|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
22 Then the Jews said, "Is he going to kill himself? Is that what he means by saying, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" 23 He said to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he."
[John 8.22-24]
Which also answers the question I put above. This totally uncompromising stance is quite a big part of the gospel which even some liberal Christians love so much.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Catching up on the week's offerings...
RE: John 8:16-18
There is that tension in the passage between the court setting, where legal parameters apply (two witnesses needed...) and the theological fact that one of the witnesses is claimed to be God himself. Surely the point of the legal rule was to ensure there were two 'earthly' witnesses to any Godly claim? Isn't it cheating by Jesus and John to claim “My message and I are from God” and then to whip out another claim – that God is sending the message and messenger? It's a claim about a claim, not a witness to a claim. Where is the testimony from God as a witness, if not from the words and deeds of Jesus, who is making the claim in the first place?
Things become even more bizarre if the allusion Jesus is making in John 8:17 (“The testimony of two men is true”) is to Deut. 17:6 and/or 19:15 -
quote:
[NET Bible]
Deut. 17:6 = At the testimony of two or three witnesses they must be executed. They cannot be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.
Deut. 19:15 = A single witness may not testify against another person for any trespass or sin that he commits. A matter may be legally established only on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Jesus and A.N. Other versus the State in a judicial enquiry, where Jesus and A.N. Other are the two necessary witnesses – and also, apparently from the John context, the Judges.
It is not surprising that Jesus' testers respond with a “So where is your 'Father', then?” (v. 19). Obviously a second witness would need to be sensually present (i.e. capable of being perceived by at least two of the human senses). The response is on a par with Nicodemus' and the Samaritan women's responses to Jesus' startling sayings. They may seem pettish, but are actually very understandable. Jesus is just not playing by the rules!
I find it hard to believe that Jesus or John was being deliberately obtuse – or even incredibly naïve. There's more to this plot than meets the eye.
But what is it???
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
...and...
RE: John 8:19-20
Jesus and John pull the key saying out of the fire: If you want to get to the truth about my claims, you will need to 'know' me. Only then you will see the second witness (God). This might be asking too much because it requires committed alignment with the very thing one is investigating before one takes any rash decision. Perhaps Jesus is confronting the very need for investigation? If God's requirements have already canonised by the community of God, then what are the theologians doing challenging them? This sounds as though Jesus (and John) is arguing that only from a position of rebellion against God would someone seek to 'investigate.' Equally, only from a position of loyalty to God will one know which way to go.
Jesus is still doing the rabbi thing in the Temple precincts (he's been there since 7:14 – apart from the possible nightly sleeping bag retirements referred to in 8:1f). The 'two witness' reference rings closer now to Deut. 17:6 – we are in the presence of execution allusions. A time is coming...
RE: 8:21-24
“You will die in your sin”
Repeated a few times – must be important in the plot. Perhaps an allusion to Deut. 24:16 -
quote:
NET Bible
Fathers must not be put to death for what their children do, nor children for what their fathers do; each must be put to death for his own sin.
This would carry forward the theme Jesus has been alluding to thus far – that what is at stake here is judgement leading to sentence of death. The rebels will die as a result of their rebellion (sin) and will miss out on entering the promised land.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
There is that tension in the passage between the court setting, where legal parameters apply (two witnesses needed...) and the theological fact that one of the witnesses is claimed to be God himself. Surely the point of the legal rule was to ensure there were two 'earthly' witnesses to any Godly claim?
Actually, to any criminal claim--or to any claim in general (I'm thinking of testimony about disputed possessions right now). Godly claims didn't come into it, for the simple reason that they were not made (first commandment). Unless you count the numerous self-promoting prophets, and their judge was generally time, as in: "Did it come true? No? Okay, hand me a rock." ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Isn't it cheating by Jesus and John to claim “My message and I are from God” and then to whip out another claim – that God is sending the message and messenger? It's a claim about a claim, not a witness to a claim. Where is the testimony from God as a witness, if not from the words and deeds of Jesus, who is making the claim in the first place?
Well, you COULD see this as an allusion to the baptism of Jesus, and "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him!" Which was rather public, though disputed by many.
But I think something else is going on (see below).
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
It is not surprising that Jesus' testers respond with a “So where is your 'Father', then?” (v. 19). Obviously a second witness would need to be sensually present (i.e. capable of being perceived by at least two of the human senses). The response is on a par with Nicodemus' and the Samaritan women's responses to Jesus' startling sayings. They may seem pettish, but are actually very understandable. Jesus is just not playing by the rules! . . . There's more to this plot than meets the eye.
Very true. Me, I think he's messing with their heads. After all, this is NOT a formal legal setting, nobody is (officially) on trial here, and if Jesus chooses to mess around with the rules of procedure on such an occasion, who's to blame him? I think he's doing the usual good teacher thing, where you grab the moment, grab the handle the students are handing you (whatever that may be) and skillfully use it to bring the discussion round to what YOU want to talk about--for their own sake. It takes quick wits and a nimble tongue, but if you can do it, it works so much better than "hush up, you in the back row, I'm trying to talk about God here."
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
22 Then the Jews said, "Is he going to kill himself? Is that what he means by saying, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" 23 He said to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he."
[John 8.22-24]
Which also answers the question I put above. This totally uncompromising stance is quite a big part of the gospel which even some liberal Christians love so much.
Ouch, yes. He doesn't pussyfoot around. Which makes me wonder if some of the "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" fans have ever read these passages.
The "I am he" bit is of course his claim to be "I AM," the Lord, YHWH. Which puts him perilously close to being stoned.
The "dying in your sins" thing reminds me of several passages in the Law of Moses where various kinds of sin (such as incest) are mentioned with the punishment, "they will carry (or bear) their sins." I think it means that they will remain unforgiven--that as long as they stay in that state, no sacrifice will do them any good. Which is essentially to be separated from God both while living and dead. The OT passages mention this result with no other form of punishment imposed, as I recall--apparently the bare separation was hell enough.
--------------------
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
quote:
25 They said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Why do I speak to you at all? [or What I have told you from the beginning."]26 I have much to say about you and much to condemn; but the one who sent me is true, and I declare to the world that I have heard from him." 27 They did not understand that he was speaking to them about the Father.
[John 8.25-27]
The possibility of more than one translation of
verse 25b shows the complexity of getting to grips with what is going on here; if It sounds
more like a rant than a reasoned argument that may be no more than a hopeless desire for a bit of English sang froid in a totally inappropriate context!
Will have to leave it there - my mouse has St. Vitus' Dance.
[ 15. May 2012, 17:52: 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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Here is the passage in several translations.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Thanks, Moo. The NRSV version looks decidedly idiosyncratic alongside these.
--------------------
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
Okay, this is what I'm digging up. My Greek NT has gone walkies for the moment, so I got this on Bible Gateway and consulted A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament because I'm crap with pronouns:
την αρχην / ο τι / και / λαλω υμιν
the beginning / the what / also, even / I say to you
or
entirely, at all / why / even / I speak to you
You can see how this single Greek sentence combines several words that, all by themselves, have a range of options. Put them together in one sentence and you get an unusual range of possibilities, and including "[I am] even what I told you from the beginning" all the way to "Why do I even speak to you at all?"
Greek is not usually this ambiguous. But any language can do this, witness the horrid example I ran across today:
quote:
He knew not to consult the Lord.
This occurred in some fake King-James-style writing where the author was consistently placing the "not" after the verb; so the meaning is therefore either
a. He didn't know [he ought to] consult the Lord,
or
b. He was smart enough to know he should not consult the Lord.
If English can do that kind of horror, I suppose I ought not to complain about the Greek.
--------------------
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
Ah! Not so idiosyncratic, then. But NRSV does give the more popular alternative, anyway. quote:
28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he [Gk "I am"], and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me. 29 And the one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him." 30 As he was saying these things, many believed in him.
[John 8.28-30]
Seems to contradict any suggestion made by the synoptic accounts that Jesus could ever possibly think that God had abandaoned him - because he always did what his Father God told him to do.
Isn't this a clear example of belief driving the "facts"? (No, of course not, and someone will be along shortly to explain why!)
What it reminds me of is the Muslim belief that Jesus did not die on the cross. The same reasoning applies. Jesus was a perfect son. What mortal father, let alone God, would stand by and let such a thing happen?
--------------------
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, I don't mind obliging you... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
The point of Jesus' abandonment on the cross is precisely the point when we are told "he who knew no sin became sin, that in him we might become the righteousness of God." By your own reasoning, then, it makes sense that if Jesus is ever to experience abandonment, it would be precisely at the point where he steps into our shoes as a sinner...
No need to pit the Gospels against one another.
As for the other question, it tends to take us away from Keryg stuff and into substitutionary theology--want to start a new thread? Just my 2 cents. But I have a lot of trouble with any theology that presumes goodness is sufficient to keep one from suffering.
--------------------
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 I'm not the one claiming that God would not abandon Jesus. Jesus - or rather, John is. Nor am I the one pitting one gospel against another. The evangelists do it themselves - not to destroy their antecedents, but to correct and amplify them.
[ 18. May 2012, 14:02: 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
Nevertheless I must stop suggesting that anything in John is "self-evident". Nothing is self-evident. I'm beginning to see how I can approach the Johanine discourses in a more positive frame of mind.
quote:
29...And the one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him." 30 As he was saying these things, many believed in him. 31 Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
[John 8.29-32]
I'm trying to read it like a libretto. All those repeats are like the simple phrases in Bach and Rachmaninov which build up one on another to produce a glorious tune. I never stop to think "Oh not that old one and a half tones up, semitone down, whole tone up nonsense again...."
[ 19. May 2012, 19:04: 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
Good! John is rather like Bach, I think. Or vice versa.
But if you want to step back to the old approach for just a sec, I'll point out that Jesus uses the perfect tense for the Father's action--He HAS not left me alone. This says nothing about the future, you'll note, only about the past up to this point. And it is a rather odd way of speaking--if you mean to describe a situation that is always and ever true (at least in English), you use the present tense ("He never leaves me alone"). Jesus does in fact use the present tense in the second half of the statement: "I always do what pleases him." This is the normal way of expressing something true yesterday, today and forever. Which leaves us to wonder just why he chose a non-eternal tense for the Father's leaving him alone... BWA-ha-ha-ha.
Thus speaketh the tense detective.
[Twirls mustache, disappears stage left]
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Following Lamb Chopped's in-tense moment...
I noticed that John uses Greek verbs to signal a distinction between important and background material. In particular, the imperfect verb form is used to provide background, and the aorist foreground material of importance. There's a persistent tendency to associate the aorist with Jesus' actions and words, while relegating the questions from his opponents to the background. It's as though John is 'red-lettering' Jesus' words and actions for his readers. Quite in your face.
Word order and style is useful for tracking the important bits through a narrative. In this whole section (chapters 7-8) Jesus' words are thus highlighted, but so are a few other key points. For example, two opposing conclusions are played off against each other: the Jewish leaders “did NOT RECOGNISE [aorist] that he (i.e. Jesus) was speaking about the father” (8:27) and “while he was saying these things, many BELIEVED [aorist] in him” (8:30). These two outcomes appear to be important information that John wanted his readers to take on board.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
And John wants his hearers to do the same. So he's quoting Jesus verbatim, as it were, in order to get the same result. It works. Even
today. Don't ask me (or tell me!) how.
--------------------
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
Back to the sons of Abraham; continuing Jesus' discussion with those who "had believed in him".
quote:
33 They answered him, "We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, 'You will be made free'?" 34 Jesus answered them, "Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever. 36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed...
The "Very truly" start of Jesus' reply is one of those Amen, Amen, sayings, which I believe refer as often as not to the previous speaker's remarks ("Yes, Yes, I know that, but....") - which shows him in a far more approachable light than the rather pompous-sounding (in English) "Verily, verily".
quote:
37 "...I know you are dewscendants of Abraham;yet..
See? I told you so!
[ 25. May 2012, 10:24: 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
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
I seem to remember this passage is often read together with Genesis 21, the stories of Isaac as the free-born legitimate son who belongs in the household, as opposed to the slave-born son Ishmael who does not belong in the household and is driven out.
So the Jewish speakers here claim to be free sons of Abraham, descended by lineage from a free father or founder. But Jesus tells them they are slaves to habitual and persistent sin, unfree and born unfree into the slavery of sin.
From a very contemporary perspective, sin is described the way we would now speak of the slavery of addiction, what it is like to be trapped in habituation, repetition and cravings, self-destructive behaviour.
The only free son or descendant of Abraham and God is Jesus Himself and as the Son He is able to free those enslaved by sin, He can intervene because He is not just descended from Abraham but is God's Son and belongs in the Household of God..
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
The allusion to Gebesis is interesting. I'm having second thoughts about Jesus still talking to the Jews who believed in him. I think that remark was probably meant to be seen as in parenthesis, and Jesus is still addressing the problems of those who have yet to be convinced.
He would hardly accuse new converts of wanting to kill him - oops - that's yet to come.
[ 26. May 2012, 03:59: 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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
It's a good question: Who is Jesus speaking to/about in this whole section?
We have “the Jews” (from 7:11), which is John's shorthand for those in authority – probably with a Temple base (in the wide sense, not just ritual, but academic). Then there are “the common people” (7:12), a term John uses to offset against the authorities. Those commoners are divided in opinion about Jesus' validity.
Then there follows a strange alternation between those two camps, with Jews and commoners swinging back and forth in opinion about Jesus' validity and asking quite a few questions.
In 7:25 we are introduced to “residents of Jerusalem.” Are these the Jews? The commoners? Or is John reflecting another distinction – perhaps between the traditional conservative city dwellers (not the authorities) and those attending the feast from elsewhere in the country (or even wider)? This latter may be the case, because in 7:30 those city dwellers are presupposed in the verb 'they sought [to seize Jesus]' whereas some of the commoners believed in him.
Then we are back to the authorities in 7:35 who are opposed to Jesus, while the commoners are divided in opinion again (7:40-43). John focusses on the authorities in chapter 8 – but then he upsets the cart in 8:31 by mentioning authorities [Jews] who had believed Jesus. Is he backing off to include all Judaeans – commoners and all? Or telling us that there had been at one time (past tense) some in authority who had indeed believed in Jesus, but who now were opposed? Or that there were indeed some in authority who had put their faith in Jesus and continued to do so?
Perhaps John is indeed throwing the latter in to the mix and is having Jesus prod them right where it hurts, as he did with previous group representatives (Samaritan woman, Nicodemus...). It would fit the style. In this case, Jesus provides an interesting test case for pastoral care in how to weed out veneer members of the community! Scratch the surface and you will be surprised what you find underneath!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
On the "never been slaves to anyone" bit--Mr. Lamb and I always roll our eyes when this comes up, as it completely overlooks four hundred years of slavery in Egypt, which is basically your nation's founding story, right? I want to say "Hello? HELLLLLOOOOOOOO????"
Not to mention assorted oppressions by Philistia, Midian, Moab, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and OH HEY what about the Romans right now?
Think you forgot something?
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
"We have never been anyone's slaves!" is certainly a strange claim to make. It would be surprising for residents of Jerusalem, of all people, not to remember their history and current affairs. There are records of Jews who had, as young men, been carted off to perform slave labour in the Roman empire for decades and who had only in recent years been released, permitting them in their more advanced age to settle in Jerusalem. Although they were by that stage Greek-speaking, their ordeal as Jewish slaves could hardly have been unknown to Jesus' conversation partners.
I wondered, therefore, if perhaps the slavery reference would be to something other than political domination and slavery. Jesus' response (sin being the slave master) might point in that other direction, as he does not pick up the idea of political slavery in his reply. Perhaps the reference to slavery was in the context of the promises to Abraham as a loyal follower of Yahweh? Those who were part of Abraham's family were God's people and this provided assurance of salvation. Abraham's descendants were free from the threat of being judged guilty by God – so long as they retained the practices of loyalty to God.
Then Jesus' response was that the promises to Abraham do not alone guarantee spiritual freedom. Rebellion against God is proof of slavery to rebellion itself. There's a harking back to some of the prophetic messages here: mere performance of correct practice in ritual would never be enough to cover disloyal practices in heart.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I'd like to fill out verse 37, which pimple started above, if I may...
quote:
John 8:37
I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. But you want to kill me, because my teaching makes no progress among you.
The lack of understanding of - or better, resistance to - Jesus' explanations of God and his message links back to the theme in the Introduction: The light has been shining in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it (John 1:5).
The discussion around validity of Jesus - and that of his debating partners here - is getting touchy. It's beginning to get personal now.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
But it does make progress, doesn't it? But not, perhaps, where Jesus/John most wanted it to? At the time of writing (the fourth gospel), Paul had long ago given up on the Jews (after all, some of his compatriots did try to kill him!) and taken his message to the gentiles.
So why is John rubbing it in - the intransigence of "the Jews" - whoever they may be, set alongside the (?fragile) belief of the predominantly gentile Johanine community?
[ 03. June 2012, 05:01: 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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I think from the verbal aspects in verse 31 that Jesus is addressing those in authority (the Jews) who had until recently followed his teaching. They 'had been believing in him' in sense that this belief had now come to an end (perfect active participle of the verb “to believe”). Jesus urges them to 'remain in his word' - “If you would just stick with it” (aorist active subjunctive of the verb “to remain / stay”).
This might imply that this passage is addressing those who had broken faith with the community – fallen away, relapsed, gone off the rails, recidivists, traitors – whichever term suits best!
Perhaps John felt the need here to provide guidance for his readers on the test of who was 'in' and who was 'out'? The proof of real discipleship – and who really is a true disciple – lies in whether they continue to follow Jesus and do what he teaches: “If you would just stay in my teaching (remain in my word), then in truth you are my followers” (7:31b). Whether the readership was a specific community or wider Christianity in general, well, I suppose it could apply to both.
'Progress' in verse 37 can also mean a 'holding or making room for'. There's a sense here of Jesus' teaching having filled up a rather narrow space and is set to burst, for lack of room. The space had max'd out. John uses the word only three times in the Gospel: once to describe the capacity of the stone water jars in 2:6 (holding a maximum of 20 or 30 gallons); and again in 21:25 to describe the capacity of the world to contain a record of everything Jesus said and did. In v.37, then, Jesus is implying that the field of view among these Jews had been too narrow. They were too constrained and were not prepared to broaden their horizons – or admit the need for change. The teaching of Jesus had reached their limits. Any more and something would have to give. Under that pressure they had opted to throw it all out.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
And thus lose their chance of eternal life - seen by many then, as it is now, as a promise of physical, mental and spiritual immortality?
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
That does indeed seem to be the implication in what follows. The skewer is being stuck in by Jesus as he picks up the 'How's your father' theme in this passage. First...
quote:
John 8:38
Just as I speak what I have seen while with the father, so also you do what you have heard from your father.
This verse is capable of being translated in few different ways, but in light of how the conversation moves on I think Jesus is being recorded as making a distinction between his father (God) as author of his teaching, and his accusers' father (identity about to be revealed explicitly) who authors their teachings and actions. To show this I need to bring in the next few verses, with apologies for adding a chunk, but I'm not sure how else to show where this is going.
quote:
John 8:39-44a
They answered him, “Abraham is our father!” Jesus replied, “If you are Abraham’s children, you would be doing the deeds of Abraham. But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth I heard from God. Abraham did not do this! You people are doing the deeds of your father.”
Then they said to Jesus, “We were not born as a result of immorality! We have only one Father, God himself.” Jesus replied, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come from God and am now here. I have not come on my own initiative, but he sent me. Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching. You people are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. ...
Jesus has been making the same distinction Paul makes later, between descendants (seed) of Abraham and children of Abraham. Children behave like their father – that is a more important category than those who may well be descended from Abraham, but who behave differently. They must have a different father. Jesus provokes the response: “We are not bastards” (or possibly, 'sons of whores'). There's likely an implied accusation against Jesus' heritage in this response – we aren't the illegitimate sons here! Jesus' response to this? These very Jews are in fact the illegitimate ones: their father is not Abraham, neither is it God; they are the devil's spawn. This neatly cuts them off from God's kingdom – and by implication those who John as author is getting at among his readership.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Thank you for helping me over those tough few verses. How do those who love John's gospel cope with this? Do they feel they can, themselves, adopt the same - or a similar - stance, towards their neighbours?
[ 04. June 2012, 19:59: 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
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
I am one who loves John's gospel, and I have no problem with deciding not adopt the same stance. I know that as the Son of God, Jesus could speak with sure knowledge about the motivations of the individual people he was addressing whereas I cannot. I see my job to be assuming the best of people and leaving the judgment to God.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Suggest you compare this passage with 1 John, specifically his description of "those who went out from us" e.g. apostates--the same theme is reiterated there. "This is how we know thechildren of God and of the devil ... if theyhad been of us, they would not have gone out from us. True parentage will show itself in actions. One of which is staying with the rest of the family.
[ 05. June 2012, 05:24: 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
Thank you. That's very revealing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
How do those who love John's gospel cope with this? Do they feel they can, themselves, adopt the same - or a similar - stance, towards their neighbours?
Indeed, that's the Gurkha kukri* question, isn't it? Once we uncover the meaning of a passage (the author's intent that has a moral claim on us), what do we do with it? Can we shove it back into its canonical casing, hoping nobody notices, and go about our normal routine as though we had never made that discovery? Surely we are obliged honestly to tackle the issues that come out with the meaning.
There are plenty of readers – some on the Ship, I know – who do agree with the need to identify the author's meaning even though they risk finding the outcome unpalatable, and to tackle it honestly. One possible response is to place the finding in terms of historical development, i.e., the human author was a child of his times and the reading was been superseded by later understandings.
This particular approach, though, finds another issue in the way when the author is Jesus himself. For those who see Jesus as God's representative it is not so easy to dismiss the author's meaning to historical relativity. One way over the problem is to associate the meaning not with Jesus, but with the human Gospel writer. So, for example, in the current passage it is John who mistakenly records Jesus as saying such-and-such. Jesus in fact had a very different agenda.
This approach has its own issues. Firstly, what criteria could be used to make this distinction? Are there any publicly available principles to draw on that would validate such an approach sufficiently to offset the criticism that the reader is simply adopting personal preferences? Secondly, how does such an approach account for the canonical development of the texts, the process whereby passages such as this are accepted by the community of God and disseminated down the years?
Seeing that I haven't come across criteria sufficient to meet the above objections, I'm in the crew that has to lie in the bed I've made: having uncovered the author's meaning of a passage I am then obliged – if I am to stay a loyal member of God's family – to accept it and make it work.
Here it would be great to spend some time working through the implications of that (which would include making sure we have the broader spectrum of authorial intentions to hand from the bible, among others the texts Lamb Chopped referred to), but time and tide may be against us. One thought did occur to me from reading W Hyatt's post on the idea of acceptance: Judas may provide an interesting support. Why did Jesus tolerate Judas Iscariot among his close followers? After all, he knew at some point that this erstwhile disciple was going through a crisis of faith. Why not cut him off from the team and send him on his way? Wasn't Judas' activity contrary to the good of the community and counter to what was expected? Was he demonstrating himself to be a child of God, or a son of the devil (John 6:70)? There may be a lesson / principle here about accepting the existence of anti-christ elements within the community. How would church leaders react to this idea?
Food for thought. Anyway, I don't doubt that this principle – if it is one – would need setting against the principles elsewhere about discord in the community.
* according to popular legend, once drawn it cannot be sheathed without drawing blood.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Thank you. That's very revealing.
Oh dear. Of Jesus, or me? Or John, I suppose.
I was on a Totally Unsuitable Device for posting then (I say now, as I commit hrboleile errrorrs, sigh) and will now wax more prolix. Sorry guys!
1 John goes around and around on how you can distinguish between the children of God and the children of the devil (or whatever handy term you wish to use), and mentions about a dozen characteristics. Staying with the family is just one of them, but it IS one. And he's not referring to people who wander away from home for a while, but to people who go and stay gone permanently. Though it's illegitimate to apply that to leaving a single congregation or denomination for another, since the whole body of Christ is meant.
W Hyatt upthread talked about the very important distinction between what God (Jesus) can do and what I as an ordinary Christian can do. Making judgements about the interior spiritual state of someone is God's realm. I'm not equipped for the job. But thanks to Jesus and John and others, the church is equipped to do a careful, trembling, tentative approximation of this for the purpose of protecting the church and those going off the rails only. So Mr. Lamb has had to put someone in a leadership position on discipline lately for divisiveness and immoral life after several warnings over a period of two years. We're not saying he's going to hell; we are saying that a) he doesn't meet the criteria for biblical leadership, and b) he's demonstrably hurting everybody else in the congregation. The relief in the congo has been tremendous. And the guy has the option of repentance and restoration at any time...
Jesus'/John's distinctions sound harsh but so does any wake-up call.
--------------------
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
As for Judas, the indications in the Gospel are that Jesus did notice something was up with him, and made multiple attempts to reach out to him. There was that rebuke after Judas got nasty about Mary's gift. Hey, a rebuke is no fun, but sometimes it's a lifesaver. And it's interesting that Jesus got very downright with him AFTER he did something that was clearly damaging another member of the believing community, and in public even...
Another reach-out attempt that is recorded would be the footwashing thing, which clearly involved Judas. And there was the honoring of him with the special morsel at the last supper. If you work out the seating (!) arrangements at the table that night, it appears Jesus had John to one side and Judas to the other, in the positions of honor, which was surely intentional. Peter was away down the table, and Judas preferred over him (which is why Peter couldn't hear any of the whispered conversations about "who is it" and had to make gestures at John to ask). I suspect there were a lot of other unrecorded attempts by Jesus to reach Judas. Pity none of them worked.
You have to make reach-out efforts in a situation like that, over and over, until the person either leaves of his own accord or you reach the point where the damage to the community is outweighing the increasingly-less-likely chance of regaining the person. All the church leaders I know err in the direction of tolerating damaging crap way too long, because they just can't handle the tough love thing. But it's probably better than erring in the opposite direction.
--------------------
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
W ell, I thought W Hyatt's admirably brief post said it all. But then Nigel's "Amen, amen..." reply and Lamb Chopped's (how do you pronounce that) anecdote gave me even more to think about.
I've always quite liked being preached to ![[Smile]](smile.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
quote:
You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
[John 8.44-45] I will check back a couple of posts in case I haven't been paying proper attention. Who, exactly, was a murderer from the beginning? The devil? From the beginning on what? Whom did he murder? Am I being particularly dense here?
[ 08. June 2012, 13:51: 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
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
An alternative translation I found:
umeis ek tou patros tau diabolou este kai tas epithumias tou patros umōn thelete poiein ekeinos anthrōpoktonos ēn ap archēs kai en tē alētheia ouk estēken oti ouk estin alētheia en autō otan lalē to pseudos ek tōn idiōn lalei oti pseustēs estin kai ho patēr autou egō de oti tēn alētheian legō ou pisteuete moi
You are from the Devil as the father, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. (John 8.44 – 45)
'That one' then refers to the devil as a murderer and the father of all lies. He was a murderer from the beginning because he destroyed Adam's innocence (Gen. 3, cf. Wisd. 2.24; Rom. 5.12.) and stood in opposition to God from the beginning of Creation. Jesus addresses those who have inherited lies from their father the devil, were born into lies and deceit through their father the devil and cannot discern truth. They are unable and unwilling to acknowledge the Truth in Jesus that He embodies.
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
It sounds very determinist. Is 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
Sin IS pretty determinist. I mean, it's like a bear trap. Before you step into it you've got all the freedom in the world. Afterwards, well...
Which is why we get the whole bit of "slaves to sin" and "If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."
--------------------
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
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Mary LA: quote:
'That one' then refers to the devil as a murderer and the father of all lies. He was a murderer from the beginning because he destroyed Adam's innocence (Gen. 3, cf. Wisd. 2.24; Rom. 5.12.) and stood in opposition to God from the beginning of Creation. Jesus addresses those who have inherited lies from their father the devil, were born into lies and deceit through their father the devil and cannot discern truth. They are unable and unwilling to acknowledge the Truth in Jesus that He embodies.
So what happened to "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." Are God and his works so fragile that another part of creation can totally destroy his good work? It seems to say Satan is nearly equal to God, which I believe is a far cry from the truth. And is Jesus saying this of everyone, that everyone is almost terminally resist to God's call? Or is he speaking to those who have shown themselves to be, those Jews who are arguing with him? I find it ironic that the same conversation starts with: "So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” And now suddenly they are all arguing.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
It is a very hard and intransigeant passage isn't it? Shades of Manicheanism.
I was thinking about this after I looked around through various translations that might help me get a closer understanding and it occurred to me (it's been a while since I wrestled or angsted over these passages) that what Jesus is addressing in such an uncompromising way is the tissue of lies that masks evil, the fact that these people cannot hear the truth or recognise the truth because they are so enmeshed in the lies that have blinded them since birth.
When I read historical accounts of the denialism of groups involved in inhumane wars or torture or abuse, I wonder why those self-serving lies were so pervasive and so totalised and triumphalist an ideology. Might Jesus have been addressing something as pervasive and Other?
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Good points, MaryLA.
What these Jewish folks were clinging to was their Jewish identity as descendents of Abraham and people of his covenant with God. And I think much of this comes from being brutalized by Roman occupation and memories of the Exile. That's why the Pharisees were so strict. If God were going to continue to be the Hebrew nation's protector, its own God, the people were going to have to keep their eye on the covenant. They would have to cross the Ts and dot the Is ritually to really set themselves apart from pagan worship. The nation had messed up before and if the Pharisees had any say in it, they wouldn't again.
They certainly weren't expecting a wandering prophet to demand they keep their eyes on him for ultimate salvation. That was waaaay out there in left field. It was too big a leap, even for those who "believed" him.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
What these Jewish folks were clinging to was their Jewish identity as descendents of Abraham and people of his covenant with God. And I think much of this comes from being brutalized by Roman occupation and memories of the Exile. That's why the Pharisees were so strict. If God were going to continue to be the Hebrew nation's protector, its own God, the people were going to have to keep their eye on the covenant. They would have to cross the Ts and dot the Is ritually to really set themselves apart from pagan worship. The nation had messed up before and if the Pharisees had any say in it, they wouldn't again.
They certainly weren't expecting a wandering prophet to demand they keep their eyes on him for ultimate salvation. That was waaaay out there in left field. It was too big a leap, even for those who "believed" him.
[tangent] ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Recently my other half came across a book that looked at the OT through a sociological lens, which made a similar point to the one you are making here. There were parallels in the way that the Israelites behaved to modern day refugee communities. How to preserve the identity of the community was one of the common themes of concern. If this was what the Pharisees were trying to do, then one can understand why they thought they were doing the right thing and wouldn't give in to what Jesus had to say. The problem is that I am not sure the Bible did present the Pharisees in that light, so the question then is whether the Biblical writers were biased because they were trying to present a view, or the Pharisees really were just a bunch self righteous/power hungry people who thought they were better than everybody else, as I had been taught to believe over the years. [/tangent]
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Does anyone know the background to Jesus' assertion that the devil was a murderer from the beginning? I understand the link to Genesis 3 (and off into chapter 4 with the murder of Abel), but in what sense was the devil a murderer, rather than just a deceiver?
The Greek phrase in John (anthropoktonos en ap arches = ανθρωποκτόνος ην απ' αρχης) suggests a 'manslayer', which is not the word used by the Septuagint for 'murderer' (phoneutes = φονευτής). Someone who brings death to a human may be acting unintentionally, or as the state's executioner, just as much as a murderer. This leaves me with the question: Did John intend to leave the issue somewhat wide so that he could squeeze Gen. 3 in here, of was there an existing tradition Jesus/John was drawing on and that Jesus' conversation partners would have recognised, concerning the devil's crimes?
I note that 1 John 3:15 makes a similar claim to John 8: “Everyone who hates his fellow Christian is a murderer [same word – anthropoktonos]...” This brings to mind Matthew 5:21-22 -
quote:
“You have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not murder [verbal form of phoneutes],’ and ‘whoever murders will be subjected to judgment.’ But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell.
Perhaps John was calling to mind that saying of Jesus when he wrote 1 John 3:15 and the use of a different Greek word is merely down to differences in translating from Jesus' original Aramaic saying.
Or...something else?
The only other possible relevant text I can find is one from the Wisdom of Solomon 2:24 - “...but through the devil’s spite death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it.” Not as strong an assertion as John's, but perhaps a clue that by Jesus' time there was a belief in circulation that the devil was at least indirectly responsible (prime mover?) for denying humans an automatic right to eternal life.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Maybe I'm being clueless, but isn't he called a murderer from the beginning because he tempted human beings in the Garden in a way that led to their death? (and that of all their descendants) That sounds like murder to me. And "from the beginning" I think doesn't mean "from the moment of creation," but rather "from way back at the very start of Things". So there's room for him to have been created good, once upon a time.
I'm no expert, but I think trying to make a difference between murder proper and manslaughter based on the Greek here is probably a step too far. I mean, in English we say "murder" when technically (legally) the charges would be voluntary manslaughter, or abuse and neglect, or what-have-you. What we mean is "causing someone else's death wrongfully through one's own evil behavior." I think it likely that Koine speakers also used apokteino a bit loosely.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
...I think trying to make a difference between murder proper and manslaughter based on the Greek here is probably a step too far.
That may be right and I understand the link to Gen. 3, but I was thinking that using 'murder' in English versions perhaps doesn't get the gist, or nuance, of John's intent here. I was wondering whether there existed in second temple Judaism a tradition associating the devil with that particular phrase that John was tapping into.
One of the reasons why I have concerns about the word 'murder' as a translation, is that Jesus' argument rests in part on the comparison between what the devil did/does and the example his opponents are following. They are seeking to kill Jesus (8:37, 40) – judicial execution – and this proves their heritage as killers of the truth (along the lines of the devil).
Of course, it may just be John's idiosyncrasy to use this word (his own idiolect). It occurs nowhere else in the NT (or LXX versions as far as I can tell) apart from the 1 John 3 passage, so we can't compare usage across the biblical text. There are a couple of instances in classical Greek literature: one referring to cannibalism and one to the dietary habits of the Cyclops. Little to go on, really (apart, obviously, from flesh!).
There is one possible benefit from that phrase as John uses it. It broadens the horizon in a way that use of mere 'murder' does not. Taking anthopos in its wider generic sense, the phrase could be taken to mean “Right at the start the devil proved himself to be the cause of death for all humans” (i.e., not just the murderer of Adam). However, this borders on speculation and doesn't fit very well with the few other uses of anthropoktonos elsewhere. Perhaps this is just another of those slips of paper to go on the spike awaiting another time (and convenient archaeological discovery!).
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Some of them don't get it, do they?
quote:
"...Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God."
[John 8.46-47]
A statement that only God himself could get away with, surely? Any human being would have that first question answered with "How about the sin of pride - 'I cannot possibly be wrong'?"
But they not only do not recognise him as from God - they think - or have heard rumours to the effect - that he isn't even Jewish!
quote:
The Jews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?"
[John 8.48]
While you're slinging mud, why not throw stones as well as well? The Samaritan jibe because he told a story about a good one? The demon jibe probably harks back to an exorcism in which Jesus was accused of using sorcery to heal - which in turn led to his remark about the only unforgveable sin (lying against the Holy Spirit).
What a passage! Over to you, shipmates.
--------------------
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, the thing about the sin of pride is that you're only guilty of it if you make Jesus' statement AND you're lying. From the sound of things, nobody did, and Jesus was confident nobody could. I can tell you, if I said the same thing, there'd be choruses of answers! (as the entire House of Lamb rises to shout each other down) ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
What I love is the tone of total exasperation in Jesus' voice. It's like "Get.A.Freaking.Clue, people." Or as he said earlier, "Why do I even bother to talk to you at all?" ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Love to see God being human.
--------------------
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
Correction [to my post]: The unforgiveable sin was blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. The lying thing was Peter, not Jesus [/Tangent].
About pride. I have heard people claim that they speak with the unquestionable authority of God [Well, all the prophets did, didn't they?] But some of the most effectives vehicles of truth in the bible come quietly and without any preliminary fanfares. Dunno what that's got to do with anything... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.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
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, the thing about the sin of pride is that you're only guilty of it if you make Jesus' statement AND you're lying. From the sound of things, nobody did, and Jesus was confident nobody could. I can tell you, if I said the same thing, there'd be choruses of answers! (as the entire House of Lamb rises to shout each other down)
What I love is the tone of total exasperation in Jesus' voice. It's like "Get.A.Freaking.Clue, people." Or as he said earlier, "Why do I even bother to talk to you at all?" Love to see God being human.
A small point, LC, but when it comes to the printed word, a tone of voice is almost always in the ear of the reader - especially when the text a third party account of something originally in another language. Don't you agree?
[ 14. June 2012, 12:23: 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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
