LOon

HEY CHRIS!:
I DID get ahead of myself. There is NO mention of ANY "second coming" in the passage:1 TIMOTHY 6:16

There IS, a VAGUE mention in 1 TIM 6:19.


" laying up in store for themselves a good foundation [against the time to come], that they may lay hold on the life which is life indeed."

Even that hardly translates into a description of "Da Secont Cummings" (deliberate misspelling). There is 1 TIM 6:14, which DOES say to wait until Christ appears. On the other hand, we know of the FAILED prophecies of Matt & Luke. Of course, everyone is FREE to claim that statement (1 Tim 16:14-16) IS a reference to "Da Secont Cummings". That WON'T make it real!!! On the other hand, anybody that IS long-winded, CAN make a mountain out of a mole hill. As a lousy exegete, even I can tell, there's no reference to ANY kind of "Coming". I don't feel offended. I CAN deal with inspiration/revelations FROM a mind greater than my own.

Chris Weimer

What's your problem? You know, we used to have a problem user here by the name of Metacrock. He was a horrible speller, and terrible with grammar and such, but at least his excuse was that he was dyslexic. What's your excuse?

BTW - dyslexia is no excuse for ignorance of the material. I urge you to get up to date before you try to "seriously" tackle these questions too big for you.

LOon

HEY BIG EXEGETE!:
Here's the simple thing for you, since you don't have a problem overlooking the deliberate parentheses statement, that CLEARLY states deliberate misspelling; enlighten the rest of us about what the obvious failings of Matt 16:28, 24:34, Luke 9:27 represent. To mention a few. It is CLEAR that Matt's & Luke's "Adventus" is SHORT OF DA' Mark (hee hee) ! The scribe responsible for 1 TIM 6:14 was giving "US" a general warning of expectation. The NT biographers, overplayed their prophetic "hand". Lousy poker players. Cryptic remark. Can't have it both ways. An "Adventus" that was advertised to happen, and then; WHOOPS! How's that for a dyslexic????

Chris Weimer

Wow. Is Joe Wallack now on crack?

Anyway, neither Matthew nor Luke wrote in lieu of Timothy, with it being written at least after Matthew around the time of Luke. Moreover, Timothy is addressing believers, while Luke is using sources (which explains the persistence of the expectation of imminent parousia in the gospels).

PS - Poker wasn't invented when the gospels were written.

LOon

HEY BIG EXEGETE!:
Granted, Poker was a tad ahead of their time. This "imminent parousia", you will agree, NEVER materialized. It makes Matt & Luke BOGUS OPERANDI. I believe the big exegetes call it an unrealized eschatology. Recall that Luke in 1:2 ADMITS that they were running around collecting anecdotes and such. Luke's sources are completely unknown. For instance, try to define/identify the (THEY) mentioned in Lk 1:2. WHO is dem' PEOPLES (deliberate misspelling) ? How safe can we feel about the sources that can only be categorized as THEY,EYEWITNESSES,MINISTERS????? What we have, at best, is anonymous testimonies. There are MANY other instances where we can find similar ambiguities. Luke can not be categorized as a biographer; pardon my dyslexia. I realize, at least I think I got you right, you're a skeptic. Despite that, we must not seem to be encouraging belief based on an imminent "Adventus" that never happened. I DO appreciate your abilities, I don't appreciate posturing.

Chris Weimer

That's really starting to get annoying.

Is chronology hard for you too?

Well no shit Sherlock. Do you see Jesus around anywhere? :huh:

Is exegetist also a deliberate misspelling? No wait, you're utilizing an uncommon variant for the normative "exegete" on purpose, right?

And...?

No they're not. We know at least one, Mark, and depending on which theory you adopt, either Q or Matthew.

What are you talking about? Can you please quit the childish crap and starting responding in a normal fashion, please? It's hard to take !!!!!!!!! seriously. Or "dem' PEOPLES" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

Why not?

Skeptic in regards to what?

If you want to talk about not encouraging beliefs, take it to PA&SA, SL, or GRD. It doesn't belong in BC&H.

Well, when you develop some abilities, perhaps we'll be able to have a decent conversation.~

LOon

HEY BIG EXEGETE!:
That Luke copies Mark, gee, I think that makes Luke & Matt mere copyists. Yes, I deliberately play with words. I think it may give the penny wise something to focus on !!!!!! Your mention of "Q" (source) is non sequitur. It is a postulated source, which has never been found. A hypothetical lost text. All we're doing is dancing around the Synoptic Problem. The hypotheses claims that "Q" might be Luke's and Matt's possible source. No conclusive PROOF. Meanwhile, Mark is also, allegedly; Matt's & Luke's source !!!!! By the way, exegetist IS in the dictionary.


the letter K stands for Marcus

1) K 2) M 3)L 4)M L
/ \ K K \ /
M L L M K


We also have the mess behind the two priorities Markan vs. Matthean priority.
Which way did they go ? Duh, I don't know. Who DOES ?????


P.S.
I apologize for the diagram. The INFIDEL.ORG sys will not allow the proper spread of the diagram.

Chris Weimer

Proof is for logical theory. In the academic world, we don't "prove" anything. Instead, we vie for what is most probable. Please become educated with what you're talking about.

Also, if you don't quit the childish writing, this will be the last post in discussion with you.

LOon

HEY BIG EXEGETE!:
You seem to be talking in circles. You offer "Q" as a hypothetical source. That Mark MIGHT BE Luke's "source" is a hypothesis. It does not clear up the problem of the (THEY, EYEWITNESSES, MINISTERS) that is part of Luke 1:2. Shadowy figures/sources at best, due to their ambiguous anonymity. Meanwhile, there isn't a single MS that definitively states Mark as the irrefutable source of Luke. As a matter of fact, Matthew deviates from the Marcan pericope in the begining, while as Luke deviates towards the end. What ever minor agreements might be found are trivial, and point most likely to textual corruption . Recall that everyone is working from COPIES. There isn't a single ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT that can be used to compare, in order to straighten the entire mess out !!!! That YOU vie for the probable, does not make you unique or infallible. To vie for the probable is called: Conjecture. Me included. Nor does it make you a greater or lesser exegete than anyone else; not that it matters. Consequently, we may vie for the credibility of an exegetist, BUT, until someone "coughs up" a genuine, original MS; we're ALL into conjecture. No more; no less. A final issue is the understanding that "Mark" IS the more primitive of the three Synoptic writers. Which means that all we have are redactional arguments; not clarifications/proof. Just signs for/of addition or deletion. Your suppositions may make you a legend in your own mind, there's no guarantee that anybody else will see it that way. O. K. Chum ? Save the Sacred Cow affectations for the gullible. Remember this: IF YOU'RE OFFENDED SO WHAT !