6,828 reputation
1021
bio website johansens.us
location Michigan
age
visits member for 3 years, 9 months
seen 3 hours ago

May
28
comment Jesus' visit to the Feast of Tabernacles
@MattCremeens If you're troubled by the idea that Jesus would lie, well, I guess the plain reading here is that he did. There's another whole question Christians debate all the time: "Is it always wrong to tell a lie?" I'd say no, obvious example often given being, "I'm going to kill so-and-so! Where is he?" "I cannot tell a lie. Your victim is hiding in the closet over there." The Ten Commandments are specifically referring to falsely accusing someone of a crime, not any untrue statement.
May
28
comment Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that there are other Apostles?
Arggh, I mis-read the question. I thought he was referring to the seventy as "other than the 12". But in any case, the essential point of my answer stands: there could be any number of apostles -- apostles with a small "a" -- besides those explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Catholics and Protestants would equally affirm that. The only surprise would be if someone said such other apostles had the same status as the Twelve.
May
28
comment Jesus' visit to the Feast of Tabernacles
@MattCremeens Yes, he went in secret, because he didn't want the Jewish authorities to know he was going. I don't see the contradiction between "he said he wasn't going but then he did go" and "he went in secret". Isn't that what "went in secret" means?
May
28
answered Is the Roman Catholic church condemning Protestants?
May
28
comment Is the Roman Catholic church condemning Protestants?
Hmm, seems to me there's a huge difference between saying that you will not force people to attend a Catholic Church or to affirm Catholicism, and saying that people can be saved without being part of the Catholic Church. If someone is dying from heart failure, I wouldn't force him to get a heart transplant. But that doesn't mean that I believe he'll live without a heart transplant. (PS I'm speaking as a non-Catholic.)
May
28
answered How would Matthew 24:36 be explained from a Post-Tribulation perspective?
May
28
answered Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that there are other Apostles?
May
28
answered Jesus' visit to the Feast of Tabernacles
May
4
comment Does the Bible ever say that the Ark of the Covenant flew or levitated?
I don't have transcripts of the TV programs, and I posted this over a year ago so I've long since forgotten the air dates and titles. I don't know if anyone actually believes this to be true; rather, these TV programs claimed that Jews and Christians believe it to be true. I don't know anyone who believes that, but that's my question. Is there some group out there that believes this, and if so, where does this belief come from?
Apr
6
comment Ancient nations in a young earth
... same ballpark. Considering the drastic revisions that theories about dates have undergone at one time or another, I don't think any serious archaeologist would claim that he can date an artifact to March 17, 2192 BC, at 3:57 pm.
Apr
6
comment Ancient nations in a young earth
... historical records, of which the Bible is one. And of course, scholars debate exactly how to fit dates from one historical document to another as ancient people did not use our modern calendar. So suppose using one set of data archaeologist A dates an event to somewhere between 2000 BC and 1800 BC, and archaeologist B dates it to 1900 BC to 1600 BC. If we compare the earliest possible date from A to the latest possible date from B, sure, they contradict. So what? That sort of thing happens all the time, in archaeology and in many other subjects. The ranges overlap and they're in the ...
Apr
6
comment Ancient nations in a young earth
@thedarkwanderer Umm, no. If you're not just trolling: Dating of events in ancient times or of ancient artifacts is far, far from an exact science. Two historians can look at the same artifact and one say it is from 2000 BC and the other say, with equal authority and equally good evidence, that it is from 1800 BC. There are many, many such debates among scholars of antiquity. For example, as I write this there is some serious re-examination going on of dates in early Egyptian history. Of course a major source of information about ancient events is surviving ...
Mar
27
awarded  Citizen Patrol
Mar
23
awarded  Nice Answer
Mar
17
comment Have Archaeologists recovered pieces of Noah's Ark?
@Reluctant_Linux_User Hmm, but you seem to be saying, "If we start with the assumption that the Biblical account could not have come from sources older than EoG, then we conclude that it must have come from EoG or later sources." Well, of course. But that's the whole question, isn't it? The Biblical literalist says that Moses used older sources, the anti-literalist says he used later sources. The literalist says that perhaps EoG is a corruption of Genesis; the anti-literalist says Genesis is a corrupt of EoG. What evidence do you have to prove that the anti-literalist position is correct?
Mar
16
comment Have Archaeologists recovered pieces of Noah's Ark?
... Almost all evangelical scholars that I've read theorize that Moses had access to written records passed down from Noah.
Mar
16
comment Have Archaeologists recovered pieces of Noah's Ark?
You must suppose that Moses either, (a) wrote Genesis based on existing source material, or (b) made the whole thing up. Of course Jews and Christians would say (a). You're apparently saying (a) also: that he got the flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh and other ancient flood stories. But once you concede that he didn't make the story up but got it from older sources, how do you know that he got it from the Epic of Gilgamesh? There are many flood stories in the world. Moses might have gotten it from a source older than Gilgamesh which does not survive outside the Bible. ...
Feb
14
awarded  Enlightened
Feb
14
awarded  Nice Answer
Jan
29
comment How do people who reject transubstantiation interpret these verses?
Afterthought a year later: As you quote above, Jesus said, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty." So do people who believe that Jesus was speaking literally about his body and blood therefore believe that once you participate in the Eucharist, you will literally never be hungry again, and thus will never need to eat ever again? I don't know of anyone who takes that part literally. He MUST mean "will never hunger for spiritual fulfillment", not literal food.