Good day, 3 Resurrections. Please forgive my dismissive tone in my last post. I have the ability to distinguish between the argument and the person I am arguing against, so that while I may have contempt for their idea, I can still honor and respect the individual. But I realize that does not easily come across, especially through text. You have been nothing but respectful in your posts here that I have seen and I want to make sure you know that while I do despise your theory because I think it dishonors God and leads people astray, I believe that you are a kindhearted person who would not do either of those things consciously. But Scripture says the heart is deceitful above all things and that only the truth can save us, so I hope you come to a saving knowledge of the truth, as is my hope for everyone I interact with here.
I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of presuppositions, but I will define it for clarity's sake. Presuppositions are those beliefs and ideas we already possess and assume before engaging with a new concept. For example, before a heliocentric view came to be mainstream, most people interpreting the data (planetary orbits, eclipses, etc.) assumed a geocentric model and therefore the data was colored by that viewpoint to the point that it was difficult if not impossible for them to interpret the data correctly.
We all have presuppositions (or biases), but the task of the truth seeking individual who desires something as near to objectivity as possible is to constantly examine and acknowledge our presuppositions so that we can be open to a new interpretation if that is what the data requires.
When Sparko and I accuse you of eisegesis, it is because when we present Scripture to you that clearly contradicts your theory in some fundamental way, your presupposition that your theory is correct causes you to glaze over the contradiction or absurdity and double down on some other Scripture (ultimately tangential and not as critical) that you believe props up your theory. That is of course the improper way to go about things. Scripture should interpret Scripture in as cohesive a fashion as we are capable of by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
In Hebrews 9:27, the author is not offering a law that states that men can only die once--no more, no less. That is to both miss the point of the surrounding context and to misunderstand Hebraic (and other Near Eastern) thought. For example, when Jesus said He would be "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", by any reckoning He rose early on the third day, which meant the third day was only a partial one. But in Hebrew thought, part of a day was considered a day. Or when Paul said he wished the Galatians would castrate themselves, he doesn't really wish that, he is speaking hyperbolically. It was enough for the purposes of the author of Hebrews that in general, men die once. His actual point can be gleaned from the context:
It is the culmination of his argument as to why Christ's sacrifice was salvific. The animal sacrifices could never save, they were meant to copy and foreshadow the sacrifice that can. Even if man could redeem himself by dying, his own death--which occurs once, unlike the animal sacrifices--is not redemptive. He still faces judgment. But Christ's sacrifice, which also occurs just once, is redemptive.
Lastly, I will show you a couple of instances where it is clear that men died, resurrected, and later died. Clear not merely because the alternative of nature-controlling, shapeshifting, sinful immortals is absurd, but because other Scripture makes it clear.
There is no hint given that this man was resurrected for his personal piety or to give some glory to God. In fact, the narrative intentionally stresses the accidental, haphazard manner of his resurrection, which seems to have occurred for a reason similar to the healings which accompanied both Jesus and the disciples when their garments were touched--an overbundance of holy power which caused corruption and death to shrink back and life to overflow. Elisha had a double portion of Elijah's spirit. This man certainly later died.
Jonah clearly died and was resurrected when God caused the whale to spew him out.
How could a glorified body "grow faint" or experience "discomfort"? It can't. Why would Jonah ask to die if that was impossible? He wouldn't.
They thought Paul was dead because he was dead. I don't know if you've ever witnessed a stoning, but there's no confusion about when someone killed by that method is dead. Especially to a culture for which that method of killing is a staple. Nor would Paul have been able to hop up and go about his business unless God had restored his life, his broken bones and his internal bleeding. And later Paul was beheaded.
I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of presuppositions, but I will define it for clarity's sake. Presuppositions are those beliefs and ideas we already possess and assume before engaging with a new concept. For example, before a heliocentric view came to be mainstream, most people interpreting the data (planetary orbits, eclipses, etc.) assumed a geocentric model and therefore the data was colored by that viewpoint to the point that it was difficult if not impossible for them to interpret the data correctly.
We all have presuppositions (or biases), but the task of the truth seeking individual who desires something as near to objectivity as possible is to constantly examine and acknowledge our presuppositions so that we can be open to a new interpretation if that is what the data requires.
When Sparko and I accuse you of eisegesis, it is because when we present Scripture to you that clearly contradicts your theory in some fundamental way, your presupposition that your theory is correct causes you to glaze over the contradiction or absurdity and double down on some other Scripture (ultimately tangential and not as critical) that you believe props up your theory. That is of course the improper way to go about things. Scripture should interpret Scripture in as cohesive a fashion as we are capable of by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
In Hebrews 9:27, the author is not offering a law that states that men can only die once--no more, no less. That is to both miss the point of the surrounding context and to misunderstand Hebraic (and other Near Eastern) thought. For example, when Jesus said He would be "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", by any reckoning He rose early on the third day, which meant the third day was only a partial one. But in Hebrew thought, part of a day was considered a day. Or when Paul said he wished the Galatians would castrate themselves, he doesn't really wish that, he is speaking hyperbolically. It was enough for the purposes of the author of Hebrews that in general, men die once. His actual point can be gleaned from the context:
It is the culmination of his argument as to why Christ's sacrifice was salvific. The animal sacrifices could never save, they were meant to copy and foreshadow the sacrifice that can. Even if man could redeem himself by dying, his own death--which occurs once, unlike the animal sacrifices--is not redemptive. He still faces judgment. But Christ's sacrifice, which also occurs just once, is redemptive.
Lastly, I will show you a couple of instances where it is clear that men died, resurrected, and later died. Clear not merely because the alternative of nature-controlling, shapeshifting, sinful immortals is absurd, but because other Scripture makes it clear.
There is no hint given that this man was resurrected for his personal piety or to give some glory to God. In fact, the narrative intentionally stresses the accidental, haphazard manner of his resurrection, which seems to have occurred for a reason similar to the healings which accompanied both Jesus and the disciples when their garments were touched--an overbundance of holy power which caused corruption and death to shrink back and life to overflow. Elisha had a double portion of Elijah's spirit. This man certainly later died.
Jonah clearly died and was resurrected when God caused the whale to spew him out.
How could a glorified body "grow faint" or experience "discomfort"? It can't. Why would Jonah ask to die if that was impossible? He wouldn't.
They thought Paul was dead because he was dead. I don't know if you've ever witnessed a stoning, but there's no confusion about when someone killed by that method is dead. Especially to a culture for which that method of killing is a staple. Nor would Paul have been able to hop up and go about his business unless God had restored his life, his broken bones and his internal bleeding. And later Paul was beheaded.
Comment