It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Meanwhile, what do you propose to do about the repeated statements in John's gospel that eternal life is promised to those who "hear my word and believe it"?
originally posted by: DISRAELI
This discourse in the eighth chapter presents three of them in quick succession, underlining its importance.The background is that Jesus was in Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles.
He had been speaking to different groups of people, with the result that “many believed in him” (v30). That is, they placed their trust upon him.
He now turned to address the Jews who “believed him”. That is, they accepted what he told them, but they were not yet taking that further step of believing in him, a distinction which is very important in John’s gospel.He wants to encourage them to persevere.
If they continue “in my word”, they will be true disciples of Jesus.
“You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (v32)
originally posted by: DISRAELI
Their first reaction to this promise is to question the implication that they are not free already.
They are the seed of Abraham, and as such they “have never been in bondage to anyone”.
Obviously this is not referring to their political circumstances, as a nation.
They may have been thinking of those passages in the Law (e.g. Leviticus ch25) which deplore the enslavement of Jews by their own people, encouraging them to acquire slaves from other nations instead.
So Jesus explains in what sense they are not free;
“Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (v34).
That is, “committing sin” as a way of life.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
As slaves, they have no status in the household, and no security.
However, the Son (namely Jesus himself) remains in the house “for ever”, and can raise them to the same privilege.“So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed”.
Thus he identifies freedom from sin as the most important kind of freedom there is.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
But they are not likely to accept this offer.
The problem is that “my word finds no place in you”.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
He gets his testimony direct from God, and their minds are closed to what comes from God.
“I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father” (v38).
They will have found this enigmatic. The explanatory words “my” and “your” are absent from many manuscripts, and certainly absent from the standardised modern version of the Greek text.
Not knowing what he is talking about, they repeat the claim that their father is Abraham.
Jesus doubts this, because their hostility to him is very unlike Abraham.
“This is not what Abraham did. You do what your father did” (vv40-41).
originally posted by: DISRAELI
Now that he has definitely added “your” father, they grasp that he is accusing them of having a father other than his own.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
Having understood the charge, they deny it, emphatically. They are not “born of fornication” (in other words, they have not been hankering after other gods).
“We have one father, even God”.
Jesus challenges this claim too.
If they were truly from God, they would feel kinship with someone sent out from God himself and following his will, and they would love him.
Their true father is the devil.
The devil has been a murderer “from the beginning” and the father of lies, making him the exact opposite of the source of Life and Truth.
This affinity with the devil means that they can only accept and understand lies. Therefore they do not believe Jesus precisely because he tells them the truth.
“He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God” (v47).
originally posted by: DISRAELI
The Jews have no answer to this.
They respond with a counter-accusation; “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” (And these are supposed to be the Jews who had believed him?)
Jesus dismisses that briefly and then returns to his original theme, which is the importance of hearing his word.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
“Truly, truly I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death” (v51).
originally posted by: DISRAELI
As usual, the Jews take this promise very literally, and assume that he’s talking about physical death.In that case, it seems absurd. Everybody experiences physical death.
Abraham and the prophets could not even escape death themselves.
He is offering something which Abraham could not offer, so is he claiming to be greater than Abraham?The answer is that Abraham himself was able to know and take advantage of the same offer;“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; he saw it and was glad” (v56).He “saw” it, that is, with the eye of faith. And perhaps he has already “experienced” it in renewed life.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
Once again, the Jews understand the statement in the most literal way.
If Abraham saw Jesus, that must mean he and Abraham were living at the same time.
Naturally they doubt this.
“You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
(This is not telling us that Jesus looked more than forty years old. The point is that even the round number of fifty years does not compare with the interval since Abraham’s time.)
Jesus does not try to put them straight.
Instead, he takes up the challenge. “As old as Abraham? I’m older!”
“Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (v58).
originally posted by: DISRAELI
This prompts them to take up stones to throw at him, because they understand exactly what he means.He has identified himself with the Creator God, the source of Life. This is the same claim that is made on his behalf in the opening words of the gospel.Only on that basis can he fulfil the promises he’s been making about the effect of his word, that it will free them from slavery to sin and save them from death.
originally posted by: Rex282
The word “into him” and “to him” is the Greek word auto.The many that “believed” into him is who he was addressing not JUST those that you are trying to segregate “believed him” as being a different way to believe.
That is incorrect the transcripts say .. mou in Greek is “of me” humon is “of you”.
originally posted by: Rex282
it is not “spiritual” death that is an oxymoron because spirit is LIFE.
Paul, and perhaps the community of his time, are using the word "sleep" to convey their confident faith that those believers who have died are not "finally" dead.
I don't see any contradictions here.
Why did Paul get Jesus' appearance after the resurrection wrong? Jesus, according to the Gospels, appears first to Mary Magdalene, then to a group of disciples, but not all of them.
Where do any of the gospels claim to be listing every single appearance of the resurrected Jesus?
The expectation that Christ will "return" to us and bring a general resurrection matches what is said in this gospel;
"The hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgement" (ch5 v25).
He would have found "rising on the third day" in the same place that the church has always found it since his time; Hosea ch6 v2. They also found it implied in what happened to Jonah.
Hosea ch6 v2
After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.
Neither Jesus nor Paul suggest that eternal life relates to the soul.
In this gospel, Jesus talks of new life as the consequence of being "born anew" through the Holy Spirit.
"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined
As in the case of all these silly quibbles which you are finding, they are slightly different ways of saying the same thing.
originally posted by: windword
Paul's examples are NOT in line with the gospels and ARE referring only to a celestial Jesus, not a Jesus in the flesh.
That [resurrection] already happened, according to the Gospels, on the day that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.
WOW! That's quite an apologetic stretch, even for you!
What Jesus said about being "born again" was not new or breaking news. He chastised Nicodemus for being a religious leader and not understanding the concept of eternal life.
If eternal life doesn't relate to the soul, what does it relate to? New bodies for who or what?
There is no visible difference whatever between the risen Jesus described in the gospels and the risen Jesus mentioned by Paul.
And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate before them.
In your enthusiasm to make the text do what you want, you fail to observe the crucial word "ALL".
Why "for you"? That's coming from the early church, not from me.
Show me the scripture!
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
Show me the scripture!
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
I hope you're not expecting a detailed explanation of how it would work.
I don't think any of us in this life are capable of understanding that, for the same reason that an ocean-living animal could not understand an explanation of what it would be like to live on land and breathe in an atmosphere.
Zachariah 3
And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
2 And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?
3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.
4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.
He told Nicodemus that he should have understood being "born again".
But we don't know that any of the other religious teachers of Israel managed any better.
Now Paul says that our resurrection body relates to our present body by analogy with the way that a grown plant relates to the seed.
originally posted by: windword
Of course there is! The resurrected Jesus of the Gospels was flesh and blood!
Oh please! Jesus was just teasing us with a temporary faux resurrected body, raising some of the dead, healing some of the sick and feeding some of the hungry......fulfilling some of the prophecy.....
BS! Show me the commentary!
"On the third day" does not harmonise well with a perfect, but it is added as of importance (1) as evidence of a bodily resurrection (comp. Acts ii 24f) and (2) to show the exact coincidence with prophecy (Hosea vi 2; comp Ps xvi 10,11; xvii 15-24). Christ is said to have included "on the third day" in what was predicted in scripture (Luke xxiv 46).
[They add in a footnote a quotation from Sanday];
"The third day" is hardly less rooted in the tradition of the church than the Resurrection itself. We have it not only in the speech ascribed to St. Peter (Acts x 40) but in the central testimony of Paul and then in the oldest form of the Apostles' Creed.
"On the third day" is a standing date for the resurrection of Jesus. How did it arise?...
So there remains a fifth possibility alongside the first;
5) The date was derived from Scripture. The phrase KATA TAS GRAPHAS, "according to the scriptures", presumably refers here, too, not only to EGEGERTAI, "he was raised", but to the whole statement.
The allusion is indicated in the same general way as that to Isa. 53. It can only be to Hos 6:2.
[Again, we find additional observations in the footnotes];
Delling points out that the Targum has altered the text: "He will revive us in the days of consolation which shall come in the future; on the day of the resurrection of the dead he will raise us up that we may live before him"...
Lindars reckons that the expression goes back to Jesus himself, who used it in the sense of a short interval... The resurrection on the third day then led to the literal prophecy being discovered in the Hosea passage.
I was challenging your claim that "All those who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out" has been fulfilled already.
I must repeat; It is NOT yet true that ALL those who were in the tombs have come out of them again. Or perhaps you will claim to have seen them?
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;
Be careful about what you ask for, my child, because you might get it.
Not just one commentary, but two of them.
On the third day" is a standing date for the resurrection of Jesus. How did it arise?...
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Are you a teacher in Israel, and you do not know these things?
Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."
originally posted by: windword
There are no souls asleep in their tombs, period! The opening of the tombs on the day of the crucifixion was symbolic of that. Death was conquered on Calvary, remember?
Neither of those commentaries address any of Paul's assertion, or present any prophecy that "The Christ" died for sin, as Paul wrote; "how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;". Please show where THAT is written.
Hosea; After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence. doesn't refer to Paul's "Christ" being risen, it's about US.
Paul's "Christ" was risen from the dead, not a dead man that was resurrected.
Jesus of Nazareth, if he existed, wasn't a manifestation of an arisen bunch of dead people that lived before him.
If you go and dig up a grave, anywhere in the world, you are likely to find a body there.
nd He said to another, "Follow Me." But he said, "Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father." 60But He said to him, "Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God."
I confined my quotation to what was relevant to the topic of the thread.
If you want to know what prophecies Paul used to quote in the other context, you can search his letters for yourself.
We have not been arguing about whether Paul and the early church were right to make this connection with Hosea.
The argument was about whether thye DID make this connection with Hosea.
The stages were
1) You asked me where Paul would have got his prophecy from.
2) I told you.
3) You accused me of making it up.
4) I proved emphatically that I was not making it up. There is a general scholarly consensus about the way Paul and the early church were using the Old Testament passages.
"From the dead" means that he used to be among the dead, as one of their number, and now he is raised instead. As far as I can see, that's the same thing as being a dead man who has been raised.
Your quest for differences is getting a little over-ingenious.
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
originally posted by: windword
[He died for our sins] IS certainly relevant to this thread, as you introduced the chapter in the OP, as an additional explanation to Jesus' teachings on eternal life.
I didn't accuse you of making it up,
"Why "for you"? That's coming from the early church, not from me."
BS! Show me the commentary!
According to Paul, Christ became the (first)fruit of the dead; of them that slept. Plural! I think you're the one being "a little over-ingenious".
Paul's Christ was a man risen from the dead, not a dead man that was resurrected.