|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
quote:
... We refer to them as St. X's, the name that used to belong to all of us in common, and we ourselves have not relinquished; but to hear us talk, you'd think there was a clear division between us. (God knows what they call us; probably unprintable. ) We have not disavowed them, but they have disavowed us. And that creates terminology problems.
Thank you, that makes more sense.
In the NIV that I'm using now online, it clearly says 'the jewish leaders' rather than the Jews, and I wondered (to those of you who have the greek ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) is that pure poetic license to translate thus?
It's interesting that Jesus says, in verse 17, 'my father is always at work, and I too am working' but in the following verses speaks in the third person 'the father... the son' is that quoting somthing, or a specific device?
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I wouldn't call it pure poetic license, though it's certainl more license than other translations (such as the ESV) take. I'm pretty sure the NIV is struggling with the same issue you are--how to translate hoi iudaioi/the Jews in a way that makes sense when everybody IN the scene is actually a iudaios/Jew, and when you don't want to add a needless extra air of hostility by obscuring that fact.
So they did what translators so often do when faced with a troublesome or even unknown word--they looked at the context to determine meaning. In this case, the context shows it's clearly not the rank and file getting after Jesus, but the leadership; and this is in fact a very common use of the term iudaioi in John. (To get the picture here, imagine going through the book of John blacking out the word every time it appears, and then handing it to a neutral reader who had no idea what you had blacked out; chances are very very good he/she would assume the missing word was "leaders" or equivalent, based purely on context.)
The trouble with translation is that plenty of words don't go neatly into the target language; you often wind up choosing between two terms (or more), one of which is technically accurate but gets the emotional atmosphere wrong, and the other one translates the atmosphere but is a rather "free" rendering of what the dictionary plodder would write!
I'm getting longwinded again. (as always ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
An example: There is a Vietnamese insult which I can only spell phonetically, "muk yai." This translates literally as "uneducated, illiterate." Okay, that's not a lovely thing to be called; nevertheless, it's a fairly mild insult in English, no?
Not in Vietnamese, where it has all the emotional force of "Motherfucker" with a side of "cunt" thrown in. Call someone "muk yai" and they may be forgiven for trying to strangle you.
Now tell me, how should I translate that word? Keep the literal meaning and lead my reader to assume a mild disagreement is in progress? Use the shocking equivalent and have someone pop up with a dictionary to point out that I am taking unwarranted liberties?
Grrrr. Who'd be a translator! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Indeed. It's been a week. May I put up the next verse?
quote:
But Jesus answered them, "My Father is still working, and I also am working."
[John 5:17]
Before discussing how and why "the Jews" bridled at this, in the verse that follows, shipmates might want to examine the implications of what Jesus said - then, to his contemporaries, and now, to us.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
...that it's a process? That it isn't finished yet?
It's very meaningful to me that God is still working - that he didn't sit back and watch us muck it up without doing anything, that he didn't 'set it in motion' then tie his own hands.
To the contempories of Jesus, I imagine it had the impact of putting people - and things one has judged important - above the law (in terms of importance to God.) I loved a teaching I read once, that the point of the great commandment is that, while a person can keep all the laws in order to try to be good, a person who loves God with all their strength and soul can do whatever they like and still be good.
[speeling]
[ 11. December 2010, 15:18: Message edited by: Taliesin ]
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Since, as Sir Thomas More (or Robert Bolt - or both of them) said, silence signifies assent, we all seem to be in agreement. Would someone like to post the next verse?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.
[John 5:18 (NRSV)]
So is John saying "The Jews were lying about Jesus" or "The Jews said Jesus put himself on a par with God (which Paul in Pilippians said was not something he exploited) - which he did - and he was right!" ?
I have a sneaking feeling that orthodox chappies don't like me posting on this thread because it was meant as a vehicle for devotion, not discussion. I've no problem with that. I'm happy to stand back and listen, and keep my heretical interventions to discrete texts elswhere.
But I think it would be a shame for the thread not to continue. No?
[ 20. January 2011, 12:45: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
The writer of John had more than one purpose in mind; to encourage belief in the resurrected Jesus and to enveigh against the Jewish authorities who he placed as being opposed to Jesus.
Although it is arguable that Jesus never considered himself as divine, the writer obviously was not in that group but wanted to ensure the (then) orthodox position that he was divine. By setting the Jews as opposing that he put words into their mouths.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TheVenomousBede
Apprentice
# 14932
|
Posted
I think IconiumBound is right about the dual purpose.
I also think that John's emphasis that Jesus not only called God his father but that he made himself equal with God could have been a response to those who believed that Jesus was not fully God, or a subordiante of God in some sense.
However, that is conjecture on my part, I don't know if there is any evidence of such a belief at the time John is supposed to have been writing.
--------------------
'The English are moral, the English are good,
And clever and modest and misunderstood' (Flanders and Swann)
Posts: 38 | From: Southampton, UK | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
[bump]
Time to move on?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
(Slightly off topic but why is it called the gospel of John?
It never says he wrote it, unlike Revelation.)
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Tradition, as for all the Gospels.
Revelation says it was written by some bloke called John.
There is insufficient evidence to say it wasn't.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I missed this before...
Another explanation for "making himself equal with God" is based on the observation that the son of anything is of the same kind as its father. So the son of a fish is a fish, the son of a horse is a horse, the son of God...
Um. Er.
Certainly in that fiercely monotheistic culture the Greek idea, "Eh, he was a halfbreed, Zeus does it all the time" wouldn't fly. There were no comparable Jewish concepts, no way of straddling the divide between the Uncreated and the Created. God was God, and everything else was not. And now you have Jesus claiming sonship ... as they saw it, he was putting himself on the wrong side of that unbridgeable divide.
Which is of course what orthodox Christianity sees in his claims too, except we say it's the right side.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Yes, good point well taken - but what about all those "sons of God" in the Old Testament? Bit of a tangent maybe. I think there was probably a lot of professional jealousy about. The clerical classes didn't like Jesus doing their job - and doing it more effectively. So they accused him of equating himself with God - something which in practice they were doing themselves?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Oh, I'm CERTAIN there was professional jealousy! But in this case they had something real to hang it on. He WAS making himself out to be equal to God (at least in nature, if not in status and glory, given his current state of humiliation). They saw that very accurately. Just as they got it right when they were muttering "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Quite right, very acute, hit the nail on the head.
The problem, of course, is that they didn't take it one step further and consider whether he might, in fact, truly have been God.
As for the "sons of God" in the OT, that's always been mysterious, and I suppose the rabbis fell back on the same kind of explanations the Christians do--namely, that these were angels, or individuals (like judges) holding a certain God-given authority and therefore called by that title as a kind of honorary thing. But it's always in poetic or highly mysterious almost mythological contexts (Gen 6?), which makes it very different than Jesus' talk. Compare for example
quote:
when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:7
and even stronger,
quote:
I said, "You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince." Psalm 82:6-7
to Jesus' much more straightforward (and clever! argument:
quote:
The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—-do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." John 10:33-38
And for outright declaration,
quote:
Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, 'He is our God.' John 8:54
Again, there was nothing wrong with their intelligence, they saw what he was driving at perfectly clearly. It's what got him crucified.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
This is not, I hope, a quibble. I found your post very interesting. But why did Jesus say "Is it not written in YOUR law....." (I can't do italics at the moment). I'm sure there's a satisfactory explanation but I don't know what it is.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
But why did Jesus say "Is it not written in YOUR law....." (I can't do italics at the moment). I'm sure there's a satisfactory explanation but I don't know what it is.
Jesus was pointing out to them that they were being inconsistent. "Is it not written in the law that you profess to uphold?" He was hoisting them with their own petard.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
This is not, I hope, a quibble. I found your post very interesting. But why did Jesus say "Is it not written in YOUR law....."
Because by the time the Gospel of John was written, Christianity had become a separate entity from Judaism.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Thanks. John 5:19 starts a new section:
Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise..."
Several verses in this passes begin as this one does, with "Very truly...(Verily, verily, in KJV)" I think this is the Greek or Latin translation of "Amen, amen!" in Aramaic? Does the translation catch the tone of the original?
"So be it, so be it..." would sound rather strange. But does Amen, Amen have a particular meaning/usage in semitic languages?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
OK. Is Jesus talking specifically, or exclusively, of things miraculous here?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I would say both, though it's hard to draw a line between the miraculous and the nonmiraculous (as Jesus sees it, I mean). For example, we tend to regard what happens when a person comes to faith as "normal", but Scripture clearly classes it as God's work, and basically a miracle. Same thing with the forgiveness of sins. So if Jesus is going according to this viewpoint (and I think he is), then he's probably talking of a range of "kingdom of God" activities, only some of which we ourselves would think of as "miraculous."
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Yes, mostly miracles here. I'm not sure what the context is yet. But he must, as a completely whole himan being, be able to make his own choices. Otherwise he's neither god nor man, but an automaton.
ISTM he's saying What God does. I do. What I do, you can do, too, or something like that.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't think he's saying he's an automaton either--more like an extremely good dancer (one of a pair--heck, a trio ) who manage to coordinate their moves in a totally awe-inspiring way.
And of course, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Which is a comfort when I get into a tizzy occasionally wondering what God thinks of me.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Um, I think I slightly pre-empted the next verse with my last post:
The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing; and he will show him greater works than these, so that you will be astonished... [John 5:20]
No I didn't - I misread that, and remembered that somewhere Jesus told his disciples that they would do bigger miracles than him. Back to the present. It's definitely miracles he's talking about and we are shortly to find out what particular miracles.
I expect this is going to be one of those passages where Jesus tells his disciples what's going to happen, so that when it does, they will remember that he told them it was going to.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Quite. Is the next verse astonishing, or is it astonishing?:
quote:
Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes
John 5:21
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post; just wanted to make sure I'd got the code right (thanks, Curiosity!)
I mean, it sounds so offhand somehow - as though he were talking about handing round toffees!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
yep, that sounds like him also! To be all tangent-y, the one that gets me is where apropos of nothing he says "I keep sending you prophets and wise men, and you kill them all off" (LC translation). I mean, DUDE. You're the one sending prophets into the world, and you can't even give it the dignity of a separate sentence to let us take it all in before you get accusatory.
But whatever.
[ 02. June 2011, 01:21: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Oh, like you've never been cranky.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I don't think Jesus (or John) was being blasé. But he didn't expect any contradiction, or even undue surprise, at his words. I get the impression that raisng people from the dead was, in those times, while not a commonplace happening, not regarded as the world-shattering sort of thing that we would think it now.
Even the resurrection of Jesus himself was a local phenomenon, not immediately picked up by the world at large (Oh, I know they didn't have Times correspondents then, but news did get around.
So when Jesus talked about the people God had raised from the dead (all by himself!) he would have been talking about events the disciples all knew about, and accepted for what they were - miraculous resurrections, no?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Um. Cough, cough. Choke.
I really can't imagine any world where raising the dead would NOT be earthshattering. I think it far more likely that what Jesus was referring to was the Old Testament resurrections, such as those associated with Elijah and Elisha, or even the vision of the dry bones (though I've no idea whether what he saw was a thing in the real world or not). The disciples would certainly have known about those. And so Jesus' own raising of the dead becomes another data point for his identity: like Father, like Son.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Perhaps. But wouldn't that be a bit abstruse for his hearers? I get the impression - which may of course be misguided - that Jesus is talking about resurrections that the disciples themselves have witnessed (even if only those performed by Jesus himself), and that the resurrections Jesus himself has seen he has seen with his own human eyes, rather than with his mind's eye on the Old Testament.
In other words, he's talking about something he has seen God the Father do, which he himself has repeated, and which he would like the apostles/disciples also to repeat.
There would have been no suggestion in those days of anything other than supernatural events taking place in these circumstances. The only question would be whether the supernatural agent was "good" or "bad" (i.e. a sorcerer)
Jesus was - in which gospel I can't remember -accused of working miracles under the influence of Satan. Any disciple following Jesus' example would lay himself open to the same scurrilous accusation. But they did - at least they tried, and on one occasion at least, succeeded. I'll post the links when the cramp goes out of my fingers.
[ 04. June 2011, 15:57: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I was assuming that any miracle Jesus was visibly involved with would fall under the "done by the Son" rubric. So if he's referring to resurrections done clearly and primarily by the Father (without obvious involvement by Jesus), I think you would have to either look for the OT examples or else for unrecorded non-Jesusian resurrections of Jesus' time, as I think you're suggesting.
The OT miracles wouldn't have been abstruse IMHO, since the Jews of that day were a heckuva lot better up on their national history/identity/religion than most of us are now. I mean, these stories got told and retold (in an era when there wasn't much else to do for entertainment in the evenings!), as well as preached on, and doubtless handled in Hebrew school. Which is all to say, I suspect the average Jew of that day would say "Oh yeah, those guys" when mention of resurrections came up, just as we in our culturally greater ignorance ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif) still recognize the outlines of the story of Adam and Eve ("Hey Mom, wasn't he that guy that got nekkid? And something about a snake and an apple?")
Now as to the other option--resurrections the disciples might have heard of from a friend of a friend of a cousin--well, who knows? There have always been travelers' tales and urban legends, and there may well have been some of these stories going around that did not involve Jesus. But I think it's a bit of a jump from "maybe" to "yes, there were, and they were attributed to the Father." After all, as you rightly point out, miracle-working was sometimes attributed to the devil!
[ 04. June 2011, 19:16: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Yes, I think some of my first impressions (or thirty-first impresssions, or one hundred and...) may have led me down a blind alley or two. My memory certainly played me false in one respect. The failed attempt at miracle working by the disciples was an exorcism, not a resurrection.
But Peter was successful in raising Dorcas, in Acts, with words remarkably similar to those of Jesus - but that may be a coincidence.
Reading on a bit, it will become clear, I think, that this is the beginning of a rather complicated theological point about judgment, with the "resurrection" element being more concerned with avoiding damnation than avoiding death. I think I'll pass the discussion over here to people who can make more sense of it than I can - I'd very likely do no more than muddy the waters.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Muddy away! Please. or else there'll be nobody to play with at the playground.
I think the point of Peter's miracle would be that Jesus was doing it through him (that is, through the power of his Name). But you could equally well make a case for it being the work of the Holy Spirit. Hard to sort the three of them out.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Thank you for your patience. I'm not sure where to stop the next bit as it's all so intricately interwoven, but I think therfe's a natural pause after the next two verses:
quote:
The father judges no-one but has given all judgment to the Son,(23) so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
{John 5:22-23)
Of course it doesn't make complete sense without the context. But Jesus' self-declaration as God's regent (have I got that right?) sounds odd. Compared with other comments like "why do you call me good? Only God is good." But it must be an important point or John wouldn't have quoted it. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Something just occurred to me and although I take your point about the OT miracles, LC, why
should that be the default reasoning when Jesus talks about miracles he has seen his father do?
Surely the miracles his father did in his (Jesus') own lifetime, which others saw (there's no "maybe" about it - this was very much the age of miracles, wasn't it?) would be something the disciples would more easily relate to? They weren't a terribly bright lot, if we believe the evangelists!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Um, now I'm confused. What miracles are you referring to in Jesus' time that the Father was involved in, but not Jesus, and the disciples knew about them?
I thought "age of miracles" referred to Jesus' work in his own right and through the early church?
Have mercy on the clueless.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
... sounds odd. Compared with other comments like "why do you call me good? Only God is good."
Because of my own beliefs, I take that as Christ carefully choosing words so as not to deny that he is God, or good, but rather to challenge his questioner to consider that very possibility. I base this on the belief that he was and is God and therefore would not deny being God, but also that he knew that his message would be rejected by virtually everyone if he openly declared himself to be God at that point in his ministry. So to me, the two passages seem to be very similar.
Even so, I can easily see why it makes sense to see the two passages as being at odds with each other.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Um, now I'm confused. What miracles are you referring to in Jesus' time that the Father was involved in, but not Jesus, and the disciples knew about them?
I thought "age of miracles" referred to Jesus' work in his own right and through the early church?
Have mercy on the clueless.
Sorry to be unclear. I was harking back to Jesus' comment that he could only do what he sees the Father do. The emphasis seems to shift in the verse where he says God doesn't judge but has given the Son the power to do so. But I don't think this is meant to be some sort of partial abdication, is it?
There seem to be a number of internal contradictions in the passage. But I don't think we're meant to tear it apart - deconsctruct it, is that the term? The whole speech seems to be delivered in a sort of trance, and it's the general effect that matters - the numinous feelings instilled in the hearer by it.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, judging by Jesus' own practice, I'd say yes, we ARE meant to tear it apart. It's exactly what he does when he's doing Biblical exegesis.
Sauce for the goose...
I agree about the numinous air. But I think there's a lot more than that. Partial abdication--well, yes, I think so, in the same sense in which a royal father might hand over certain kingly powers to his son the crown prince. And that kind of thing happened a lot in the history of the area, and the Jews would have been familiar with it. It was one way the father could communicate that THIS son and no other had his backing as heir, and everybody'd better bow to that.
[ 10. June 2011, 11:57: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
But it's not the Father who's doing the communicating - it's the Son himself!
P.S. Welcome (back?) to the discussion WH - I didn't mean to sideline you.
[ 10. June 2011, 16:24: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Pressing on, if I have your permission, with a view to having a discussion about the whole passage when we reach verse 29?
quote:
Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life...
[John 5:24]
Just as the word "belief" is found more in the fourth gospel than in the synoptics, so too is the expression "eternal life". And the two seem to go together. It is John's chief pre-occupation, and the very reason for his gospel.
Having stated the obvious, two questions. Do these words have a particular significance for particular christians, with regard to age, churchmanship, or any other factor?
And who was John himself particularly concerned about?
[ETA These are questions that interest me. They may not pertain to the most important aspects of the piece. So please ask (and answer!) your own if you think mine are a waste of time]
[ 12. June 2011, 20:28: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Well perhaps I'm being impatient. Or perhaps the lovers of John feel their thoughts are too precious to share with an idiot like me. I'm OK with that, so I'll leave it another couple of days and if there are no more comments I'll put the next verse or two up.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
On another thread (?also in Kerygmania) where we were discussing the rich ruler (Matt 19:16-26), Jesus was asked what must be done to inherit eternal life and at the conclusion of the story Jesus says how hard it is for a rich man to enter the KOG (also Mark 10:17-31, Luke 18:18-30), so at the moment I am seeing eternal life and KOG/H as terms for the same thing. The Luke passage contrasts the rich ruler with Zaccheus who is reconciled to God as a son of Abraham and salvation comes to his house. So I am conflating eternal life, KOG/H, and salvation to make life simpler for me.
I would be interested to see if John's Gospel teases them apart for me. My thoughts on this are still plastic.
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Yo Pimple, "impatient" is the right answer. I dislocated a shoulder bellydancing and am in a sling. Be nice to me. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I also see Kingdom of God/eternal life/salvation/Messianic age as being different names for the same thing--they just highlight different aspects of it. So one emphasizes the triumphant reign of God over everything, one the triumph over death, one the rescue motif, and one the fulfillment of the age-old promises. But still all the same thing.
quote:
Having stated the obvious, two questions. Do these words have a particular significance for particular christians, with regard to age, churchmanship, or any other factor?
And who was John himself particularly concerned about?
Pimple, you'll have to set me straight if I don't understand what you're getting at, I'll answer from where I stand. John is near and dear to the Lutherans (duh) for this very emphasis on faith/belief over and against works/actions done to merit God's favor. And for those of us who are temperamentally inclined to the terminal guilties over every breath we take, John is a lifesaving corrective. I just love that bit, "what must we do to be doing the works of God?" and they get the answer "believe on the one God has sent!" Slightly unexpected. And a great comfort to us who have failed yet again!
As for who John was concerned about, my understanding is that he is writing as the last of the apostles, a very old man, for a young church that is heading into the future without the eyewitnesses to Jesus who have by now mostly died off. I'm sure he was aware that other Gospels already existed; instead of just repeating their work he chooses to "do theology" and report with his focus primarily on the meaning of what Jesus said and did, rather than just saying "first he did this healing, then he told that parable, then he went off to Galilee yadda yadda."
This makes John the link between the eyewitness "Here's what we saw and heard" and the church councils and theologians who followed him and were asking "What does this mean?" And John is very clear on what it means: "... that you may believe, and that believing you may have life in His name." A very simple but deep message, rather like the sermon he is traditionally reported to have given umpty-zillion times as a very old man: "Little children, love one another." I think John had gotten to the point where his life had been so pared away that nothing but the key points remained.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yo Pimple, "impatient" is the right answer. I dislocated a shoulder bellydancing and am in a sling. Be nice to me.
[tangent]
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
So is this the post of one hand typing? Or do you have voice recognition?
[/tangent]
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
