Do you believe in zombies?

[tabibito]

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.

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.

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).

the "Elijah who was to come" would not necessarily mean Elijah himself, but it might; so it becomes advisable to see if the OT prophecy would either lend or deny support for the contention that it does mean Elijah himself. In all likelihood, it would prove to be neutral.

[Teallaura]

the "Elijah who was to come" would not necessarily mean Elijah himself, but it might; so it becomes advisable to see if the OT prophecy would either lend or deny support for the contention that it does mean Elijah himself. In all likelihood, it would prove to be neutral.

Okay, I wasn't sure if you wanted the wording or were questioning the origin.

[rogue06]

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.

I wouldn't make a bet on that.

[JimL]

I wouldn't make a bet on that.

And yet you still believe in demons and spirits and fairies.

[One Bad Pig]

And yet you still believe in demons and spirits and fairies.

Returning to your vomit, I see.

[JimL]

Returning to your vomit, I see.

Hypocritical as usual I see. Trying looking at the post i responded to. If you can't take it, then don't mete it out.

[Zymologist]

Returning to your vomit, I see.

But the vomit is just so compelling.

[One Bad Pig]

But the vomit is just so compelling.

Must've been some good stuff - it's making him see things that aren't there.

[JimL]

Must've been some good stuff - it's making him see things that aren't there.

Returning to your vomit I see.

[rogue06]

Returning to your vomit I see.

[tabibito]

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).

Matthew 17:10; Mark 9:11 No mentions of a prophecy in these texts, only expert legal opinions are cited. Accordingly, I am seeking confirmation of JimL's claim that there is a prophecy specifying, explicitly, that Elijah himself was to come.

[One Bad Pig]

Hey now, don't knock his best arguments.

[JimL]

Matthew 17:10; Mark 9:11 No mentions of a prophecy in these texts, only expert legal opinions are cited. Accordingly, I am seeking confirmation of JimL's claim that there is a prophecy specifying, explicitly, that Elijah himself was to come.

Jesus answers them. "But I tell you Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of them." Now, there is no reason for the prophets to have said that Elijah will come, and there is no reason for Jesus to say that [B]Elijah has come,[/QUOTE] unless they are indeed speaking specifically of Elijah.

[Cow Poke]

Jesus answers them. "But I tell you Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of them." Now, there is no reason for the prophets to have said that Elijah will come, and there is no reason for Jesus to say that [B]Elijah has come, unless they are indeed speaking specifically of Elijah.

Unless, of course, Jesus was speaking metaphorically of Elijah when referring to John the Baptist, as those who were actually there understood.

Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

[tabibito]

Jesus answers them. "But I tell you Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of them." Now, there is no reason for the prophets to have said that Elijah will come, and there is no reason for Jesus to say that Elijah has come, unless they are indeed speaking specifically of Elijah.

So where are they recorded as having done so, JimL? It is not written (according to that statement) that "they will do whatever they pleased to Elijah himself."
The way that Jesus' response is worded doesn't eliminate the possibility that he is using "Elijah" as {FOR EXAMPLE} a reference to the holder of an office: anyone who acts as the forerunner might be termed Elijah. If there is no prophecy that Elijah himself will return - it is highly probable that he won't.