was the apostate Jews who like you rejected the Apostle’s authority, not I. I’m not the one who thinks Preston trumps the Apostle.
Have a great time reading “The Resurrection of the Son of God” May I suggest you begin around page 538. That is where you will find your redefined meaning of the term resurrection discussed. I believe that section covers works discovered in Nag Hammadi. You, know the same stuff Dan Brown got his ideas from.
John,
I’m not in a “pickle” and ….
… yes you do have a dilemma for all the reasons I’ve already pointed out. Preston contradicted the Apostle Paul. That is a dilemma. Oh, I didn’t see where you validated your unwarranted accusation that I misrepresented Preston.
John continues,
John, all I’m doing is pointing out what the Apostle Paul wrote, your issue and Preston’s issue isn’t with me, it is with the fact the Apostle Paul claims the OT text in Izzy Preston claims is a part of Matthew 24, the Apostle Paul claims was fulfilled some 20 years before. So, who you going to believe Preston of the Apostle Paul?
John if you are going to represent me, please get it correct, your statement her is inaccurate,
If you were honest with my statements you would note, my entire position is that “gather” does not mean “resurrect”, therefore the concept inherent within your misrepresentation of my view that gather is a METAPHOR for resurrection is wrong. You are begging the question with that assumption. Thus far you have been unable to establish that in the NT or anywhere for that matter the terms are Metaphors for each other.
John you quoted text from Matt 23, 24, Eph 1 without seemingly having a point. Were you going to explain why the Apostle Paul claims something was fulfilled 20 plus years prior to when you “expert” places the event?
John continues,
Yes, John I understand you redefine the nature of the resurrection of the dead along Gnostic like lines derived from pagan concepts. And you like the apostate Jews reject the authoritative teaching of Jesus Christ and his apostles. However, it appears you’ve given up attempting to validate your claim that “gather” is a METAPHOR for “resurrect”, something we all knew you couldn’t do from the start.
I must point out, your attempt to develop a straw-man inserting this statement, “you that resurrection life is bringing back this flesh and blood body back together” isn’t very honest. John do you understand what the term straw-man means? Although I would like to get your thoughts on this text, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Luke 24:39 Do you think the body of Christ which was raised from the dead was materially different from the body that died?
John given your attempt above, I appreciate your tongue in check humor,
Although I must tell you I don’t understand…
…what you mean.
I hope you are enjoying the book, did you see where on page 538 Valentinus was your forefather? You know he is the one who wrote the treatise on the resurrection aka the letter to Rheginos.