In reading and interpreting scripture we have to consider (among other things):
1. The culture of the time. 2. Common usage of the terms. 3. The authors may have intended a different meaning than the one we might initially grasp.
I think this emphasizes the importance of praying for guidance from God, reading things in context, and taking all the scripture of the bible into consideration when trying to resolve issues like this.
show me one passage in any of the three other gospels were jesus claims to be the son of god.
Matthew 16:15-17 says:
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
It is plain and clear here that Jesus is confirming Peter's assertion that he [Jesus] is the son of God.
reading things in context, and taking all the scripture of the bible into consideration when trying to resolve issues like this.
i am reading it in context. i mentioned similar verses and phrasing in the other gospels, especially matthew. the simple fact of the matter is that john misunderstood what was scripture to jews and what was not.
the problem is also that we're dealing with events that were recorded at a later time. while some of these events probably happened, and jesus was probably a real person, the gospels are still imperfect reflections on the truth. john takes a more attributed perspective on jesus (attributing things people said about him to things he said himself) where matt. mark, and luke do not.
john was also pretty obviously not jewish.
1. The culture of the time.
the culture of the time of the events held that the torah was god's holy law, and that rest of the tanakh was also holy but not from god directly. the nevi'im and ketuvim (which contains the psalms) were not included in what was considered scriptures by our standards, but still important and holy books.
i am not sure how the christian churches at the time of the authorship of john regarded the hebrew bible, but it is evident by the text that john did not totally approve: "YOUR law" instead of "THE law"
2. Common usage of the terms.
commonly, in hebrew, for the last 3000 years or so, the five books of moses are refered to as "The Law" or "Torah." when a scholar mentions The Law he means the Torah, not the individual laws, and not the tanakh.
christian often use "the law" to refer to the entire bible (including nt) and sometimes the ten commandments. i'm not sure of the greek/christian usage in john's day.
3. The authors may have intended a different meaning than the one we might initially grasp.
no, it just looks like a goof, because someone misunderstood the structure of sacred hebrew literature. john applied "Law" to the tanakh, when it really only applies to the torah.
psalms are not, and will never be holy in the sense that the torah is. the are the words of people in tribute to their god. not directions and laws from god himself.
jesus saying "psalms said this" isn't him saying "god said it's ok" it's him saying "other people did it too."
it also shows that the author of john wasn't school in the torah. because otherwise, jesus might have said "Did not the Lord said unto Moses, 'I have made you a god over Pharaoh?'"
john takes a more attributed perspective on jesus (attributing things people said about him to things he said himself) where matt. mark, and luke do not.
I think that these phenomena lend more credence, not less. Different viewpoints about everything that happened is exactly what you would expect from different authors.
I think that these phenomena lend more credence, not less. Different viewpoints about everything that happened is exactly what you would expect from different authors.
yes, but at the same time you can't hold all of them to be right when they differ.
matthew mark and luke actually all show signs of being COPIED from one document, the theoretical "q" gospel. yet they still differ.
it's important to take the writings with a grain of salt, and analyze them. after much thought, i've decided not to accept the gospel of john for numerous reasons, and only one is the disagreement with other gospels.
No I dont and all you have shown me are statements after the fact. I have not read of any verses that speak of an offer to the Jewish community before the death of Jesus.
To my knowledge, the offer is not present in the Old Testament.
BTW, what is the significance of your prerequisite that the offer be before the death of Jesus?
It is during the time of Jesus, detailed in the New Testament, that the offer is presented. Jesus is clear that he has come to bring a message that was given him by God the Father (Luke 10:21-22):
21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. 22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
His miracles, works, and resurrection give testimony that he was truthful and that God was with him.
Here is the offer (as I understand it) John 3:16-21:
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
At the transfiguration, God confirms (a second time) that Jesus is his son and that Jesus' message is God's message (Luke 9:35):
35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Peter confirms the gospel message in Acts 10:43-44:
43 To him [Jesus] give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
as does the Apostle Paul (Romans 4:20-25):
20 He [Abraham] staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Regarding the rejection of the offer, some Jews believed, some did not. I believe you are familiar with the Gospels and the Book of Acts that describe these.
Isaiah prophesied that the Gentiles would receive God and lamented that the Jews (not all of them though) had continually rejected him (Isaiah 65:1-2):
I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name. 2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
on page one of this thread, i made a demonstration. here's some verses from the koran:
quote:4:48 Lo! Allah forgiveth not that a partner should be ascribed unto Him. He forgiveth (all) save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners to Allah, he hath indeed invented a tremendous sin.
quote:4:116 Lo! Allah pardoneth not that partners should be ascribed unto Him. He pardoneth all save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah hath wandered far astray.
quote:4:60 Hast thou not seen those who pretend that they believe in that which is revealed unto thee and that which was revealed before thee, how they would go for judgment (in their disputes) to false deities when they have been ordered to abjure them ? Satan would mislead them far astray.
these clearly indicate that god works alone. all the power and might and credit belongs rightly to Allah. jesus cannot be a diety, nor does he play a role in salvation.
do you believe this? the text is quite clear.
if you don't accept this, why should a jew accept the new testament?
quote:BTW, what is the significance of your prerequisite that the offer be before the death of Jesus?
I am amazed that you don't understand.
The Hebrews had a contract with God. At the time the contract was sealed it had no end date.
God has stated several times that unless the world ends, the Hebrews would still be his chosen people.
Even the "new covenant" mentioned in Jeremiah 31 does not give conditions that the Hebrews need to follow to received the "new covenant."
No where does God tell the Hebrews that if they do not believe in the name (which God does not provide) of the messiah (anointed or son of God in Hebrew terms), that he would end the contract, reject them as a people, and choose another group.
But if they (as a group or individually) eventually believe in the name of the specific man presented to them as the messiah and believe that he was the messiah (even though he is no longer visible), then they will be added to the "new" contract, welcomed back into the fold and follow all the new rules and rituals.
quote:It is during the time of Jesus, detailed in the New Testament, that the offer is presented. Jesus is clear that he has come to bring a message that was given him by God the Father (Luke 10:21-22):
What was the message/offer?A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
Unfortunately John 3:16 is part of a conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. No one else is present.
This makes it a rather limited offer.
NOTE: In the Book of John this conversation takes place before John the Baptist is arrested. In the synoptics, Jesus didn't start his ministry or choose his disciples until after the arrest. (Mark 1:14)
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
quote:Isaiah prophesied that the Gentiles would receive God and lamented that the Jews (not all of them though) had continually rejected him (Isaiah 65:1-2):
God is answering Isaiah's pleas/questions.
Isaiah 64:12 After all this, O Lord, will you hold yourself back? Will you keep silent and punish us beyond measure?
Why do you think it speaks of the Gentiles receiving God?
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
