TILL
It would be nice, Tony, if you would try to respond to the arguments that
were presented to show that a failed prophecy was made in Matthew 24:28-34.
No wonder you think that debating is un-Christian. You don't know how to
debate.
WOODCOCK
Matt. 24:28-30 and Rev. 19:11-19 state the same things in them.
For one they make it clear(as I said before) that Christ has not come in
the clouds yet.
TILL
Matthew 24:29-31 states that IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those days
(the desolation that would accompany the destruction of Jerusalem, Luke
21:20), the son of man would be seen "coming on the clouds." This did not
happen IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those days, and the fact that
Revelation 19:11-19 (written significantly after the destruction of
Jerusalem) indicates that Jesus had not yet returned in no way proves that
the Jesus of Matthew 24 did not intend his disciples to understand that his
second coming would happen imminently. You see, Tony, if you understood the
basic rudiments of literary interpretation, you would understand that you
cannot establish the meaning of Text A, which was written by writer X, by
comparing it to Text B, which was written by writer Y. To concretely
illustrate this interpretation principle, let's assume that Ernest Hemingway
made a statement in one of his books that appears to be false, but John
Steinbeck in one of his books made a statement on the same subject that
appears to be true. In such a scenario, only an idiot would try to argue
that Hemingway's statement was not false because Steinbeck's statement was
true. However, this is exactly what you are doing. "Matthew," whoever he
was, made a statement in Matthew 24:28-34, which indicates a belief that
Jesus's second coming was imminent and would happen in the lifetime of "this
generation," but the writer of Revelation, allegedly the apostle John, wrote
his book well after the destruction of Jerusalem, and he indicated that
Jesus had not yet returned. (By the way, Revelation 1:7 would have been a
much better text for you to cite.) So you are arguing that since "John"
indicated that Jesus had not yet returned at a time that was well after the
destruction of Jerusalem, "Matthew" therefore could not have meant that
Jesus would come in the clouds IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those
days, even though he clearly said that Jesus would be seen coming in the
clouds IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those days. What we are seeing
from you is a common inerrantist fallacy. You are trying to prove inerrancy
by assuming inerrancy. Your argument is that Matthew could not have made a
mistake because he was inerrant, and so he didn't really mean what he said,
and this is verified by the statement that "John" made, who was also an
inerrant writer (according to your argument).
So I'm wonder, Tony; just where is the "rebuke"?
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.