What did I Misunderstand, Zachariah?

In the Faith and Belief forum, I accepted a challenge from Zachariah to read the book of John with an open mind. An open mind meaningZachariah’s Challenge:

quote:

---

I challenge you all to read the book of John start to finish as many times as you can for one week. Every day before you start reading and after you finish, say a prayer asking for direction, proof, if you're real then answer me in some way, etc... ...But when you have an open mind and are willing to allow God to speak to you in his way he will.

---

In message #125, I clarified the definition of an open mind from the dictionary. Open Minded-open to new ideas, not biased. So I read the book of John four times without assuming it was true or false. Took it at face value.I reported my perceptions in message #297 and Zachariah responded with:

quote:

---

There are a lot of areas that were misunderstood in your reading of JOHN. I hope you will read more in the bible and try to research it out some to see if you can get to the bottom of some of your questions or interpretations that you listed. If you have a question for me ask away and I'll see what I can do. Thanks again for giving it a shot. The seed has been planted that is all I can do. God bless you throughout your life I hope you do well.

---

Since the thread got overrun with the ToE discussion, there was no room for Zachariah to explain what he feels I have misunderstood.I would like to start a new thread so that we may continue a line of discussion on the results of the challenge.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Thanks, purpledawn, for continuing that thread. I registered with this forum yesterday morning, but by the time I finished reading the entire thread, it had been closed. I don't recall now what I intended to post, but I recall being disappointed.

It doesn't look like we are going to get Zachariah back to finish the discussion very soon if at all. Maybe he went on a sabbatical.I was really hoping in this forum someone actually explain what I supposedly don't understand. My experiences with bible studies usually ended this way. I didn't understand and they didn't want to discuss it. So I had to find my own answers and thus began the path toward atheism.Mogur, sorry this discussion didn't go anywhere very quickly. Maybe someone will rescue it within the next week or so.Have a great week!

No sabatical, I only do this at work so if I'm too busy it may take awhile. I'll try to touch on some points that I read that I questioned.
In other references to John in earlier gospels John (who is the youngest) is also referred to as "the one Jesus loved". It seems as though Jesus had his favorites. Maybe the author is unknown in this passage but the book of John is named so because it was written by John. Is there something untrue because they quote songs? The songs are prayers or statements of love sang out to God that doesn't take away from there authenticity, does it? A number of Psalms are referred to throughout the bible for backing. In Mark15:42 "It was preparation day (day before the Sabbath (friday) Mark 16:2 Very early on the first day of the week (sunday). It isn't a 24 hour day it is the day He was buried and the day He was raised. Friday, Saturday, Sunday (3 days). And that is why I was saying that I shouldn't have directed you or thers to read only the book of John. He doesn't mention the same things the others do, and vice versa. John was being spoke of in the past tense because he had been witnessing to everyone for so long about the coming messiah that when Christ came to speak John was no longer needed in the position he was in any longer. His job was done. He kept witnessing but the job they knew him for was no longer needed because Christ had come.
Not sure what you wanted to know about John 8:13,14,17-18 I never saw a question. The Pharisees didn't think his statements were valid because he didn't have another person with him to be a witness to afirm what he said as the truth(You had to have at least 2 people for a true witnessing or proof of truth). Jesus was telling them that He and the Father are the 2 witnesses so He has His witnesses and His proof. I'm not sure why this would be a problem. As in many cases word can get back to someone by others reporting back. A child dying is important and the child healing also is important. It was prooving Christ to be the true Messiah. So when the man gets message of the how's and whens of the miracle it got back to John by word of mouth, and Jesus already knew because He did it. I can understand that. My bible says the same thing "the earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11" None the less this is a good moral to live by. Since we all sin we shouldn't say to others how dare you sin. We are to judge one another but we are not judge in a pias (?spelling) arrogant way. I think the idea was to get them to understand the meaning behind the blood and flesh. Not that they were actually drinking blood and eating human flesh. In Luke the refereence is that it is his blood poored out for you. (His sacrifice, His blood is how we get salvation, the shedding of Christs blood>a symbol) Bread=flesh is the same thing. He broke the bread and said "this is my body given for you" He too was broken like the bread, (not in 2 pieces) but broken, beaten, and torn. That's all I have for now. I hope it was of some help. God bless you. -ZThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 05-18-2004 08:27 PMThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 05-18-2004 08:32 PM

Good to hear from you Zachariah. I was hoping you were just busy and hadn't left us.For the book of John to convince me that the story of Jesus, as presented in this manuscript, is true, it needs to stand on its own without Dogma and Tradition (DT) and not contradict the OT.Remember I’m working with an open mind, which means no presumption of truth or false. It doesn’t mean gullible. Right now I have this document in front of me that wants me to trust in what it says, but I haven't found any support in the OT for its claims. The early Jews would have used the OT to verify it, and that is what you will need to do to verify the claims of this book.

quote:

---

Craig L. Blomberg, PHD, state in the book The Case for Christ by Lee Strombel: It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.

---

To my: John 21:23-25 Leaves the author and his backers unknown. The disciple who Jesus loved is not identified. You reply:

quote:

---

In other references to John in earlier gospels John (who is the youngest) is also referred to as "the one Jesus loved". It seems as though Jesus had his favorites.

---

What scripture specifically. I couldn’t find any reference to John the disciple being preferred, except in the book of John. You are using unknown authors to verify an unknown author.To my: The short OT references, which the writer uses to confirm the truth of his writing, don’t really back up the writer’s point. Several are lines taken from Psalms which are songs. You reply:

quote:

---

Is there something untrue because they quote songs? The songs are prayers or statements of love sang out to God that doesn't take away from there authenticity, does it? A number of Psalms are referred to throughout the bible for backing.

---

Yes, I have a problem with using songs to verify a claim. All it verifies is that the author read or sang the Psalms. Example: John 2:17 His disciples remembered that it is written: Zeal for your house will consume me.Psalms 69:8-9 actually says: I am estranged from my brothers, an alien to my mother’s sons; because zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.The song was written in the present tense of its author, not referring to a future happening. So the author of John apparently has been singing it wrong. Growing up I came across many songs that I felt mirrored my life or feelings at the moment, but even quoting a song correctly doesn’t make the songwriter or his words a witness to my life or any claims I make with lines from their song.The songwriters in Psalms sang of their time and experiences.Right now I have to head out to work, so I will continue with the rest of your comments this evening.Have an excellent day!

You were correct that John is the only place talking about "the one Jesus loved". I knew I had read it somewhere but thaought it was a different gospel. The OT reference will take some time to research but I'll do my best to find out what I can. It is interesting that the gospels all quote psalms more than any other book in the bible. It would be interesting to find out why that was, if there is any reason to it. There are alot of prophecy quoted as well that was fullfilled that I'll check on but that might not be what you are looking for. If that's the case I don't know what to do. I just recently got a fresh outlook on my faith as of 4-5 years. Not a different faith but a knew understanding (Hebrew roots and such) since that time I started reading the bible and have a knew understanding and love for it. That said, I recently finished the NT for the first time. Now I'm starting the OT to see all the ways it collaborates the NT. Interesting how it may come in to play a part in helping our Q/A sessions. Cool huh? -ZThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 05-19-2004 07:01 PM

Sounds like you are where I was about 5 years ago. Enjoy the journey, it is an amazing trip. - PD

More to digest.To my: Never found the mention of the rising after three days.
You referred me to Mark 15:42. Again you have an unknown verifying an unknown.John 2:19-22 reads: Jesus answered them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews then said, It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days? But he was speaking of the temple of his body. So when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this, and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.John 20:9 states For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.So there should be some verification in the OT for this claim. Where is this in the OT?Concerning my comments: Testimony: John 5:31-32 If I alone testify about myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who testifies of me, and I know that the testimony which he gives about me is true. That testimony is not written down and it seems that at the time this statement was made John was dead. John 5:35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light. The Pharisees called him on the self testimony in John 8:13 So the Pharisees said to Him, You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true. But then John 8:14 Jesus answered with Even if I testify about myself, my testimony is true. And with John 8:17-18 Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. I am he who testifies about myself, and the father who sent me testifies about me.The point of this concern is that Jesus uses John as a witness and since we have no discernable timeline the later statement leaves the possibility that John may not have been around for that audience. From the book itself we really don’t know. Truly, when the book was actually written, John was not around.In the encounter with the Pharisees, Jesus now considers his own testimony to be acceptable. He also uses the testimony-of-two-men law to verify his claim. The problem with that is that God is supposedly not a man. So we have one man speaking for himself and another being who doesn’t talk out loud so that all can hear.Concerning Third Party Conversations you replied:

quote:

---

I'm not sure why this would be a problem. As in many cases word can get back to someone by others reporting back.

---

The problem is we don’t know who did the reporting. Was that a reliable person? How many people did it travel through? How long before the information came back? Hearsay can be problematic.John 7:53 - 8:11 suspect — The problem here is not the teaching, but that a large change was allowed to be made in the document. Since we don’t have true originals, the question arises could other changes have been made? All the more reason to check the claims of the document.Concerning the Flesh Eating and Blood Drinking scenario you answered:

quote:

---

I think the idea was to get them to understand the meaning behind the blood and flesh.

---

Unfortunately the writer didn’t really clarify the point and apparently the audience didn’t think so either. Where in the OT are the claims of John 6:49-58 covered? Where in the OT is the mention of eating anyone’s bread/flesh and drinking wine/blood will lead to eternal life?I don't feel this document accomplished its task of convincing me that its claims are true now or then.

Zachariah writes:

quote:

---

It is interesting that the gospels all quote psalms more than any other book in the bible.

---

My personal opinion is that since the Psalms are songs and prayers, they are easier to memorize because of repetative use. Even today, I'm sure it is easier for someone to remember the words of their favorite songs than a scripture. I don't believe the common people were taught to memorize scripture as the Protestants do today. I know the early Catholic church didn't encourage memorizing scripture.I'm assuming that each first century Jew didn't have a copy of the Hebrew OT handy to read for inspiration or clarification. The songs and prayers are easy to carry within us and pass on to our children. My daughter knows songs that were way before her time because I sang them to her as a child, just as my father sang them to me. Some of them I have never actually seen the written words.So I can understand why the use of the Psalms was prevalent in the NT.

I didn't take your challenge exactly as you specified, Zachariah, because I see little benefit from reading by rote. I have, however, scrutinized every word in the book of John over the past three days, while following each and every reference in the New American Version, which has led me to a lot of scripture reading. Even though I have honestly attempted to suppress my biases and keep an open mind, it is only fair to state my predilections. After reading the bible from cover to cover in early adulthood, I became a non-believer. I recall thinking that there were just too many inconsistences in the bible to warrant my belief. I value truth without understanding over understanding without truth. You evidently are able to accept that your faith gives you both, so I applaud you. But here's my results-I now think that the story of Jesus isn't an embellished/exaggerated story about some messiah wannabe. I think Mark's author made the entire story up, and Matthew's author ran with that and turned it into a Paul Bunyan story. Luke and John's authors just echoed the Matthew fable, but screwed up the forgery with their own spins. None of them seem to ever get anything but the direct quotes straight. The OT at least had a redactor to clean up some of the conflicts.Here's an example (I know it's not John, but I'll get to that book soon). Matthew's author has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey AND A COLT!!! [Matt 21:7] Now, two donkeys, ..maybe.., because you could do the circus act thing, but a donkey and a colt? Is this the King of Cirque de Soleil? Of course not, Matthew's author simply screwed up. He mis-understood the OT reference [Zech 9:9] which stated- "mounted on a donkey, even on a colt". Now, this expression is used throughout the bible to simply emphasize the previous statement, such as "And they of Jerusalem shall yet again dwell in their own place, even in Jerusalem" [Zech 12:6]. It is also used in extending a range of items, but it is simply not a conjunction. Oops, back to the drawing board, Matthew guy.As for the book of John, where do you start? Well, the most important thing is that the prophesies are really lame. Nowhere in the OT does it predict anything beyond the OT itself, except for "always", "forever", or "all generations to come". The NT references to 'the scriptures' are mostly out of context, shamelessly dishonest attempts to validate NT stories with scriptual authority. If the prophesy itself doesn't claim to be a prophesy, then just picking snippets from a large volume of previous literature to match a current event is meaningless. And even then, it has nothing to do with validating the events in the NT. The virgin birth story, for example, is contradicted many times (I'll cite if anyone cares) by the repeated claims that Jesus is descended from David through Joseph. Huh? Can't have it two ways in an inerrant bible.As for the virgin prophesy, I had to go to Isaiah 7:10-17 to get the rest of the story. It had to do with God's promise to Ahaz that two rival kings would be forsaken when a child (to be named Immanuel) of a maiden reached the age of knowing good vs. evil. What does this have to do with Jesus? I think Jesus would already know good and evil at birth if he is 'of the Lord'. I had to wend my way through [Gen 24:43], [Exod 2:8], [Psalm 68:25], [Prov 30:19], and a bunch of other references to determine that the Isaiah 7:14 verse uses a term that refers to a maiden or unmarried female ('`almah'). The specific Hebrew term for virgin used elsewhere in the bible is 'Bethulah' [Deut 22:13-24]. Why is Matthew's author the only writer to mention this prophesy? Luke goes into the details of the virgin birth, but fails to mention the prophesy. Mark and John don't even mention the birth. Matthew drums up absurd prophesies incessently.The one thing that impresses me about the Gospels, however, are the parables. There are some pretty impressive stories spun there, not only in the allegorical sense, but the way they are used to out-Pharisee the Pharisees. I guess the lesson to learn when Jesus accuses them of using scriptural obscurity to outwit their patrons, is to do as he says, not as he does. But, of course, the NT authors cleverly let us in on enough 'secrets', so we wouldn't feel as stupid as the Pharisees. And, we know who the good guys are even before we read the first sentence. But that prophecy stuff is crap.

I need to underline one point in my previous post. The donkey and colt error wasn't just the normal screw-up where some out-of-context OT verse is lamely matched to some activity of Jesus in the NT. It clearly demonstrates that the 'event' in the NT was CONSTRUCTED to match what he thought the OT verse said, unless you are willing to accept the possibility that his comical mis-interpretation just happens to match a comical reality. Btw, all of the other authors only mention one animal.An invalid prophesy doesn't neccessarily negate the validity of the prophesized event, but when the event described is shown to be manipulated to fit a prophesy, then ALL the events described by that author are strongly suspect, to say the least. And if he can't even interpret the OT correctly, then why would I assume that he was divinely guided?John 1:28 "These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan where John was baptizing."John 1:35 "Again, the next day, John was standing next to his disciples,"John 1:43 "The next day He purposed to go forth into Galilee, ..."\John 2:1-2 "And on the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; and Jesus also was invited, and His disciples, to the wedding.Bethany is two miles outside of Jerusalem, hardly 'beyond the Jordan'. And look at the number of days mentioned. They just don't match up. Can't John's author even count? And a map in my bible shows that it is at least 85 miles to get from Bethany to Cana, over very hilly terrain. That's a lot jauntier of a pace than I have always visualized Jesus and his disciples walking in a day (or instantaneous if you use the above timetable). It would take a miracle to explain these mistakes.Yes, I'm nit-picking, and I hope I am never held up to my own standard here, but then, I am barely inspired, much less divine. The list of these discrepencies that I have noticed is way too long to post here. I get the over-whelming sense that the entire story has been simply fabricated, then spun and embellished. But the question then becomes, what if they had a map, could count, and could read ancient Hebrew? Would I fall for it then? Of course... until a better story came along.

About the Donkey and colt.I agree, in general, with your take on Matthew. He seems to exaggerate everything. But, the Greek 'kai' which is rendered 'and' here, can be translated as and or i.e. ('which is to say'). My first impression of the verse was as yours is but I think will have to give the author the benefit of the doubt here. God knows he could use it!About Bethany.My latest understanding is that the location of Bethany remains unknown. Do you see it marked on a map somewhere? If so, it would seem that more research is warranted on my part.db

About the Donkey and colt:I agree, in general, with your take on Matthew. He seems to exaggerate everything. But, the Greek 'kai' which is rendered 'and' here, can also be translated as i.e. ('which is to say'). My first impression of the verse was as yours is but I think we'll have to give Matt the benefit of the doubt here. God knows he could use it!About Bethany:My latest understanding is that the location of Bethany remains unknown. Do you see it marked on a map somewhere? If so, it would seem that more research is warranted on my part.About the Virgin:Some cite this situation as evidence that Matthew got his information from the Septuagint; i.e., He couldn't, or didn't, read it in Hebrew. Had he done so, he couldn't have gotten so excited about it. The virgin birth concept was a popular way for 'heathen' gods to enter the world. Adding this and other 'pagan' features to Christianity no doubt enhanced its potential to become widely accepted as a valid religion.db

I really don't care if Matthew's author makes a mistake on the prophesy or the prophesized event, or even both, but if they are both wrong AND MATCH, then there is (to me, at least) an obvious attempt to decieve. Click for hires image of map- http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/9066/bethany-hires.jpg"Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off;" [John 11:18]That's a long way off from the Jordan River. It's likely he meant a different location, just east of the Jordan, and just north of the Dead Sea.Oh, I forgot to lable Cana, about 13 miles west of the Sea of Galilee, or several days walk from either Bethany, or from a southern location 'east of the River Jordan'.Edited to add above reference.This message has been edited by mogur, 05-21-2004 06:12 PM