The God of John's gospel, the God of the Old Testament

a reply to: pthena

So if the Gospel of John was written after quite a few believers had died, and yet no need was seen to explain away such statements, but rather emphasize them... I guess I don't really understand what this particular literary work is exactly.

Perhaps it's because the Jewish people have always held in their hearts and embedded in their scripture, that we all are resurrected after 3 days, lest the soul be forced to remain with the body and experience the degradation of physical rot.

Hosea 6:1
Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us. He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him.

a reply to: windword

The brazen serpent was destroyed by King Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18:4 because people started to worship it. And yes, a serpent or snake is a typology for sin, because the first time you see a snake (nacash) it is in the garden in Eden when sin entered human existence. The first appearance of something in scripture tends to carry the same thought or meaning throughout. It's called the "Law of Expositional Constancy" in hermeneutics.

Jesus alluded to Him being lifted on the cross with the same typology as the brazen serpent in the wilderness when He was talking to Nicodemus in John chapter 3. And the OT story is a perfect typology of the atonement where Jesus became sin for us that we may become the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. 2 Corinthians 5:21

a reply to: NOTurTypical

How can you say it was the only place? He said the exact same thing,

he didn't...

In one case it is said that he taught the people all the things that the OT scriptures said about him... In John he tells them to look for themselves and neither "taught" or showed them anything...

I know most Christians believe all the gospels line up perfectly with each other... but in reality they don't... far from it in fact when one compares them side by side

Example, Moses putting a brass snake up on a pole so that anyone who had been bitten by a snake who just looked at it was healed and wouldn't die. Picture of Christ on the cross saving anyone who looked to Him. Another, the Passover lamb. Jesus teaches Nicodemus this.

Jesus said nothing about people being saved simply by looking at him... This is even more far fetched then the idea of Faith alone...

And when he was talking to Nicodemus he said "the son of man must be lifted up"... he certainly didn't say on a cross... or even make any allusions to the cross, especially considering he probably wasn't nailed to a cross in the first place...

my personal interpretation of this verse is that HE must be put on a pedestal... meaning his teaching, not himself

The OT is a fascinating collection of books, it's amazing.

I will give you that...

a reply to: Akragon

You seem to think I said Christ said the same thing word for word in both places, no, I'm saying in both places Christ is affirming the scriptures point to Him. In 32 AD the "scriptures" we're the OT books.

Jesus said nothing about people being saved simply by looking at him... This is even more far fetched then the idea of Faith alone...

Read the story of the brazen serpent in the wilderness. The people were bitten by poisonous snakes (sin) and were dying. When they merely looked at the brazen serpent on a pole (sin being judged on a pole) they would no longer die from the snake bites, they were immediately healed. That story has no explanation in the OT, until Jesus comes along and teaches Nicodemus that when He is lifted up on a pole just like the brazen serpent all those who look to Him will be saved.

Check out the brazen serpent story, try to read it like a Jew who notices typology and symbols.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well no, i take issue with the statement "the entire book points to him"

I know the story you're referring to brother...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well no, i take issue with the statement "the entire book points to him"

I know the story you're referring to brother...

You just need to be taught friend, the same way Jesus did to the two disciples on the Emmaus Road. Read Numbers chapter 2 and if you can, tell me how that points directly to Jesus.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

lol...

i most certainly don't need to be taught... especially anything in the bible, but i shall humor you

Funny i had a minister say that same thing a while back... except it turned out he was the one that needed teaching

oh the irony...

a reply to: Akragon

You should have no trouble with telling me how the tribe layout around the tabernacle in numbers 2 points directly to Christ then. I still need to be taught.

a reply to: Akragon

Alright.... do tell how that points to Jesus?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Akragon

Alright.... do tell how that points to Jesus?

If you approach the camp in the wilderness from the East it forms a cross.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

ok...

except Jesus was nailed to a Stake

And the cross is a symbol that was borrowed from earlier religions

And IF in fact all these vague allusions were pointing at Jesus... don't you think the jews would have figured that out over the past few millennia?

Or do you think its possible that over the past 2000 years or so, Christianity has had time to to figure out every single vague allusion that might be pointing at Jesus to reinforce their doctrine, even if said passages have absolutely nothing to do with him?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

The brazen serpent was destroyed by King Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18:4 because people started to worship it.

Yep, just like many Christians have and do worship the image of a dead man hanging on a torture device.

The first appearance of something in scripture tends to carry the same thought or meaning throughout. It's called the "Law of Expositional Constancy" in hermeneutics.

Oh please! The serpent represents a whole lot more than "sin", whatever you think that is. Jewish tradition doesn't even recognize the eating of the forbidden fruit as a "fall" but as an initiation from childhood into adolescence. "Sin" isn't something to be rescued from, but something to be mastered.

a reply to: Akragon


True, he was nailed to a stake or pole. The upright portion stayed at the crucifixion site, the condemned carried only the crossbeam (transom or patibulum). Obviously they couldn't carry the crossbeam and the vetical pole, that would be several hundred pounds. And yes, it was a pagan symbol, crucifixion as capital punishment was invented by the Persians yet was perfected by the Roman Empire.

TextOr do you think its possible that over the past 2000 years or so, Christianity has had time to to figure out every single vague allusion that might be pointing at Jesus to reinforce their doctrine, even if said passages have absolutely nothing to do with him?

2000 years?? The apostles were teaching Christ out of the Septuagint OT from the very start of the church, that's all they had.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

A few extra points on this subject...

Theres nothing in any of the gospels that mention a cross beam... its only assumed, and for no real reason except to push the symbology of the cross... Most likely it wasn't a cross he was nailed to

He was likely nailed to a pole as it actually states, with his hands nailed above his head... and his feet on either side of the it... we know this because we actually have evidence of a person having been nailed to a stake in such a fashion. It wasn't likely in the "Christian traditional" sense, where his feet were place one over the other. The nails were driven through his heels on either side of the pole/stake

As far as the symbolism in Numbers two... its interesting that on Christian sites all over the net the placement looks like a cross... yet when you look at the people who those books were actually written for...

it looks like this...


Not so much a cross...

Like i said, Christianity loves to read into things which actually aren't there...

2000 years?? The apostles were teaching Christ out of the Septuagint OT from the very start of the church, that's all they had.

And 2000 years later Christians are still coming up with things in the OT that have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus

a reply to: windword

I think it's only Catholics that venerate the crucifix, I could be wrong, but every Protestant church I've been in affirms He is no longer on the cross. If the Messiah was not supposed to make atonement for iniquity then why did Gabriel tell Daniel that He would? When he said "make reconciliation for iniquity" the word for reconciliation is "Kaphar" in Hebrew. It's the root word for Kippur, as in Yom Kippur, and means "to make atonement". Yom Kippur means "Day of Atonement".

The third purpose Gabriel told Daniel for the Messiah was to make atonement for iniquity, which is sin. Iniquity in this verse means "inward sin", the sin nature of man. A common term for this in Hebrew culture is "Yetzer Hara".

a reply to: Akragon

It is a cross. Look at the population sizes. The person who made that graphic has each camp the same size, yet they aren't the same size. Look at the populations. The largest camps would be the biggest, and smallest the smallest. Obviously

Issachar, Zebulon, and Judah camp would be the longest of all 4. It's the largest group and the only way they could accommodate the extra 30,000 people would be to extend further East, they couldn't camp north, south, or west.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

And yet the cross has absolutely nothing to do with said religion...

either religion in fact... so why would it be a cross?

perhaps again, its because you're reading into something that isn't there?

a reply to: Akragon

Just because the Romans crucified some people on poles, or even trees themselves, doesn't mean every single person who was crucified was on a pole. Sometimes there was no patibulum handy, obviously. Christ was crucified on a patibulum hung on a stake because the accounts in the gospel records state that he carried it to Golgatha from the Praetorium. Well, partially there until Simon of Cyrene carried it the rest of the way.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

And the accounts differ in that situation as well...

One says someone helped him, another says he did it all on his own...

and in any case, no mention of a cross bar at all... its only assumed

a reply to: Akragon

It's reading exactly what numbers 2 states in the text. Each camp could not extend north south east or west of the other camps around the tabernacle. Following those guidelines, the camp toward the east would be the longest, the camp to the west the shortest, the camps to the north and south were almost identical in size, yet shorter than the eastern camp but longer than the western camp.

A cross shape if you approached camp from the east.