Statesboro, GA, USA
"Who is the first born amongst the dead? Christ. Christ, at this point, has not even died. Therefore, without a single solitary doubt, this transfiguration (which according to Strong is a vision) is a future event."
You are maintaining that the transfiguration was the future vision. There is nothing to indicate that in the text. Transfiguration does not mean "a vision". Check your strongs again Greek word #3339 ... metamorphoo - to transform, metamorphose, change. Nothing as to future or past is implied. But we do have that they "talked" about the future event of Jesus' crucifixion. The only evidence that is in the text is supportive of a present occurence.
"If anything, Lukes version of this event confirms that Jesus, himself, in unequal compared to Moses and Elijah, because God tells them that it is Jesus who is His Son, the other were then gone."
Could you rephrase this? I really do not understand what you are saying? That Jesus is superior to Moses and Elijah? Of course, I agree. What do you mean by "the others were then gone"? They weren't gone during the experience. They were also talking. Are you saying that this was an illusion so that God could prove Christ's superiority, that Moses and Elijah during the transfiguration scene were apparitions? You have no scriptural support to say that. I will point out again, that they were "talking" about what Christ was to accomplish at Jerusalem.
"This does not prove Elijah and Moses are alive, nor does it not, but when taken into consideration of the fact that Christ is the first to ascend into the Kingdom of Heaven, we can without a doubt know that it is of a future event."
Remember that I do not necessarily agree that Spirits cannot exist consciously apart from the body... So just because Christ was the first to be ressurected with an eternal body, does not necessarily negate Moses and Elijah as being aware. You will have to offer a better explanation of what Moses and Elijah represented in these passages. Are you saying they are holographical, apparitional.... something God did, kind of like a slide projector? Was all of this "pretend"? One more time, I will ask... what about the conversation Jesus held with them about his death in Jerusalem, which was prior to his ascension?
"I've had much worse, so did Christ and his apostles, btw."
Your doing it again Opeth... Now you and your superior revelation are worthy of martyrdom. This is what Brad was speaking of in the extreme. I am having trouble believing a scriptural view that you seem unable or unwilling to defend from scripture, and you say that I am persecuting you. Not true. I was not poking fun at you. I was however showing your contradictions. I am asking you to stick by your guns. You've waffled around from agnosticism to the "Buddha" position, and that without any willing and patient explanation for those who have questions. If you have come to the conclusion that you know divine revelation, then tell us that you refute agnosticism. The two are a contradiction would you agree? If you still feel that agnosticism has merit, then you have no persuasive claims to divine revelation. I am not even saying that you have to fully live or realize the revelation that God has given you. I have many imperfections, faults, sins, but I do not oscillate my position every other day. I was bringing out the point that you must land on one or the other to convince, or even begin to convince, anyone. You can view this as an insult, or as tough-friendly advice in using polemics. You have to be at least somewhat consistent to be even heard.
"Let me ask you this, since you never answered me, this does work both ways you know?"
All of the issues that you raised were never directly aimed at me. I chose not to take them up at the time. To be honest, it wasn't a very attractive offer. You tend to splinter things into a myriad of possible directions when we begin to discuss anything. One issue becomes suddenly a hundred, which becomes impossible for everyone involved. I don't want to waste my time, or yours. If you are willing to discuss one issue at a time, I am willing. You are the one who is constantly bringing up "The Immortal Soul" doctrine. I never even heard the term "Immortal soul doctrine" until you brought it up. But I do believe that your take on scripture may have some serious gaps and problems. Since you brought this up, and bring this up most frequently, let's start here. I still need that question about Moses and Elijah addressed... After we take this one response at a time. We can address the others. I'm just not into a free-for-all.
[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-30-2002 06:48 PM).]