Originally Posted by makerowner

Read the preceding verses:

The eleven still don't believe in the resurrection, so how could this be a second appearance?

Originally Posted by rhutchin

No. Notice the verbs. Jesus rebuked them because they "had not" believed those who saw him after he had risen. Having seen Him alive, the apostles now believe in the resurrection. However, it is still true that they "had not believed those who saw him after he had risen." Jesus is not said to rebuke them at His first appearance. He waits until a "later" time to do so. Mark is ambiguous about how much later. Based on John's account, we can conclude that "later" was eight days afterwards.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Your example is not exactly right. Jesus does not say that a person shall not get into heaven but that he shall not be forgiven. So your example would be, "anyone who steals from me will never be my friend" and "I only invite my friends to my birthday party." The implication, stop stealing from me and become my friend and then I will invite you to my birthday party. My argument makes no sense to you only because your example misrepresents the situation.

Originally Posted by Matthew 12:31-2, 36-7

[31] Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
[32] And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
[...]
[36] I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter;
[37] for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Originally Posted by makerowner Then he also says: "For he that is not against us is for us." (Mk 9:40) What was that about being consistent?

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Yes. Read Leviticus.

Originally Posted by makerowner

Lev. 2 & 3, about the cereal offering and the peace offering respectively, make no mention of sin or atonement. So Jesus' death didn't cover these; shouldn't you get on it? Not to mention the backpay you owe...

Originally Posted by makerowner

Your modifications don't change anything. Everyone who in my example would have been invited to the birthday party is by definition a friend in your example.
Also, I don't see any justification for thinking that the word 'never' means "not while you're still doing it", other than your squeamishness about condemning someone to eternal damnation for saying a few words. The sentence "Anyone who steals from me will never be my friend" would be understood by the vast majority of sane English-speakers to mean that there is no future possibility of friendship.

Originally Posted by makerowner

Is there something specific about the context you'd like to point out, or are you just fishing?

Originally Posted by makerowner

And Mark just happened not to mention that this as actually the second appearance? The phrase "had not believed" clearly refers back to vv. 11 and 13, where "those who had been with him" don't believe Mary Magdalene's testimony or that of "two of them". Your interpretation requires that Mark be a terrible story-teller, leaving out one of the most important events in human history (in his view): the risen Christ's (first) appearance to his disciples. I'm willing to give him a little more credit than that.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

No. Notice the verbs. Jesus rebuked them because they "had not" believed those who saw him after he had risen. Having seen Him alive, the apostles now believe in the resurrection. However, it is still true that they "had not believed those who saw him after he had risen." Jesus is not said to rebuke them at His first appearance. He waits until a "later" time to do so. Mark is ambiguous about how much later. Based on John's account, we can conclude that "later" was eight days afterwards.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Mark presents a short compact story about Christ. He can be short on explanation and his statements can be ambiguous in terms of when they occurred. Mark records that Christ met with the "eleven" and rebuked them for not believing Mary's testimony about seeing Christ and the testimony of the two men. His record is not clear about when this event occurred. Mark did not go into great detail but was content to record the basics. Matthew appears to have read Mark's account and expanded on it. Luke comes along and does his independent investigation and writes his account. John then writes of his personal observations and experiences with Christ. We put all the accounts together to get the most complete account.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I guess you don't debate contradictions, despite your meager efforts to do so in previous messages, because of the burden placed on you to substantiate any assertion that a contradiction exists.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Till, of course, has little interest in the spiritual welfare of people and would naturally read the passage for its physical elements. I don't really do much with the OT prophecies.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

That is ridiculous. The passage contains physical elements that did not happen. That no doubt harmed the spiritual welfare of some Bible believers. The same goes for Nebuchadnezzar's failure to defeat Tyre after Ezekiel called him a "kings of kings," reference Ezekiel chapter 26. I suspect that the "many nations" part of Ezekiel 26 was added after it became apparent that Nebuchadnezzar would not conquer Tyre. It is doubtful that Ezekiel would claim that a "king of kings" would get into the city of Tyre, tear down lots of its towers, and kill lots of people, and then fail to capture the city. Several generations of people who knew about the Tyre prophecy died without seeing if fulfilled. If anything, that would have caused doubt, certainly not confidence. You obviously do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.