Do you believe in zombies?

[One Bad Pig]

Right, and according to christianity, whose spirit and power is in you. But it is clear through other passages that Elijah and John the Baptist are meant to be one and the same person. For one thing the author dresses him, and makes a point of it, that he's dressed in clothes exactly like that which Elijah wore, and his mission is exactly the same mission which was fortold by Malachi of Elijah. Not only that, but in Matthew 11:14, speaking of John the Baptist Jesus says; "and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah. Who ever has ears ought to hear it." Apparently, you have ears, but can't hear.

No. This is your absurd hyper-literalism rearing its ugly head again, aided and abetted by your ignorance of what Jews and Christians believe, then and now.

[Cow Poke]

Evading the question I see.

Nope.

[rogue06]

Right, and according to christianity, whose spirit and power is in you. But it is clear through other passages that Elijah and John the Baptist are meant to be one and the same person. For one thing the author dresses him, and makes a point of it, that he's dressed in clothes exactly like that which Elijah wore, and his mission is exactly the same mission which was fortold by Malachi of Elijah. Not only that, but in Matthew 11:14, speaking of John the Baptist Jesus says; "and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah. Who ever has ears ought to hear it." Apparently, you have ears, but can't hear.

If "it is clear through other passages that Elijah and John the Baptist are meant to be one and the same person" then how do you explain John 1:19-23?



Pertinent part bolded so you don't miss it.

[Sparko]

That's a mummy, not a zombie. Keep your undead things straight, will you?

an undead Mummy is just an Egyptian zombie.

[Cow Poke]

Pertinent part bolded so you don't miss it.

That has never stopped JimL before!

[JimL]

No. This is your absurd hyper-literalism rearing its ugly head again, aided and abetted by your ignorance of what Jews and Christians believe, then and now.

Right, whatever you want to tell yourself OBP. This has nothing to do with what Christians and Jews may believe, they believe different things anyway, thus the sects. But this has to do with what the bible says. In confirmation of Malachi 3:23-24, -Matthew 11:14, Mark 9:13, and Luke 7:24-27, all Identify John the Baptist with Elijah, proclaim that he is indeed Elijah. Then you have John who has the Baptist denying that he is Elijah. Of course, I don't believe any of it, but don't tell me that John isn't contradicting what M,M, and L have written.
So, spin it any way you like if it makes you feel better, but Matthew, Mark and Luke all have Elijah Going up to heaven (in a chariot of fire no less) and then coming down again in the person of John the baptist, and it's affirmed in Jesus own words.

[JimL]

If "it is clear through other passages that Elijah and John the Baptist are meant to be one and the same person" then how do you explain John 1:19-23?



Pertinent part bolded so you don't miss it.

Duh! Thus the contradiction. M,M, and L, from out of the mouth of Jesus himself, claim that John the Baptist is Elijah.

[One Bad Pig]

Right, whatever you want to tell yourself OBP. This has nothing to do with what Christians and Jews may believe, they believe different things anyway, thus the sects. But this has to do with what the bible says. In confirmation of Malachi 3:23-24, -Matthew 11:14, Mark 9:13, and Luke 7:24-27, all Identify John the Baptist with Elijah, proclaim that he is indeed Elijah. Then you have John who has the Baptist denying that he is Elijah. Of course, I don't believe any of it, but don't tell me that John isn't contradicting what M,M, and L have written.
So, spin it any way you like if it makes you feel better, but Matthew, Mark and Luke all have Elijah Going up to heaven (in a chariot of fire no less) and then coming down again in the person of John the baptist, and it's affirmed in Jesus own words.

Reincarnation is not a Judeo-Christian concept. At all. I see right through your disingenuousness, Jim (just like everyone else, 'cause no one is buying what you're selling). You're not this stupid; your obtuseness must be deliberate.

[tabibito]

Duh! Thus the contradiction. M,M, and L, from out of the mouth of Jesus himself, claim that John the Baptist is Elijah.

Not quite JimL - Jesus claimed that John the Baptist was "Elijah who was to come." The possibility arises that "Elijah" has been used in much the same way as Rome in the statement "The USA is today's Rome" or perhaps more aptly "This is my blood of the New Covenant" not being blood in the conventional sense at all.

[JimL]

Reincarnation is not a Judeo-Christian concept. At all. I see right through your disingenuousness, Jim (just like everyone else, 'cause no one is buying what you're selling). You're not this stupid; your obtuseness must be deliberate.

Take it up with Jesus, if you don't believe the words put into his mouth by Mark 9:13, Matthew 11:14, and Luke 7:27, are actually his words and not fiction.

[JimL]

Not quite JimL - Jesus claimed that John the Baptist was "Elijah who was to come." The possibility arises that "Elijah" has been used in much the same way as Rome in the statement "The USA is today's Rome" or perhaps more aptly "This is my blood of the New Covenant" not being blood in the conventional sense at all.

Not actually, because the claim by M, M, and Luke, that John the Baptist is Elijah, is supported by OT prophecy as well.

[tabibito]

Not actually, because the claim by M, M, and Luke, that John the Baptist is Elijah, is supported by OT prophecy as well.

Many things are attributed to Biblical sources, some even are accurate. Do you have a reference?

[One Bad Pig]

Take it up with Jesus, if you don't believe the words put into his mouth by Mark 9:13, Matthew 11:14, and Luke 7:27, are actually his words and not fiction.

I am quite comfortable with my ability to read for comprehension, thanks. You're just trolling at this point. Let me know when you want to get back to serious discussion.

[Teallaura]

Jim, OBP and CP are correct - the passage is very clear that Jesus is speaking about John the Baptist figuratively, not Elijah literally. (I answered this earlier but it's buried a few pages back). It's similar to when Jesus cautions the disciples to beware the yeast of the Sadduces and Pharisees - He wasn't literally warning them to avoid yeast from those political/religious groups.

In the passage we're debating, the important part is that Jesus is establishing why His listeners should listen to Him - His credentials. He's not engaged in a dissertation of life after death or how exactly Heaven is for those who have passed before. What matters is that He has come from Heaven with that knowledge - and that nuance is somewhat hard to see in the English translation. Taken as a whole, in context, there is no contradiction. I understand you see it differently, but you're now trying to assert an entirely different exegesis - without sufficient support.

Insisting it cannot mean anything but what is literally written - especially in translation - is hyper-literalism. It's an extremely poor way to understand any documentary evidence. It's also not accepted by most of orthodoxy so the accusation that people only believe it's literal when it suits them is unfounded. In the old Tweb we had hundreds of threads in Christianity refuting hyper-literalism and fundementalism based on literal only reading - it's nothing new that Christians reject hyper-literalism and it's not unique to debate with atheists.

I'm just including this so I don't have to repeat it. I realize you're answering quite a few people at this point so I don't expect you to answer every post.

Take it up with Jesus, if you don't believe the words put into his mouth by Mark 9:13, Matthew 11:14, and Luke 7:27, are actually his words and not fiction.

Jim, Jesus isn't contradicting Himself - or anyone else. Jesus isn't speaking literally - any more than when Romans referred to Caligula as Caesar they were literally assuming that Julius Caesar was returned as Caligula.

This is similar - Elijah here is almost a title instead of a name. The reference is figurative - Jesus is NOT claiming that John the Baptist is Elijah reincarnated - the passages you cite don't support that reading.

Ancients use symbolism in language a lot more than we do - probably because they didn't have TV (not being factitious - the advent of television has changed language significantly - as movies did originally). It helps them visualize and retain the information.

It's so common in ancient texts that to assume the Scripture is meant to be literal at all times crosses the border into absurdity. Modern speech doesn't approach that level of literalism, not even in highly technical writing (which will use simile in rare cases). Jesus makes extensive use of symbolism (vines, seeds, weeds, sheep, goats, pearls, vipers, swine, et al), hyperbole (pulling out eyes, cutting off limbs) and figurative references (yeast for teaching) - there's no justification for the assumption that these passages are intended literally - and in fact, one passage itself refutes the literal reading.

Only if the passages are literal - which they aren't - could the argument for contradiction be made. The correct reading is that John the Baptist assumes the mantle (role) of Elijah to fulfill the prophesy that the coming of the Lord would be heralded by a prophet.

Not actually, because the claim by M, M, and Luke, that John the Baptist is Elijah, is supported by OT prophecy as well.

You and Tab have lost me on this one - that 'Elijah' was to come is clearly OT prophesy so I'm unsure why he needs the reference. As Elisha assumed the mantle, so to does John the Baptist - there's no problem with this fulfillment not being either resurrection or reincarnation (and that last one is NOT Scriptural).

[mossrose]

I am quite comfortable with my ability to read for comprehension, thanks. You're just trolling at this point. Let me know when you want to get back to serious discussion.

That was never his goal.