Board index ‹ The Trinity

[Trepak]

> I went by the evidence.

That's still an assumption based on your interpretation of the evidence.

> You wouldn't have quoted it if you understood it, because it doesn't support your point.

So I either misunderstood it or I understood it and it does support my point, but you assumed the former.

> If you remove it from its context and just look at the words, it does, and that was the root problem.

Using the context to interpret the verse to mean something other than what it says is the root problem.

> You better know the context to hear that the former is a statement of affirmation and love and the latter is a statement of anger and rebuke.
Same words though.

The difference is that Jesus isn't using an expression, he's making a clear statement.

> So we can't conclude that He gets to v. 36 and disavows any knowledge of the timing.

Of course we can. Nostradamus made many predictions that appear to have come true. He seemingly knew many details, but not when they would happen.

[jimwalton]

> That's still an assumption based on your interpretation of the evidence.

True, but every act of communication involves interpretation.

> Using the context to interpret the verse to mean something other than what it says is the root problem.

The point is that we have to understand what Jesus meant by it, and what He meant by it is that figuring out the day and hour are not our business.

> The difference is that Jesus isn't using an expression, he's making a clear statement.

Context is still king. In front of our grocery store is a sign that says "No Standing." That sign has nothing to do with standing, but instead with where you can park your car. Someone could scream at me all day long with "But that's what it says in clear English," and it wouldn't be worth a rat's tail. We have to use the context and intent to discern meaning. And I showed you both the context and Jesus's intent.

> Or course we can. Nostradamus made many predictions that appear to have come true. He seemingly knew many details, but not when they would happen.

Jesus said in v. 29, "immediately after the distress of those days..." and then he followed that with "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds." He knew exactly when it would happen.

[Trepak]

> That sign has nothing to do with standing, but instead with where you can park your car. Someone could scream at me all day long with "But that's what it says in clear English," and it wouldn't be worth a rat's tail.

Again, a valid example of a definitional misunderstanding of a word, but that isn't the case with Jesus' statement.

> "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds." He knew exactly when it would happen.

That's not a description of when, it's detailing corresponding events. If I say you're going to get shot. Do I know exactly when it will happen if I say it will occur immediately after the gunman fires?

[jimwalton]

> a valid example of a definitional misunderstanding of a word,

It's not a definitional misunderstanding. "Standing" means "standing." For some reason they use it in this context. I don't know why because it's the wrong word. The sign means you can't stop your vehicle in that place other than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in receiving or discharging passengers. "Standing" has nothing to do with this, but that's the word the sign uses. You need to know the context to get it because the term is of no help in understanding it. We can't always just go by the term used.

> That's not a description of when, it's detailing corresponding events. Do I know exactly when it will happen if I say it will occur immediately after the gunman fires?

No, you don't, but given all of what Jesus is saying here, He comes across as knowing everything there is know about the scenario surrounding His return. The Gospels teach that Jesus is omniscient, and given what He knows about everything else, contextually we can have confidence that He knows exactly when it would happen. His statement "nor the Son" is to be taken like "No Standing."

Let me try another one. Suppose you see a sign on a door that says, "THIS DOOR IS TO REMAIN CLOSED AT ALL TIMES." The English can hardly get more clear, but that's not what it means. What it means, we know, is that the door is not to be propped open. But you're certainly allowed to open it to go through it, despite what it says. The terms themselves don't lead us to understanding, but only the context tells us what it means.

[Trepak]

> It's not a definitional misunderstanding.

Yes it is. I will show you where you are incorrect.

> "Standing" means "standing."

I'll include both definitions so that it's clear:

1. have or maintain an upright position, supported by one's feet.
2. an object, building, or settlement) be situated in a particular place or position.

Ex: "the town stood on a hill"

So, clearly you are misunderstanding the definition of "standing". Thus, a definitional misunderstanding.

> He comes across as knowing everything there is know about the scenario surrounding His return.

"Everything there is to know" except when, right?

> "THIS DOOR IS TO REMAIN CLOSED AT ALL TIMES."

Again, you're using a phrase that can be misunderstood due to excluded information, like the lack of instructions about being able to open the door temporarily. However Jesus clearly says the Son doesn't know.. only the Father. If the sign says "This door is to remain closed at all times and is not to be opened" then you wouldn't be able to claim that context would invalidate this inclusive instruction.

[jimwalton]

> Ex: "the town stood on a hill"

OK, I get what you're saying.

> "Everything there is to know" except when, right?

Let me try again. Sometimes when I make a mistake, I say, "I'm so stupid. what a moron I am." Now, I don't mean that; I'm not stupid, and I don't think I'm stupid—I'm just feeling regret for having made the mistake. You have to understand my comment in its context. If you're going to hold me to "Oh, you think you're stupid, I heard it in clear English," I'm going to resist you. I don't think I'm stupid, even though yes that's clearly what I said. In the context what I meant was "I regret making the mistake I did."

Jesus was not saying He didn't know. Jesus was saying they weren't supposed to pursue knowing the day or the hour.

> Again, you're using a phrase that can be misunderstood due to excluded information, like the lack of instructions about being able to open the door temporarily.

The fact is, this sign is sort of a "high culture" situation. You have to know our culture, the era, and the context to understand it. If you have that, then it's easy. Other "high culture" expressions would be a traffic report talking about "the can of worms" or a baseball phrase like "teach kids to hit and steal aggressively."

> However Jesus clearly says the Son doesn't know.. only the Father.

You keep missing the point of what he means by what he says. You can't just accept his words as "clear English." There's a context that can't be ignored.

> If the sign says "This door is to remain closed at all times and is not to be opened" then you wouldn't be able to claim that context would invalidate this inclusive instruction.

That's a different sign than the common one. I've never actually seen a sign like this, so it's a moot point. The fact is, the sign says, "This door is to remain closed at all times," and we all know that's not what it means, despite that it "clearly says" it.

[Trepak]

The door remains closed as opposed to remaining open.

Luckily, regardless of the context, Jesus doesn't leave us guessing whether the Father and him know.. He clearly states that not him nor even the angels in heaven know. Only the Father. Now that's a distinctly clear statement and a contradiction.

I see no reason to believe your claim that Jesus knew, stated that he didn't know, and meant it as a lesson to not pursue the answer. That would be a lie.

[jimwalton]

Then we are unfortunately at an impasse. You want to go with the bare meaning of the words, and ignore the context, Jesus's claims that He knows these things, and that NT's solid ground that Jesus was omniscient. I want to consider the whole picture to interpret the bare words. It's apparent that no quantity of further dialogue will likely break this logjam.

I'll tell you this: I appreciate the conversation, your tone throughout it, and your courtesy as you discussed this with me. Thank you. We have dialogued before, and I'm sure we'll get a chance to dialogue again. Stay safe and healthy.

[Trepak]

Context does matter. I want to point out that I am not ignoring the context as much as I am not agreeing with your interpretation of it. You understand that the same words can be interpreted differently and especially when they have been translated from their original language and are from thousands of years ago.

My disagreement isn't just with you on this one verse, but with any interpretation that explains away a possible contradiction. Everyone works off of some assumption, and I'm open to being wrong, but based on similar books from the time it seems likely that people who could write were recording stories. Some of those stories were oral traditions with no known source. I think these people weren't experts, which is why some of their information is incorrect.

Now, because we have people who believe in a divinely inspired and perfect Bible, any error can't be an error. So, due to the blurred lines of interpretation, anyone with enough background knowledge and creativity can explain away any contradiction. So I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it would be so easy to be and not know it, that I don't see a reason to think you're right.