Christian Readers discussion
Discipleship
>
Why God Enables
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Nancy
(new)
Dec 05, 2022 03:40PM
Robert, to anyone reading your comments, do you think perhaps your exasperation has turned to unChristlike anger? I understand the frustrations. How about chilling out, and take a breath?
reply
|
flag
Mod
No. God has called me to contend earnestly for the truth.
What have I said that is not truth?
Hi Robert and David:I’ve been following your discussion on John 6:64–65, for quite some time now, and I thought I’d add my opinion. While I agree with Robert that one should stick to the literal meaning, avoiding personal interpretation, as much as possible, I don’t think it is wise to take a verse or passage and quote it out of its context. I also think it is unwise to take it out of its historical context because the biblical authors assumed the paradigms of their time when they wrote Scripture. Here’s the biblical text in question:
“‘But there are some of you that believe not.’ For Jesus knew from the BEGINNING who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, ‘Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.’” (John 6:64–65, KJV, emphasis mine)
The discussion is whether the word “beginning” refers to the beginning of the Creation or to the beginning of Jesus’s ministry.
Of course, David is right in his message 17 stating that the word “beginning” in John 8:25, 15:27, and 16:4 refers to the beginning of Jesus’s ministry, not to the beginning of the Creation. However, in John 1:1 and 1:2, the evangelist does use the word “beginning” referring to the beginning of the Creation as well:
“In the BEGINNING was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the BEGINNING with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:1–3, KJV, emphasis mine)
In other words, unlike what David says in message 17, the evangelist John does use the word “beginning” in BOTH senses in his gospel.
Before proceeding further, let us first understand the difference between EXEGESIS and EISEGESIS.
“The terms ‘exegesis’ and ‘eisegesis’ refer to how you read the Bible. At the most basic level, exegesis relies on the ORIGINAL CONTEXT of a biblical passage to determine that passage’s meaning, while eisegesis uses things other than the original context of a biblical passage to determine that passage’s meaning.” (https://www.sagu.edu/thoughthub/exege..., emphasis mine) I suggest reading the whole article.
The crucial point, in the above two quotes (John 1:1–3 vs. John 6:64–65), is that, from the CONTEXT, one can tell what meaning the evangelist intends to convey. In John 6:64, Jesus is talking to his disciples (see John 6:60–61); it is therefore UNLIKELY that he is talking about the Creation (as in 1:1–3): his INTENDED meaning is the beginning of his ministry. Consequently, I think David is right: the meaning of the word “beginning” in John 6:64 should be taken (not just ‘interpreted’) as from the beginning of Jesus’s ministry—and not from the beginning of the Creation.
This is not exactly eisegesis, as Robert calls it, but exegesis.
In other words, it’s the meaning the biblical author, INTENDED to convey—it’s NOT just our ‘interpretation.’ I think it is you, Robert, who’s bringing in an extraneous meaning (the Creation) that isn’t there into the biblical text. The passage John 6:60–71 only talks about Jesus’s discipleship, so the “beginning” here refers to the beginning of Jesus’s discipleship: the Creation comes ‘out of the blue.’ (Compare it with John 1:1–3.)
Let me give a clearer example. In the Psalms (14:1) we read,
“The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” (KJV)
One could argue that the Bible says, “There is no God.” But that is quoting the biblical verse out of its context. It is the FOOL who says so, not the Bible. However, someone might still argue that not everything a fool (or a clown) says is wrong. Still, that is not the INTENTION of the biblical author: to him, a fool is someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about; it’s the ‘interpreter’ who’s reading information ‘out of the blue’ (i.e., that the fool is not always wrong) not intended by the author into the text.
Neither is it advisable to always read biblical texts literally; for example, we don’t have to go far, in John 6:51, we read,
“I [Jesus] am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”(KJV)
Indeed, the Jews were confused by these words of Jesus; we read,
“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’”
But from the CONTEXT, Jesus was talking of a SPIRITUAL food: that is, contemplation on his person and his life; nobody ever cannibalized Jesus’s flesh or vampirized his blood.
I’m sorry, Robert, I must disagree with you: I think some biblical verses and passages DO NEED an explanation to convey the right/true meaning the author wanted to deliver.
Conclusion:
It’s dangerous to read biblical verses or passages outside their original textual (or historical) context and try to give them a strictly literal meaning.
Regards.
Carmel.
Mod
My response: So you believe that God has difficulty clearly communicating?
OK. I don't.
Hi Robert:Obviously he has a problem communicating to us through humans since you two cannot agree on the meaning of a single word.
Regards.
Carmel.
Mod
Obviously he has a problem communicating to us through humans since you two cannot agree on the meaning of a single word.
Regards.
Carmel."
My God has NO problem communicating clearly. He does NOT NEED your assistance.
Our problem is that one of us is believes what the Bible actually says and the other is conflating Scripture to suit his particular doctrine.
But thank you for admitting that you think God is INCAPABLE of clear communication. (WOW!)
My God has NO problem communic..."
agreed. The problem lies in man's refusal to believe and submit themselves to God. and, to acknowledge Jesus as Saviour and Lord.
Robert wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Robert, to anyone reading your comments, do you think perhaps your exasperation has turned to unChristlike anger? I understand the frustrations. How about chilling out, and take a bre..."I applaud your speaking the truth, and for persevering. Not enough men do that. You haven't said untruths. It can be tough to fight against all the wiles of the devil, who sometimes appear in various fashion. I've fought the same fight you're having against lies and evil, for decades. Keep on doing the good work for Jesus.
Mod
Thank you.
In debates like this, I rarely expect the other person to change their eisegetical doctrine. I am fully aware that in public forums, there are silent readers who may not have made up their minds, and it is my desire to provide BIBLE TRUTH.
Then it is up to each person to believe what they think is right.
Hi Robert:It seems to me you cannot accept defeat gracefully—like a man.
You cunningly smoke-screened the discussion by shifting it from the biblical verse John 6:64 to divine inspiration and biblical accuracy.
(1) First, please, don’t put words in my mouth as you did in your message 56.
What I meant in my message 55 is that human expression has its limitations, not to mention difficulty in translation.
Whether you agree or not, the bottom line is that two strong Bible-inerrancy believers (you and David) understood the verse John 6:64 differently.
This must say something about the clarity of the verse.
(2) Second, perhaps I could understand your frustration if you were the one who understood the verse correctly.
The fact is that you are the one who is mistaken.
The entire passage John 6:60–71 speaks strictly about Jesus’s followers and defectors.
You are the one who brought “the Creation” into the Johannine verse OUT OF THE BLUE.
It must, therefore, refer to the beginning of Jesus’s ministry.
(3) Third, if we are to understand that God elects people for salvation in his ETERNITY, I’m sure you realize that eternity has NO BEGINNING.
So, as David aptly points out in his message 7, the word “beginning” in John 6:64 couldn’t possibly refer to God’s eternal selection.
(4) Finally, if, as you insist, every biblical verse is crystal clear, then it is YOU, not David, who is misreading John 6:64—because of the TWO reasons [(2) & (3)] given above.
Regards,
Carmel.
Mod
Obviously he has a problem communicating to us through humans since you two cannot agree on the meaning of a single word.
Regards.
Carmel."
My God has NO problem communicating clearly. He does NOT NEED your assistance.
Our problem is that one of us is believes what the Bible actually says and the other is conflating Scripture to suit his particular doctrine.
But thank you for admitting that you think God is INCAPABLE of clear communication. (WOW!)
Mod
The fact is that you are the one who is mistaken.
The entire passage John 6:60–71 speaks strictly about Jesus’s followers and defectors.
You are the one who brought “the Creation” into the Johannine verse OUT OF THE BLUE.
It must, therefore, refer to the beginning of Jesus’s ministry.
My response: Thank you for your OPINION ... but YOU are the eisegete ADDING your private interpretations to the Bible.
I believe exactly what the Bible says, while you write 4 or 5 paragraphs to re-define and discredit the Bible.
Proverbs 10:19 - In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.
Evangelist wrote: "I am enjoying reading! You may not see me here much, but I do read. Thanks for sharing. God bless everyone and have a great and blessed Christmas all year round, amen."December 25th is not when Jesus was born. Do you know why Dec. 25th has been made Christmas?
Hi Nancy and Evangelist:I think this link in the ‘Encyclopedia Britannica,’ will answer your question concerning Christmas day:
https://www.britannica.com/story/why-....
Alternatively you can refer to the “History” Section of this link in ‘Wikipedia’:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas.
Read the several “hypotheses.”
Merry Christmas,
Carmel.
Nancy wrote: "Robert, to anyone reading your comments, do you think perhaps your exasperation has turned to unChristlike anger? I understand the frustrations. How about chilling out, and take a breath?"Thank you, Nancy. We should be able to have civil discourse without what comes off as animosity.
Mod
Civil discourse with heretics preaching other Gospels include public rebuke... just as the Bible teaches.
