Zep
Friend, did you read BIBLE EXAMINERS ideas on Mat24 over at h20?
No. Should I have? If it is of some importance perhaps you could provide a link? There so much junk over there that I don’t have time to read it all, not even close to all. In fact I pretty much limit my time on that forum to posts of those I have known for years.
Frenchy
(If those are your words)
I do not think you intended otherwise, but I have not plagiarized. Anything not my own is duly noted in any article written by me.
You do realize, however, that anything and everything that is based on a foundation that begins with 'if' is very shaky at best?
Shaky is not the word for it, less than a solid assertion is more correct. Shaky indicates less than well founded whereas my article is well founded as far as it goes, that is to the point of demonstrating possibilities.
My only assertion here is that with global communication—versus merely global knowledge—there became possible for the first time ever a fulfillment of Jesus’ answer for a sign, if Jesus’ words were intended to have a global application. Therefore if the answer for a sign attributed to Jesus was intended to have global application then a solid assertion is made, otherwise it matters not.
Furthermore, I am not of the opinion—and nothing in the answer attributed to Jesus disputes this—that recognition of any sign is necessary for salvation.
So, my article is not speculation at all, but rather an objective look at the known without insisting upon interpretation.
This statement here that you make is based on who’s assertion?
That in New Testament Greek the basic application of oikoumene was to the Greek speaking world, as opposed to parts of the world beyond Greek influence is a common understanding. For support you can check the term in what is probably the most renowned Greek lexicon in the world, the Great Scott—which is why my article referenced that work by offering complete entries. On the other hand, the application is so commonly held that practically any Greek lexicographical work would make the point clear enough.
A point of great importance is to distinguish between any application of oikoumene made by Christian exegetists versus established usage at the time. Objectivity demands that we not read Christian exegesis into the text.
Really? A ‘quick reading’ will acquaint us with application of that Greek word in the Greek-speaking world of Jesus’ day as opposed to how it was used and understood by the entire world that was beyond Greek influence? Easily?
What the non-Greek speaking world understood the term to mean is immaterial because they were not the compilers nor the originators of the text in question. Since the text in question supposedly originated from a Greek speaking person then it is their word usage and understanding that is important. Therefore it is that perspective that I addressed.
Whoa! Attributed? Is this an insinuation that perhaps Matthew is not quoting Jesus? Just curious.
My article is not primarily about the authenticity of Matthew’s account, therefore for sake of objectivity I make no assertions of fact on that point. The discussion of authenticity is an entirely different discussion with its own arguments. Frankly, after such an argument the remaining conclusion would probably be something to the effect that we can only say that Matthew’s account is not entirely refuted as genuine, at least for that portion under consideration. In that case anyone who would argue otherwise has a burden of proof to bear.
Also, why am I getting that déjà vu feeling again with this round about definition of ‘oikoumene’? Oh, I remember now. G-e-n-e-r-a-t-i-o-n.
I understand your skepticism and applaud it. On the other hand, my article has nothing whatsoever to do with the "generation" fiasco you refer to and everything to do with objectivity. Furthermore, this article is not about interpretation but rather possibilities. Expanding our understanding of various subjects cannot take place without exploring possibilities, which is one reason for my article.
As for my explanations, whether they are valid or not is really somewhat immaterial except for those who feel there is an ongoing need to "stay on the watch" as Christians as admonished by Jesus in his answer for a sign. If those words are true then Christians need pay attention to them. If they are not true then nothing is lost by examination. In the end Christian disposition wins whether the individual realizes any sign of the end of the age or not. I see nothing in the reply attributed to Jesus that indicates that salvation depends upon recognizing any sign. However, that does not mean that Jesus did not provide a sign of his parousia and the end of the age.
I value your input, Frenchy. Thanks for the feedback.
Friend
Edited by - Friend on 14 August 2000 23:19:59
