The Divinity of Christ

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Mar 31 2005, 04:56 PM'] That's a cop out.

I was using the Harper-Collins Latin Concise Dictionary and expounding.  I think that after four gold medals on the National Latin Exams, which makes me 99th percentile nationwide, one bronze and one silver medal on the Medusa Myth Exams, two "Best Latin Student of the Year" awards, Latin Club co-presidency, and one Latin 492/892 Latin Poetry/Roman Comedy class, I know enough of the language to understand morphology and etymology.

I suppose you think that you can disprove me? [/quote]
[quote]The new class spoken of is the new world order, the Church, or, by extension, it's life-span, which is eternal.[/quote]

You created a class and used the churches life span to extend it. You have created a new defintion to essentially bridge the gap of time. Because any other way, generation would mean his contemporaries. In this sense, it could mean from that time until whenever. I dont doubt that your latin skills, those arent in question. But your extending the defition on the basis that you feel the church is eternal is beyond simply scholarly work. You are essentially redefining the word. Did I mention to you that Im latin american?

Edited March 31, 2005 by Melchisedec

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Mar 31 2005, 04:33 PM'] The new class spoken of is the new world order, the Church, or, by extension, it's life-span, which is eternal. [/quote]
Micah, tsk tsk tsk. You know the difference between eternal and everlasting. The Church is not eternal nor infinite. It is everlasting. It had a beginning and will continue without end.

God is eternal= geometeric definition of a line.

<---->

Church is everlasting=geometeric definition of a ray.

--->

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 31 2005, 06:09 PM'] Micah, tsk tsk tsk. You know the difference between eternal and everlasting. The Church is not eternal nor infinite. It is everlasting. It had a beginning and will continue without end.

God is eternal= geometeric definition of a line.

<---->

Church is everlasting=geometeric definition of a ray.

---> [/quote]
Thanks, I must watch my English.

Fatt, I'm gonna get you.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Mar 31 2005, 05:11 PM'] Thanks, I must watch my English.

Fatt, I'm gonna get you. [/quote]
Guess you been working too much in latin

[Archangel]

I found these definitions for genea at www.greekbible.com

1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 31 2005, 06:04 PM'] You created a class and used the churches life span to extend it. You have created a new defintion to essentially bridge the gap of time. Because any other way, generation would mean his contemporaries. In this sense, it could mean from that time until whenever. I dont doubt that your latin skills, those arent in question. But your extending the defition on the basis that you feel the church is eternal is beyond simply scholarly work. You are essentially redefining the word. Did I mention to you that Im latin american? [/quote]
Once you study the workings of the Latin language, you can tell me that I extended it too much. However, you don't seem to have done that, where a simple study of common colloquialism and idioms would make it abundandtly clear to you how language changes and how one thing can come to mean something very different, through a system of small steps. I was showing you those steps.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Mar 31 2005, 05:14 PM'] Once you study the workings of the Latin language, you can tell me that I extended it too much. However, you don't seem to have done that, where a simple study of common colloquialism and idioms would make it abundandtly clear to you how language changes and how one thing can come to mean something very different, through a system of small steps. I was showing you those steps. [/quote]
All you have done is say that the word can mean the generation of the church. You haven't proved it does mean that, or it ever did. Its a play of words if I ever seen one.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 31 2005, 06:20 PM'] All you have done is say that the word can mean the generation of the church. You haven't proved it does mean that, or it ever did. Its a play of words if I ever seen one. [/quote]
My objective was to disprove your assertion that "generation" could not be used in a way so that Christ would not be lying. I have done this.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Mar 31 2005, 05:23 PM'] My objective was to disprove your assertion that "generation" could not be used in a way so that Christ would not be lying.  I have done this. [/quote]
Some say that 'generation' means the generation of every man living until that time is fulfilled. Some say its the jewish race altogether. Both of those, including your own - fall flat in the context of the word used throughout scripture and in the context if its use in that verse. All you have done is fabricated a way so it wouldn't be a lie. Its no different than saying, the word jealous means something different if god is saying it. In that way, god being jealous cannot be a bad thing. In this case, jesus is not a liar. Your are playing '6 degrees of kevin bacon, with words.

Edited March 31, 2005 by Melchisedec

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 31 2005, 06:28 PM'] Some say that 'generation' means the generation of every man living until that time is fulfilled. Some say its the jewish race altogether. Both of those, including your own - fall flat in the context of the word used throughout scripture and in the context if its use in that verse. All you have done is fabricated a way so it wouldn't be a lie. Its no different than saying, the word jealous means something different if god is saying it. In that way, god being jealous cannot be a bad thing. In this case, jesus is not a liar. Your are playing '6 degrees of kevin bacon, with words. [/quote]
So because I use one word for two different purposes, that makes inconsistency?

Colo Deum-I worship God.
Colo agrem-I till the field.
Colo insulam-I inhabit the island.
Colo Mariam-I revere Mary.

Ancient and modern languages alike use the same word for different things. To say that if I write a passage about worshipping God, using the first of the above phrases, and then speak of, say, how I till the field to offer sacrifice to God...to say that in this case, because "colo" means worship 90% of the time, it must mean it the other 10% as well is ridiculous.

[james]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Mar 31 2005, 05:23 PM'] My objective was to disprove your assertion that "generation" could not be used in a way so that Christ would not be lying.  I have done this. [/quote]
[quote name='Melchisedec']Some say that 'generation' means the generation of every man living until that time is fulfilled. Some say its the jewish race altogether. Both of those, including your own - fall flat in the context of the word used throughout scripture and in the context if its use in that verse. All you have done is fabricated a way so it wouldn't be a lie.[/quote]

Raphael, respectfully I must state my opinion that you are using a weak argument. Although I disagree with Melchisedec's final analysis that Christ lied, he does have the truth on his side where the etymology of the term "generation" is concerned. It's not good practice in Christian apologetics to offer one's opponent the high ground. Christian apologists should behave as Christians. When the apologist's objective becomes winning at all costs, he does a disservice to Christianity.

If Christianity has the truth on it's side, as I believe it does, it can, and should be represented honestly.

A stronger Christian defense in the matter of Matthew 24:34, is that which myself and a few others have already stated: that it has been fulfilled with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The fact that Melchisedec has not challenged this defense bears this out.

Edited March 31, 2005 by james

[Thy Geekdom Come]

My point was not to win at all costs, James, it was to assert my credentials and make my point, which was made.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='james' date='Mar 31 2005, 06:28 PM'] A stronger Christian defense in the matter of Matthew 24:34, is that which myself and a few others have already stated: that it has been fulfilled with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The fact that Melchisedec has not challenged this defense bears this out. [/quote]
It all depends on whether you believe that jesus's return would be purely symbolic or actually visable.

Mark 14

[quote] 61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.[/quote]

[james]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 31 2005, 08:37 PM'] It all depends on whether you believe that jesus's return would be purely symbolic or actually visable.


[/quote]
You refer to Mark 14. However I was addressing Matthew 24:34 and the preceding passages because that is the scripture which you originally challenged. I'd prefer to stay with Matthew for the sake of clarity. I take it that the "coming in the clouds" claim is what you are focused on.

Matthew 24:30 [i]"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all tribes of the earth mourn: and they shall see the [b]Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven [/b]with much power and majesty."[/i]

This passage deals with the destruction of Israel in 70 AD and there is scriptural precedent for this "coming in the clouds" figure being associated with the destruction of a nation. Christ, no doubt, is referring to scripture as he does throughout the Gospels. Those with ears, ie. those who know the law of God, would hear.

Isaiah 19:1 [i]"The burden of Egypt. Behold [b]the Lord will ascend upon a swift cloud[/b], and will enter into Egypt ..."[/i]

This passage foretells of the destruction of Egypt which was fulfilled in 480 BC.

Also, it is common in scripture for the "coming of the Lord" and the "day of the Lord" to be associated with destruction of a nation.

Isaiah 13:1;6-9 [i]"The burden of Babylon ... it shall come as a destruction from the Lord ... Behold, [b]the day of the Lord shall come ..."[/b][/i]

This foretells the destruction of Babylon which was fulfilled in 539 BC.

Ezekiel 30:3-4 [i]"For the day is near, yea [b]the day of the Lord is near: a cloudy day[/b], it shall be the time of the nations. And the sword shall come upon Egypt ..."[/i]

This again refers to the destruction of Egypt fulfilled in 480 BC.

Edited April 1, 2005 by james

[Melchisedec]

[quote]You refer to Mark 14. However I was addressing Matthew 24:34 and the preceding passages because that is the scripture which you originally challenged. I'd prefer to stay with Matthew for the sake of clarity. I take it that the "coming in the clouds" claim is what you are focused on.[/quote]

I merely used mark as a precursor to my argument.

[quote]Matthew 24:30 [i]"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all tribes of the earth mourn: and they shall see the [b]Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven [/b]with much power and majesty."[/i][/quote]

The theory that the reference to "clouds" is a symbolic jesture, relies on a presupposition that the bible has fortold prophecy. I have not ever seen any supporting evidence that infact it is a purely symbolic jesture other than that of people saying it means it. Can you prove this? Is there any other source outside the bible that invokes similar symbolism? Im curious. Its very similar to the jehovahs witness's belief in the comming of christ that no one ever saw.

Luke:
[quote]27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.[/quote]

Some want to say in the context of judgement, that the clouds reference is symbolic of gods wrath on the people. But in the context of ressurection, than he will be visible to all. How convenient.

Matthew
[quote]28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. [/quote]

This is just another reason why there are so many denominations of christianity because it seems everyone wants to interpet everything in their own way. I can appreciate symbolism and the way the ancients used it. But the clouds theory, is far from definitive.

Edited April 1, 2005 by Melchisedec