26 Jul 11
Originally posted by josephwOnly when you begin making false assertions and/or false accusations, which unfortunately seems to be more often than not.
You're entertaining ToO. That's why I'm replying to you at all. I know that as soon as I begin to get into a discussion with you it will deteriorate into this. It always does.
It's your fault.
Perhaps we can start a new thread and do a test. Any ideas?
One only need read our exchange of posts on this thread to see how irrational you've been.
You're like a little kid who believes that everything that he thinks is true simply because he thinks it. Perhaps it's time you grew up.
26 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell, now you can add hypocrite to the list.
Only when you begin making false assertions and/or false accusations, which unfortunately seems to be more often than not.
One only need read our exchange of posts on this thread to see how irrational you've been.
You're like a little kid who believes that everything that he thinks is true simply because he thinks it. Perhaps it's time you grew up.
Why are you so bitter? Before you answer, remember this is a public forum.
I'm really not a mean person ToO. In spite of the powerful persona I display in this forum, (that's just my way of being funny) I'm really very weak. I don't consider myself better than anyone. How can I? I was a wicked man once. Sometimes that old man still rears up his ugly head and drags out the worse in me. I have nothing to hide.
The Truth shall make you free. It did me.
26 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwDidn't say you're a "mean person". Just irrational and immature as evidenced by your posts on this thread and others.
Well, now you can add hypocrite to the list.
Why are you so bitter? Before you answer, remember this is a public forum.
I'm really not a mean person ToO. In spite of the powerful persona I display in this forum, (that's just my way of being funny) I'm really very weak. I don't consider myself better than anyone. How can I? I was a wicked man once. Some ...[text shortened]... s out the worse in me. I have nothing to hide.
The Truth shall make you free. It did me.
If you were a man of "truth", you'd be willing to admit this about yourself. For the truth to make you free, you'll have to admit it. It's because of your lack of maturity that you can't. It's also likely the reason that "sometimes that old man still rears up his ugly head and drags out the worse in [you]".
You call me a "hypocrite" and "bitter" because you can't face the truth about yourself. If you think about it, it's what little kids do. It's what you do.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOkay. You win. I'm going to my room now.
Didn't say you're a "mean person". Just irrational and immature as evidenced by your posts on this thread and others.
If you were a man of "truth", you'd be willing to admit this about yourself. For the truth to make you free, you'll have to admit it. It's because of your lack of maturity that you can't. It's also likely the reason that "sometimes t ...[text shortened]... yourself. If you think about it, it's what little kids do. It's what you do.
26 Jul 11
5 edits
Originally posted by jaywillActually it makes much more sense that John 3:15-21 was commentary made by the writer of John rather than a quote of Jesus. It is much more consistent with the words of the writer of John rather than the words of Jesus. If you are able to be objective about this, you'll see that this is much more likely. For one, one would have to believe that in the midst of explaining about being "born again", Jesus goes off on a tangent referring to Himself using the third person "Him" instead of saying "Me". For another, while the writer of John referred to Jesus as the "only begotten" Son of God in several other places, Jesus doesn't. Even the phrasing is much more consistent with other commentary by the writer of John. Try reading John 1:1-13 and then John 3:15-21. It's the same voice and is strikingly different from the quote of Jesus in John 3:5-14.
In [b]John 3:16 Jesus refered to Himself as the onlybegotten Son of God.[/b]
26 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne======================================
Actually it makes much more sense that John 3:15-21 was commentary made by the writer of John rather than a quote of Jesus. It is much more consistent with the words of the writer of John rather than the words of Jesus. If you are able to be objective about this, you'll see that this is much more likely. For one, one would have to believe that in the mids 's the same voice and is strikingly different from the quote of Jesus in John 3:5-14.
Actually it makes much more sense that John 3:15-21 was commentary made by the writer of John rather than a quote of Jesus.
==========================================
It may make more "sense" to the skeptic who cannot believe that Jesus would have said something, and that something said being fully consistant with His wonderful deeds.
It makes as much sense to me that Matthew records the sayings of Jesus somewhat in the the style of Matthew, and that John would recount the sayings of Jesus in the style reflecting John's personality.
I trust the evangelists. Christ prayed for them. Christ intrusted His gospel into their hands and endowed them with His Holy Spirit. I completely submit to thier deputy authority as the most reliable witnesses to all that Jesus was and and said.
============================
It is much more consistent with the words of the writer of John rather than the words of Jesus.
==============================
To some skeptic seeking to discount the Gospel message, it makes "sense" to exploit this avanue. But John 3:16 fits extremely comfortably with equivalent sayings of Jesus in the synoptics.
John tells us He called Himself the only begotten Son of God. And the parable of Luke 20:9-16 which includes concerning the certain man who sent slaves to his vinyard:
"And the master of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my son, the beloved; they will probably respect this one. But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying, This is the heir; let us kill him that the inheritance may become ours."
The teaching of the vinyard's master sending after a long line of slaves (prophets), sending his beloved son agree completely with Jesus saying "For God so loved the world that He gave His onlybegotten Son ..." in John's Gospel.
And of course Jesus refering to Himself as the onlybegotten Son would be completely consistant to what was supernaturally pronounced at His conception within the virgin Mary (Luke 1:35):
"And the angel said to her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore also the holy thing which is born will be called the Son of God."
I have no reason to suspect false witness when the Apostle John recounts how Jesus refered to Himself as "the onlybegotten Son" .
"And Simon Peter asnwered and said You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you Somon Barjona, because flesh and blood has not reealed this to you, but My Father who is in the heavens." (Matt. 16:16,17)
So I find nothing perculiar about trusting the Apostle John when he bears witness that Jesus called Himself "the onlybegotten Son" ?
And Mark opens his Gospel "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1)
I find no cause of alarm or suspicion when John recounts that Jesus refered to Himself as "the onlybegotten Son".
==============================
If you are able to be objective about this, you'll see that this is much more likely.
======================================
You overlook the importance of being subjective about receive Christ AS the Son of God. For John wrote all that he wrote not to tickle human curiosity but that readers could believe and receive spiritual life in Christ. That makes all the difference to knowing Christ:
"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31)
I want to have life in His name. So I receive the revelation of Jesus the Son of God. Moreover I receive Jesus Himself - "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name.... who were begotten ... of God." (See John 1:12,13)
Its too late for me to be so "objective" as to undue the miracle of regeneration that has happened in me since I called on the name of Jesus to receive Him.
================================
For one, one would have to believe that in the midst of explaining about being "born again", Jesus goes off on a tangent referring to Himself using the third person "Him" instead of saying "Me".
=======================================
It is not that unusual for Him to have refered to Himself in the third person there. There is no one else as a candidate to which He could be refering. I see a non issue for the skepticcal, by making a issue of Christ's usage of the third person.
=================================
For another, while the writer of John referred to Jesus as the "only begotten" Son of God in several other places, Jesus doesn't.
===================================
I have no reason to suspect error, mischief, exaggeration, faulty memory, lying, deception, understatement, overstatement, twisting, misreprentativee bias or unreliability on the part of the Apostle John.
I flat out do not regard John's Gospel to be unreliable concerning what Jesus did and what He said.
Before I knew this Gospel very well at all, before I could recite by memory even TWO lines I had ALREADY experienced what was said in this promise of Jesus:
" ... If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)
Before I even knew what the word "synoptic" meant, or "epistle" or "incarnation" or "redemption" or many other theological terms, I experienced God coming into me as life, to make an abode within me.
So when I did pick up and began to read John, some things struck a chord of familiarity immediately with my experience. I could explicitly trust that this book knew what I was experiencing and could definitely help fill in more important details.
===================================
Even the phrasing is much more consistent with other commentary by the writer of John. Try reading John 1:1-13 and then John 3:15-21. It's the same voice and is strikingly different from the quote of Jesus in John 3:5-14.
================================
After having read the NT many times, I fully recognize that there is similar flavor of utterance in John's epistles. I can see it. I can detect it.
NO PROBLEM!
I give room to John having his style AND being trustworthy.
I give to Mark having his characteristic personal touch and also being trustworthy.
I give room to Luke and Matthew each having their particular flavor and emphasis and being trustworthy.
The similarity of style is well noted. Each evangelist's particular style is no reason for me to assume untrustworthy "yellow journalism" on the part of the witnesses.
Style has long been recognized and acknowledged by scholars.
People who seize upon style in hope of discounting the gospel message are beginning to run low on reasons to regard the testimony of Jesus as false.
26 Jul 11
1 edit
=======================================
Try reading John 1:1-13 and then John 3:15-21. It's the same voice and is strikingly different from the quote of Jesus in John 3:5-14
=============================================
Looking at this again, I misunderstood that you were refering to two portions of John's gospel.
What is the difference which you find significance ? I don't think the two passages are intended to convey exactly the same thing anyway. They both concern Christ's ministry.
26 Jul 11
2 edits
=============================
John 1:1-13 and then John 3:15-21.
===================================
Consider the parellels:
"But as many are received Him ..." (John 1:12)
" ... that everyone who believes into Him ..." (3:16)
The invitation of salvation is to open to all who will receive Him or who will believe into Him. Receiving Him is believing into Him and vica versa.
" ... who were begotten ... of God" (John 1:13)
Within 3:15-21 there is no explicit mention of the new birth. But back in 3:6 you do have "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
The discussion about the second birth between Jesus and Nicodemus in the earlier verses forms an unmistakable parallel between chapter three's "you must be born anew" with chapter one's " ... received Him ... believe into His name ... born ... of God" (See 1:11-13)
What about the matter of the eternal life ?
1:4 says "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men"
3:16 says "would not perish but have eternal life" .
The divine life being the remedy for darkness is in the first section.
The divine life being the remedy for death being in the second section.
The darkness is associated with evil which implies God's judgment:
"For every one who practices evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his works be reproved" (3:20)
In the earlier prologue we have a similar concept of the equating of darkness to evil and death - "And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." (1:5) .
Quite striking similarities therefore exist between the two passasges.
27 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillNot sure how to best approach this little rant. Why do you insist on responding to each sentence as if it was said in a vacuum? From what I can tell, it keeps you from understanding the overall meaning which keeps you from being able to write a concise and coherent response.
[b]======================================
Actually it makes much more sense that John 3:15-21 was commentary made by the writer of John rather than a quote of Jesus.
==========================================
It may make more "sense" to the skeptic who cannot believe that Jesus would have said something, and that something said being full regard the testimony of Jesus as false.[/b]
Aside from that, rather than try to untangle this mess, it seems that you are under that misguided belief that the writer of John clearly indicated where the quote of Jesus began and ended. The fact is that the original text does not contain quotation marks (or any other markings) to denote this. The fact is that no one knows for certain exactly where the words of Jesus end and the words of the writer of John begin. However, there are other indications that the words of Jesus end before John 3:16. Perhaps if you reread my post with this in mind and take the time to understand the overall meaning, you'll be able to formulate a reasonable response.
27 Jul 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not sure how to best approach this little rant. Why do you insist on responding to each sentence as if it was said in a vacuum? From what I can tell, it keeps you from understanding the overall meaning which keeps you from being able to write a concise and coherent response.
Aside from that, rather than try to untangle this mess, it seems that you are ...[text shortened]... the time to understand the overall meaning, you'll be able to formulate a reasonable response.
27 Jul 11
Originally posted by jaywillThe point is that the phrasing of John 1:1-13 and John 3:15-21 are quite similar and are strikingly different in contrast to the phrasing of John 3:5-14.
[b]=======================================
Try reading John 1:1-13 and then John 3:15-21. It's the same voice and is strikingly different from the quote of Jesus in John 3:5-14
=============================================
Looking at this again, I misunderstood that you were refering to two portions of John's gospel.
What is the differ ...[text shortened]... s are intended to convey exactly the same thing anyway. They both concern Christ's ministry.[/b]