Could God reincarnate humans if he wanted to?

[Mountain Man]

Don't try playing this game Chuck, you're not good at it. Back up to verse 15 to see who Jesus is talking about, and then move on to verse 24 to see how one can be assured of his salvation.

Quoting verse 21-23 out of context to scare people into questioning their Christianity is an old "stupid atheist" trick.

[Mountain Man]

The detailed answer is very convincing.

You asked. I answered. Whether or not you are convinced is not my concern, and if you wish to press the matter then the burden is yours to explain why my answer is inadequate.

[firstfloor]

Few people would put it that way. They're considered inspired by God. Most Christians also believe there are more than 66 inspired books (Protestants are not a majority).

[Doug Shaver]

Christians know God.

And we're supposed to believe it just because they say so.

[Charles]

Don't try playing this game Chuck, you're not good at it. Back up to verse 15 to see who Jesus is talking about, and then move on to verse 24 to see how one can be assured of his salvation.

Quoting verse 21-23 out of context to scare people into questioning their Christianity is an old "stupid atheist" trick.

I like the fact that you are unable to explain the difference verse 15 and onwards make. How does it change the description of people who thought they were on the right side? And there are other examples of situations that resemble this. But it appears you pick and choose as it suits you. And once again your ad hominem strategy does not do much to help you.

It seems that everytime you talk about context you mainly want specifics parts to say what the actual wording says. Must be a tiresome approach.

[Tassman]

And that can't strictly be described as reincarnation. It will be MY body and MY spirit, not a different one.

Just better.

Which body will it be, the one of mossrose as a young girl, or at sweet sixteen or the wrinkly older one one at point of death?

[Mountain Man]

I like the fact that you are unable to explain the difference verse 15 and onwards make. How does it change the description of people who thought they were on the right side? And there are other examples of situations that resemble this. But it appears you pick and choose as it suits you. And once again your ad hominem strategy does not do much to help you.

It seems that everytime you talk about context you mainly want specifics parts to say what the actual wording says. Must be a tiresome approach.

Projection. You plucked a passage out of context. Don't come crying to me when you get called out. "False prophet" has an unambiguous meaning in scripture. To take Jesus' admonition and claim that it applies to all Christians across the board is bad exegesis. There is nothing in scripture to support the "stupid atheist" notion of being sincerely mistaken. That is to say that false prophets know perfectly well that they're false.

[One Bad Pig]

The apostates are known for calling God given his word to man "mechanical" dictation. It was not mechanical (2 Peter 1:21).

[One Bad Pig]

Your trolling is duly noted.

[37818]

"Mechanical" dictation is a straw man argument made by the enemies of the written "word of God."

[Cow Poke]

"Mechanical" dictation is a straw man argument made by the enemies of the written "word of God."

Here's what you said that sparked this....

A couple things here. 1) God is the existence in which all men live (Acts 17:28). 2) God used men to transcribe the holy writings (2 Peter 1:19-21).

"Transcribe" is the counterpart of "dictation", mechanical or otherwise.

Perhaps you'd like to choose a better word than "transcribe"? The scriptures were certainly inspired by God, but I think dictation/transcription is not what happened.

[37818]

Here's what you said that sparked this....



"Transcribe" is the counterpart of "dictation", mechanical or otherwise.

Perhaps you'd like to choose a better word than "transcribe"? The scriptures were certainly inspired by God, but I think dictation/transcription is not what happened.

Transcribe means "to be written." B. B. Warfield also described verbal plenary inspiration of God's written word using the term "dictation." see pages 86-87 of Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Dr John R. Rice in his book Our God Breathed Book: The Bible, how the term "mechanical" is used to malign how God dictated His written word.

[Charles]

Projection. You plucked a passage out of context. Don't come crying to me when you get called out. "False prophet" has an unambiguous meaning in scripture. To take Jesus' admonition and claim that it applies to all Christians across the board is bad exegesis. There is nothing in scripture to support the "stupid atheist" notion of being sincerely mistaken. That is to say that false prophets know perfectly well that they're false.

Lets have a look at the context in New International Version:

True and False ProphetsTrue and False Disciples

So according to New International Version verse 21 and onwards is not about false prophets but false disciples. What this means is that your idea that it should be read in context is really the idea to read it in another context than the one intended.

If we read it from the perspective of NIV it makes a lot more sense. If you go for the approach that theyt know they are false the text really does not make much sense. If they know they are false why does the text say:

They are not only saying the word Lord they are saying it to the Lord. Take note of the exact wording: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven[...]"

Ad hominems wont help you. You are simply failing to identify a rather important distinction between false prophets and false disciples. When you want me to read it in context you are actually asking me to read it out of context.

[Sparko]

Lets have a look at the context in New International Version:



So according to New International Version verse 21 and onwards is not about false prophets but false disciples. What this means is that your idea that it should be read in context is really the idea to read it in another context than the one intended.

If we read it from the perspective of NIV it makes a lot more sense. If you go for the approach that theyt know they are false the text really does not make much sense. If they know they are false why does the text say:



They are not only saying the word Lord they are saying it to the Lord. Take note of the exact wording: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven[...]"

Ad hominems wont help you. You are simply failing to identify a rather important distinction between false prophets and false disciples. When you want me to read it in context you are actually asking me to read it out of context.

What are you arguing about Charles? MM first mentioned that we have assurance that we are saved.

The verses you are talking about are not about doubt, but about false prophets and disciples who merely claim to be believers. These are people who only claim to be believers but are in fact fakes. Not people mistaken about being saved. These are the cult leaders, the fake televangelists, and that sort who go around pretending to be Christians to lure people in. The con men.

You seem to be talking past one another.

[mossrose]

Which body will it be, the one of mossrose as a young girl, or at sweet sixteen or the wrinkly older one one at point of death?

Don't know, don't care. It will be perfect and according to scripture it will be recognizable to others as Jesus' resurrected body is and will be forever.