Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Three Days and Three Nights? ...or do we need a third night?


Doesn't it seem rather ironic to you if John-Gospel-Jesus did not mean "Destroy this Temple" when he said "Destroy this Temple"

I'm not saying Jesus never used irony.  But this is not the sort of "a bit of innocent fun" sort of irony that I think a worthy Messiah would use.  This was what in the modern era would be similar to: Making a false Bomb Threat 

In the U.S. indviduals who willfully make a threat or maliciously convey false information concerning an attempt to injure, kill, or destroy property through the use of explosives can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.

Regardless of what John said Jesus MEANT, what John says Jesus SAID was "“Destroy this temple,"

It's not like it was unclear... In John 2:20, the Jews ask for clarification.  They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?”

And Jesus did not reply to them.  Instead, (John 2:22) It was only after he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. 
In other words, John claims even Jesus' own disciples really thought he literally meant "Destroy This Temple" until after he was crucified, and three days and three nights later!

So while John-Gospel-Jesus actually SAYS Destroy this Temple.  And that was UNDERSTOOD by the Jews to mean "Destroy this Temple" and it was apparently UNDERSTOOD by his own disciples to mean "Destroy this temple" for the next several days.  
What actually happened was the Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE).  And the temple was NOT rebuilt in three days.  
Dino Mustafić

And he apparently rose after TWO nights, thus avoiding the prophecy to be confirmed
Jonathan Doolin

I've given a lot of thought (perhaps too much thought) to the chronology of "on the third day" vs. "after three days."  In particular, I'd relate it to Psalm 90, and Revelations 20, and Matthew 24.
Psalm 90:4 A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by,  or like a watch in the night.
So if a thousand years is like a day, gone by, could the chronology of Biblical prophesies be off by a factor of 365,000?
Another thing to consider--how should we interpret three days?  "After three days would generally imply, after 72 hours."  However, I think I've rented videos where a three day rental means "If you rent it sometime today, it is due back sometime the day after tomorrow."  Which could, in the most extreme situation (rented at 11 pm Thursday, returned at 1am Satureda) be as little as 26 hours..
This might be stretching that analogy beyond the breaking point, but I'm going to give it my best shot.  The "prophesy" to be confirmed here is "Unless you return the video to Blockbuster on the third day, you will continuing to accrue further debt."
In this "Blockbuster video" analogy, the movie is "The Passion of the Christ."  Let's say I rented it, and I was amazed at how boring it was, so I put off watching it.  But then I never get in the mood to watch it, and I forgot I had it, so it stays on my shelf, and by the time I remember it, it's been a month, and I take it back to the video store, unwatched.  Now I find that I owe $500.00 in late fees. 
If only I had returned this video, immediately, I wouldn't have owed anything.   
If "returning the video to Blockbuster" were analagous to all of humanity recognizing Jesus as Lord (e.g. doing what he says to do, adopting the Golden Rule; treating strangers with respect and kindness. etc) But for 2000 years, since Jesus was crucified, many Christians have elected, instead to focus on recognizing Jesus as God (e.g. justifying whatever evil things they want to do, are think necessary, through the blood of Christ.)
Their punishment, then, is to live in a world where debt continues to accrue, because evil is... well, evil.  And the longer we leave "The Passion of the Christ" up there on the shelf; well, eventually Blockbuster will go bankrupt and send our debt to a collection agency. 
I don't generally read Revelations for predictive purposes.  The only good that can come from Revelations is by fulfilling the prophesies ironically, or by not fulfilling them at all.  But when you look back over the last 2000 years of warring nations brutalizing each-other's people, you can see that in some sense, Revelations has never stopped being fulfilled.  1000 years of war, followed by another 1000 years of war.  I could try to guess at what event represents an angel binding satan, or what event represents an angel throwing the devil into the abyss... or what event represents an authority ruling with Christ for 1000 years...
The timeline seems just perfectly set up for Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 20:7-10 - New International Version  but with rounding off to the nearest 1000 years, that could be something that happened 100 years ago, or 100 years from now. 
I think, if I could declare a prophecy fulfilled, Revelation 20:7-9  come true during World War II.  But as for Revelation 20:10 I don't think that that can be regarded as true, unless people actually have a consensus on who is the devil, and who is the false prophet. 
My hypothesis is to say that John, the writer of John's gospel, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelations wants the honor here.  Once we recognize that John  wants to be read ironically--that John is playing the part of "the Devil"... (oh, and he also gives a call out, to Job, I think, as the false pro(f)it.)  By reading these books, understanding the irony implied, we might come to understand  
Matthew 24 :6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
What do you look forward to "the end" of?  If this is meant to be a comfort, then it should be the end to wars, and rumors of wars, and I think it is meant to be a comfort. 
There's this question though, whether we, as humanity, can make a collective choice to call evil "evil", and call good, "good" and strive to do the right things for the right reasons?  What would that "good" look like?  If we could make this collective choice, to stop doing things for the sake of "power" over others and "money" and start doing things more for the sustainable good of ourselves and for others? 
There's a mountain in the way.  We trust the cynics because they have been proved right, so often in the past.  And we despise the optimists, because they are clearly fools.  So we continually defend ourselves against the inevitable bad-apple, and don't realize that we've become the bad-apple ourselves.
Dino Mustafić

I agree. Pretty much, don't agree, but follow. As for the 1000 years war followed by another 1000 years of war, I thought about that earlier.
As for three days and two nights, doesn't it say "three days and three nights"? Or just three days? If so, I have no problem with understanding that from Friday to Sunday is three days. But not three nights, for sure.
Also, I've noticed that John is pretty much what Catholicism and maybe Christianity is all about. If the New Testament had left John out, the Christianity would have much more rough times explaining certain things that the Church represent nowadays. Also, being close to Judaism and Islam would be clearer, had not there been John's part.
Jonathan Doolin

I'm glad you follow.  Of course my interpretations are somewhat speculative... All I can say is they seem "right" to me.  In fact, once a memorable interpretation enters my ear, I can't often "unhear" it. 
You can see some of this confuddling of days and nights inZechariah 14:7-8.  And the extension of time, where day has summer and winter.  And "in the evening there will be light"  goes along with Matthew 24:21-23:  "If those days had not been cut short, no one would have survived."
Nobody ever quotes from Zechariah, because the whole thing argues with itself, e.g "The Lord said ...one thing"  but "An angel of the Lord said...something entirely different."  I think Zechariah sort of introduces Satan, Zechariah 5:5-11, an Angel of the Lord who demonstrates iniquity and wickedness, while pretending to teach righteousness.
Anyway, my arguments for peace do not require verses of the Bible to support.  But I feel that since there are billions of Judeo-Christian people in the world who either think that Jesus was a prophet, or the Messiah, or the Son of God, it seems reasonable to find some sort of interpretation of these prophecies that don't come to a bloody apocalyptic mess.
You're right:  Matthew 12:39-40 does say three days and three nights.
Much later in the same gospel, Matthew 24:21-23 says:  "If those days had not been cut short, no one would have survived."
There seems to be a tense error,  but it might mean "the days of the third night I have prophesied have been cut short" but lets say World War I is the first night.  World War II is the second night.  World War III is the third night. 
---
For another "Follow" but not necessarily agree, consider this idea:
This says, for someone who has insight...  I do have an insight, that John is false, so when he says it is the number of a man, it is his own number, which he put into his own book:
Some people say this is actually supposed to be 616.  So look atRevelation 6:16 , (They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!") In context, this is said by the 6th group of people, ((Kings, Princes, Generals, Rich, Mighty, Everyone Else) in the 6th item found (Earthquake, Sun, Moon, Stars, Heavens, Humans), under the 6th seal, in chapter 6, of the 66th book of the bible. 
So who is John pointing his finger of condemnation at?  Is he condemning everyone except the Kings, Princes, Generals, Rich, and Mighty?  Or is he condemning everyone? 
We're on the verge of perfect secrecy in electronics, so that people can keep their secrets.  The problem is, there are two types of secrets.  Secrets that are nobody's business, secrets that could make people sad or jealous, and secrets of actual evil intent and process.  People want to keep secrets to maintain their dignity and avoid public criticism.  But instead of working toward a world where people are given their dignity, they argue  we argue for better and better secrecy, thus protecting "criminal" behavior, and maintaining hypocritical standards.
I am troubled because I listen to podcasts like "geekspeak" and "Skeptics Guide to the Universe" and they seem like very reasonable people who give very reasoned arguments to say "We Must Have Perfect Security In Our Transactions"  
I wonder, though... Who benefits more in an environment of perfect secrecy?  The trustworthy person or the criminal?  I'm pretty sure that a trustworthy person is going going to be murdered or taken advantage of more often in a world of perfect secrecy.  And the criminal could not survive in a world of perfect transparency, because everyone would know he was a criminal. 
I have always been very pro-transparency, in government, in business, in open-source software, etc, but if it weren't for "the number of the beast" here, I would probably not take an active interest in this topic of transparency vs. secrecy in our digital media.

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

The Different Usages of Miracles in the Different Gospels (with Joshua Grosso)

Jonathan Doolin
Jonathan DoolinThe terrible Sealion
356 Views




Hmmm... If anyone accused Jesus of being God to his face--he had a remarkable pattern of neither confirming, nor denying that accusation.

So his answer would have been, if he knew "nineteen and a half."  Or if he did not know, he might have said, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."

Then, it would be up to us... to try to figure out what he meant by that. 
What does it mean to be adulterous?  I just asked by girlfriend what is the square-root three-hundred eight point two five.  It's really rather charming to hear her in there hemming and hawing in there, and now saying... Hmmm, should it be easy?  Now she's saying, "I know it should be easy, but I didn't have a really good education."

Now I feel bad, because she feels bad for feeling dumb.  I had to put it into a calculator myself, because I expected it to turn out to be an irrational number.  It was adulterous of me to ask... if I love my girlfriend, I shouldn't be making up my own arbitrary rubrics by which to pass judgment on her.  If I were looking to break up with my girlfriend and find a girl who knows the square-root of 380.25 off the top of her head, it would be adulterous.


This is what I think Jesus is saying... Let's say Jesus says "19.5" and gets this answer correct.  Is that really going to change the way you feel about God?  Probably not.  Will you abandon everything you believe in because Jesus gets a math problem correct?  I hardly think so.  And it is the same with the many miracles performed by Jesus.  No matter what miracles Jesus performs, it will not change your opinion of what is good behavior, and what is bad behavior.  If seeing a miracle changes your opinions on those things, then you're principles and commitments are flaky... because someone else will come along and create a bigger and better miracle, and you'll follow them instead.
Aurélien Emmanuel

So what was the point of miracles?
Jonathan Doolin
Jonathan Doolin 2 votes
 Show

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the point of the miracles was to help people... Jesus told his followers to perform miracles to feed the hungry, to heal the sick, and bring peace, joy, remove debt, forgive sins, etc.  In virtually every case where a miracle was performed, Jesus denied that he did it... "It was your faith that healed you." and when people did credit him with a miracle he said "Tell no one."

In John's gospel, the point of miracles were to prove Jesus' divinity.  Get people drunk, show off with spectacles, rub mud in peoples' eyes, mock the charlatans, raise lazarus from the dead, etc.  In virtually every case where a miracle was performed, Jesus criticized people's faith for not believing in him.

So the point of the miracles depends largely on who you believe... John, or Everyone Else.


Aurélien Emmanuel

thank you!
Joshua Grosso
When Jesus toldthe high priest and Pilate that he was God in more than just John, how can you that everyone else disagrees with him?
Jonathan Doolin

When the high priest and Pilate questioned Jesus and said "You have claimed to be God" Jesus did not say 'Yes." What he said was "You have said so."

Which could be interpreted as "Yes, I am God." but it could also be interpreted as "No, but you have said I said I am God." or it could be interpreted as "No, but you have accused me of claiming I am God."  I think that Pilate and the high priest knew what Jesus meant.
Pilate may well have said Jesus was God (with or without actually believing it).  The high priest, quite likely said that Jesus claimed to be God (with or without being sure that he actually had).  So Jesus acknowledged that they had said this (without confirming or denying the allegation.)
In any case, there was no claim here to being God, or confession of  claiming to be God.
Here is a clearer example of where John and the other gospels disagree.

Gives one version of what Jesus said.

Gives another version of what Jesus said.  John claims that Jesus said one thing, and meant something else. 

Mark 14:57-59 
Both Matthew and Mark agree that John's testimony is false.
Joshua Grosso

How do John and Matthew disagree? They refer to separate incidents. If anything, by this argument, Matthew and Mark disagree (as they provide different incidents of Jesus before the high priest, while John refers to Jesus being with his disciples).

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!" - John 8:58. "I Am" can't be argued to not mean God, since the Jews tried to stone Him on the spot. He explicitly said He was God.
Jonathan Doolin

Didn't we already establish that John is a liar?

(I think to properly glorify John, we could, at least ironically, refer to him as "The Father of Lies"  Oh, delicious irony.  What a clever fellow John was in his use of words without definitions.  "I and the Father are One" he says.  Very cute little joke, don't you think?)
Joshua Grosso

We did not. You established that, and I tried to demonstrate how there wasn't actually a contradiction.
Jonathan Doolin

Alright... Once again.

John 2:18-22   version (first hand account):  “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

Matthew 26:60-62 - New International Version  version:  (Two False Witnesses Agreed"  “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”
Mark 14:57-59 's version (Testimony of some false witnesses) 57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

The question is, what do you believe about Jesus because of John's testimony, and what would you believe without John's testimony. 
Matthew and Mark say, essentially that Jesus said NOTHING like this.  He didn't say "I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days."  He didn't say "I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands."  He didn't say anything like that.

But John's gospel reports that Jesus said "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

If not for John's gospel, the only uncontested reference to the temple being destroyed would be Luke 21:5-7 but here, he's not saying anything controversial.

>>If anything, by this argument, Matthew and Mark disagree (as they provide different incidents of Jesus before the high priest, while John refers to Jesus being with his disciples).

Yes, they report different incidents... Mark reports one lie.  Matthew reports a different lie.  That's the funny thing about reporting lies.  There's a great number of different falsehoods, but only one truth.

>>You established that, and I tried to demonstrate how there wasn't actually a contradiction.
Alright... So long as you understand my proposition that John was a liar, then we can proceed, because I don't want any miscommunication here--I am not calling Jesus a liar.

When you quote John's gospel to me, and I have to explain what I believe John was saying about JohnGospelJesus, I am not saying what I believe about Jesus.  I am saying how I believe John lied about Jesus by creating a fictional character he called "Jesus" but I will call JohnGospelJesus

So in John 8:58, JohnGospelJesus refers here to the serpent or the snake (John 3:14 ) which was around long before Abraham.  Long before Abraham, the clever serpent spread its lies.
Joshua Grosso
The part where the false witnesses were lying was in saying that Jesuswould destroy the temple, when he actually said (in John) that he would raise it up after others destroyed it.
Jonathan Doolin

So you're a first-hand witness who can confirm that Jesus is guilty, and did tell his followers to destroy the temple?
Joshua Grosso

No. That's what the witnesses were saying. Jesus, however, just said that He would rebuild the temple when destroyed by others (Him being killed by the Romans and then resurrected in three days).
Jonathan Doolin

Doesn't it seem rather ironic to you if John-Gospel-Jesus did not mean "Destroy this Temple" when he said "Destroy this Temple"

I'm not saying Jesus never used irony.  But this is not the sort of "a bit of innocent fun" sort of irony that I think a worthy Messiah would use.  This was what in the modern era would be similar to: Making a false Bomb Threat 

In the U.S. indviduals who willfully make a threat or maliciously convey false information concerning an attempt to injure, kill, or destroy property through the use of explosives can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.

Regardless of what John said Jesus MEANT, what John says Jesus SAID was "“Destroy this temple,"

It's not like it was unclear... In John 2:20, the Jews ask for clarification.  They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?”

And Jesus did not reply to them.  Instead, (John 2:22) It was only after he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. 

In other words, John claims even Jesus' own disciples really thought he literally meant "Destroy This Temple" until after he was crucified, and three days and three nights later!

So while John-Gospel-Jesus actually SAYS Destroy this Temple.  And that was UNDERSTOOD by the Jews to mean "Destroy this Temple" and it was apparently UNDERSTOOD by his own disciples to mean "Destroy this temple" for the next several days.  
What actually happened was the Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE).  And the temple was NOT rebuilt in three days.  
Joshua Grosso

John says that Jesus said that, when they destroyed the temple, He would rebuild it in three days. Mark and Matthew says that others claimed He was going to destroy the temple. John explains why the false witnesses were lying.

Also, the temple refers to Jesus.
Jonathan Doolin

Your brain is shut off.  Your eyes don't see.  Your ears don't hear.  And you do not understand with your heart.

Do you think that John is defending Jesus, or do you think John is accusing him? 

Here is what I see in John 2:18-22  

So here we have the following accusations from John.
(1) Jesus told people to destroy the temple (arguing for destruction of property)
(2) Jesus did not mean what he said (deciet)
(3) What Jesus actually meant was to order people to commit murder.

This has caused many to stumble, and accept a single witness's testimony...  That Jesus's example is one of destruction, deceit, and murder.  I don't accept John's testimony.  I don't think that we have enough, from one witness to convict Jesus. 

I don't know what to do except repeating it, over and over and over again.  Destruction of property is not love.  Deceit is not love.  Murder is not love.  Asking people to destroy property or murder you is not love.
Joshua Grosso

They asked Jesus for a sign, and He told them: to see this sign take place, destroy the temple and watch me rebuild it. He answered the question. What's the problem? John also is neither accusing nor defending Jesus; I'm must have missed a step in your reasoning.

What about John's testimony don't you accept? Also, Jesus knew He would die. It was one of His purposes for coming to earth. If He didn't want that to happen, He would not have allowed the soldiers to take Him.
Jonathan Doolin

What do the other witnesses say Jesus said when asked for a sign?

Mark 8:12 says when asked for a sign Jesus said "No sign will be given."  Period. 

Matthew 12:39-40, Matthew 16:4, Luke 11:29-30  say "No sign will be given except the sign of Jonah." 

Luke is ambiguous about precisely how the sign of Jonah will reveal itself:   Luke 11:30 For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. 

Matthew 12:40 specifies how the sign of Jonah will reveal itself in a different way: For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

There is nothing about a Temple here.  There is nothing about rebuilding a temple.  John gives one possible interpretation among millions.  Is it a plausible interpretation?

Well, that largely depends on your concept of what sort of character God is.  What is it about John's testimony that I don't accept?

I already told you.
We have the following accusations from John.(1) Jesus told people to destroy the temple (arguing for destruction of property) (2) Jesus did not mean what he said (deciet) (3) What Jesus actually meant was to order people to commit murder.
One sign of Jonah is that he spent three days and nights in the belly of a whale.  (This one is miraculous and unbelievable).

Another sign of Jonah was that the Ninevites repented.  They fasted and wore sack cloth, and the plague went away from them. (This sign actually makes sense, given what we know about cleanliness)

Another sign of Jonah was that the promised destruction of the Ninevites did not come; Ninevah was NOT overthrown. (This is much like Mark 8:12, that no sign will be given.)

Another sign of Jonah was that there was a worm in a tree, and he did nothing to get it out, and it caused the tree to die. (Jonah 4:7)

There are a lot of signs of Jonah that could happen, nonmiraculously.  I would, personally prefer, that nothing bad happens to Ninevah, but that worms are identified so that they can't do any further harm to a good tree.