Jesus Realizes...That The Apostles Are Still Sinners!!!
"John 16:7 will not come to you Jesus realizes that it is time for His disciples to carry on His work. The disciples could not have God’s presence dwell in them while still sinners—He needed to die for that to be so.
Barry, J. D., Grigoni, M. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Mangum, D., & Whitehead, M. M. (2012). Faithlife Study Bible (Jn 16:7). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software."
1. In this note, the statement that Jesus is telling something He is just realizing is a presumption.
2. Again, the statement that the Apostles who have already believed in Him are not justified by faith until the cross is a grave theological error, and a heresy. [Even by standards of Catholic Theology I think so since this statement makes the cross a definite point of justification, as opposed to having faith plus good works lifelong.]
This is adding to the word of God. Notes need to explain the meaning, and where necessary give divergent viewpoints, but this is extreme case of reading into the passage, thwarting it, and presenting muddled theology.
The more I read the Faithlife Study Bible, the more it is becoming the most suspect book in my Logos Library. I have books from divergent theological viewpoints and religions, but they are clearly branded as such and are more consistent in what they claim themselves to be.
Quite scary.
Comments
-
Welcome to the forums, Peter.
No offense, but I'm reading Barnabas and I almost dropped my PC when I read just how sinful the apostles really were.
And Barnabas was in the early alexandrian Bible (plus the Logos library of course).
Scary (too).
(I already got rid of FSB for the same reason; someone(s) helping out the original NT authors).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Hm. I'm not sure this is the point here.DMB said:I'm reading Barnabas and I almost dropped my PC when I read just how sinful the apostles really were.
Peter's objections go towards
- Jesus "realizing" (which could be understood as denying his divine personality which included knowing what was the case, what was inside people and what would happen) and
- the disciples "being still sinners" precluding the Holy Spirit/God's presence in them.
1. may just be sloppy wording and should be corrected, whereas re 2. I think the explanation goes beyond the text into a strange direction. Jesus talks not about his sinful disciples precluding the Spirit to come, but the fact that Jesus wasn't gone (which includes cross, resurrection and ascension). Commentators and other SBs treat the potential misreading that two of the Trinity can't be in one sphere of the world and point that Jesus' work needed to be completed before he would send the spirit, however it seems overdone to suggest that sin in the life of the disciples was the real reason behind this. I'm not sure about Peter's speculation that they were "saved by faith" prior to the cross (although the NT letters claim this for Abraham and other OT saints), but this question doesn't come up here either. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from the womb and the Spirit came upon David and others, even Saul, in the OT - and I would understand some NT stories as well as teachings (John's letters, Corinthians, maybe Rm 7) to the end that sin can/will be in the life of believers that have the Holy Spirit. Jesus doesn't even talk about sin with respect to his disciples here.
I put up a Community Note for FSB Users to see and potentially discuss.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
Peter,
Thanks
for bringing this note to our attention. We agree that it isn’t as clear as it
could have been and apologize for any confusion it may be causing. We’ll revise
this note which will be reflected in the next FSB update. Once this update goes
live, I encourage you to look at the revision and let us know if we’ve
addressed your concerns. You can forward your feedback to editor@logos.com.Thanks
again.0 -
Peter Lever said:
"John 16:7 will not come to you Jesus realizes that it is time for His disciples to carry on His work. The disciples could not have God’s presence dwell in them while still sinners—He needed to die for that to be so.
Barry, J. D., Grigoni, M. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Mangum, D., & Whitehead, M. M. (2012). Faithlife Study Bible (Jn 16:7). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software."
1. In this note, the statement that Jesus is telling something He is just realizing is a presumption.
2. Again, the statement that the Apostles who have already believed in Him are not justified by faith {...}
Quite scary.
Welcome Peter,
But sadly, you will find that many theology’s are muddled with presumptions. Should we commit and say that this is a presumption, then, we would find many other presumptions that we have made as well.
My first point for discussion is your first (1): “Can you undeniably prove that Jesus knew[Jn 16:7] this before now?”
Second, as towards (2): The Cross is most definitely a point of Justification, by almost every recorded 'christian' religion there is today. Even the Sacrifice that is in the OT points to the shedding of blood as a means of Atonement, thus the Cross. Christ made the statement ‘…ye of little faith…” speaking to the Apostles in direct connection to their faith. Christ also stated “…believe in me….the works that I do…” thus again speaking to the “faith” of that generation, thus to carry on. [do a search on “believe in me” and read the many times Jesus used it and how he used it]
*****It’s not the notes that really need adjusted, it is how we read and understand the message that God gave us through His Beloved Son. Heb 1:1,2****
Thats my starbucks $1.50
R4m
{"Jesus doesn't even talk about sin with respect to his disciples here". ---John 16:9}
hmmmm. It is a passage that demonstrates a path to the meaning.....
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Peter Lever said:
This is adding to the word of God. Notes need to explain the meaning, and where necessary give divergent viewpoints,
I enjoy collecting and reading various "study Bibles" but am always keenly aware where the scripture ends and the commentary starts. We must never ascribe inspiration to the commentary, no matter how much admiration we hold for the commentator.
I have major problems with both points you have raised in this instance and agree with your objections.
a little off-topic: I would love to have the Strand Study Bible in my Logos library.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Peter Lever said:
Jesus realizes that it is time for His disciples
Peter Lever said:He is just realizing is a presumption
Point of grammar: you changed the form of the verb from "realizes" to "is realizing" ... the FSB is not necessarily saying what you think it is saying.
Which gives me an opportunity to share unofficially a file on the verb forms in English which others might find useful for Hebrew, Greek, etc. ...
0638.English verbal system.docx
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Hmmm ... MJ ... you're an expert on this whole area, including semantics and human-to-human interfacing.
In the original text, the 'realizes' is descriptive and in common usage an implied thought process. Most(?) readers would see the usage as somewhere between possible to probable. And indeed similar usage is in the NT where a past event is in present tense.
But depending on ones conclusions from the other Jesus-text, one could also conclude 'improbable', as well as 'what's FSB's motive/theology?' when the text doesn't apparently see the need to go down this road.
Mick above noted my 'Barnabas'; I introduced it because early Christian writers were similarly grappling with the before/after timing for the disciples and what it meant. Again, one arrives at the semantics and human-to-human interface. When Barnabas threw out the comment as fact, had his readers already done the math (as FSB seems to imply today).
I know ... I'm being picky but I do draw much from watching the early fathers' struggles (and now FSB as well).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Room,
Room4more said:many theology’s are muddled with presumptions.
Room4more said:Can you undeniably prove that Jesus knew[Jn 16:7] this before
I think, we should refrain from discussing theology in depth here. Maybe you can invite Peter to your "discussion of the trinity" group. However, just for the record I'll post my understanding that the FSB's statement of faith would require the notes to fully reflect a trinitarian theology as well as the divine personality of Jesus.
They may discuss verses that are difficult for trinitarians and may freely include that some people understand them diffently than the orthodox heritage of the church, I'm all for that, but they shouldn't introduce doubtful language in areas where it is not warranted.
That said, there have been various speculations about Jesus' divinity while he was on earth and what he did/didn't know - this may be the starting point for a sidebar or a LBD article (maybe they exist already), but the text here does not even warrant a discussion of Jesus realizing something. The note editor just used this as a springboard to jump into a thought about the disciples and the Holy Spirit.
Mick
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
Peter Lever said:
Jesus realizes that it is time for His disciples to carry on His work. . . .
1. In this note, the statement that Jesus is telling something He is just realizing is a presumption.
I realize that you may not have thought of this, but the word "realize" here does not necessarily imply "become aware of something one did not previously know." In fact, in checking my Merriam-Webster, that use of the word is not even listed. Concise OED gives 2 ideas as one definition: "1 become fully aware of as a fact; understand clearly." But "become...aware..." is not the only way this word is used, even in common US English. The FSB phrase, as I read it, simply says "Jesus is fully aware that it is time for His disciples..."
What I'm saying is that the word "realize" does not necessarily imply becoming aware of something one did not previously know. Maybe you didn't realize that. [;)]
Peter Lever said:The disciples could not have God’s presence dwell in them while still sinners—He needed to die for that to be so. . . .
2. Again, the statement that the Apostles who have already believed in Him are not justified by faith until the cross is a grave theological error, and a heresy.
Once again, the statement in the FSB does not necessarily imply that the disciples were not justified prior to Jesus' crucifixion. It is a simple theological statement, not necessarily tied to the chronology of events here. What the general statement says is that Jesus' death on the cross is necessary for the in-filling of the Spirit. That seems to me like a generally accepted theological statement.
The fact that you drew your conclusions calls for clearer writing on the part of the FSB staff, but does not suggest bad or sloppy theology.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
NB.Mick said:
I think, we should refrain from discussing theology in depth here.
Awhile
ago I would have agreed with this when Logos was just a software
company, But now Logos has become
a publisher of theological works, and
in keeping with the Logos imperative that all discussions pertain to
Logos products, it now seems that
discussing the merits and content of such products does indeed have a
place here more than anywhere else."As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Richard ... I think you're digging Jesus in deeper. 'Became fully aware'? Now the theological problem is spreading to 'fully' and 'became'.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
Hmmm ... MJ ... you're an expert on this whole area, including semantics and human-to-human interfacing.
Sorry for coming across that way. My training is philology/philosophy, my work history programming (including some teaching), my avocations - storytelling, poetry, logic and liturgy. one side of my family is planted firmly in farming, the other side in academia. Human-to-human interfacing is not my strong suit - I'm too obsessed with precision. Your comments both in your original post in this thread and here are more informative re: Biblical interpretation.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I don't think you 'came across that way' ... I think you ARE far more informed than me in these areas (and many others too)! We're lucky for your help.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
Richard ... I think you're digging Jesus in deeper. 'Became fully aware'? Now the theological problem is spreading to 'fully' and 'became'.
I want to assume that you're intentionally distorting what I said for the sake of humor.
In case you misunderstood, I meant to say that the range of meaning of the word "realize" is not limited to "become aware" and sometimes simply means "is aware," or even simply "knows." When you or I respond to someone with the phrase "Yes, I realize that," we definitely do not mean "Yes, I just now became aware of that," rather, "Yes, I already know that." My assumption is that the FSB author here was using the word "realize" as a synonym for "know," "know full well," or "be fully aware of."
I realize that the word "realize" can be used in both ways, but not at the same time.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
NB.Mick said:
I think, we should refrain from discussing theology in depth here. Maybe you can invite Peter to your "discussion of the trinity" group. However, just for the record I'll post my understanding that the FSB's statement of faith would require the notes to fully reflect a trinitarian theology as well as the divine personality of Jesus.
So here’s the dilemma, the FSB statement and the note in question are so contradictory, its like reading about the Trinitarian theology all over again, but in a nut-shell. Should your statement even reflect the slightest coercion between a Trinitarian theology, as thus the FSB, then we would not be having a semantically based conversation within the confines of this thread.
The note in question appears to be the true reflection of the mind of Christ, as so stated by Paul’s words and other Apostles’ writings {those mentioned in the Scriptures – not the make believe ones} as Divinely guided by the Spirit of God, this also fulfills the Prophecy’s concerning Christ as given in the OT.
No one was/is seeking to discuss theology in depth here, but rather as I gathered from the OP, possibly a clarification and possibly a correction to the note – as to which follows the FSB’s theological statement.
I think you mis-read, or missed it…but then I could be wrong.
[edit: the Scriptures are clear in that "...without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins..." Heb 9:22 seems to clearly demonstrate that Christ is aware that there must be a 'sacrifice" in order to for Us to be "saved" by the whole of the passage here in Jn 16. So yes it may be possible that the Apostles "were still sinners" untill the Crucifixtion, Burial, and Resurrection....]
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Room4more said:
No one was/is seeking to discuss theology in depth here, but rather as I gathered from the OP, possibly a clarification and possibly a correction to the note
Then we are in agreement.
I didn't question that.Room4more said:yes it may be possible that the Apostles "were still sinners" untill the Crucifixtion, Burial, and Resurrection
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
-
Paul Golder said:NB.Mick said:
I think, we should refrain from discussing theology in depth here.
Awhile ago I would have agreed with this when Logos was just a software company, But now Logos has become a publisher of theological works, and in keeping with the Logos imperative that all discussions pertain to Logos products, it now seems that discussing the merits and content of such products does indeed have a place here more than anywhere else.
Paul,
You are absolutely correct. I couldn't agree more.
By the way, it would be interesting to read a slight poll on how many discuss the sunday sermon on the way home....?
R4m
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Room4more said:
By the way, it would be interesting to read a slight poll on how many discuss the sunday sermon on the way home....?
Total thread hijack, but an interesting one. At my church we discuss the sermon during the worship service, immediately following the sermon, for about 10-15 minutes. I love it! It makes the sermons more memorable, and I'm more likely to apply them in my life in the coming weeks. In my parents' church they have an optional time of discussion of the sermon after the service, after a short break for coffee and fellowship; they return to the sanctuary and chew it over with the pastor, with Q&A and contributing their personal reflections on the message for up to half an hour. That's great too. Not dissimilar to our model, but we weave ours into the service so it ends up being shorter.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:Room4more said:
By the way, it would be interesting to read a slight poll on how many discuss the sunday sermon on the way home....?
Total thread hijack, but an interesting one. At my church we discuss the sermon during the worship service, immediately following the sermon, for about 10-15 minutes. I love it! It makes the sermons more memorable, and I'm more likely to apply them in my life in the coming weeks. In my parents' church they have an optional time of discussion of the sermon after the service, after a short break for coffee and fellowship; they return to the sanctuary and chew it over with the pastor, with Q&A and contributing their personal reflections on the message for up to half an hour. That's great too. Not dissimilar to our model, but we weave ours into the service so it ends up being shorter.
You’r so silly….no one is attempting anything, just seems to be a paranoia syndrome…..Anywho, I just was curious no one forced any one to answer, they come willingly. As with any forum, reply’s and statements are not coerced but rather one reads and decides to answer or not, as you have demonstrated.
But I do appreciate the reply.....[8-)]----
[EDIT:
In all honesty, I am still reading from a Greek and still am having difficulties in trying to establish the note in reference to "realize" since this seems to be the crux of the matter. But a dictionary was entered into the mix and it still does not clarify the contradictory note; from the position of the FSB statement. The note seems to be right on spot with the tenure of the Scriptures.....]
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Two asides to get out of the way first:
- I think Rosie was referring to herself hijacking the thread away from the original topic. I don't think she was accusing you. fwiw.
- I almost answered Richard in regards to "realize" but nobody forced me to then, or now. [:D] So here goes:
Room4more said:trying to establish the note in reference to "realize" since this seems to be the crux of the matter.
The dictionary really does not matter here, the colloquial usage is the key to good communication. Marie Antoinette literally said nothing wrong with, "Let them eat cake." But the peasants sure took offence at the underlying message. In common American usage "realize" implies a moving from not knowing to a state of knowing. That implies discovery at some point. For FSB to use "realize" was unfortunate in this instance because of the pre-existing doctrinal arguments on when the old covenant ended and the new covenant began, the date of the establishment of the church, and the question of when the disciples were saved.
I "realize" not everyone will use a dictionary to check syntax but it is indeed the crux of the matter.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
[Y]Super Tramp said:I think Rosie was referring to herself hijacking the thread away from the original topic. I don't think she was accusing you. fwiw.
0 -
Super Tramp said:
For FSB to use "realize" was unfortunate in this instance because of the pre-existing doctrinal arguments on when the old covenant ended and the new covenant began, the date of the establishment of the church, and the question of when the disciples were saved.
Agreed. Another major issue clouding clear communication here is the puzzling and hotly debated relationship of Jesus' humanity and divinity in the context of the degree to which He emptied Himself (Phil.2). Oh - please, let's not debate that here.
I've heard that the first rule of written communication is that if it can be misunderstood, it will be. In this case it seems to be true.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Super Tramp said:
the colloquial usage is the key to good communication.
The problem is that the circulation of the translation is much greater than any particular colloquial use. That means that translators have to be cautious in the use of words that are doctrinally loaded, have colloquial usages, etc. etc. There are translations that utilize specific colloquial dialect e.g. The Cotton patch Bible but I don't think that's the FSB's model,[:P]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Room4more said:
You’r so silly….no one is attempting anything, just seems to be a paranoia syndrome…..
Paranoia? Yikes. That's a pretty strong word for someone who was kidding around. No offense taken, though. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were being lighthearted too.
Super Tramp said:I think Rosie was referring to herself hijacking the thread away from the original topic. I don't think she was accusing you. fwiw.
ST is right. I wasn't accusing. Your question ("it would be interesting to read a slight poll on how many discuss the sunday sermon on the way home?") was indeed a non sequitur for the topic of the thread, and thus it was an invitation to hijack the thread, not a hijack in itself. I was the one who turned it into a hijack. But I also don't consider hijack a pejorative in the context of thread hijacking, or I wouldn't have jumped right in with my comments. And I wouldn't have participated with such glee in the infamous "The correct way to Hijack a thread" thread. [:)]
So apologies if I misframed my comment and made it sound like I was accusing you. That was not my intent at all. It was all said in good fun. I guess since I haven't been all that active lately, my jovial and pacifistic personality is not remembered by some of the newer forum members.
Shalom.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:Room4more said:
You’r so silly….no one is attempting anything, just seems to be a paranoia syndrome…..
Paranoia? Yikes. That's a pretty strong word for someone who was kidding around. No offense taken, though. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were being lighthearted too.
Super Tramp said:I think Rosie was referring to herself hijacking the thread away from the original topic. I don't think she was accusing you. fwiw.
ST is right. I wasn't accusing. Your question ("it would be interesting to read a slight poll on how many discuss the sunday sermon on the way home?") was indeed a non sequitur for the topic of the thread, and thus it was an invitation to hijack the thread, not a hijack in itself. I was the one who turned it into a hijack. But I also don't consider hijack a pejorative in the context of thread hijacking, or I wouldn't have jumped right in with my comments. And I wouldn't have participated with such glee in the infamous "The correct way to Hijack a thread" thread.
So apologies if I misframed my comment and made it sound like I was accusing you. That was not my intent at all. It was all said in good fun. I guess since I haven't been all that active lately, my jovial and pacifistic personality is not remembered by some of the newer forum members.
Shalom.
True; and yet still False.
There was no intention to hijack, again this is your silly thinking, no invitation either; Just a wandering thought....
***
I think that the most amusing part is that the quibble is about a note and not the actual text that is in question………..making it appear as towards a ‘presumption’ without any viable proof and u guy’s are running with it. The note makes no mention of the word nor does it indicate as such. But the OP did emphasize ‘realizes’ which is an actual statement from the FSB and not the TEXT itself, and thus following the tenure of the Scriptures....
It will be interesting to see how the dev’s re-write this note to reflect a flawed theology. This is prime example…..
The question in my mind is : Will they seek to express the Scriptures, or will it be according to what they want it to reflect?
I believe that the choice of words in the note reflect the True understanding of Christ and the WHOLE of the Scriptures, too bad it clashes with the FSB statement of ""theology""....we shall see-won't we..
Then again, thats just my starbucks $1.50$
R4m
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Room4more said:
again this is your silly thinking, no invitation either; Just a wandering thought....
You are not very careful at reading what others post. You attribute statements to others they did not assert. Hijacking is not my beef with this thread. Theological discussion is. [C]
Just a wandering thought...: Anyone who disagrees with your opinion has "silly" thinking. I would rather be "silly" than wrong.[:P]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Room4more said:
By the way, it would be interesting to read a slight poll on how many discuss the sunday sermon on the way home....?
I've always been one to take extensive notes during a sermon, just so that I can reference them in future clases in church (and at home).
It's always amusing to see the look on our Senior Pastor's face when, weeks latter, over coffee or a meal I bring up what he said in the pulpit. He always makes that "I really did say that" expression
[:D]
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Super Tramp said:Room4more said:
again this is your silly thinking, no invitation either; Just a wandering thought....
You are not very careful at reading what others post. You attribute statements to others they did not assert. Hijacking is not my beef with this thread. Theological discussion is.
WOW!! You totally missed that one didn’t ya(?) [:S]
Super Tramp said:Just a wandering thought...: Anyone who disagrees with your opinion has "silly" thinking. I would rather be "silly" than wrong.
Nnaaww......thats just your way of thinking. If I disagree with someone, I WILL say it, I do not beat around the bush.....[;)]
***
Thanks Paul.
[:O]
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
This is where that truism that is universally accepted as gospel truth among the "educated" is shown to be false. I'm referring to the canard that etymology is nearly worthless in determining meaning--it's all about the context of usage. Blech!!
Simply think for a moment...
"REALIZE". It means to move from a place of abstraction and insubstantiality to a place of realization. The usages that have been put forward in this thread, including those which have called upon dictionary definitions, have pretty much overlooked this simple fact. In fact, so-called "common" usage of the term "realize" is a bastardized usage that pollutes the meaning of the word...even though the dictionaries have long since added these common polutions to their sacrosanct pages. Yeah, I know, languages are living things and over time changes of usage take place and they become the reality that subverts and overturns earlier usages and this is normal and acceptable and yada-yada-yada, blah blah blah.
Baloney. It may be the way of the world, but it is the EXACT kind of pollution that is the very opposite of holiness...and it is precisely this kind of mixing of sense with nonsense that will require and result in the ultimate renewing and purification of language. Getting back to the point at hand, the true meaning of realize is to move from the unrealm of abstract thoughts and theory into the realm of the practical and substantial. It doens't matter how often someone may say "I realize that"--if they haven't moved something from theory to actuality, THEY HAVEN'T REALIZED ANYTHING AT ALL. In other words, the "common" dictionary definition, absent the just described activity, is simply WRONG, and those who use the word that way are equally wrong. Even if every human being on the planet misuses the word in the way this thread has, they ALL would be wrong. The reason is fundamental: languages are not simply human tools, as nearly everyone assumes is true. Such thinking is evolutionary. Words, in the face of all who proclaim otherwise, DO HAVE ETYMOLOGICAL ANCHORS...like it or not. That concept is theological. Because language, at its most fundamental, is not man's invention--it is God's revelation. I'm not talking about English, obviously. I'm talking about Edenic reality. I'm not talking about any particular language; I'm talking about the core concept of language. Whatever language YHWH spoke with Adam and Eve (perhaps it was Hebrew), they were pre-programmed to understand it, and you can bet the farm it wasn't haphazard, nor was it subject to "tampering". Yeah, yeah...Adam named the animals. So? Guess what...he very likely named them in accord with the language that ':Elohhiym had "given" him. Obviously, no one can know what the exact circumstances were, one way or the other.
So, if Yeishuu`a was in fact bringing to substantial reality something that had previously only been conceptual (even if that abstract concept applied to a substantial thing, such as the group of the disciples), then He may indeed have realized something. Otherwise...no. In that case, a different word altogether must be chosen...one that describes what He was doing.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Peter Lever said:
"John 16:7 will not come to you Jesus realizes that it is time for His disciples to carry on His work. The disciples could not have God’s presence dwell in them while still sinners—He needed to die for that to be so.
Next canard to be dealt with...all humans are NOT sinners. The Bible doesn't not say any such thing. According to Scripture, a sinner is one who PRACTICES sin...in precisely the way someone might practice basketball, juggling, or any other activity. Anyone who PRACTICES righteousness IS righteous. Again, such a person will be actively and repetitively performing righteousness.
Contrary to virtually all Christian theological thought, NOTHING in the OT says a person who commits a single sin is perceived to be a sinful person, as long as the person responds to the recognition of the sin by humbly offering in repentance the proscribed sacrifice.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Peter Lever said:
Barry, J. D., Grigoni, M. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Mangum, D., & Whitehead, M. M. (2012). Faithlife Study Bible (Jn 16:7). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software."
Last canard to be dealt with...with regard to Jn. 16:7: Yeishuu`a is not making some vast and profound theological pronouncement here. He is instead making a very pedestrian statement of simple fact. His comment is a simple acknowledgment of the fundamental thread of the moh`:adhiym. Passover comes before Pentecost. The only way to get to Pentecost is through Passover. That's all He's saying here. There is no trinitarian dogma attached to this statement whatsoever.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
[...]
Romans 3:23 (NET1)
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Romans 3:10 (NET1)
10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one,DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Room4more said:
Romans 3:23 (NET1)
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Romans 3:10 (NET1)
10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one,[Y]
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
The very fact everybody is having a theological discussion in the Logos forum is proof tht there are no righteous posters. [6]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
That's due to the hand-writing on the wall.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Super Tramp said:
The very fact everybody is having a theological discussion in the Logos forum is proof tht there are no righteous posters.
Are you feeling left out? Besides the fact that the "theological discussion" you speak of is not really a discussion about theology at all, at least not from what I am reading.
[*-)]
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Paul Golder said:Room4more said:
Romans 3:23 (NET1)
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Romans 3:10 (NET1)
10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one,
Ezek. 13:22
Canard explosion time...
Ok, guys...Re: Rom. 3:23. Yes...that is true, but that is NOT DEFINITIVE of what it means to be A SINNER as far as Tanakh is concerned. Nor is it definitive in the Gospels. Simply having sinned in one's lifetime doesn't make you A SINNER according to scripture. The difference is pretty simple to see and has rather significant import. A SINNER is one who has no desire to keep Tohraah at all...he or she refuses to do so for any number of reasons. Just for the sake of clarity, the Jews (meaning practicers of Judaism) don't keep Tohraah. They keep Mishnah & Talmud & other rabbinic writings (all of which by their own definition are "adding to and taking away from the law" cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:42) that are quasi-related to Tohraah. According to Tohraah, a righteous person is one who keeps Tohraah. When such a person sins, he or she presents the required sacrifice with a humble and repentant heart. That obedient act, itself in accord with Tohraah, brings peace...temporarily. The animal doesn't remove the sin...only Yeishuu`a's blood can do that. But the action of reconforming to Tohraah by obdiently providing the required sacrifice is all that is required of the righteous person who sins...according to Tohraah and according to YHWH. The person who sins and provides the required sacrifice was considered RIGHTEOUS according to Tohraah and YHWH.
So, yes...all have fallen short of the glory of God...but there is NOTHING--ABSOLUTELY NOTHING--in TaNaKh that says all such people are considered sinners. Only the ones who have not attempted in legitimate faithfulness to keep Tohraah are considered SINNERS (i.e. are in danger of destruction for their actions). In other words, quoting Rom. 3:23 doesn't prove what those who quote it intend it to prove.
Re: Rom. 3:10. I'm quite glad you chose to quote the NET Bible...and since you did, I'm going to quote the NET Bible note for Eccl. 7:20.
The term “truly” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. Qoheleth does not deny the existence of some people who are relatively righteous. The NET Bible (Ec 7:20). (2006). Biblical Studies Press.
Specifically, Eccl. 8:14 & Eccl. 9:1. This is the NET version of verse 20: 7:20 For there is not one truly righteous person on the earth who continually does good and never sins.
Though you may never have considered it before, the sheer fact of the matter is this verse DOES NOT say there are no righteous humans--it simply says there are no righteous people who never sin...key word being "never". But that simply takes us back to my comments on Rom. 3:23--NOTHING in Tohraah or TaNaKh suggests that a person must be absolutely without sin to be considered righteous (Prov. 24:16, Ezek. 18:21-22, 27; Ezek. 33:14-16, 19; 1 Jn. 1:9--this verse was true from the beginning, but accomplished by the cross)...one must only be a practitioner of righteousness to be considered righteous in YHWH's sight. In other words, one must practice Tohraah.
None righteous?? Then consider: Gen. 6:9 (first use of "righteous" in Scripture); Gen. 7:1; Gen. 18:19; 2 Sam. 8:15; 2 Sam. 22:21, 25; 1 Chr. 18:14; Psa. 18:20, 24; Psa. 32:11; Psa. 33:1; Psa. 34:15, 17; Psa. 97:12; Psa. 106:3; Psa. 119:121; Psa. 146:8; Prov. 12:5; Isa. 1:21 (referring to 2 Sam. 8:15 & 1 Chr. 18:14); Isa. 3:10; Ezek. 14:14, 20; Ezek. 18:5-9; Hos. 14:9; Mt. 21:32; Mt. 23:29; Mt. 23:35, Mt. 25:37, 46; Mk. 6:20; Lk. 1:5-6; Lk. 1:73-75; Lk. 2:25; Lk. 23: 50; Acts 10:22; Rom. 10:5; Heb. 11:4; Heb. 12:11; 1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Pet. 2:5-8; 1 Jn. 2:29, 1 Jn. 3:7, 10; 1 Jn. 3:12; Rev. 19:8; Rev. 22:11. I could have easily quadrupled this list, and then quadrupled it again.
So, considering the above verses, "there is none righteous, no not one" is shown to not be true...unless the Bible lies. Then what about the two verses that are most often considered to be the source of Paul's Rom. 3:10 quote? Hmmmm...yes. Psa. 14:1-3 & Psa. 53:1-3...when I read these passages, it always makes me wonder if people ever stop to consider and examine their Sunday school, knee-jerk reactions. To properly comprehend these two passages, one must consider the context. To whom is David referring his comments? In case you've overlooked it, check the first two words in each Psalm...that is your context. There are no righteous FOOLS...no not one. How can we know these verses are limited in this way? THE NEXT TWO VERSES SAY SO!! Psa. 14:4-5 tells us explicitly...the wicked fools who "do not call upon YHWH" are in dread because "God is with the RIGHTEOUS generation"!!!! How can there truly be NONE righteous if YHWH is WITH righteous people??? DOH!!! [:O]
Okay. So now we must examine the one verse that seems to say that no person is righteous...Psa. 143:2. No doubt, it sounds that way...BUT...and this is a major "but"...there is a massive field of blue about two inches above that testifies otherwise. Does that mean that the blue storm above is wrong? No. Does that mean that Psa. 143:2 is wrong. No. But it does present us a paradox...one which can only be resolved by adjusting OUR perception of what is being said, because clearly what YHWH has inspired in His word doesn't allow us to take things in Psa. 143:2 as we might on first blush. Why adjust Psa. 143:2 and not the hundreds of other verses that seemingly speak against it? Frankly, that ought to be self-evident...but 100-to-1 (ultra-conservatively determined) should be your hint.
Now...what could YHWH potentially mean in Psa. 143:2? I think something very much like a combination of Eccl. 7:20 & Rom. 3:23--in other words, no one is perfect. What a surprise! [:O] Meh, not so much. Why not? Because He knows that we are but flesh (Psa. 78:39, Psa 103:14 in context w Psa. 103:6-18) and that He made us that way (Job 10:9) out of fabric that CANNOT serve him (Rom. 8:6-8). All He requires is that we deny the fabric of our existence and by His Spirit, His Word, His Tohraah, pursue righteousness (Mt. 5:48). HE KNOWS THAT ALL WE CAN DO WHILE IN THE FLESH IS STRIVE AGAINST OURSELVES...BUT THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT & ALL HE WANTS (1 Jn. 3:10, 1 Jn. 2:29). What is righteousness? (Deut. 6:25; Isa. 42:21). In other words, don't be lawless, because if you are...you are a disciple of the Man of Lawlessness.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
Canard explosion time...
Ok, guys...Re: Rom. 3:23. Yes...that is true, but that is NOT DEFINITIVE of what it means to be A SINNER as far as Tanakh is concerned. Nor is it definitive in the Gospels. Simply having sinned in one's lifetime doesn't make you A SINNER according to scripture. [...]
Fortunately, I only need one verse of Scripture to point you in the right direction, and also disproves your opening:
James 4:17 “Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.”
[I suggest reading the whole of the chapter to get the full meaning of the verse.]
That should be enough for now…..
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
I'm very curious what makes theological debate so irresistible. Is it because we don't get enough time in a bully pulpit? Is it spawned from a desire to control others? Or do we have such a lawless nature we must break any rule others set up governing our conduct?
If we are honest with ourselves we must admit throwing sand in each other's eyes never caused the other guy to "see it my way." The great struggles of theology were never settled in the sandbox. Do we fancy ourselves wiser than those who debated these issues with more dignity?
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super Tramp said:
I'm very curious what makes theological debate so irresistible
talking to myself here : Do you really think your previous post is gonna help? [:O]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Room4more said:David Paul said:
Canard explosion time...
Ok, guys...Re: Rom. 3:23. Yes...that is true, but that is NOT DEFINITIVE of what it means to be A SINNER as far as Tanakh is concerned. Nor is it definitive in the Gospels. Simply having sinned in one's lifetime doesn't make you A SINNER according to scripture. [...]
Fortunately, I only need one verse of Scripture to point you in the right direction, and also disproves your opening:
James 4:17 “Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.”
[I suggest reading the whole of the chapter to get the full meaning of the verse.]
That should be enough for now…..
Hardly. You are again...and perhaps always will be...ignoring the Bible's own definitions.
A person's heart as it pertains to obedience to YHWH is pivotal. If the person is CHOOSING not to do the good (rather than simply overlooking what he ought to know), such is a willful disobedience that results in death. But the person who overlooks doing the good (and thus sins) but then recognizes his fault and repents and then does the good, is righteous. Ezek. 13, 18, 33.
Oh, yeah...WHAT is "good"?? Rom. 7:12, 16; 1 Tim. 8:1 (you may have to look this one up, since RefTag is showing wrong verse); Deut. 6:18, Deut. 10:13; Deut. 12:28.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:Room4more said:David Paul said:
Canard explosion time...
Ok, guys...Re: Rom. 3:23. Yes...that is true, but that is NOT DEFINITIVE of what it means to be A SINNER as far as Tanakh is concerned. Nor is it definitive in the Gospels. Simply having sinned in one's lifetime doesn't make you A SINNER according to scripture. [...]
Fortunately, I only need one verse of Scripture to point you in the right direction, and also disproves your opening:
James 4:17 “Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.”
[I suggest reading the whole of the chapter to get the full meaning of the verse.]
That should be enough for now…..
Hardly. You are again...and perhaps always will be...ignoring the Bible's own definitions.
A person's heart as it pertains to obedience to YHWH is pivotal. If the person is CHOOSING not to do the good (rather than simply overlooking what he ought to know), such is a willful disobedience that results in death. But the person who overlooks doing the good (and thus sins) but then recognizes his fault and repents and then does the good, is righteous. Ezek. 13, 18, 33.
Oh, yeah...WHAT is "good"?? Rom. 7:12, 16; 1 Tim. 8:1 (you may have to look this one up, since RefTag is showing wrong verse); Deut. 6:18, Deut. 10:13; Deut. 12:28.
I only have a few minutes, but just in passing, I believe that you are confusing the OLD Covenant with the NEW covenant.
This is not as far fetched a practice as it may seem, I have read and heard of this happening quite frequently…….
We today are under the NEW Covenant, thus we are still sinners [or as some state: A sinner Saved by Grace] cleansed of such by the Blood of Christ, yet, according to Scripture and still by the NEW Covenant, if we – James 4.
There is a comparative difference in the two Covenants…..
But, that can be another discussion, lets get back to the OP……
What is your take on the matter?
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Room4more said:
But, that can be another discussion, lets get back to the OP……
What is your take on the matter?Honestly, the OP quote (and I am assuming it is a quote due to the FSB reference that appears underneath it) is so poorly worded that I can hardly make heads or tails out of it...especially the first sentence. The second sentence, in keeping with my earlier elucidation of what it means to be a Sinner, is false. The apostles were not Sinners. Even Peter's self-assessment that he was a sinful man didn't make him a Sinner. Even his denial of Yeishuu`a, of which he repented with tears, did not make him a Sinner. NO Sinners will be in the kingdom...Peter will be. He and the other apostles were not Sinners because they were dedicated to obedience to YHWH/Yeishuu`a and Tohraah. Prov. 24:16 They were righteous because they practiced Tohraah, just like Yeishuua did. 1 Jn. 3:7
The statement "The disciples could not have God’s presence dwell in them while still sinners—He needed to die for that to be so" is absurd on its face. It relies on at least 3-4 (and probably more) assumption-conclusion sets that are entirely false.
There is nothing about the effects of the crucifixion that is time-bound. The crucifixion itself was necessarily time-bound, but Yeishuu`a Himself was considerd "slain from the foundation of the world". All assertions that something changed when He died are false. YHWH recognizes things that are not as though they are, and that is most true regarding the effects of the cross.
The notion that the Spirit was not present before Shaabhu`ohtth (Pentecost) is nonsense. The disciples healed people and cast out demons by the power of the Spirit before both the Cross and Pentecost.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
16:7 to you Jesus is looking ahead to the time when His disciples will carry on His work. When Jesus has gone, the Spirit will then become their advocate (see note on 14:26).
0 -
Thanks Logos for the fix!
0
