6,783 reputation
1020
bio website johansens.us
location Michigan
age
visits member for 3 years, 7 months
seen 17 hours ago

1d
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.
1d
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.
1d
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.
1d
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!
1d
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.
1d
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.
1d
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?
1d
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 ...
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. ...
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.
Jan
20
comment How can these inconsistencies about Jesus' tomb be explained?
Yes, it's true that Mark's statement that they saw a "young man" who is not identified as an angel (in Mark, that is) is a valid, at least apparent inconsistency. Was Mark trying to play down the angelic nature of this person for some reason? It seems implausible that he could have been talking about someone other than the angels that the other writers report. Etc. Christians have debated this point for centuries.
Jan
20
comment How can these inconsistencies about Jesus' tomb be explained?
... that the president was the only speaker, but that conclusion is not justified by the text. If I read both stories, I'd pretty much assume that the first writer mentioned the president's speech because he thought that was the most important, or the most relevant to some larger story. And by the way, this example is far from hypothetical. It happens all the time. Very, very rarely does a news story list all the speakers at a political event or give a number.
Jan
20
comment How can these inconsistencies about Jesus' tomb be explained?
Okay, let me use a more common example. Suppose you read a news story about a political event, and it said, "The president attended this rally and he gave a speech where he said ..." That's the only speaker they mention. Another news story says that there were 4 speakers. Would you say that these stories contradict because the first only mentions one speaker while the second specifically says there were 4? I would think that as long as the first does not say that there was only one speaker, this is not a contradiction. Yes, someone who read only the first story might leap to the conclusion ...
Jan
20
comment How can these inconsistencies about Jesus' tomb be explained?
@fredsbendtheGrinch If one account said that there were angels in the tomb and another didn't mention angels at all, I could see your point. But given that someone says there were angels, I don't see why failing to mention how many would be startling. If someone told me, "Today the president of the United States came to my house to ask my opinion about world affairs!", I wouldn't consider it shocking that he failed to mention that the vice president was there too.