6,876 reputation
1021
bio website johansens.us
location Michigan
age
visits member for 3 years, 11 months
seen yesterday

Aug
10
comment Why is Mark not the first gospel?
"We all know ..." This is a very widely accepted theory -- I think it's probably true -- but we don't really "know" it.
Aug
10
comment Why is Mark not the first gospel?
@fredsbend (shrug) The OP asks why Mark is not the first book in the NT given that it was the first gospel written. I attempt to point out that there is no inherent reason why books in an anthology should be written in order of publication dates. This seems to me to directly answer the question. I suppose a discussion of why the order actually used was chosen would make a more complete answer. If you have any information on that, feel free to post your own answer.
Aug
3
comment According to Calvinists, how could Adam and Eve fall? How could Satan fall?
@disciple You're getting in to a different question: Can a saved person lose his salvation? Those who say that you cannot lose your salvation say that we, as humans, can often be fooled about another person's state. Someone might "talk the talk" but not really be saved. And so if someone appears to be saved and then falls away, he must never really have been saved to begin with. This makes the theory impossible to test objectively, arguably it's just an "easy out" for cases that appear to contradict the theory. But that doesn't prove it wrong.
Jul
30
comment Which NT books were written after the destruction of the temple?
@BruceAlderman Well, I guess debating that would be a whole different question -- both how many people take such a position and how reasonable it is. So I'll make no further comment.
Jul
29
comment Which NT books were written after the destruction of the temple?
Hmm, part of your argument is based on the curious position that Jesus would not have made a mistake in a prophecy, but that the Gospels may put words in his mouth that he never said. So you apparently believe that Jesus was indeed the Son of God and therefore infallible, but that the Gospels are not inspired. Liberals would generally deny both and evangelicals affirm both, so your carving out a relatively unusual position. Yes, the prophecies of Matthew 24 present some problems of interpretation, but numerous solutions have been proposed. (Getting into them would be another question.)
Jul
26
comment Why is the number 666 considered evil?
I updated my answer to perhaps address your comment.
Jul
17
comment Which group adhears to the idea of heavenly amnesia?
PS I gladly yield to someone who can point to any specific official statement from a denomination or other organization.
Jul
17
comment Which group adhears to the idea of heavenly amnesia?
Many conservative Christians believe this idea to be true. I am not aware of it being part of the statement of faith or creed or otherwise being an "official" doctrinal position of any denomination or other organized group, but I don't claim to know the official positions of every denomination on every issue. To the best of my knowledge, this is not a central tenet of any church's doctrine, i.e. many churches have a committed position on Biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth, celibacy of priests, etc, but I don't know of any committed to "amnesia about Hell".
May
29
comment Jesus' visit to the Feast of Tabernacles
Hmm, I don't see how this is necessarily "opinion-based". Any question of the form "what was Jesus trying to say when ..." might well be answered by reference to the text. If the text is not clear, then sure, people could engage in speculation. But we'd first have to establish that the text is not clear before saying that no definitive answer is possible. In which case an appropriate answer would be, "one can only speculate". But I don't see how you can assume that's the answer before seeing what people post.
May
29
comment How would Matthew 24:36 be explained from a Post-Tribulation perspective?
@JeanHarris You are absolutely correct. The OP said "Post-Trib", in my answer I "Post-Trib", and I then proceeded to describe a Pre-Trib position. I did say Pre-Trib later on but by then anyone reading my answer was no doubt hopelessly confused. I've edited my answer to, I hope, be less incoherent.
May
28
comment Is the Roman Catholic church condemning Protestants?
@DickHarfield Correct. I am trying to say what I understand the Catholic Church to teach. My personal beliefs are irrelevant to such a question. In this case, I think the statement you quoted does not back up your thesis. It may be true that the Catholic Church is moving away from "no salvation outside the church", but I don't think that quote proves it. Of course "the Catholic Church" is a big organization, so I'm sure there are a range of opinions among its members.
May
28
comment Jesus' visit to the Feast of Tabernacles
@MattCremeens Well, if someone has an alternative interpretation of the text, I'm happy to hear it!
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
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
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 ...