How is it possible you don't know this? (Jesus and Nicodemus)

In an argument with Nicodemus, JGJ (John-Gospel-Jesus) says "You are Israel's teacher, yet you do not know these things?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203%3A1-21

I had this mentioned to me the other day as evidence of Jesus' divinity in John's gospel.  To which I said in return, that the ability to point out someone's positional status, and that they don't know what you mean is "snarky".  No, I didn't say it was snarky.  Someone else pointed out that it was snarky, to me.

What does it mean here when JGJ says "Born Again"?  This is very nonspecific what he's saying.  Rather open to interpretation.  However, instead of providing a solid answer to explain his meaning, JGJ impugns the integrity of the questioner.  "Born of water and the spirit" does not add any particular clarity.  "The spirit gives birth to spirit" doesn't add any particular clarity.  "The wind blows wherever it pleases" isn't clearly shown to be an analogy for the other terms here.  The words "we" and "our" are not clearly labeled as to what group is meant.

Finally, the only moment of clarity that seems to come from this passage "The Son of Man must be lifted up... like the snake in the wilderness."  Which is what I'm doing here... Showing this nonsense for what it is.

Finally the end of the passage is not in quotations at all.  Jesus did not say them.  JGJ did not say them.  Rather, John himself, the author of John's gospel put these words, unattributed, into the text.  The most quoted verse in the Bible:  John 3:16, was apparently invented by John.

While many people, I'm sure, have found positive interpretation of these ideas of being born again, and having their spirit born of the spirit, I do not feel that the essence of the argument lies in this passage.  The process of being born again through baptism by water certainly was practiced by John the Baptist, but it is not at all clear that this is the process to which JGJ is referring.

3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to (JGJ) at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3 (JGJ) replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 (JGJ) answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit.7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d]

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said (JGJ), “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[e] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”[g]

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Fact vs. Opinion; Truth vs Goodnes

Does our truth change with time? Or is that what's called hypocrisy?

I have recently had a conversation with my friend about relations and love and the kind of opinions we have about them. Then it suddenly struck me, I did not hold this belief or did not think that is the truth few years back and may not hold the same belief few years later. Is this being an hypocrite? or growing up? Dont we change the truth as we grow?

Re-Ask

Unfollow17

Comment1

Share

Downvote

Jonathan's Answer

View 15 Other Answers

Jonathan Doolin, generator of hypotheses

277 Views

I think we tend to make a false equivalency between the true vs. false spectrum and the good vs. evil spectrum.

It's a fairly well established that there are true and false statements.  When you say something happened, it either did or it didn't.  When you say something will happen, it either will or it won't.  Insofar as truth changes regarding matters of fact, anything in the past is an unchangeable truth.  Anything we say about the future is a changeable truth.

On the other hand, regarding what is good and evil, this is generally agreeed to be a matter of opinion, and societal values.  There are a few who believe in some kind of "absolute" good.  Actually, I would say MOST people believe in an "absolute" good and "absolute" evil.  For instance, it is generally regarded that slavery, child molestation, and murder are all criminal activities, and would be wrong even if the laws allowed them.  That is, it isn't a matter of societal conformity that we don't murder each other, but because it is a matter of universal human rights.

So do these universal human rights exist as fundamental self-evident principles, or are they simply arbitrary, and continually changing constructions, adapting to the societies by which they are affirmed? 

I think as science improves, we are continually moving toward greater knowledge and truth, even with greater and greater complexity of our understanding.  Using the scientific method, we are able to move forward in a clear direction truthward. 

On the other hand, I'm not sure if such a clear methodology to approach moral righteousness has been established.  We still have major disagreement, for instance, on whether it is right and just for a CEO to make hundreds of times as much money as his employees do, or whether pre-emptive strikes are appropriate in warfare, or sanctions, or whether torture should be used in dire circumstances, or whether assisted suicide is okay, or abortion is okay, or killing and eating animals, or looking at pornography, or divorce, or public nudity, or wearing a shirt with pictures of pretty women, or many thousands of other issues where there is a moral disagreement.  Despite the strong opinions that people have on both sides of the issue, there does not seem to be a way to make a true/false call on any of these things.

All we can do is ask ourselves what kind of world we want to live in?  And then try to make guidelines to bring about the positive changes we desire.

What does God Hope For?

Paradoxes: Am I right in saying that god can not change his own mind?

Assuming as the bible says that God is all knowing then, he knows that he will change his mind. If that is so he can never change this mind because he knows he will change it in the first place.

Jonathan Doolin, Christian Atheist

The mechanism for changing possibility into fact is called "the present"

If God exists, and can be said to have set the universe in motion, and make decisions as to its principles and workings (A very big IF, but not completely implausible... Only 99.9999% implausible...  Okay, I haven't really done the math on this one.)

But where was I?  It seems to me, simply from my own observations that God(either because he cannot, or has simply chooses not to) doesn't change the past.  If something has already happened, God won't change His/Her/Its mind.

But if something has not happened yet, it lies in the future...  God has made some decisions about the way things will happen... We cannot suddenly grow wings, or make become invisible, or begin seeing light in the infrared, ultraviolet, radio, and X-ray spectrums.  I don't have perfect free will to do whatever I want, but I do have free will within a certain scope.

But within the realm of the actually possible--God has made no decisions on what we will do.  Each of us is capable, at any time, of acting in an entirely unexpected way.  It is not God, but other humans who will react and punish behavior that is too far out-of-line... (Some think that God will also send down asteroids or make volcanoes explode, or send whales after people if they make the wrong choices... But I think that asteroids, volcanoes, and whales would happen whether people made good choices or not.)

If God has not made any decisions about what we will do, he is not changing his mind when we do something unexpected.  But here's what I think is a more important question than "Can God change his mind..."

"What does God Hope For?"

If I don't believe that God really exists, is it nonsensical to wonder about what God hopes for?  I don't think so...  It provides an opening for a discussion about what is ABSOLUTE good.  What is humanity's role in the universe?  Do we have a purpose, other than what we make for ourselves?  If we have an ABSOLUTE purpose, then it might be possible to succeed or fail in that purpose.  If our purpose is simply what we make for ourselves, then God never made made up his mind in the first place about our future.

Even so... What does God hope for?  Does God hope that humankind will somehow overcome some kind of adversity?  Does God hope for humankind to be a short-lived blip in the history of the universe, or a transitional stage in the evolution of creatures from flesh to robotic?  Or does God hope that humankind remains on the face of the earth until the sun goes red-giant, 5 billion years hence?

One True Church of the Bible? (Evading the Question?)

Kevin Lawson
Sounds like you know enough to start your own "one true church of the Bible." :)

What is your source for your comments about the Holy Spirit?

Jonathan Doolin

Can you find a definition for "Holy Spirit" in the Bible?  I haven't found one.  But I think for what it says in Luke to be true, then Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit must be a truly awful thing.

If I am to accept this idea that "to blaspheme the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven" I must find in it, some kind of tautology.  What is an unforgivable action?

Doing evil for the sake of doing evil.

Making a decision never to love, and to always hate.  It may be to some extent a state of being, rather than an action.  If you are always going around the world seeing nothing but evil, nobody else can forgive you for that.  Not even God.  If you despise beauty, and despise goodness, and despise life, and you believe everyone around you is hypocrite and despicable, you are a victim of your own perceptions...

But there is a definition of Holy Spirit, in John 3.  It says "The Holy Spirit Does what it wants to."

Nicodemus couldn't figure out what Jesus was talking about.  But look at the alternative.  What sort of Spirit does what it does NOT want to.  That is what we call "pragmatism."  That is the spirit that would like to do what it wants, but acknowledges that it is a dog-eat-dog world out there, and you have to sometimes do bad things to get by.

Am I citing John to find the truth?  Perhaps... But I don't look to John for anything except riddles.  If the Holy Spirit does whatever it wants to, you have to hold that up to the light and see what it means.  Because it certainly does not mean taking advantage of the poor and the meek.  If that is what people truly "want" to do, then I have no part in this world.

Kevin Lawson

So what if you have no part in this world? Not to be rude, but this sounds a lot like truth can be determined on the basis of what you want to be true.

Jonathan Doolin

I have no part of this world...  You seem to have caught me there in a moment of pointless gloom, and even logical error.

For instance, in a world of intellectual property, when I was young, I worried that people might steal my ideas.  Now that I am older, I worry more that no one will notice my ideas.  I also worry that I'll only be remembered for my worst ideas.

If there is such a thing as a "meek" which is defined as "quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive." then it is quite possible that such people would rather like to be "taken advantage of" than to be ignored entirely.

I don't know where I rate in the meekness scale, but I believe that I am a beneficiary of ideas and work and effort that has come from "the meek" and I don't know how many of them have been "taken advantage of."

So yes, I do have a part in this world, regardless of who has taken advantage of who, of course.  But here's my point... I don't think that I "wanted" to take advantage of anybody... despite the fact that my low-cost-purchases might seem otherwise.  I don't think that the store that sold me low-cost-items "wanted" to take advantage of anybody.  I don't think that the shipping company "wants" to take advantage of anybody.   There are very few in the system that "want" to take advantage of anybody, yet the system still has winners and losers; some that get awarded unfairly.  Some that are abused unfairly.  Do people really "want" the kinds of injustices that arise?

Perhaps some of them do.  But why?  Is it because they have some kind of wish for "evil?"  No.  They will all justify their actions with "Mr. X is even worse than I am.  I take care of my people.  I take care of my family...  I'm stealing from people that don't need it.  I'm so desperate I don't have any choice." etc.  They don't do evil for evil's sake, but because their perceptions are that what they are doing is justified.  In every one of these cases though, if they ever changed their perceptions, and realized what harm they were doing, they would stop doing harm.  Those people can hypothetically be forgiven because they aren't doing evil for evil's-sake.

On the other hand, if a person fully understands what harm they are doing, and goes on and does it without any rationale or justification whatsoever. except the thrill of evil-doing... probably isn't going to be stopped without being locked up and tied down. That person really can't be forgiven--just restrained.

Kevin Lawson

Does it matter if your ideas are noticed? Does it matter if evil people are forgiven?

Jonathan Doolin 1 vote

 by Kevin Lawson

Well, on the first question, there are two parts.  (1) Does it matter whether the idea is acknowledged.
(2) Does it matter whether the idea is credited to me.

Well, I think it is important to make the distinction between what John's gospel requires (belief in the name of the only begotten son of god), and what the synoptic gospels require (forgiveness and kindness).

Once people see that distinction made clearly, I'm not really quite sure where it goes.  My personal feeling is that John somehow betrayed Jesus... misrepresenting his teaching and purpose.

On the second question, does it matter if evil people are forgiven?  Well, your question is based on the hypothesis that "evil people" exist.  I would contend that "evil" is an adverb, describing actions... Not an adjective, describing persons.  A person is capable of evil-doing, but is also capable of doing good.

Your hypothesis may also be based on the premise that "forgiving" is an action.  Is it?  Forgiveness could simply be a decision not to punish, or take vengeance, or dwell on the insult or injury.

But forgiveness could also be an alleviation of the misery and misperceptions that sometimes cause people to do evil.  Sometimes, information can be shared, and procedures, rules, communication, and technology can be improved so as to make it so no one is tempted to repeat the evils of generations before.

Evil should not be forgiven... It should be prevented or stopped.  But when people do evil, what is important is trying to "understand with the heart" so-to-speak, of what caused them to do evil, and if at all possible, provide them with the opportunity to turn, and be healed.

There's a thin line, I suppose, between "prevention of crime" and "vengeance",  People who are interested in punishing evil people seek vengeance.  People who are interested in forgiveness would seek the prevention of crime.

Kevin Lawson

Could it be that John was correct and Luke, Matthew etc. tried to fix up the story and make it more marketable?

Jonathan Doolin

Which side told the truth, and which side is just doing marketing?

To me--Matthew, Mark, and Luke give us a product... the teachings of Jesus; clear guidelines on what is right, and what is wrong. John gives us a brand-name: (John 3:16-18) you need to "believe in the Name of the Only Begotten Son"

John doesn't provide the teaching:(Typical -- See John 4:40-41) John does not giving us anything of substance.  He is giving us a brand name, or a package in which any teaching or any philosophy can be put.

Furthermore, he's not telling us what the correct brand-name is.  Some say it is "Emmanuel."  Some say the name is "Jesus"  Some say "Christ" etc.  Some say "any of the above."

Finally, what does it mean to believe in a brand-name?   Does it mean understanding the underlying meaning of the word?  Does it mean pronouncing it correctly, or spelling it correctly?  Does it mean believing in the person that held that name?  And if so, does it mean following his teaching, or just believing he existed, or believing that he performed some specific action or fulfilled some specific purpose.  Or does "believing in the name" just mean that whatever you put in that package, people will buy it?

Matthew 7:22-23 is a strongly worded disagreement with John 3:16-18. What matters to Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is not whether people are preaching and doing miracles in his name... But whether they are following the Law of God.

How did the idea of Trinity come into prominence?

Here's a Page on 1timothy4-13.com

At first I thought it was an argument that the Bible DOESN'T say that Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit were one--because all of the verses except a few seem to plainly be talking about three different things.

However, then he gets to

1 John 5:7 

Which does say that All three are one.

However, look here:

1 John 5:7 and the Record in Heaven

In any case, it's a highly divisive debate between Christians, who believe John 3:18 For those Christians who buy into John 3:18, there is a two question test at the end of life. 
1.  Do you believe in the name of the only begotten son of God?
and
2.  What is that name?

Depending on whether that name is "Jesus" or "Christ" or "Messiah"  or "Allah"  if that name is "Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit". 

If you get that answer wrong, then the personal stakes are quite high.  You either go to heaven to your eternal reward, or you go to hell for eternal condemnation. 

At no point in ANY of the gospels does it say "You must believe in the name of the Son of God, and that name is _________."  So unfortunately, you have to just hope you've figured it out.


Now, Matthew, Mark, and Luke don't say anything like John 3:18.  In general, their basic principles are (1) that if you don't forgive others, then neither will you be forgiven.  and (2) Matthew 25:40 "Whatever you did for the least of my brothers and sisters, you did for me."

The point is, Matthew, Mark, and Luke don't make ANY REQUIREMENT OF BELIEF WHATSOEVER.  To them, it's all about your actions, and behavior.


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


Luke 12:10, by the way, couldn't make the difference between "The Son" and "The Holy Spirit" any more stark. 

"And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." 

I'm not exactly sure what blaspheming the Holy Spirit means, but what John did by removing all reference to forgiveness and kindness, and replacing it with "Belief in the Name of God's Only Begotten Son" comes close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit.  Because the Holy Spirit isn't about believing in a freaking NAME you don't even know, and kicking people around if they disagree with you about what that name is.

It's about being kind, and charitable, and celebrating life, and doing nice things for each other, and cooperating and cherishing, and following your passions, (Seeking God, so to speak) and encouraging others to do the same.

Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit: One or Three?

Kevin Lawson

If Jesus was God having a fling as a human being, why would he waste his last night praying to himself?

Jonathan Doolin

This question only makes sense if you take John's perspective.  While some disciples credit Jesus with being "the Son of God", they don't ever quote Jesus saying "I and the Father are one."  (The other gospels quote Jesus saying he is the "Son of Man.")

From John's perspective, though, I think Jesus gives a direct answer to your question: in John 17:13 .   "I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them."

It seems to suggest that John-Gospel-Jesus expects that he will not have the same full measure of joy when he is not in the world.

I thought of an analogy; though I'm not sure if it is a good one... If I were to offer extra credit to my students for saying what a great teacher I am, I am not likely to remember later that I offered extra credit for that.  But if I make a big deal out of it in that moment, perhaps I will remember later.  But that dreary moment of giving extra credit points for people who really don't deserve to pass the class doesn't bring me any joy, no matter how much  they say what a great teacher I am, I know that moment of being told what a great teacher I am feels great, until I realize how horribly they failed all the exams...

Kevin Lawson

Shouldn't he have said, "I and the father are two thirds"? Oh well maybe he wasn't good with math. It does sound like he expects heaven to be somewhat subdued.

Jonathan Doolin

The question of whether Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one entity or three is one of the issues which divides Christianity.  From what I've heard, the Apocrypha really doubles-down on the idea that these are one entity, and you MUST believe that.

I, personally, don't think you can make the case for such a thing from the Bible, but there are an awful lot of people who believe it is really important to think of them as a single entity.

A short google search found this Page on auburn.edu that shows four different philosophies on the trinity.  They all fit within the Christian "tent."

However, you see under the Arian philosophy there that "Pagan and Platonic philosophies have taken hold even in the Bible."  They refer to 1John, 1Timothy, and 1Corinthians.  I have no real problems with 1Timothy and 1Corinthians.

I personally don't think Paul's version of Christianity (Paul is generally thought to be the author of 1Timothy and 1Corinthians) was allied with John's version of Christianity.  John's intention was to find traitors, label them as antichrist's and banish them from your environment.  Paul's intention was to avoid people who's ideas and habits were "ungodly" like crackheads and gangbangers and abusive people.

If you can support the idea that God, and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one person, from the Bible, it comes ambiguously from the writings of John, but only ambiguously, at best.

John's Gospel is a Single Witness

JD:  The Synoptic Gospels

Claude Goldsmid Montefiore says here, "not one student in 1000 will look up J.J Griesbach's book"

Here's a quote... I'm not sure whether this comes in original English from Claude Goldsmid Montefiore, or if it comes Montefiore quoting J.J Griesbach in Latin.

"It will, therefore be noticed that of the four Gospels, this book only includes three.  The fourth, the Gospel of John, is omitted.  The reason is that whilst the first three Gospels treat their subject from this common point-of-view and arrangement.  The fourth is different in both.  It has a different conception of Jesus, and tells in many respects a different history.  

The words which it puts into Jesus's mouth are peculiar and special.  Moreover, this fourth Gospel is less historic than the first three.  It gives an interpretation of the person, and work of Jesus rather than a record of his words and deeds.  Notable, great, and important as this Gospel is, it can, and indeed must--be studied by itself, and not together or in conjuction with the first, theallied, three.  Therefore it forms no part of the present more limited undertaking.  For that undertaking, though limited, is yet sufficiently and more than sufficiently, arduous, intricate, and obscure."

I think that this text HINTS at what I'm saying. But perhaps the author here had too much to lose by saying what he really thinks.  But it strongly suggests that the author feels that I do that John "puts words into Jesus's mouth", words, quite likely that Jesus never said.  He also views the synoptic gospels as being "allied" which strongly implies that John's gospel is against them. 

I would say that this is strong evidence that I am not "the first to notice this".  But perhaps nobody has yet written a text to highlight the "peculiarness and specialness" of the words John puts into Jesus' mouth.

KL: John "puts words into Jesus's mouth", words, quite likely that Jesus never said.

Well sure, nobody was tape recording any actual Jesus. EVERYBODY who tells the story puts words in this character's mouth. That is the job of the story teller.

JD

Indeed.  Everyone "puts words into Jesus mouth" 

But sometimes, a story-teller can be notable for what they leave out.

Verse 13 is notable here: Gospel of Thomas (Lambdin Translation) -- The Nag Hammadi Library

John 4:40-42 is also notable, how people believed in Jesus for what he said, but none of what he said is recorded by John.

Finally, before Jesus went to be crucified, he stayed up all night in prayer.  Matthew, Mark, and Luke report that everyone fell asleep.  John somehow recalls the entire prayer.

Matthew 26:40
Mark 14:37
Luke 22:45
John 17

So it's a central question--who was putting words into Jesus' mouth?  Who was reporting accurately what Jesus said?  Of course we have nothing to go on, except one thing... In the context of Jewish Law at the time, which all of the disciples and people at the time were acutely aware of, I think.  The testimony of two or more witnesses was confirmed.  The testimony of a single witness was generally to be discounted.

John loves to play with this idea.  For instance, when the Pharisees question him, he says "I testify with my father" so he invokes a second unseen witness.  And then when someone with a spear stabs Jesus' body after he dies, he makes a point of saying "There was one witness, so we know his testimony is true." (John 19:35)

In John 6:9 it is not Jesus but Simon Peter who says "Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?”  In the other gospels, the disciples share their own food, and grumble about it.  But they do not take the food from a passing boy.

In either case, the story of the feeding of 5000 probably had more to do with getting people to share than performing an impossible miracle--however, John viewed it as taking food from a boy.  Matthew, Mark, and Luke viewed it as sharing their own food. 

All we have is eye-witness testimony, and everyone in modern day knows that eye-witness testimony is unreliable.  But in Jewish Law, the testimony of two or more witnesses was generally accepted.  The testimony of a single witness was largely ignored.

See by searching for the word "testimony" and you will see that this principle of two or more witnesses was acknowledged and embraced by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but it was flagrantly mocked by John.

BibleGateway - : testimony