The Joys of John

[unsafe]

There may be no such thing as the proof required for faith.

There isn't any proof required for Human or Intellectual Faith maybe-----but there is proof required for God's Faith -----and that proof is obedience to do as God says ---Peter proved his Faith when he stepped out of the boat to walk on the water ----when Jesus called to him -----Peter obeyed ----Abraham proved his Faith to God when he obeyed the call to go to an unknown land -----etc

 

[unsafe]

So we see here the Jews wanted a sign to prove that Jesus had authority to clear the temple -etc ---Apparently this was expected in the Jewish culture in those times ----so it seems fitting that a sign was ask for ?

This is from Strongs Concordance
In Jewish culture, signs were expected as evidence of God's presence and action, especially in the context of messianic expectations.
These signs are not merely wonders but carry a deeper spiritual significance, pointing to the truth of God's message and the authority of Jesus Christ.

I say ---so Jesus says ---Destroy this Temple and I will raise it in 3 days ------and the Jews take it to mean the stone Temple -----

This shows that Jesus already knew that they would try to destroy His body ----but He also knew that they would fail ----

This also shows us that the Jews had no Spiritual understanding of what Jesus was saying ----and that is the way it is today for unbelievers ----they see and read the Word from their Human lens ---

And it also shows Jesus claimed to have the power to raise himself up from the dead

We see after He was raised from the Dead ----the Disciples trusted and believed the scriptures and the words Jesus spoke -----

So we see that many believed in His name after seeing His signs ---but Jesus did not commit Himself to these many who believed as if they only Believed because of the Signs they saw---their Faith was superficial and He knew the fickle nature that was in mankind ----He didn't need anyone testifying to Him about Man ---He knew their hearts and what was in the very core of their being ----

 

[paradox3]

John 3:1-21

Bible Gateway passage: John 3:1-21 - New English Translation

Conversation with Nicodemus - Now a certain man, a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who was a member of the Jewish ruling council, came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God...

www.biblegateway.com

Now we have Nicodemus, a Pharisee, coming to Jesus at night.

Jesus discusses the need to be born from above and born of the Spirit.

Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, the Son of Man must be lifted up so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

 

[paradox3]

What do you think it means to be born from above? Is it a one-time event or a process of some sort?

 

[Waterfall]

Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, the Son of Man must be lifted up so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

Why is Jesus being compared to the serpent of Moses?
Wasn't it serpents that bit the people in Moses time to begin with, and then a serpent was used to save them?

 

[Mendalla]

I"ve always seen and thought of it as a renewal of faith caused by a realization of God's/Jesus' presence in one's life. So a spiritual experience of a very clear, graphic variety. Roughly. Not being raised in a tradition with those practices, I'm not an expert, just speaking from my thoughts and experiences. Maybe if I was born again, I might think of it differently. I know this fits more in unsafe's faith than mine.

 

[Waterfall]

I"ve always seen and thought of it as a renewal of faith caused by a realization of God's/Jesus' presence in one's life. So a spiritual experience of a very clear, graphic variety. Roughly. Not being raised in a tradition with those practices, I'm not an expert, just speaking from my thoughts and experiences. Maybe if I was born again, I might think of it differently. I know this fits more in unsafe's faith than mine.

But worshipping the thing that bit you in order to be saved? What am I missing?

 

[Waterfall]

Moses with the serpent
Numbers 21:4-9

 

[paradox3]

Why is Jesus being compared to the serpent of Moses?
Wasn't it serpents that bit the people in Moses time to begin with, and then a serpent was used to save them?

It was the bronze serpent raised by Moses that had the superpower. It could alleviate the pain caused by the biting serpents.

 

[Waterfall]

It was the bronze serpent raised by Moses that had the superpower. It could alleviate the pain caused by the biting serpents.

I realize serpents provide the anti venom if someone gets bit by them BUT using Jesus as an example using this story.....doesn't it suggest he also can kill you too? Anyway....I must be reading this all wrong.

 

[paradox3]

I realize serpents provide the anti venom if someone gets bit by them BUT using Jesus as an example using this story.....doesn't it suggest he also can kill you too? Anyway....I must be reading this all wrong.

I think it tells us that Jesus is both a man and something more than a man.

Just like the bronze serpent is both a serpent and something more than a regular serpent.

Odd story though.

 

[unsafe]

So in Chapter 3 ----we see Nicodemus a Ruler of the Jews ---a Pharisees -and a learned Scholar of the Scriptures ---approaching Jesus AT NIGHT ------not in the daylight ---Why is that ??????

My guess is He was in fear that other Pharisees who were against Jesus would see him and be angry with him for speaking to Jesus ---so he hid and went in the dark --just like we do when we are doing something or seeing someone that we don't want others to know -----

and Note ---this Pharisee says who he believes Jesus is because of the signs He preformed ------ So Nicodemus only believes because of the signs he saw done ----- so most only believe because of what they saw Jesus do ----this is Human or intellectual Faith here ---Believe in what you ---see --hear --feel --taste and touch ----Not God's Faith here -----

So Jesus says -this to him ---and the Scripture says it best using the AMP B ---so clear and so precise --no skirting around the Issue --no Sugarcoating applied -----He says Straight up---calls a spade a spade

3 Jesus answered him, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, that unless a person is born again (anew, from above), he cannot ever see (know, be acquainted with, and experience) the kingdom of God.

Now here is the Thing ----Nicodemus is suppose to be a teacher --scholar of the Scripture and he has no idea about what Jesus is saying here ----

Jesus says ----and Jesus is shocked here

10 Jesus replied, Are you the teacher of Israel, and yet do not know nor understand these things? [Are they strange to you?]

And we see this is way beyond Nicodemus's understanding -----which is understandable as he doesn't have the right Faith inbirthed in him for Spiritual understanding ----

Jesus goes on to Tell him that ==
6 What is born of [from] the flesh is flesh [of the physical is physical]; and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Anyone can read the Logos Word but they can't get the Rhema Word ----Nicodemus knew the Logos Word -----but could't grasp the Rhema Word ---2 lens showing here ---

Jesus was God's gift for the Salvation of the world -----

What do you think it means to be born from above? Is it a one-time event or a process of some sort?

It is a One Time Event ---there is no second chances ----you must receive Jesus who paid the price for your sins -----you die once and Judgment comes says Scripture ---you cannot work a process to be Born Again ---your need to receive Jesus as your Lord and Saviour and change your Tainted Spirit to a Holy Spirit -----No sin can enter Heaven -----

Scripture in this passage says ---No one entered heaven ---the OT Saints did not enter heaven until Jesus was resurrected and went to hell to get them and take them to heaven with Him ---

 

[BetteTheRed]

Bible study is so much fun when there are several plausible answers to a question.

Absolutely, and boundaries are also important. I'm leading a bible study on Mark at present which asks us to read it as independently of other gospels as possible, even providing a PDF of a decent translation of the text so that those of us with study bibles with xf to parallel texts aren't as tempted to refer to other gospels.

That being said, I assume that referring to other gospels is okay here, and I'm noting a really huge dichotomy between all of this "proclaiming Jesus as God" in John compared to the constant underlying theme in Mark of "keep it a secret".

 

[paradox3]

Absolutely, and boundaries are also important. I'm leading a bible study on Mark at present which asks us to read it as independently of other gospels as possible, even providing a PDF of a decent translation of the text so that those of us with study bibles with xf to parallel texts aren't as tempted to refer to other gospels.

Agree completely about boundaries. I have had some challenging behavior in this regard on some of my bible study threads. A few posters (who shall remain nameless) often conflate the various gospels and/ or the gospels with the epistles.

This has not happened on the John thread to date.

That being said, I assume that referring to other gospels is okay here, and I'm noting a really huge dichotomy between all of this "proclaiming Jesus as God" in John compared to the constant underlying theme in Mark of "keep it a secret".

Yes it is completely okay to contrast or compare different books of the bible. What I disagree with is using one NT book to explain another. Does this make sense?

The approach your group is taking with Mark sounds fascinating. Thanks for your post Bette.

 

[Mendalla]

What I disagree with is using one NT book to explain another.

I mostly agree, but keep in mind that Mark informed the other 2 Synoptics to a degree and the later Epistles and Revelation postdate the Gospels so likely had some awareness of them. So you can't use them to "explain" each other but they are not independent texts, either. Influences and cross-pollination are there.

 

[paradox3]

Agree about the cross pollination.

A few years ago I took a look at the material unique to each of the synoptics. That was a very rewarding line of inquiry.

 

[paradox3]

Before moving on in John's Gospel let's look at John 3:16 from yesterday. Here it is from my memory bank.

For God so loved the world He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Interpretation of this verse seems to be a major sticking point between conservative/ evangelical Christians and progressive/ liberal ones.

It's something to grapple with, that's for sure. To put it in context, it closely follows the nighttime visit of Nicodemus and comments by Jesus.

Are we meant to read the verse as further dialogue with Jesus? Or is it commentary from the gospel writer?

 

[Mendalla]

It's really the crux of the fundamental problem with Christianity in a diverse world. How do you engage with a blatantly exclusivist verse when so much of the world around does not, and will not, "believeth in him".

Making belief rather than action the basis for "everlasting life" is coercive behaviour, really. Hey, believe this and you'll get goodies type of thing.

And there's the problem of someone who is a total a**hole getting a Divine "get of jail free" card. Yeah, he started a war that left thousands dead, as some supposedly believing medieval rulers and religious leaders did, but he believed in Christ so, hey, all is good.

Alternative reading that avoids that?

I mean, it doesn't specially say that belief in the "only begotten son" is the only way, just heavily implies it. So I suppose there's wiggle room.

And I suppose you could argue that an a**hole who causes thousands of innocents' deaths can't really "believe" or they would behave better.

But it's really a verse that is a tough one to defend outside of an audience of like-minded believers. It does not, or should not, hold up well today.

 

[paradox3]

I think it was Marcus Borg who suggested "trusting" in Jesus was a useful way to look at "believing" in him. It alters the verse a bit. If we trust someone we are more likely to follow that person's teachings, I think.

And maybe John meant this is one way to have everlasting life. Not the only way.

 

[Mendalla]

I think the NRSVUE translation of 3:16 can be read that way more easily.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

It feels more like it is making the "may not perish" a selling point than a carrot to encourage belief. But maybe that's just my perception.

And it still does not deal with the other objection I point out: If belief is enough to "not perish", what about the tyrant or murderer who professes faith on their deathbed or jail cell. Does that mean the terrible things they did are excused now?

Constantine, for instance, was a horrible human being in a number of regards and led one side in one of Rome's last bloody civil wars (they had plenty), seemingly without remorse. During his life, Christianity seemed to be more of a convenient tool for replacing the old Imperial cult as the unifying religious force of the Empire. And, yet, he professed belief on his deathbed and that seems to be enough for Christians to proclaim him "saved" and the first "Christian" emperor.

And the number of Popes and Byzantine emperors, all nominally believers, who committed atrocities or engaged in dubious actions is a very long list.

If belief does not inform actions and values, is it worth the paper it is printed on (so to speak)?