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.

 

Jesus said;- If he remain until I come

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
“If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” – John ch21 v22

Many people, for some reason, seem to have difficulty in grasping the full intention
of the word “If”, how it implies a condition which may or may not be fulfilled.

When I was in primary school, the older class- “the Big’Uns”- would have country dancing on Friday afternoons, circling the cleared end of the room while the records on the school gramophone were delivering “The dashing white sergeant” and similar tunes.
At the end of the afternoon, once the desks had been restored to their normal places, my father would spend the last few minutes of the day chatting to the class.
Sometimes he would get philosophical. He might quote that old chestnut-
“Doctor, doctor, shall I die?”
“Yes, my dear, and so shall I.”
Or he might baffle us with the paradox of the weathercock.

“When the weathercock on top of the church tower hears the church bells ring, it flies down to the village pond to take a drink of water.”
Inevitably, the objections would rain down on him. The weathercock could not fly. Weathercocks don’t need to drink. Nobody had ever seen this happen. Nevertheless, he would stand his ground and stick to his claim.
In reality, of course, the village pond was a small swamp of green mould, on a road corner at the far end of the village. No weathercock in its right mind would have taken a drink there.
“But sir, the weathercock can’t hear the bells ring”.
I think this was the point.
“When it hears…” was a conditional clause, equivalent to “if it hears”. By the nature of things, the condition could never be fulfilled. It was undeniably true, at least, that the weathercock flew down as often as it heard the bells ring.
He was trying to get us to think about the meaning of language.

The verse quoted at the top of the page could be misunderstood in the same way.
It comes from the final conversation recorded in John’s gospel.
The disciples had been fishing on the Sea of Tiberias, without success.
As the new dawn was breaking, a stranger calling out from the beach told them to cast their net again, on the right side of the boat. When they obeyed, the fish began filling the net.
The beloved disciple quickly recognised that the Lord had been speaking, and said so to Peter. With his usual impetuosity, Peter jumped into the sea and swam to the shore, while the other disciples brought in the boat.
Jesus then invited them to share in a meal of bread and fish.
As John reports, this was the third time that Jesus had been revealed to them after the Resurrection.

There is something mysterious about the recognition of the resurrected Jesus.
We are told that the other disciples also knew that it was the Lord, and did not dare to ask him who he was.
That expression “did not dare to ask” shows that they were not recognising him by his face; if they had known the face they would not have needed to ask, and so the question of “daring” would not have arisen.
This repeats the experience of the other disciples on the road to Emmaus, who recognised him by what he did (the breaking of the bread), rather than by his face or his voice as he walked beside them (Luke ch24).
Even before the Resurrection, for that matter, Jesus had been able to “hide himself” from recognition, in order to get away from crowds. That was how he escaped being thrown off a cliff in Capernaum (Luke ch4 v30), how he escaped being stoned in the Temple (John ch8 v59), and presumably how he escaped being elected as king (John ch6 v15).
The moral appears to be that we can only know the Lord when he has been “revealed”.

The meal was followed by the dialogue between Jesus and Peter.
There was that probing question “Do you love me?”, and the repeated injunction to “feed my sheep”.
Then Jesus gave his oblique warning about Peter’s future martyrdom;
“When you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.”
The beloved disciple was in the vicinity, and curiosity prompted Peter to ask “What about this man?” Would he be suffering in the same way?
We’ve already seen the response he got.

“The saying spread abroad among the brethren”.
The brethren understood that something had been said about “remaining until I come”, and misunderstood it as a definite promise “that this disciple was not to die”.
It seems that John himself had a long life-span, which would have fuelled the speculation as he got older.
So this fuller report has been included in the gospel in order to set the record straight.
“Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die”.

There is a difference, which they were failing to grasp, between “If X happens” and “X will happen”.
“Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties”, declared Winston Churchill, “and so bear ourselves that IF the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say ‘This was their finest hour.’”
Obviously Churchill was not promising that the British Empire would last for a thousand years, nor did that happen. (Once Hitler had been defeated, God did not need it anymore.) He was putting greater force into his conclusion by presupposing an extreme case.
Jesus was doing the same thing; “Even in the extreme possibility that this man would not die before my return, his fate would still be none of your business.”

Church tradition tells us, nevertheless, that even after John’s death his continued breathing was thought to be disturbing the dust around his tomb, in fulfilment of the supposed promise.
There are times when a deep-seated misunderstanding can be impervious to explanations.




posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   
We are told that the final total of the catch was 153.
Given such an exact number, the early church could not resist looking for symbolism.

Cyril of Alexandria;
100 = The fullness of the Gentiles (10x10).
50 = The elected remnant of Israel, which falls short of completeness.
3 = The Trinity

Augustine;
10 = The Law
7 = The Spirit.
These add up to 17, and sum of the numbers from 1 to 17 is 153, signifying all those included under divine grace.

Alternatively-
50 = The unity of the Spirit (7x7 +1).
For the sake of the Trinity, treble that figure and also add 3.

Pope Gregory the Great;
10 = The Law (10 commandments)
7 = The Spirit (7 gifts)
Multiply 17 by 3 to get 51.
Multiply by 3 again to get 153.

But perhaps the simplest explanation was that of Jerome.
There are 153 different kinds of fish in the world. The catch included one fish of each kind, to illustrate the universal nature of salvation.

(And there were 153 bishops attending the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431. The coincidence was noticed.)



posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
The three questions

The commentary of B.F. Westcott includes footnotes on this dialogue between Jesus and Peter. I could not possibly improve on his analysis, so I will offer a brief summary.
(I should have mentioned that the previous post is based on another of his footnotes)

First exchange;

“Do you love [AGAPAS] me more than these?”
That is, more than the other disciples do. Jesus opens the conversation with a challenge.

“Yes, Lord, you know that I love [PHILO] you.”
Peter is not confident enough to affirm that he shows the spiritual form of love, and will only claim the more natural version. Even there, he does not distinguish between himself and the others.
His claim is based on his self-knowledge (“Yes”), to be confirmed from what Jesus knows about him.

“Feed my lambs.”
Therefore Jesus lays on him the command to feed or teach the younger believers.

Second exchange;

“Do you love [AGAPAS] me?”
Jesus sharpens the challenge by dropping the comparison. In effect, do you love me at all?

“Yes, Lord, you know that I love [PHILO] you”.
Peter gives the same answer as before.

“Tend my sheep.”
Therefore Jesus extends his responsibility, by commanding him to tend or guide the believers in general, including the more mature.

Third exchange;

“Do you love [PHILEIS] me?”
Jesus sharpens the challenge once more by questioning even the more “natural” love which Peter has been claiming. “Are you sure, now?”

“Lord, you know [OIDAS] all things; you know [GINOSKEIS] that I love you”.
In humility, Peter drops the self-confident “Yes” and rests himself entirely on what Jesus knows. Since the knowledge of Jesus embraces everything that is, he can “see” that Peter loves him.

“Feed my sheep.”
Therefore Jesus extends his responsibilities once more, by commanding him not just to guide but also to “feed” the believers in general.

In this way, Jesus is foretelling the personal role of Peter in the early church.

Of course these three questions echo the three “denials” of Peter on the night of the arrest.


edit on 8-4-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Church tradition tells us, nevertheless, that even after John’s death his continued breathing was thought to be disturbing the dust around his tomb, in fulfilment of the supposed promise.

For that matter, a visiting Mormon couple were telling me exactly the same story, a few decades back.
Of course I tried to put them right by referring to this chapter.
In retrospect, it was probably a mistake to read the passage out loud instead of making them read the words for themselves. I think they took the explanatory “Jesus did not say…” as my personal commentary, not realising it was part of the text. They just said “That’s only your interpretation”, and moved on to something else.

There are times when a deep-seated misunderstanding can be impervious to explanations.



posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Very inspirational! Thank you!



posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem
You're welcome.



posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Just logged in to say that you did a very nice job of explaining that.

Jesus was basically telling the others that he could do what he wants and it wasn't any of their business. Just as it wasn't anyones business about whom he originally picked to be the 12 apostles. And he is the one that did the choosing, after he had called them and they followed him in his preaching for a year or so, and after he prayed all night to his Father about the matter. He didn't consult with anyone else.

As far as the apostles not recognizing him and your statement that "The moral appears to be that we can only know the Lord when he has been 'revealed''" makes no sense here. For all of his apostles at that time knew who the Christ was. In fact Jesus himself acknowledged that fact when he said "Happy you are, Simon son of Joʹnah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did." Matthew 16:17.

So they had already had their hearts open to know who the Christ was. So why didn't they recognize his face? It isn't that all the sudden they did not recognize him. That would not make sense, they walked around with him for years and were close friends of his.

It is because, he was, after the resurrection, a spirit creature. When he appeared in the form he did to the apostles he was materialized from the spirit realm in a human body, just as angels had done in the past. Including the wicked angels who forsook their place in the heavens, came to earth materialized human bodies and had relations with the daughters of man. This is a thing that is possible with invisible spirit creatures of God. The Bible makes it quite clear that it is. So obviously the body which Jesus appeared in was not like the one he formerly had when a human. In fact he could appear in any way he chose to do so if you think about it. The reason they perceived it was the Christ was by his mannerisms and the way he spoke.

On a side note, that is also how he was able to materialize in the middle of the meetings of his followers after his death while they met in private locked rooms.

edit on 8-4-2018 by redletter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: redletter
As far as the apostles not recognizing him and your statement that "The moral appears to be that we can only know the Lord when he has been 'revealed''" makes no sense here.

I think your explanation of the event is basically the same as mine. My meaning was that they recognised the individual as Jesus only because his identity had been revealed by his actions, as at Emmaus.



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: redletter

In the story where Saul goes to the witch of Endor she tells Saul what the Elohim looked like .Saul knew it was Samuel . just saying



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: redletter

In the story where Saul goes to the witch of Endor she tells Saul what the Elohim looked like .Saul knew it was Samuel . just saying


Actually all the witch of Endor did was conjure up a demon who pretended to be Samuel. Not a god or anyone else. And it gave the witch the appearance of what Samuel looked like while alive. He was dead so he obviously did not appear to Saul. And Jehovah God directly commanded Samuel NOT to prophecy for Saul, nor to answer Saul anymore. If Samuel obeyed God in life, there is no reason that the dead Samuel who was asleep would have disobeyed Jehovah.

In any event the true prophet Samuel who received prophecy from Jehovah God was always accurate.

The demons prophecy that Saul and all his sons would die in battle turned out to be untrue. For one of Saul's sons continued alive and ate at David's table when he became king. A false prophecy, and a false prophet Samuel was not.



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: redletter




nor to answer Saul anymore.
That implies that at some point that Samuel did answer Saul . And one can imaging that his answers were from God . From the story " Saul replied, “I am terribly troubled! The Philistines are fighting against me and God has turned away from me. He does not answer me—not by the prophets nor by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what I should do.”

16 Samuel said, “Why are you asking me, now that the Lord has turned away from you and has become your enemy? 17 The Lord has done exactly as I prophesied! The Lord has torn the kingdom from your hand and has given it to your neighbor David! 18 Since you did not obey the Lord and did not carry out his fierce anger against the Amalekites, the Lord has done this thing to you today. 19 The Lord will hand you and Israel over to the Philistines! Tomorrow both you and your sons will be with me. The Lord will also hand the army of Israel over to the Philistines!” So Samuel says "The Lord has done exactly as I prophesied! " He does not say "all" of his sons as you said.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   
context context context

Just what in the world does tarry mean?

Who was simon peters son?

How did Jesus even know what Judas path would be even before he really knew the disciples.

Perhaps i have really missed the point you are making here.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Just what in the world does tarry mean?

The word "tarry" does not appear in the OP. It means "wait". Where it appears in the AV text, I followed the translation "remain".

Who was simon peters son?

Not mentioned in the OP, not relevant.

How did Jesus even know what Judas path would be even before he really knew the disciples.

Not mentioned in the OP, not relevant.

Perhaps i have really missed the point you are making here.

Yes, you miss the point by not bothering to read any of it.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I red it

So what bible translation is the op based off of

that is where our disconnect may come from

does context not mean anything in scripture to you?



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
So what bible translation is the op based off of

RSV.

does context not mean anything in scripture to you?

One thing it does not mean, in or out of scripture, is "bringing up irrelevant trivia".
If you're just here to play silly games, then I won't be responding.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   
why the hate?

i see no such silliness yet have you?

legit questions

just pointing out that the word has been interputed seven ways from sunday and you spout verses without context and version as if everyone would be on the same page as you automatically

i have fund not noting version is a real thread killer from the start cause it opens up side arguments over the interpretation of text rather that interpretation of your meaning you bring forth.

You see in my bible it says tarry. (as in covered with a heavy load) so i will forgo that definition for now and seek to see the path you have gone down

In my own opinion it is often misconstrued to think that single events in the bible are meant to be carried out through all time. Point being that sometimes Jesus went left and other times he went right depending on circumstances yet today many will say but Jesus said ..... when in reality it is often only specific to the parameters at the time.

The only real truths that remain throughout all time are the commandments everything else is event specific.

case in point turn the other cheek. sometimes that is wise and others not so much.

Just look at when slaves were travelling the underground railroad and the soldiers would come and ask people if they were hiding slaves and cause the people believed it was a sin to not lie they would turn over the slaves. When in reality they may have been forgivin for a white lie at the time in order to save a life.

Never the less i will reread in your version and try to see your meaning.




posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   
In my opinion this question has to be determined in order to gain context into the verse you put forth.

is simon iscariot simon peter and father of judas?

Was judas father resting his head on jesus breast and inquiring about the fate of his own son?

If so then was he offering to Jesus to kill judas before he could betray jesus or was he petitioning for the release of judas from the path his own namesake set upon jewedus by jesus?



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky
Off-topic. Different chapter.
The charge is proved. You are playing silly games. I have no more interest in anything you have to say.




edit on 10-4-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   
19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

same chapter

no games just context and unanswered questions



eta was it simon peter or judas leaning on jesus breast?
edit on 10-4-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Context

If you remove the text then you are just left with a con.







 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join