[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
And, what are the Saints doing in Heaven?
You do realize that the first half of that quote is directed to Jesus, right? And, pray is worship?[/quote]
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, to worship is to pay homage to a person or thing.
Prayer = An act of the virtue of religion which consists in asking proper gifts or graces from God. In a more general sense it is the application of the mind to Divine things, not merely to acquire a knowledge of them but to make use of such knowledge as a means of union with God. This may be done by acts of praise and thanksgiving, but petition is the principal act of prayer.
So yes, by Catholic definition, that is worship of St Christopher, and it is praying to someone other than God. It is also placing faith in someone other than God.
JP is not going to get anywhere with this line of reasoning because Dearest Christopher will soon say that “prayer” to the saints is the equivalent of asking someone on earth to pray for you except that the saints are already dead. He will deny and I think actually legitimately that prayer to the saints is the same as prayer to God. Catholics (big C) are simply asking for their departed brethren, who are in a more meritorious position than themselves, to intercede on their behalf.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yes, KK’s definition is accurate, but that still doesn’t provide any meaningful escape for the charge of foolish pagan superstition.[/quote]
What’s your definition of superstition? Because when using proper definition (which is a heresy according to the authority of Jesus’ Church, the only one, the Catholic Church) of having the belief that supernatural effect follows a non-supernatural action then there are quite a few beliefs that you profess that are the par excellence example of superstition.
However veneration of icons and relics is not superstition unless you have some fabulous made up definition of the word. Or, again you don’t have half a wit or understanding of what veneration of icons and relics (probably both) means. [/quote]
Lol this is quite the debate. First of all, JayPierce said this was the meaning of the passage - “1. You believe exactly as we tell you to believe because we are infallible. If you don’t any detail of what we say, then you reject everything we say.” That IS reductionistic, but it was also an accurate assessment of PART of the Aquinas passage. The passage said more than that, Chris, but it DID say that.
Secondly, I think this is THE central point of the debate - superstition. I would argue that much of what Catholicism espouses, both in belief and in practice, amounts to superstition. Take the belief in transubstantiation - the priest’s blessing results in the transformation of the “substance” of the bread and wine while leaving the “appearance” unchanged. This transubstantiated food transfers grace to the recipient. I will say this as nicely as I can - I don’t know of too many miracles in the bible where the miracle was incapable of being detected. If it looks, smells, tastes, and feels like bread, I’m not inclined to assume it is something else. That’s a VERY strange sort of miracle, biblically speaking.
But even if such beliefs and practices are merely superstitions, that doesn’t make them soul-endangering. It can merely make them enslaving. [/quote]
Believing in superstition is heresy…heresy can be endangering to one’s soul.
So, you’re saying that John 6 is superstitious? [/quote]
Wait… Catholics believe the bread and wine of Communion are transformed by the blessing of the priest?
I agree and disagree. I think the context of the prophesies fit as well. Of course, I can’t say that it was their original intention, but it does fit.
[/quote]
It does NOT fit the context of the prophecies. We’ve been over this - the woman sits atop the seven headed beast, just as THE CITY OF ROME (and the woman is SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS A CITY in Rev. 17:18) sat upon seven hills. Look at Revelation 17:9 - "the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits." The text makes this point - “the woman” sits on seven hills. The Vatican City, on the other hand, DOES NOT SIT ON EVEN ONE OF THE SEVEN HILLS. It rests, rather, on a hill OUTSIDE of the seven upon which Rome was built. The Vatican hill was NOT one of the seven hills of Rome. The only city built on the seven hills was THE CITY OF ROME. Therefore, based on the text itself, the Vatican CANNOT be the Whore of Revelation 17. In other words, your interpretation does NOT fit the context. Geography AND history preclude your interpretation’s validity. [/quote]
City of seven hills = beast of seven heads
Great city that rides atop it = Vatican
The woman rides on the seven hills. She is not one if them. The Vatican rides on Rome, separate from it.
Can’t be. In 7:21 he describes the Ancient of Days arriving and ending the reign of this beast at the judgment.
So either the Last Days have already come and gone or the historical approach to interpretation of this prophesy is a mistake to begin with.
[quote][quote]
No, no. The Protestant church has its fair share of problems as well. Just walk into a normal church and ask how many people worship the cross.
[/quote]
I don’t know of a single Protestant church in which the cross is worshipped, and if there are such churches, they are anomalous. The vast majority of Protestants would condemn such a practice.
[/quote]
I wish you were right. Down here in the South, it’s a different story.
“Can’t be. In 7:21 he describes the Ancient of Days arriving and ending the reign of this beast at the judgment”
Judgement doesn’t always mean the end of the world. It often times refers to God destroying a place/people due to their wickedness. The FINAL judgement is when the world ends and everyone, past/present/future will be judged.
However God came in judgement against Antiochus Epiphanes, destroying the Seleucid Empire. God also came in judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah, leaving it barren.
So when we look at Revelation, we see the beast (Rome) being met with judgement when the Empire comes to an eventual ruin. It has nothing to do with the Vatican, especially when it doesn’t sit on 7 hills.
Note: Jerusalem also rests on 7 hills. Something to think about. And it was destroyed in 70 AD.
I agree and disagree. I think the context of the prophesies fit as well. Of course, I can’t say that it was their original intention, but it does fit.
[/quote]
It does NOT fit the context of the prophecies. We’ve been over this - the woman sits atop the seven headed beast, just as THE CITY OF ROME (and the woman is SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS A CITY in Rev. 17:18) sat upon seven hills. Look at Revelation 17:9 - "the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits." The text makes this point - “the woman” sits on seven hills. The Vatican City, on the other hand, DOES NOT SIT ON EVEN ONE OF THE SEVEN HILLS. It rests, rather, on a hill OUTSIDE of the seven upon which Rome was built. The Vatican hill was NOT one of the seven hills of Rome. The only city built on the seven hills was THE CITY OF ROME. Therefore, based on the text itself, the Vatican CANNOT be the Whore of Revelation 17. In other words, your interpretation does NOT fit the context. Geography AND history preclude your interpretation’s validity. [/quote]
City of seven hills = beast of seven heads
Great city that rides atop it = Vatican
The woman rides on the seven hills. She is not one if them. The Vatican rides on Rome, separate from it.
[/quote]
Honestly man, I really don’t think you are paying attention to what I’m saying at all. This is getting really tedious - I make a claim AND provide evidence for it from the text ; you just assert what you think it means and leave it at that. Essentially, you are ignoring Revelation 17’s own explanation of its imagery in deference to YOUR OWN interpretation.
The Vatican sits on a hill OUTSIDE OF ANCIENT ROME. It was NOT built on the seven hills. Get a map. The city on the seven hills was Rome. The Vatican is on ONE hill outside of the ancient city of Rome, which was built on the seven hills. The text says explicitly that the woman (1) is a city (Rev. 17:18) and that(2) the woman/ city sits “on the seven hills,” which are represented NOT by the body of the beast, but by the SEVEN HEADS OF THE BEAST (Rev. 17:9).
The only explanation for your assertions is that you are wrongly interpreting the symbolism of the beast’s body. Revelation draws the inspiration for its imagery from Daniel, and in Daniel, the beasts’ bodies do NOT symbolize cities. Rather, they symbolize KINGDOMS. The beast’s body is NOT a city; the beast’s body is the Roman empire; the seven hills are the foundation of its capital city; and woman atop the beast represents the capital city which is situated upon the seven hills (Romans 17:9 - “the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits”).
You are misinterpreting the significance of the beast’s body - it is NOT a city. Perhaps you are thinking that, since the text says the woman is seated “on the beast” rather than explicitly “on the heads of the beast,” that the woman cannot be Rome. However, then you are confronted with two facts - (1) the text says the woman “sits on the seven hills” (17:9), and (2) that beasts represent kingdoms in John’s source material (i.e., Daniel). Moreover, the text does NOT explicitly say WHERE on the beast the woman is seated - she may in fact be seated on the heads. More importantly, you may be reading too much into the imagery. The KEY feature of the apocalyptic genre is the explanation of the imagery presented to the seer by an angelic figure . The explanation of the imagery the angel provides to John is MORE important that than imagery itself. That’s just the way apocalypses work. And the angel explicitly tells John that the woman (1) is a city (17:18), and (2) is seated upon the seven hills which the seven heads represent.
More importantly, there are two further problems with your interpretation. First of all, if the body of the beast represents the city of Rome, WHY ARE THE HEADS (THE CITY’S FOUNDATION) REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SEVEN HILLS RATHER THAN THE LEGS? Why does the beast have seven heads rather than seven legs?
Again, you are being TOO literal in your interpretation and wrongly ignoring the interpretation the text provides of its own imagery . Secondly, the Vatican did NOT sit upon the ancient city of Rome. That is the biggest interpretive stretch I have EVER heard. The Vatican hill existed outside of ancient Rome; it was NOT a part of that city, so there is NO reason why it should be on top of the city.
I’ve presented what the text itself says. If you are going to argue, then you are arguing with the text. I can’t comprehend how you cannot understand this historical argument. My default assumption would be that I have presented it poorly, but forbes understood it with ease, so I can only assume that you are simply being belligerent.
[quote] JayPierce said:
[quote] KingKai said:
The same is true of Daniel 7. There are four beasts mentioned in Daniel 7, and all of them are specifically identified as “kingdoms” (Dan. 7:17). These kingdoms represent the kingdoms of the Babylonians, the Medes, the Persians, and finally the Greeks. The ten horns are the ten kings that preceded Antiochus Epiphanes, “the little horn” who spoke “words against the Most High” and “thought of changing times and laws.” Based on the chronology of Daniel 7, ONLY ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES fits Daniel 7:25.[/quote]
Can’t be. In 7:21 he describes the Ancient of Days arriving and ending the reign of this beast at the judgment.
So either the Last Days have already come and gone or the historical approach to interpretation of this prophesy is a mistake to begin with.
[/quote]
Forbes already did an excellent job of dealing with this. This hyperbolic phenomenon is common in the prophets - rather small, seemingly insignificant events (like the building of the second temple - See Haggai 1-2) are described in cosmic terms. After the death of Antiochus, the Jews finally regained control of their homeland.
Moreover, there is strong evidence (though I don’t personally hold this position) that Daniel was written during the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes, and in that case, the language of Israel’s dominion represents the eschatological hope of the Jews in the second century B.C., NOT an actual prophecy of future events.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
I’m saying that, as I’ve shown twice, your interpretation of John 6 is historically and contextually insensitive. It takes ZERO account of John’s clear and larger emphases in his work, or the way John shapes his narrative to highlight his concerns.[/quote]
Really? Now, you have my interest.
Because when I look at John’s Gospel, five chapters make up the discussion of the Eucharist 13-18, including one that specifically talks about the Eucharist itself (this is more than any other Gospel).
Maybe I have just missed this (I’m sorry, sometimes I become absent minded when I pick up books to look for answers and instead just read the entire book and loose focus on my original objective), I’m not familiar with this being done.
However, my question is if the account of the Heavenly bred was to be figurative, why were the disciples allowed to leave for such hard teachings if it was figurative?
Again, I’m not recalling this discussion. So, I’m sure I did a terrible job at demonstrating why Jesus’ statements should be taken literally. Though I usually make the case that there is always a literal meaning to the Bible.
I’m not seeing John’s lack of interest in the Eucharist since he talks more about the Eucharist more than any other Gospel as I pointed out earlier.
I don’t believe that’s actually the same, I didn’t defend my interpretation because I was absent, not because my beliefs are irrational heresies.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Of course, like you won’t go into authority, and a dozen other subjects. >>>[/quote]You are not going to be blessed by what’s on the horizon here my young impatient and delightfully impetuous friend. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I have known Protestants to commit idolatry when it came to the King James. >>>[/quote]I don’t know if idolatry exactly fits, but with all due respect to my brethren so persuaded the KJV only position is entirely indefensible. I have known alleged protestants who commit ALL manner of idolatry and all manner of other damnable sins as well. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Catholics only in going against the doctrines and practices of the Church would they commit idolatry.[/quote] One day I’m gonna help you break into the Vatican and get your brain back outta that vault Chris.
[/quote]
At least you’re brave enough to insult me to my face, now. Though I had to look up the word “impetuous” to get the insult. Though you’d never make it into the Vatican, couldn’t get passed the Swiss Guards and the Pope is watching you talking about throwing Rome into Hell. He heard your challenge on my Facebook page.
But, I’m glad that you think only those who have tossed out their brains can be faithful to Jesus and his Kingdom. Just shows to what level your anti-Catholicism goes to, just going to nick name you Jimmy Swaggart.
Though I’ve met Jimmy and he’s actually a kind man and didn’t tell me that I’m a mindless Papist who assumes my stated answers are disingenuous and that he actually knows my true answers.
Wait… Catholics believe the bread and wine of Communion are transformed by the blessing of the priest?[/quote]
Yes they do.
Without wanting to interrupt the finer point of your theological discussion, this is known as transubstantiation.
The physical properties remain the same, yet the metaphysical properties are entirely different.
If you think about it, that concept is sold in more places than in Catholic churches. [/quote]
The correct term is transubstantiation; however, your first answer is incorrect it is not transformed.
The former deals with the substance, the latter deals with the form. If the bread and wine transformed into Jesus, there would be a Jewish man sitting on the altar during the Eucharist Prayer.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
And, what are the Saints doing in Heaven?
You do realize that the first half of that quote is directed to Jesus, right? And, pray is worship?[/quote]
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, to worship is to pay homage to a person or thing.[/quote]
Yes, in its most general sense. And, Catholics do pay homage to the Father in the most excellent form. Catholics have the par excellence worship for the Father: sacrifice of the only begotten Son of the Father.
This is true, though one has to understand it in it’s proper meaning.
Later down the Encyclopedia article we can read here the explanation of who can pray:
“As He has promised to intercede for us (John 14:16), and is said to do so (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25), we may ask His intercession, though this is not customary in public worship. He prays in virtue of His own merits; the saints intercede for us in virtue of His merits, not their own. Consequently when we pray to them, it is to ask for their intercession in our behalf, not to expect that they can bestow gifts on us of their own power, or obtain them in virtue of their own merit.”
Not of St. Christopher, but as the Catholic Encyclopedia on Christian Worship says, “When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).”
Because when I look at John’s Gospel, five chapters make up the discussion of the Eucharist 13-18, including one that specifically talks about the Eucharist itself (this is more than any other Gospel).
[/quote]
Chris, did you even bother to look up and read these passages? Because John 18 describes Jesus’ betrayal in Gethsamene and trial before the Sanhedrin, NOT the Eucharist. It is not part of the so-called Farewell Discourse of John 13-17. And just because the setting of chapters 13-17 is the last supper doesn’t mean that these chapters are ABOUT the Eucharist. Jesus says NOTHING about the Eucharist in these chapters; in fact, in the one place where you would at least expect John (if it mattered to him) to mention Jesus’ institution of the sacrament (“here is my body,” etc.), it is NOTICEABLY absent.
Whereas the other gospels explicitly highlight Jesus’ institution of the rite (Mark 14:22-25, Matt. 26:26-29, Luke 22:14-20), John omits it, despite providing us with a detailed account of Jesus’ final sermon to the disciples. You are very wrong in your assessment of John 13-17, and you misunderstood me. My point was that, if John really cared about the Eucharist enough to devote space to it IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS GOSPEL (John 6), and to break up his pattern of highlighting Jesus’ paradoxical and figurative comments with an unexpectedly literal statement, then you would expect John to mention the single most important event in the history of the Eucharist, i.e., Jesus’ institution of the practice at the last supper. Reread John 13-17; it’s NOT there.
Great question with a relatively simple answer - to distinguish the sheep from the goats. It is not as if the disciples who stay understand Jesus’ meaning while those who leave do not; the difference is that, despite not understanding, the twelve and the other disciples who remain are willing to follow Jesus no matter how difficult the message he preaches. Distinguishing the sheep from the goats is a MAJOR emphasis of John’s gospel and letters.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< At least you’re brave enough to insult me to my face, now. Though I had to look up the word “impetuous” to get the insult. >>>[/quote] You just can’t be serious with this. Insult? [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Though you’d never make it into the Vatican, couldn’t get passed the Swiss Guards >>>[/quote] No physical visit necessary. God grief man. Come one. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< and the Pope is watching you talking about throwing Rome into Hell. He heard your challenge on my Facebook page. >>>[/quote] Chris. I believe all that papal bull is giving you delusions of grandeur. Why would the holy apostle and vicar of Christ care what I think? If by some unique providence of God he could be persuaded to join us I would count it a divinely appointed opportunity to kick his pontificating posterior all the way around the colonnades of the saints from Gallicinus to Norbert. Twice. =] [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< But, I’m glad that you think only those who have tossed out their brains can be faithful to Jesus and his Kingdom. >>>[/quote] Donated. I would say donated. Not tossed out. Jesus and His kingdom are not of this world Chris. At least not yet. If they were it would not be there. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Just shows to what level your anti-Catholicism goes to, just going to nick name you Jimmy Swaggart. Though I’ve met Jimmy and he’s actually a kind man and didn’t tell me that I’m a mindless Papist who assumes my stated answers are disingenuous and that he actually knows my true answers.[/quote]Now there you go again. I also told you I would not use the term “papist” anymore here. Though I intended nothing actually nasty by it and I haven’t. I remember Jimmy Swaggart very very well. You weren’t even born yet. I was very grieved by that situation but he has nothing to do with this.
I’m always gonna be yer buddy Chris. No matter how many times you falsely accuse me or besmirch my name. The living God has some good religion and some mighty plans for you. Just like He did the children of Israel.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Chris, did you even bother to look up and read these passages? Because John 18 describes Jesus’ betrayal in Gethsamene and trial before the Sanhedrin, NOT the Eucharist.[/quote]
Yes, I apologize for the mistake, obviously 13-17 + 6 is 5, not 13-18 + 7 =/= 5.
I like to call it the Book of Glory. But that is neither here nor there.
Yes, most puzzling indeed. What is your opinion for John’s lack of account of Jesus’ institution when the other inspired authors wrote about it?
Let me think more on your point I’ll get back to this probably tomorrow.
Why then? Does the wheat and weeds have realm here, I thought they would be separated at the last judgement?
How do we know that they did not understand? Could they have understood what Jesus meant?
Yes, but distinguishing the sheep and goats is done when they are to be taken away at the last judgement, right? It would seem incongruent that in parable he says leave them, then in actuality he does so unnecessarily (since it is merely symbolic as you say, then that is not a hard teaching at all).
P.S. The reason why I am thinking about this, a bit longer than usual, is because I’m processing another piece of work (more questions) about John’s Gospel and the Eucharist by a friend of mine who has done 35 years of research on this very topic, though he’s in South Carolina…so it is a little difficult to catch him on the phone.
Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and another they will not follow. He also told the pharisees in essence that they didn’t believe because they weren’t His sheep. This separation of sheep from goats, wheat from chaff, is present all throughout history.
Deceptions, persecutions or even times of prosperity serve to distinguish true disciples (invisible true church) from false ones (visible church) all the time. That’s not the same as final judgement though and doesn’t have to be simply because of similar language. There are many such periods, events and examples all throughout the OT as well. Always a remnant of sheep in a covenant nation fulla goats.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and another they will not follow. He also told the pharisees in essence that they didn’t believe because they weren’t His sheep. This separation of sheep from goats, wheat from chaff, is present all throughout history. Deceptions, persecutions or even times of prosperity serve to distinguish true disciples (invisible true church) from false ones (visible church) all the time. That’s not the same as final judgement though and doesn’t have to be simply because of similar language. There are many such periods, events and examples all throughout the OT as well. Always a remnant of sheep in a covenant nation fulla goats. [/quote]
Please show documentation of your imaginary invisible Church. I’m really tired of you disembodying Jesus in your heretical theology that has not one ounce of credit in the Bible.
Yes, most puzzling indeed. What is your opinion for John’s lack of account of Jesus’ institution when the other inspired authors wrote about it?
[/quote]
Simple enough. Assuming Markan priority (which has the best defense of all the explanations for the synoptic problem) or even Matthean priority (which, as a man for whom tradition holds strong appeal, you may prefer), and given the relatively early date of both of these gospels, Mark/Matthew likely included the event to provide their readers with an explanation for the practice (there is a word for this sort of function, but it’s six a.m. and I cannot remember it), i.e., here is why we started doing this. The other synoptic authors (Matthew and Luke or Mark and Luke) simply followed suit, as their passion accounts differ remarkably little.
By John’s time, no explanation of the practice is required in a new gospel, so that reason for including it is gone. However, as I have said before, if John considered the Eucharist so central that (1) he would insert a discussion of it in the middle of his gospel (2) and divert from his pattern of specifically including and highlighting stories in which Jesus spoke figuratively and paradoxically by, in this case, including a story in which Jesus speaks literally and paradoxically, (3) then the absence of a discussion of the Eucharist’s institution in John 13-17 is PERFECTLY explicable, i.e., the practice simply wasn’t as important to John as we would like to think. The omission of the Eucharist’s institution is only problematic if Jesus’ statements in John 6 are taken literally AND as references to the Eucharist.
[quote] Brother Chris wrote:
How do we know that they did not understand? Could they have understood what Jesus meant?
[/quote]
The motif of the confused hearers, including the disciples, is central to John’s gospel. People misunderstand Jesus all the time in John’s gospel - look at Jesus’ talk of “the temple’s destruction” (2:18-21), or his discussion of “being born again” with Nicodemus (3:1-8), or his conversation with the Samaritan woman about “living water” (4:10-15), or his claim to his disciples that Lazarus was merely sleeping (11:11-15). In every case, the text highlights the fact that the hearers misunderstood the message of Jesus’ words; in every case, they mistakenly interpret LITERALLY what Jesus meant FIGURATIVELY . They are not able to pierce the veil of Jesus’ meaning; John thus implicitly encourages his readers to look beyond the surface meaning of the statements to get at their real significance.
This is perfectly consistent with John’s emphasis on the fact that the world-creating glory of the Word was visible for a time, contained in unassuming, unimpressive flesh. Jesus is frequently mistaken for someone other than who he is - the creator God - throughout John’s gospel. Just as people in his own time could not see past his appearance, so people in his own time could not see past the surface of his words.
In fact, the text specifically highlights when Jesus’ speech becomes “clear” as opposed to its typical paradoxical style (John 16:29-30). Perfect understanding of Jesus’ statements would only occur for the disciples in retrospect, from the other side of the resurrection (John 2:22).
Not exactly. That’s true only in a final, irrevocable, definitive sense. However, John includes several statements of Jesus’ where he makes definitive statements about his calling (or lack thereof) of particular individuals (John 6:42-44, 64-66; 13:18). This trend is consistent with John’s letters as well, as his first epistle in particular focuses on explicating the ways in which one can tell who belongs to the elect community. John’s letters show that defining community boundaries was an important issue to John, even if he doesn’t make many statements about the FINAL state of individuals. He, of course, was in no place to do so. Nevertheless, John had no problem explaining, for example, that the false-teaching schismatics in his church were never truly a part of his group to begin with, a fact evidenced by nothing more than that fact that they left (1 John 2:18-19).
In short, I was using the sheep/goat motif rather loosely. My point was not that John is making statements about where people will ultimately end up. Nevertheless, at a given point in time, we must always ask ourselves if we are really numbered among God’s people. John provides ways of determining whether or not one is numbered among them, but these ways are also implicit exhortations - “no one who is born of God sins” (1 John 3:9) is a statement functioning both to delineate those inside the church AND to exhort the hearers to be within the church, i.e., to not sin.
And you are wrong when you say it is NOT a hard teaching. I think you are just missing the key point that provoked the dissent of the crowds - "at this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, "is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, “I came down from heaven?”“” The rest of Jesus’ discourse in chapter 6 is merely an amplification and explication of this inciting comment. They could not believe or even fully understand Jesus’ claim to come from above.
Is this what bothered some of Jesus’ disciples? Absolutely, as evidenced by the fact that the subject of his heavenly origin is the FIRST thing Jesus returns to when his disciples question him (John 6:61-62). The primary issue that bothers them is Jesus’ claim to come from above, and so he throws it right back in their face - “does this offend you? Well then, what would happen if you witnessed the Son of Man ascending to where he was formerly?” Indeed, arouses the anger of Jesus’ audiences more than his statements about his own divine origins, as his discussion and subsequent near-stoning in John 10:22-39 reveals.
Such statements may not seem particularly “hard” for you and me, but we live on the other side of the resurrection. In Jesus’ day, such statements were extremely inflammatory.
I’ll discuss this introduction later; I don’t have much time now. All I’ll say now is that (1) his interpretation of eis telos (“to the end”) as “in a complete and final manner” in this context is debatable; (2) he never demonstrates any explicit textual link between the institution of the Eucharist and the practice of foot washing; (3) his claim that Jesus’ utterance in John 13:31 occurs at “the completion of the foot washing” is specious, as several other events transpire in the interim, and the description of the positions of particular individuals seems to presuppose a different setting; (4) his interpretation of John 13:31 entirely ignores the fact that, immediately preceding the utterance of the statement, “now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him”, Jesus tells Judas to leave and Judas does so, setting into motion the chain of events that will lead inexorably to Jesus’ death. Thus, in context, John 13:31 is better interpreted as a statement describing the reality set in motion by Judas’ betrayal than the significance of the foot washing; (5) he completely ignores the fact that foot washing at the time was a deed people wouldn’t even ask their servants to perform, as it was the equivalent of wiping someone’s butt. Because of the footwear available at the time, feces, mud, dust, etc. would often get caked on people’s feet throughout the day; this was not a symbolic event representing Christ’s ultimate act of love, i.e., his death, but rather a further, complementary exemplification of love.
Yes, most puzzling indeed. What is your opinion for John’s lack of account of Jesus’ institution when the other inspired authors wrote about it?
[/quote]
Simple enough. Assuming Markan priority (which has the best defense of all the explanations for the synoptic problem) or even Matthean priority (which, as a man for whom tradition holds strong appeal, you may prefer), and given the relatively early date of both of these gospels, Mark/Matthew likely included the event to provide their readers with an explanation for the practice (there is a word for this sort of function, but it’s six a.m. and I cannot remember it), i.e., here is why we started doing this. The other synoptic authors (Matthew and Luke or Mark and Luke) simply followed suit, as their passion accounts differ remarkably little.
By John’s time, no explanation of the practice is required in a new gospel, so that reason for including it is gone. However, as I have said before, if John considered the Eucharist so central that (1) he would insert a discussion of it in the middle of his gospel (2) and divert from his pattern of specifically including and highlighting stories in which Jesus spoke figuratively and paradoxically by, in this case, including a story in which Jesus speaks literally and paradoxically, (3) then the absence of a discussion of the Eucharist’s institution in John 13-17 is PERFECTLY explicable, i.e., the practice simply wasn’t as important to John as we would like to think. The omission of the Eucharist’s institution is only problematic if Jesus’ statements in John 6 are taken literally AND as references to the Eucharist.
[quote] Brother Chris wrote:
How do we know that they did not understand? Could they have understood what Jesus meant?
[/quote]
The motif of the confused hearers, including the disciples, is central to John’s gospel. People misunderstand Jesus all the time in John’s gospel - look at Jesus’ talk of “the temple’s destruction” (2:18-21), or his discussion of “being born again” with Nicodemus (3:1-8), or his conversation with the Samaritan woman about “living water” (4:10-15), or his claim to his disciples that Lazarus was merely sleeping (11:11-15). In every case, the text highlights the fact that the hearers misunderstood the message of Jesus’ words; in every case, they mistakenly interpret LITERALLY what Jesus meant FIGURATIVELY . They are not able to pierce the veil of Jesus’ meaning; John thus implicitly encourages his readers to look beyond the surface meaning of the statements to get at their real significance.
This is perfectly consistent with John’s emphasis on the fact that the world-creating glory of the Word was visible for a time, contained in unassuming, unimpressive flesh. Jesus is frequently mistaken for someone other than who he is - the creator God - throughout John’s gospel. Just as people in his own time could not see past his appearance, so people in his own time could not see past the surface of his words.
In fact, the text specifically highlights when Jesus’ speech becomes “clear” as opposed to its typical paradoxical style (John 16:29-30). Perfect understanding of Jesus’ statements would only occur for the disciples in retrospect, from the other side of the resurrection (John 2:22).
Not exactly. That’s true only in a final, irrevocable, definitive sense. However, John includes several statements of Jesus’ where he makes definitive statements about his calling (or lack thereof) of particular individuals (John 6:42-44, 64-66; 13:18). This trend is consistent with John’s letters as well, as his first epistle in particular focuses on explicating the ways in which one can tell who belongs to the elect community. John’s letters show that defining community boundaries was an important issue to John, even if he doesn’t make many statements about the FINAL state of individuals. He, of course, was in no place to do so. Nevertheless, John had no problem explaining, for example, that the false-teaching schismatics in his church were never truly a part of his group to begin with, a fact evidenced by nothing more than that fact that they left (1 John 2:18-19).
In short, I was using the sheep/goat motif rather loosely. My point was not that John is making statements about where people will ultimately end up. Nevertheless, at a given point in time, we must always ask ourselves if we are really numbered among God’s people. John provides ways of determining whether or not one is numbered among them, but these ways are also implicit exhortations - “no one who is born of God sins” (1 John 3:9) is a statement functioning both to delineate those inside the church AND to exhort the hearers to be within the church, i.e., to not sin.
And you are wrong when you say it is NOT a hard teaching. I think you are just missing the key point that provoked the dissent of the crowds - "at this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, "is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, “I came down from heaven?”“” The rest of Jesus’ discourse in chapter 6 is merely an amplification and explication of this inciting comment. They could not believe or even fully understand Jesus’ claim to come from above.
Is this what bothered some of Jesus’ disciples? Absolutely, as evidenced by the fact that the subject of his heavenly origin is the FIRST thing Jesus returns to when his disciples question him (John 6:61-62). The primary issue that bothers them is Jesus’ claim to come from above, and so he throws it right back in their face - “does this offend you? Well then, what would happen if you witnessed the Son of Man ascending to where he was formerly?” Indeed, arouses the anger of Jesus’ audiences more than his statements about his own divine origins, as his discussion and subsequent near-stoning in John 10:22-39 reveals.
Such statements may not seem particularly “hard” for you and me, but we live on the other side of the resurrection. In Jesus’ day, such statements were extremely inflammatory.
I’ll discuss this introduction later; I don’t have much time now. All I’ll say now is that (1) his interpretation of eis telos (“to the end”) as “in a complete and final manner” in this context is debatable; (2) he never demonstrates any explicit textual link between the institution of the Eucharist and the practice of foot washing; (3) his claim that Jesus’ utterance in John 13:31 occurs at “the completion of the foot washing” is specious, as several other events transpire in the interim, and the description of the positions of particular individuals seems to presuppose a different setting; (4) his interpretation of John 13:31 entirely ignores the fact that, immediately preceding the utterance of the statement, “now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him”, Jesus tells Judas to leave and Judas does so, setting into motion the chain of events that will lead inexorably to Jesus’ death. Thus, in context, John 13:31 is better interpreted as a statement describing the reality set in motion by Judas’ betrayal than the significance of the foot washing; (5) he completely ignores the fact that foot washing at the time was a deed people wouldn’t even ask their servants to perform, as it was the equivalent of wiping someone’s butt. Because of the footwear available at the time, feces, mud, dust, etc. would often get caked on people’s feet throughout the day; this was not a symbolic event representing Christ’s ultimate act of love, i.e., his death, but rather a further, complementary exemplification of love. [/quote]
Good stuff, I have to read over it again when I get the chance. Deep stuff.
One caveat, I don’t know if introduction is the right word, meaning that it’s not the introduction to his book, but an introduction in that it is a summary of part of his work (not very deep) and his actual work is rather deep and hits on many of these angles that you speak about, but for now I’ll leave it at this because I’m having enough trouble processing your work and I still digesting his first few arguments.
KingKai Typed: …“Based on the chronology of Daniel 7, ONLY ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES fits Daniel 7:25.”
Oooo, you’re in DEEP in “the know”, as they say…dangerously so…lol.
Honestly, A Typical Dispensationist ‘Bible Belt’ Christian would look at you cross-eyed
connecting ANTIOCHOS EPIPHANIES with Daniel…“Whatchoo talkin’ 'bout, Dadgummit If Joyce Meyer or
Joel Osteen don’t talk about this stuff in Daniel, don’t bug me with it cause it ain’t important!”
lol.
The ONLY, and I mean the ONLY relatively well known Christian Theologian has absolutely mirrors
your Revelation/Daniel comments EXACTLY is Hank Hanegraaff, ironally also a ‘Bible Belt’ based
teacher and daily radio host, HOWEVER Hank almost totally goes against the common grain of most other
TELEVISION Christian Teachers, I love how he ‘names names’ and calls out These mass media Charlatans
like Benny Hinn, Joyce, Joel, Fred K. Price, Creflo Dollar, T.D. Jakes, Joseph Prince, etc.
The Man doesn’t like MOST of them, HOWEVER the teachers he endorses SO FAR from what I’ve learned
are Ravi Zecharias (I AGREE, a wonderful teacher/speaker), the vastly underappreciated Voddie Baucham (You gotta hear Voddie to appreaciate him), R.C. Sproul, and several others…in other words if you haven’t
figured it out, the mostly NON MASS MEDIA teachers…that’s where the ‘good stuff’ is, the RICH stuff,
the TREASURE, the stuff right off the beaten path.
[quote]Karado wrote:
KingKai Typed: …“Based on the chronology of Daniel 7, ONLY ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES fits Daniel 7:25.”
Oooo, you’re in DEEP in “the know”, as they say…dangerously so…lol.
Honestly, A Typical Dispensationist ‘Bible Belt’ Christian would look at you cross-eyed
connecting ANTIOCHOS EPIPHANIES with Daniel…“Whatchoo talkin’ 'bout, Dadgummit If Joyce Meyer or
Joel Osteen don’t talk about this stuff in Daniel, don’t bug me with it cause it ain’t important!”
lol.
The ONLY, and I mean the ONLY relatively well known Christian Theologian has absolutely mirrors
your Revelation/Daniel comments EXACTLY is Hank Hanegraaff, ironally also a ‘Bible Belt’ based
teacher and daily radio host, HOWEVER Hank almost totally goes against the common grain of most other
TELEVISION Christian Teachers, I love how he ‘names names’ and calls out These mass media Charlatans
like Benny Hinn, Joyce, Joel, Fred K. Price, Creflo Dollar, T.D. Jakes, Joseph Prince, etc.
The Man doesn’t like MOST of them, HOWEVER the teachers he endorses SO FAR from what I’ve learned
are Ravi Zecharias (I AGREE, a wonderful teacher/speaker), the vastly underappreciated Voddie Baucham (You gotta hear Voddie to appreaciate him), R.C. Sproul, and several others…in other words if you haven’t
figured it out, the mostly NON MASS MEDIA teachers…that’s where the ‘good stuff’ is, the RICH stuff,
the TREASURE, the stuff right off the beaten path.[/quote]
Ravi Zacharias is awesome and R.C. Sproul is good to listen to as well, never listened to Voddie Baucham though.