Why the Cleansing of the Temple wasn't historical

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Claire
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Why the Cleansing of the Temple wasn't historical

Post by Claire » Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:56 am

Chapabel wrote:God did not violate His own command to not add to His word because He wasn’t finished speaking until the Revelation was given. Any new vision or revelations are not from God and are simply bunk.
You referenced Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:6, and Rev. 22:18-19, warnings against man adding and taking away from His word, thinking "His word" refers to the Bible as a whole book, and asserted: "God would not violate His own edict that nothing else be added to His word''. But, technically, each verse is referencing what's being said in its particular book within the Bible, not the Bible as a whole book because the Bible didn't exist yet, when those were written. Because of this, with the existence of the NT, Jesus would be adding to scripture in a way you claim violates the Bible in multiple places.

Despite each of those verses referring to what's said in its particular book, there's still the general rule that man not add to or take away from God's word, but no Bible verse(s) implies, or explicitly states, God Himself is subject to that rule.
Chapabel wrote:
Claire wrote:
Chapabel wrote:When an apostle died he was not replaced because the requirement to be an Apostle was to have witnessed Jesus both before and after His resurrection: Acts 1:21-22 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
What was Matthias considered then?
Matthias did not replace an apostle. Judas Iscariot was not an apostle because he never saw the risen Savior.
The twelve were already chosen and addressed as apostles, as well as given power and authority, by Jesus before His resurrection (Matthew 10:1-4/Luke 6:12-16). So, Judas was an apostle, a fallen apostle, but chosen and addressed as an apostle by Jesus nonetheless.

In Acts 1:21-22, it describes the necessary replacement of Judas, and the disciples and apostles consulting over who out of the disciples would make a good candidate. Joseph and Matthias were chosen for consideration for the same reasons, and ultimately it was decided upon Matthias becoming the twelfth apostle. And, those reasons, or "requirements" as you call them, were just obvious standards. It wouldn't make sense to have selected a disciple who couldn't also personally testify to the resurrection of Jesus when evangelizing to the world, and helping to establish The Church of Christ. The verses don't imply, or explicitly state, that revelations from God, whether given audibly or via visions, stops with the twelve apostles, and their chosen students -- that's you adding meaning.
Chapabel wrote:
Claire wrote:
Chapabel wrote:...in Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

So who are the "us" spoken of in this passage? Well, every book of the NT was written by an Apostle of Jesus Christ or by one who was personally taught by an Apostle. Only the Apostles had the authority to speak on behalf of God.
As for Hebrews 1:1-2, it only points out that before Jesus God spoke to the prophets, instead of communicating through His Son, not that speaking on God's behalf, and receiving revelations/visions stopped with the twelve apostles, and their chosen students. That's you adding meaning to the verse, and distancing yourself from your original argument.
As I said, the answer I provided, with Biblical support, did not satisfy the blind/willfully ignorant.
The term "us" may be referring to just the twelve apostles, but could also be referring to humanity in general, because Jesus didn't just speak to the twelve apostles when on Earth. If the "us" in that verse only refers to the twelve apostles, just because every book of the NT was written by one of the twelve apostles, or one of their students, then are the other passages that address the audience as "us", "brethren," "believers", "man" or "men", etc, only referring to the twelve as well? Or, are you cherry picking which passages refer to the twelve apostles, humanity in general, and fellow believers, when it's convenient? Besides, even if the "us" in Hebrews 1:1-2 refers to just the twelve apostles, no where does it imply or state that only the twelve apostles have authority to speak on behalf of God -- that's you adding meaning.
Chapabel wrote:Even the Catholic Church rejects the fictional work of MV.
No, you know what their actual position is. You're just being deliberately obtuse, and bringing up something irrelevant, because you have nothing else to support your arguments.

Claire
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Why the Cleansing of the Temple wasn't historical

Post by Claire » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:04 am

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Which Bible verse(s) state God's subject to that particular edict of His? And, if God's subject to it, in that the prohibitions against adding to scripture works the way you're saying it does, then how could we have a NT at all if in the OT books Deut. 4:2, and Prov. 30:6, we are warned against adding to His word? In other words, God violated His own edict, and that contradicts what you just said: "God would not violate His own edict that nothing else be added to His word".
Hey great point Claire! I can't wait til Chappy responds to this!
Thank you. And, Chapabel graciously responded to that and then some, and I answered him in return above. If he thinks there's any problems in my post I'm sure he'll bring them to my attention.

Post Reply