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.
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.
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.
So what was the point of miracles?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
(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?)
Alright... Once again.
John 2:18-22 version (first hand account): “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment