Thanks for that, thethinker! I haven't had a good laugh for a couple of weeks. You really should look after that hot temper of yours, though; it seems to be interfering with you analysis of Scripture:
EdwardGoodie is guilty of what he accuses you Futurists. He is interpreting the word "signify" out of the context of audience relevance. He is violating the chief Preterist principle of Audience Relevance. For instance, when Jesus "If I be lifted up" they had no idea that He was speaking about His death or even death at all. His speech was "signified" and He could have been talking about going to the Father for all they knew.
Nope. Not at all. While I am definitely a proponent of using the hermeneutic of audience relevance to understand the historicity
of the text, Understanding the meaning of a word is not at all dependent on whether audience relevance is used. In fact, when determining the biblical definitions of words, we should consult ALL Scripture (at varying points in time, might I add) to see if there are multiple usages of that one word. If there are multiple usages, then it is the context (and other similar contexts at varying points in time) that helps to determine more accurately its meaning.
I am appalled by thethinker's belief that the meaning of a word ("signified") is based upon people's POSSIBLE misunderstanding of an associated topic (the death). That is pure fallacy.
There are so many things wrong with his statement:
1. He is mistaken that the disciples did not know what Jesus meant by being lifted up. Crucifixion was quite COMMON in those days. Thethinker must believe the Jews were ignorant of this fact.
2. The disciples never questioned the "lifted up" part. They only questioned the Son of man
part:John 12:33-34 - This he said, signifying what death he should die.
34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?
3. Jesus uses the same thing to "Signify" Peter's death. Was Jesus using SYMBOLS to indicate the manner of Peter's death? HARDLY!John 21:18-19 - Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me
Of course, thethinker is just going to say that Peter has now learned what it meant to be lifted up.But that does not matter.
It is not the understanding of being lifted up that is the issue here or in the other texts. It is the usage of "signified." Does Jesus use SYMBOLS to describe Peter's death at his lifting up? No, it is an accurate description of those on the cross (crucifixion).
Of course, thethinker will probably deny this too...The issue is whether Jesus was using SYMBOLS to convey his lifting up.
We are merely to believe thethinker solely based on his opinion. No Scriptural support whatsoever is provided to lend credence to his view...that happens a lot around here.
There is no doubt that Revelation uses symbols. It also uses many figures, metaphors, and idioms as well. "Signified" is probably better translated as "indicated" or "revealed" just as it is in the only five other texts in the NT
EdwardGoodie tells YOU to put yourself in the place of the original audience and fails to do the very same thing here.
While I do insist that people exercise an audience relevance hermeneutic when attempting to exegete a particular passage, there is no justification whatsoever that this hermeneutic technique be applied to the definition of words. Even thethinker should realize the mistake he has made, for he, himself, will readily admit that the word "earth" does not mean planet in both the Old and the New Testaments - which span several generations
The same is true of Agabus's prediction of the great famine. Luke tells us that Agabus "signified" that there would be a great famine. But the people did not know that his speech was about a famine when he said it. We know that he was speaking about a famine because Luke tells us AFTER THE FACT.
Again, the issue is not about whether the people did or did not understand. I don't even know where he gets the ludicrous idea that the people didn't understand in the first place!
The issue is (once again) whether Agabus used SYMBOLS to talk about the famine. Let's look at the passage:Act 11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
Act 11:29 Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:
Remember, thethinker said "the people did not know that his speech was about a famine when he said it
So, I will ask that thethinker respond to this very simple question from the text. I will ask but there will not be any response because the answer is really quite simple for those who actually "think."
The question is why then did the disciples IMMEDIATELY determine to send RELIEF unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea? Seems like they understood quite well, don't you forum folks agree?
EdwardGoodie is alo guilty of relying solely on Strong's which he has warned YOU not to do.
Moulton's Analytical Greek Lexicon says that the word "signify" (semaino) means "to indicate by a sign" (page 365).
While I do agree that taking Strong's definitions and running with them solely based on his understanding is to be ill-advised, I hope that the folks here can readily see that I did not use Strong's definition at all. I simply used the James Strong NUMBER to represent the Greek word "signified." It seems that thethinker would agree that the other verses are the same Greek word and the same Strong's number because he spent much time (but not much thinking) in attempting to use them.
I am also surprised that thethinker would hang his hat on a futurist's interpretation (Moulton) while at the same time accusing me of doing the same with James Strong - even though I did not use his definition - it was only used to find other Scriptures that used the same Greek word. Perhaps thethinker can explain why he accepts Moulton over Scripture.
I repeat, when Jesus said, "If I be lifted up" they had no idea that He was speaking about His death. John tells us AFTER THE FACT that Jesus was speaking about His death.
And when Agabus "signified" the great famine which was to come he did NOT indicate a famine. Luke tells us AFTER THE FACT that Agabus was speaking about a famine.
I am shocked that my Preterist friend has made such a MAJOR logical blunder.
You can repeat all you want, but the issue was whether Jesus or Agabus used SYMBOLS to explain/indicate/reveal what they said. AND NOT ONE DID.
The major blunder is yours. And please, I am not your friend. You have made that explicitly clear (and without the use of symbols as well).
Checkmate on EdwardGoodie
You must have fallen asleep in that game. I was playing black!