John-Gospel-Jesus (Glorified?)

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Identity vs. Behavior

Here is a link to a thread on sci.physics.relativity entitled "Jesus Rose From The Dead."

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/lubpFbqJNSA

Within the course of this argument, I try to make my case against JJJJR. (John 1John, 2John, 3John, Revelations).

On September 25, I say that we SHOULD look at "holy books" when trying to determine the validity of a religion. I bring up what I think is a central question--whether Jesus should be worshiped because of his identity, or if he should be "followed" because of his teaching. Do morals come from identity, or from behavior?
On September 30, I transform HGWilson's list of accusations into a list of "secular values" which I think are generally shared with religious poeple. (1) Protecting personal values (2) Comfort and safety (3) Unity (4) Conserve the world's dwindling resources (5) Distinction of truth vs. fiction (6) being in touch with nature.
On October 1, I question whether proving that Jesus actually a true human being walking around is really the point of the Bible... (2 John 1:7)

I point out that it is lying to claim you KNOW anything you don't know.
and I question the meaning of the word "antichrist" (synonymous with antilabel, or anti-mislabeling)
I question the meaning of the phrase "coming in the flesh", (I avoid going into specific detail)
and as always, I question the reliability of John as a witness... (I call him a lunatic)

On October 2, I argue that "Property Protection" should not be put on a level equal to the six secular values listed on Sept. 30.
On October 2, I introduce the idea that Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe "Gallant" whereas John's gospel describe "Goofus"

Goofus worships the God of Pascal's Wager; or as HGWilson says "groveling before an infinitely sadistic god thing."
Goofus offers a description of God that is an impossible to love, let alone with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.

My effort to describe an absolute "good" is based on the

Love God (that which frees us from the land of slavery. Deuteronomy 13:1-5)
with all your heart (commitment to life - love),
all your mind (truth and scientific method - spirit of truth),
all your strength (confidence in what you hope for - faith), and
all your soul (identity- holy spirit).
Second, treat others as you would have them treat you--because if you are NOT committed to life, don't believe in truth, don't have any hope, and/or don't respect individual identity, it hardly matters if you treat others as you would have them treat you.

I mention the ideas of faith as the opposite of reason, vs. faith as the opposite of cynicism.
On October 4, I suggest that ideas which might enslave people... (I mentioned the Principle of Evolution (e.g. survival of the fittest), but I might have mentioned gravity as well) and entities which might enslave people (such as aliens) might be considered "Lords" but not "God..

The Principle of Evolution seems to have shown signs and wonders--in other words it is fact... But that does not mean that belief in evolution can, in itself, be expected to free us from slavery.
Perhaps we may achieve communication or contact with aliens one day. They may well be much more advanced than us... But we have science fiction filled with ideas of aliens that could be technologically advanced, yet morally evil.
In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Gallant Jesus is morally good... Everything he does is to teach people to do right, and to do miracles for others. In John's gospel, Goofus Jesus is morally neutral, at best. Everything he does is to prove that he can do miracles, and divide believers from nonbelievers.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Wonder Working Power in the Blood of the Lamb

I have taken communion in church. I have eaten the little crackers, and drank the grape-fruit juice. And I have given quite a lot of thought to the covenant that I was entering... That is, what does it mean to me? That has not always meant that I have agreed with the preacher about what it meant. In fact, there have been times where I have refused communion because of the interpretation that the preacher was offering.

Yet, I can't help but feel there is something about this song that feels RIGHT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwCRjFnun-A

This song is done quite well. But the question is, will "just any old interpretation do" or are there a class of correct and incorrect interpretations?

I don't know if I come to any solid conclusions here about what is "correct" but I do think that we should be able to at least eschew an "incorrect" view.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=eat+body&qs_version=NIV

References to Matthew and Luke.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NIV&quicksearch=drink+wine&startnumber=61

Horrible connotations for "drink wine". The poisoning of Jesus on the cross. The fact that John the Baptist never drank wine. The desire to drink more fermented wine. Luke 7:33 seems to suggest that eating bread is the sign of someone with a demon. Strange. John 2:10 implies that Jesus offers wine to people who have already had too much to drink. Romans 14:21 simply recommends not drinking wine at all, because you will tempt people to sin. Paul writes to Timothy to have at least a bit of wine. And Revelations refers to the "Maddening Wine of Babylon's Adulteries." and the "wine of gods fury."

Okay, a search of "Drink Blood" https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=drink+blood&qs_version=NIV brings up some other hits:

1 Chronicles 11:19 , and 2 Samuel 23:17 has King David pondering whether to drink the blood of three mighty warriors.

Ezekiel 39:19 says at the sacrifice, we will "eat fat till you are gutted, and drink blood till you are drunk."

This is essentially what the Christians have been doing; eating the fat of the lamb.
John 6:53-56

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Luke 22

Mark 14

Matthew 26

John 6

I have been called a "covenant breaker" because I don't acknowledge JJJJR as the truth. But I think that a careful comparison of these versions of the covenant is deserved. The covenant with body and blood of Jesus, given in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 6. In the version of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there is no controversy about what he said. They fled Jesus because he was being arrested, and he said he must fulfill prophesy.

Mark 14:51-52 shows why everyone fled. Because they didn't want to get seized.

In John's version, they left him because he was promoting cannibalism. And I don't know whether it is by intention or coincidence, but John 6:66, seems to convey the same disunity as Book 66, Chapter 6, under the 6th seal.

You say I am claiming there is a conspiracy, but you are wrong. There is no conspiracy. JJJJR is just one singular beautiful liar.

John uses the number of the beast 666 to condemn everyone with a spirit of truth or a true spirit of faith.

John 6 fulfills the prophecy of https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah+11:14-16&version=NIV

John gives a view that leads to division and strife. A correct understanding of what Jesus wanted from his sacrifice should lead to unity.

Wonder Working Power in the Blood of the Lamb

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Am I antichrist?

Jonathan Doolin

August 11 at 12:59pm

The rational fear

You have not been protected all along by God's Blood.

That your faith in the resurrection of Christ actually is futile.

...that the only thing that actually is protecting you is "Do not judge, lest ye be judged. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... and Love God with all your mind, all your heart, and all your strength."

That's right Christians.
Imagine if...

All you got is words.

Like

Like

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

Comment
Share

Comments

Jonathan Doolin http://www.bbc.com/.../20121109-is-world-peace-possible

Is world peace possible?

We have witnessed fewer and fewer wars between countries since 1945, and so there is no reason to…

BBC.COM

Like Reply Remove Preview August 11 at 1:24pm

Jonathan Doolin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwbkPFPlVuE

Can There Ever Be World Peace

A brief video outlining the reasons for war and whether World Peace is a possibility.…

YOUTUBE.COM

Like Reply Remove Preview August 11 at 1:30pm

Matthew Chiesi Interesting thoughts. I myself rationalized my decision to have faith with a 4 square diagram, two yes no's, is God real yes or no, if i have faith will i be happy/have a better life, yes or no. it doesn't hurt to give faith a chance, especially if it ...See More

Unlike Reply 1 August 11 at 1:47pm

Jonathan Doolin I think I believed every one of them there words,Matthew Chiesi.

Like Reply August 11 at 1:57pm Edited

Jonathan Doolin I just wish there were words that could change that stereotype.

Like Reply August 11 at 1:57pm

Jonathan Doolin Or let me put it more this way....

I hope there are words that could change that stereotype....See More

Like Reply 1 August 11 at 2:21pm

Matthew Chiesi I still think the gospel has power to set me free of that tendency, and that's the biggest thing for me as a Christian.

Unlike Reply 1 August 11 at 2:22pm

Write a reply...

John Crowe These tempting/skeptical "words" sound similar to what Satan(or an antichrist) claims Mr.Doolin..."Has God indeed said....?" Gen.3:1

Or,when Satan questions Jesus' Deity/ power/authority in Matt.4

"Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”

Jesus places the ultimate authority upon God's spoken Word written in scripture.
Satan places his ultimate authority upon his own assumed "authority" ,and therefore, reasons/rationalizes from that faulty foundation,while suggesting this "fear"..

So,
These "words" you are critiquing were spoken by God, which makes all the difference; "words" that contain the covenant of redemption/grace etc. between God and man through the "blood"/sacrifice of Christ...

@"all that is protecting you is....do not judge,do unto others,love God etc."

These are commands of God for correct moral/righteous living,discerning,etc.,they do not produce salvation...

So,"protecting" from who?

Like Reply August 11 at 4:19pm

Hide 28 Replies

Jonathan Doolin When you say "Satan (or antichrist)" are you conflating these two terms?

This is strongly implied in 1John, 2John, 3John, where the term antichrist actually appears.

What was the "christening" exactly? The christening of a ship is the breaking of a bottle across its bow. A naming cerimony.

What central event Christened christ?

There were two such events.

One, where Jesus was covered with oil, and Judas objected, "That could have been sold and been given to the poor."

The other is Jesus' crucifixion.

In the first case, I agree with Judas... who objected to the Christening.

In the second case, I object to killing a man who has done no wrong.

I have no objection to the man you call Christ. But I do have an objection to the Christening itself.

I have, many times, wondered, what is the meaning of this word "Christ."

I have seen that in King James version it appears throughouth the gospels.

But in the New International Version, it is only the gospel of John who introduces the word "Christ" and he also introduces the word "antichrist" in 1John,, 2John, 3John.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke never used it. And John seems to have been written much later than the other three gospels.

My hypothesis is that John was a clever liar. Introducing the word Christ... Knowing that the word actually just means a fancy word for "Label"

Then condemning anyone who does not like this label.

Proper labeling of Jesus is LORD.

Not Christ.

Now, who do I want to protect you from?

JOHN.

The same person who has given Jesus the label "Christ" and labeled anyone who didn't worship the crucifixion "antichrist" has said, in The 6th chapter of book 66 of the bible, under the 6th seal, the 6th subset of 6th subset,

"All the people of the world, both slave and free, praying for mountains to bury us and the rocks to hide us, from the wrath of the lamb."

It is these people who are praying for the mountains to bury us. It is these people who are praying to be hidden.

It is EVERYONE who is praying for their own destruction, because, essentially, John said to.

My thought is that instead of asking the mountains to bury us and the rocks to hide us from each other... Well, we start coming out of hiding, and tell the truth, that we love each other.

But for that to happen, I have to basically say, sigh I'm the antichrist.

I don't believe that Jesus was resurrected.

I think that he just got kersplattered.

He was a great man. Even to the point that I will confess that Jesus is Lord. I hope he is acknowledged as the Messiah by the Jewish people.

When you say these words "Do not judge, lest ye be judged. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... and Love God with all your mind, all your heart, and all your strength."

I know these words are from God, because I am a child of God, like you are, and Jesus was. Jesus was not the only begotten son of God. We are all God's children. We all have an equal place in the Kingdom of God.

Like Reply August 11 at 5:12pm

Jonathan Doolin Just as King's of old told Abraham "Sarah is not your sister, this is your wife", the Jews need to be told "This is not our Christ. He is your Messiah."

Like Reply August 11 at 5:17pm

John Crowe Well,i was simply responding to what you said above...
I'm not sure what you are getting at with alot of what you stated above here...

Anyway....
No, I'm not conflating Satan with antichrist as one in the same,however,yes he is an antichrist as is anyone who denies the Deity of Jesus and Jesus as the Christ...

@"Christening" etc.
I have no idea what this has to do with our topic in your original post above,but,once again, you seem to misrepresent the the word 'Christ',and then in turn construct your strawman and burn away with your conspiracies/plots and misguided hypothesis etc...

Maybe you're attempting to derive the the term "Christen" from the word 'Christian'(which is a "label" for a person who believes in Christ).

If so,
I believe you have it backwards;"Christen" is derived from the word "Christ". To "Christen" also means 'to baptize' or 'to dedicate',which is likely taken from the Greek term that means to anoint (the verb-χρίω chriō) and then to the noun form-Χριστός (Christŏs) or Christ.
This is all taken from the Hebrew term- מָשִׁיחַ mâshîyach (Messiah),which means anointed one,a consecrated person.

I refuse to reengage with your unproven conspiracies against the Apostle John. We went through that many times.

Again,I understand your contentions with the Apostle John. John stressed the Deity of Christ throughout his writings; which is something you are obligated to 'debunk' since your presupposition is to deny the Deity and Resurrection of Christ...
I understand the complexity and labor you must go through to reinterpret the plain reading of Scripture in order to convince yourself otherwise...

@"Jesus was not the only begotten son of God,we are all God's children,we all have an equal place in the Kingdom of God"

So,
you make these personal assertions/claims that you wish the Scripture would say,but what does it actually say/teach?

Jesus IS the only begotten Son of God.
Sure every person is a son of God who is made in His Image(unlike animals or plants).
Jesus,however,is the only begotten Son in direct relationship with the Father through His Deity. He is eternal and Creator of all things and not created as we "sons of God" are.(Col.1:15-21,Jn.1:10,Heb.1:2-4)

There is absolutely NO reason to avoid the writings of the Apostle John,but to show you the Deity of Christ in other books is very simple...

For a very few examples...

Mk.1:1-3
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in the Prophets: “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.” “The voice of one crying in the wilderness:‘Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight.’"

This O.T passage is taken from Isaiah 40:3, "the way of the Lord" is translated the way of יְהוָ֑ה yhwh Yahweh (Almighty God).
John was the voice crying out preparing the way for the Son/God.

Matt.17:5"suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him. And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their faces and were greatly afraid..."

What mere son/person of God has this happened to? And why should we just "hear" any person speaking for God?("hear Him")

Speaking to the Resurrection,verse 9 says-"Jesus commanded them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead.”

In Mk.1:23-24 even the unclean spirits recognize His Deity,again what mere man/son has this authority/power to cleanse evil spirits? -"Now there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, saying, “Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!”

And again,
Mk.3:11"And the unclean spirits, whenever they saw Him, fell down before Him and cried out, saying, “You are the Son of God."

Mk.5:7-"And he cried out with a loud voice and said, “What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God that You do not torment me.”

The Pharisees and scribes could not recognize His Deity because of their hard hearts,but the demons and evil spirits did.

Mk.13:26-27"Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven."

The Son,with great power and glory,sends angels and gathers HIS elect. These "elect" are the elect of God. "His"(God/the Son's elect).

Again,what mere everyday person(sons of God as you prescribe) has this power over angels and the elect?
THE only begotten Son of God is clearly distinctive of "sons of God".

Mk.14:62-64
"Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

The High Priest recognized this claim of Deity and the reference to Dan.7 that Jesus made and condemned Him to death.
The "words" Son and Christ are both used here referring to His Deity.

Again,I acknowledge,I,myself,cannot make you believe in the Deity and Resurrection of Jesus the Christ Jon,that is up to the plan/decree of God if He indeed wills it to happen for you.
I can only point you to what is written in His Word.

Again,as I stated before,these "words" are spoken by God in Scripture,which makes all the difference... Otherwise anything/everything about reality is meaningless...

Like Reply August 12 at 4:25am

Jonathan Doolin Let me see if I understand your argument.
Mark 3:11, Mark.1:23-24
(1) You trust the testimony of unclean spirits and demons over the testimony of Pharisees.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
(2) When KJV translates a word as "Christ" and NIV translates a word as "Messiah" you trust the King James Version.
(3) When Jesus says "You will see the Son of Man coming on the cloud in great power and glory" you can find no interpretation of that which you think is blasphemous.
(4) When Peter, James, and John are told "DO NOT TELL ANYONE WHAT YOU SAW UNTIL THE SON OF MAN COMES BACK TO THE DEAD" you accept this second-hand testimony from Matthew, without reference to the Books of Peter, James, and John?

Let me give my answer to each.
(1) The testimony of unclean spirits and demons is not of value.
(2) I believe NIV has worked hard to get the translation right. I do not trust KJV version.
(3) Remember the context of these words. Jesus had just been “betrayed” by a kiss from Judas. Instead of condemning Judas for this act, Jesus announced “From now on, you will see the Son of Man Coming on a Cloud.” It is not at all clear, as you say, that the pharisees crucified Jesus for claiming to be God. It appears to me that they crucified him for his failure to condemn Judas’s homosexuality. Whether or not you agree with this interpretation, you cannot deny it is there... any more than I can deny your interpretation that “obviously Son of Man doesn’t really mean Son of Man, it means Son of God.” I thik your interpretation of the words is wrong. You think my interpretation of the words is wrong.
(4) If you want a first-hand-account of what Peter, James, and John saw on that mountain, you should read Peter, James, and John. There was obviously some disagreement between these three men. I trust James the most, because he only says things I can tell are true. I trust John the least, because he calls me the antichrist--and I don't like that. Peter walks the line between the two.

So, to be clear, Unless you think “human being” is a terrible insult, I’m not putting any labels on you. You are a human being deserving of respect and love. You represent your ideas with your words. If you think my words are false, it is your prerogative to argue.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/...
And if I think your words of accusation are true, it is my prerogative to confess. I could argue semantics about John’s definition of antichrist... I do believe that Jesus came in the flesh... in fact I think he had babies with Mary Magdalene. I do think that Jesus was Christened. Horribly Christened, by torture and crucifixion. I do not deny the Father and the Son, but I think that Jesus had a Father, and his Father had a Son

But the problem is, John’s definition of “antichrist” is so ambiguous that you could characterize anybody as “antichrist’ if you disagree with their interpretation of “Father”, “Son” “Come in the Flesh”.

So, my choice is to accept your accusation or reinterpret the words, and accuse you back, so I choose to say “Yes, I am antichrist.”

My question is, exactly what sort of feeling or action are you trying to inspire by making me confess that I meet John’s definitions of antichrist? Are you wanting to inspire fear of me, or violence, or just exile from the churches?

If you want to repeat John's accusations against me--that I am antichrist, I cannot truthfully defend myself. When KJV replaced the word Messiah with Christ, I think King James and his editors were blasphemous... Revelations 22:19 says “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

If KJV editors take the word Messiah out of a book of prophecy and replace it with Christ, I think they are condemned by the words in Revelations 22:19. Though I think that the words in Revelations 22:19 should be acknowledged as the words of “The Accuser” rather than “The Savior.” It still behooves you NOT to do the things that “The Accuser” tempts you to do, and then condemns you for.

Like Reply August 12 at 12:50pm Edited

John Crowe As I've repeatedly said,the Pharisees recognized the claims of Deity by Jesus,this is the main reason they wanted him killed.

1.The demons/evil spirits testimonies were observed by the Apostles,this simply was confirming what Jesus had been revealing...See More

Like Reply August 12 at 3:52pm Edited

Jonathan Doolin Go here:

http://www.jewfaq.org/beliefs.htm

Check where on item 12, there is a pop-up when you click on the word "Messiah"

It says:

Anglicization of the Hebrew, "mashiach" (anointed). A man who will be chosen by G-d to put an end to all evil in the world, rebuild the Temple, bring the exiles back to Israel and usher in the world to come. It is better to use the Hebrew term "mashiach" when speaking of the Jewish messiah, because the Jewish concept is very different from the Christian one.Anglicization of the Hebrew, "mashiach" (anointed). A man who will be chosen by G-d to put an end to all evil in the world, rebuild the Temple, bring the exiles back to Israel and usher in the world to come. It is better to use the Hebrew term "mashiach" when speaking of the Jewish messiah, because the Jewish concept is very different from the Christian one.

Why is it different than the Christian Concept? What is the one difference. This is a MAN chosen boy God. Not a deity.

I must remain antichrist until Christians acknowledge Jesus' humanity.

Like Reply August 12 at 5:01pm

John Crowe The Jews simply missed it,their Messiah/Christ DID come.

The Jews didn't recognize that God Himself became a man to redeem the elect and save them from their sins,which only God Himself can do....See More

Like Reply August 12 at 5:59pm Edited

Jonathan Doolin Wow, John. I don't believe a single one of them there words.

Completely empty. Devoid of love. Devoid of respect. Devoid of faith. Devoid of Hope....See More

Like Reply August 12 at 6:10pm

John Crowe Lol why doesn't that surprise me!

Yes,they(Judaism) are very racially driven.
But yes,
I have love for them...and pray that they would accept the long awaited Messiah!

Like Reply August 12 at 6:15pm

John Crowe It's kinda funny though,have you ever heard what they think about Christianity?
Not so loving,respectful,hopeful you might say...

Only the 'tolerant' ones on the TV/media are what is usually portrayed,much like Islam.

Like Reply August 12 at 6:20pm Edited

Jonathan Doolin They are absolutely right not to be loving, respectful, or hopeful of you.

Mark 3:11, Mark.1:23-24

You value the testimony of unclean spirits and demons before you will listen to their most respected teachers.

Like Reply August 12 at 6:20pm

Jonathan Doolin You twist "Son of Man" into "Son of God"

Like Reply August 12 at 6:20pm

Jonathan Doolin You will not even entertain the hypothesis that John's testimony could be false.

Like Reply August 12 at 6:22pm

Jonathan Doolin You've said this, over and over, and over, and over to me... That you will not listen to me.

Like Reply August 12 at 6:23pm

Jonathan Doolin And then you accuse me of not listening to you.

Like Reply August 12 at 6:23pm

John Crowe I have "listened" to what Judaism teaches.
I've briefly explained the contention.
I explained the "testimonies from evil spirits" above,mabey you missed it......See More

Like Reply August 12 at 6:36pm

Jonathan Doolin But I should make this point... Most of the people that I hang out with are atheists. Not Christians, not Jews. To them, Christianity is nothing but a deep insult to their intelligence.

Any word that I quote from the Bible is met with rolled eyes. And I prefer them over the company of Christians, because they're honest. And they all regard this conversation as completely pointless.

But I have more hope in the Christian people to "see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn, and be healed."

Because it is the Christian attitude of "I am not listening to you--you're the antichrist" that has made them so cynical.

Like Reply August 12 at 6:37pm

John Crowe Again,"Son of Man" and "Son of God" are both titles Jesus used to identify Himself as Deity,so yes,they are similar in that respect...

Like Reply August 12 at 6:40pm

John Crowe Well,i think after all our debating you would be hard pressed to claim that I won't listen or respond to you...
I've spent many hours "listening" and responding to you.. I'm just done with the 'John conspiracies etc.'
I'm sorry if that upsets you,but I think it has been hashed out.
I just want a conversation about what's in the Scripture and how it interprets itself,or you could say -to let the Scripture/God speak for itself,not so much what wild ideas we can read into it eisegetically.

I'm interested in exegetical hermeneutics...

Unlike Reply 1 August 12 at 6:50pm

Jonathan Doolin Never once does Jesus say "Son of God" as a title for himself.

Peter says it, and Jesus doesn't correct Peter, but Jesus doesn't say it, himself. There's a voice from heaven that says "This is my Son", and maybe John the Baptist calls him the "Son of God" and Nathanael definitely says it, sarcastically, and a bunch of other people say he's the "Son of God" including, mostly, entities identified as a lot of demons and impure spirits.

Now, Jesus never corrected anybody for saying he was the Son of God. In fact, I'm pretty convinced that he encouraged people to come up with that for themselves. He was even crucified for saying he was the Son of God.

But I'm saying he was crucified for a crime he did not commit.

He NEVER said he was the "Son of God" in reference to himself. He Always said "Son of Man."

He was innocent of the crime that he was crucified for.

Like Reply August 12 at 6:54pm

John Crowe Yes,i have acknowledged that several times.

Again,Jesus possibly wanted others to recognize His Deity for themselves by the work that He accomplished. And possibly for their benefit......See More

Like Reply August 12 at 7:21pm Edited

Jonathan Doolin Now you are back to the truth. I did not see you acknowledge this point before that Jesus never is quoted saying "I am the Son of God".

This is a good step in the right direction.

I don't mind you saying you believe that Jesus was God. I don't mind you saying that you believe that such-and-such was the reason that he didn't correct people when they said he was the Son of God.

That is true testimony about your beliefs and your interpretations. If you're speaking from your heart about your beliefs that he was deity, and you would like to encourage others to believe that way, that's fine.

But when you have a man who is going to be tortured and crucified for saying that he is God, when he never actually said it, well wouldn't it make sense to say "Hey, he didn't say he was God. or the Son of God, or the Only Begotten son of God."

"Mother Mary, Peter, Nathanael, John the Baptist, a Voice from heaven, and assorted demons and impure spirits all said Jesus was the Son of God. And John the Disciple said if you don't believe in the Name of the Only Begotten Son of God, that you'll go to hell. But Jesus himself only ever said he was the Son of Man. Now a lot of Christians interpret that as meaning Son of God, but Jesus never ever said I am the Son of God.... The closest he ever comes is when John said Jesus said 'why do you stone me for saying I'm the Son of God'" And even here, John doesn't say Jesus said he was saying he was the Son of God. He was just acknowledging that this was what they were stoning him for, whether he actually did it or not."

So even John never quite accuses Jesus of actually stating "I am the Son of God."

Why would Jesus let people think that he was the Son of God?

Your conjecture. Because he really was a deity.

My conjecture: Some other reason..

Like Reply August 12 at 8:58pm Edited

John Crowe @"Now you are back to the truth. I did not see you acknowledge this point before"

"Back to the truth"?
So,i guess your suggesting that I have somehow strayed from the truth? How so?

Yes,we have discussed this before,i have acknowledged this, I've explained this on more than one occasion,its causes no contention whatsoever...

Again,there was no need for Jesus to run around telling everyone 'hey everyone I'm God/Son of God, follow me!!'
Anyone can run around and spout this!! Actions/works speak louder than words.

His works would speak for themselves revealing who He was,the people recognized His works by what God said would happen and had revealed to the O.T. Prophets to write down... His works were fulfilled prophecies recognized by the people who knew the O.T..
His works bear witness of His Deity.

Jn.10:24-26
"Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me."

Jn.10:36-39
"do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand."

And again,the Jews recognized this Deity claim and responded according to the O.T. law. There is no doubt to what Jesus was implying...

@"I don't mind you saying that Jesus was God.....This is a good step in the right direction....That is true testimony about your beliefs and your interpretations. If you're speaking from your heart about your beliefs that he was deity, and you would like to encourage others to believe that way, that's fine...etc."

Yes, I agree, i think we are stepping in the right direction,but probably not in the direction you are trying to lead us to.

I have explained this before,a few times,mabey you've forgotten,but yes,we are,once again, at a crucial point in this discussion concerning hermeneutics and the method of interpretation. And I think you have finally recognized it....But not sure you will acknowledge it.

I have literally just admitted to you in my last post above that I prefer an exegetical approach to interpretation and analysis of Scripture-i prefer to "let the text speak for itself";not adding or reading a preconceived bias into the text to make it fit a personal agenda;a plain reading of the text,etc....

The reason I do not interpret eisegetically(reading INTO the text personal likes/dislikes etc.) is because that method can twist the Scripture to say virtually anything,and nothing objective can be deduced,just endless speculation,conjecture,and confusion....Such as "Jesus having babies,Judas was a homosexual,John is a liar, charlatan, instigator",ad infinitum.

Nothing personal Jon, but this is precisely what you do on almost every occasion...

So sure,you are "fine with me... speaking from he heart... encouraging others to believe that way etc..."

Therefore now,by attempting/assuming to place me in this 'subjective',liberal, Relativistic,category because I have acknowledged that Jesus literally never spoke the words "I am God/Son of God" etc.,you seem to have recognized that 'personal interpretations of what's in my(whoevers) heart' is not speaking objectively,and can be dismissed as a personal preference not to be taken seriously...."that's just YOUR interpretation,and I have mine" sort of thing(Relativism).

This is not at all what I'm doing(or at least attempting to do).

So yes,i would agree to speak and interpret in this way is subjective and faulty when debating/ discussing what the Bible is objectively teaching....

Sure,i understand and acknowledged there are minor(and sometimes major) varied interpretations amongst different Christian churches and their doctrines. But most Christian churches are unified in the basic fundamentals of Biblical teaching(the Deity of Christ,Death and Resurrection of Christ, Trinity,etc.).
You and I usually are debating and have disagreement about these basic Christian fundamentals.

@"Why would Jesus let people think that he was the Son of God?
Your conjecture. Because he really was a deity.
My conjecture: Some other reason.."

Why would he let people think/believe He was Deity if He was not?
If He knew that He wasn't but wanted to fool people then He was a liar/charlatan,and therefore NOT sinless.

If he truly believed He was and really wasn't,then He was a lunatic. Why would you believe someone like this? Or even, as you say, "believe in His teaching" or "he taught good morality etc."?
This is an old argument...

It is not "my conjecture", it is a written Biblical fact that was recognized and acknowledged by people around Him precisely because of His works and Resurrection...

You simply dismiss these recorded witnesses arbitrarily,from a personal dislike...Which is typical in your (and others) method of interpretation...

Your conjecture is derived and based upon your presupposition/starting point-you begin (with your own self standard of reasoning) with the belief that Jesus was not Deity and didn't/couldn't resurrect,and you interpret the facts accordingly to fit your scheme/agenda. Therefore,concluding your personal,subjective likes/dislikes....

So yes,your "some other reason" could be literally any other reason, as long as it conforms to your subjective, personal preference,since you Jon Doolin are THE final arbiter of what is 'certainly' true....(according to your way of reasoning).

So again,why should we consider your/my personal opinions amid any others opinions out there? They are all just clanging cymbals wanting to be heard...
This 'contention' reveals precisely why we must conform/renew our thinking/reasoning and interpreting to the ultimate,objective standard of truth of God revealed to all men written in His Word...

Any other 'standard' is inconsistent babble....

Like Reply 20 hrs Edited

Jonathan Doolin The reason I do not interpret eisegetically(reading INTO the text personal likes/dislikes etc.) is because that method can twist the Scripture to say virtually anything,and nothing objective can be deduced,just endless speculation,conjecture,and confusion....Such as "Jesus having babies,Judas was a homosexual,John is a liar, charlatan, instigator",ad infinitum.

Nothing personal Jon, but this is precisely what you do on almost every occasion...

===============================

But you're right. I sometimes just give my "leading hypothesis of the day." And I don't always list every possible interpretation.

I try to acknowledge all possible interpretations. Maybe that's not what I was doing all along, but my philosophy is that when there are two or three possible interpretations of the words, you must analyze and acknowledge all of them.

It does not do justice to the words if you reject all interpretations except that one handed down by the experts.

When I read Luke 8:2, I see Mary Magdalene, from whom Jesus has cast out seven demons.

Now, I don't honestly know what Luke means. But I can look at several possible interpretations.
(1) Mary was tempted by seven different sins, and Jesus helped her stop sinning.
(2) Mary had experienced seven manic episodes which Jesus had helped her through.
(3) Mary was there, with her seven bratty kids; possibly sired by Jesus.
(4) Mary actually literally had demons come out of her.

The only one which I would absolutely say is definitely wrong is (#4) which is the one that the "experts" say is definitely right.

But even interpretation #4 here, though I don't think it is true, is GOOD.

What I do know, though, is that when I read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, EVERY possible interpretation of the words is GOOD.

With John's gospel, though, there is usually no good interpretation

=============

So if you want to all conform to a standard, this is the standard that I recommend: "Acknowledge all possibilities." Then once that is done, have faith in the possibility that represents evidence of what you hope for.

And that's what I did with Luke 8:2.... Because the idea of Luke referring to Mary and Jesus' babies as "Little demons" filled me with mirth.

Like Reply 19 hrs

John Crowe I'm not in any way saying to not examine different positions/interpretations,thats part of general analysis.
And I'm not suggesting "rejecting all possibilities handed down etc."

I'm trying to point out the presupposition of your assumptions when you begin your method of interpretation... Your starting point when you approach the evidence in Scripture.

Example: How do you know "#4 is definitely wrong"? How do you 'know' the experts are wrong? What is your moral standard to say #4 is "good" but "wrong"? Or why Matthew,Mark,and Luke's interpretation are "good" while John's is "bad"?

I'm speaking of your assumptions/belief before you begin your analysis of interpretation...

Your reasoning begins with your own self authority, of which will affect your conclusions as to what is true. Rather than on what God reveals as true,and His way of reasoning as revealed in His Word.

@"this is the standard that I recommend: "Acknowledge all possibilities." Then once that is done, have faith in the possibility that represents evidence of what you hope for."

"Acknowledge all possibilities" is not a standard of reasoning/truth to interpret,it is part of a method of analysis.

@"Have faith in possibilities....of what you hope for."
Yes,good example of a blind faith/best wishes method of interpretation to confirm a subjective personal preference,again,which could personally 'confirm' anything for the one doing the 'wishing'...

Interpreting Lk.8:2 with "Jesus' demon babies etc." based on your method and personally preferred humour is a good example of the type of arbitrary,random,and asinine conclusions you can arrive at...

Like Reply 18 hrs Edited

Jonathan Doolin It's a matter of plausible vs. implausible. It's plausible that this is a way that Luke might have had for acknowledging Jesus and Mary's children without officially acknowledging Jesus and Mary's children.

I don't really know for sure what was meant in Luke 8:2. But I can say it is unlikely to be seven actual "demons". They don't exist. It's a euphamism for something.

Now one possible interpretation would be that Luke actually does believe in literal demons... I suppose I could interpret it that way.

But I don't think so. I think he's talking about something that happened 7 times, and he doesn't want to say exactly what it is. I may never know exactly what those seven things were. But actual demons? No. Sorry.

Like Reply 15 hrs

John Crowe Again you are demonstrating what I'm getting at.

Your worldview(presupposition/beginning assumptions,starting point,etc.) and therefore,reasoning and epistemology doesn't allow for things like demons, miracles...or God becoming a man, God resurrecting people and Himself,God being completely sovereign,omnipotent, omniscient,God preserving His objective Word in Scripture,etc...

You are limited and biased by your own autonomous foundation of what you will allow to be believed about reality and the world... If you will not let God be God and define His creation(you,the world,etc.),then you (epistemologically),have made your own reasoning the 'supposed authority'/god...

This is my main point(worldview,assumptions, presuppositions,etc.) that I've attempted to explain to you summed up in a few sentences.

And again,i will acknowledge,only God can open your heart and mind to understand spiritual things etc.

1Co.2:13-14
"These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things...."

Like Reply 13 hrs Edited

Jonathan Doolin Well, John, you nailed me.

I'm a scientist, by nature. I live by laws of logic. I trust fact, and base my opinions on facts.

I have a very axiomatic mind, and I do not accept things that I know not to be true.

What is the Spirit of God, then? Is it the spirit of accepting things that one knows not to be true?

You say I should believe in demons. What good would this do me?

You say I should believe Jesus is the Son of God. And I do. Inasmuch as we are all Children of God, Jesus was also the Son of God. But more to the point, he was the Son of Man.

If you want to believe Mary was a virgin, and that Joseph was not the father, and that God literally knocked her up, then so be it. If you want to believe that Jesus came back from the dead, and Thomas came into a closed room to feel the holes in his side... and you think that sounds like anything but a parlor trick, then so be it. You go on and believe what you WANT to believe.

But the key word there is WANT. If you WANT to believe it, then believe it.

But I don't WANT to believe it.

You want me to take it, or leave it. Be like everybody else. Pat the book and say "I believe the WHOLE thing."

But no. John's gospel is ironic. It has no truth in it. John uses Jesus like his own personal sock-puppet. Making him say evil things, and fooling everyone.

I can understand that you do not want to acknowledge this. You do not WANT to believe it, and I can fully understand that. It's a horrible thing to believe. But the alternative is that Jesus actually said these things. Maybe these were the way John interpreted the things Jesus said, but John was a cynic and a liar, and he knew what he was, when he wrote John's gospel. And Jesus knew John was a cynic and a liar. And Jesus knew what John was going to do. And Jesus let him do it. And that's... weird, but not unprecedented.

The same thing happened at the beginning of Job, with God giving Satan all the power over Job's life. And Job worshiped the devil by despising himself, and was rewarded with heaps of wealth.

And I'm sure that it would be much more rewarding, financially, to live as you do; despising yourself... But I would rather live as a human being, confident in my senses, and confident in my reality. And if I have any delusions, it is because I WANT to believe in them. Not because I HAVE to.