Did Jesus lie? Use Logos to determine...
Comments
-
This is not a question that is settled by referring to Greek terms, nor by examining translations and their relative merits and weaknesses. It seems plain (at least to me) that the answer lies in John 7:3-4. Jesus would not go to the feast in the way and with the purpose they were demanding: with some public display of acclaim and power that would play into the then-current ideas about Israel's Messiah. v 10 then says he went up "as if in secret." It was not going to the feast that was the issue, but rather if Jesus fit with current Messianic expectations. He refused to do the latter even though he did actually go to Jerusalem at the time of the feast.
0 -
BillS said:
I think this makes Tes' point--I found myself a bit shocked to see that word used to describe our Savior, also, even though I see the point you're making, Joshua. Perhaps Tes' post can serve to help us be more respectful in our choice of language--of our Savior & of each others' beliefs.Joshua Garcia said:Tes said:I am really shocked to see such word to our blessed Savior, the best and polite question would have been , I don't understand this , what does it mean? Devil is the lair,not Jesus the Truth the way and the LIfe.
You must understand where Tom is coming from to fully appropriate his concern. He certainly is not calling Jesus a liar. [...]
Tom merely wants to see if the modern English translations are, in fact, wrong.
I see no fault in intent, only an opportunity for increased sensitivity.So as Rich suggests, since it's now too late to change the wording of the question, let's get back on track: use of Logos to answer the question positively that Jesus could only speak truth.
Wow. Thanks everyone for posting. MOST of the posts have been helpful. I appreciate the concern of those who have looked on the title of this post with disdain. It is, indeed, SHOCKING. And it was meant to be. I would not change it if I could. Imagine my shock when I read that modern translations have bastardized the scriptures in such a way to make out my Saviour to be a liar. Shocking indeed. I think in the modern day that we live in, we had better be prepared to ask and answer these types of questions ourselves. These are the questions that an educated, self-sufficient, God-denying world is asking of us. Agree?
At any rate, I do NOT want this to turn into a conversation about the KJVO vs Modern translations. The point is to figure out how to best utilize Logos resources to reconcile this SPECIFIC question.
Some of have suggested using footnotes inside of the modern translations themselves (ESV study bible, etc). While this is certainly helpful to give one an idea of what is going on here, it also is the same circular reasoning that I've read in the KJVO materials that the KJV is the standard by which all others are to be measured. What makes the KJV the standard? How can you use notes inside a modern translation to prove a modern translation?
There have been other posts that have been helpful in showing commentaries and such to help explain the issue. I appreciate everyone's guidance and input.
In HIS Eternal Service,
Tom Castle
**If we will do God's work, in God's way, at God's time, with God's power, we shall have God's blessings!!**0 -
Joshua Garcia said:Tes said:
I am really shocked to see such word to our blessed Savior, the best and polite question would have been , I don't understand this , what does it mean? Devil is the lair,not Jesus the Truth the way and the LIfe.
You must understand where Tom is coming from to fully appropriate his concern. He certainly is not calling Jesus a liar. From what I can make out from his OP, it appears he has run into some KJV Only literature. The KJVO position states that the KJV is the only legitimate English Bible and that all the other English translations (the ones that work off of a "critical" Greek text) are inferior. Such literature often states that this verse in John (within modern bibles) makes Jesus out to be a liar. It must be noted that they are claiming the translation is wrong by pointing this appearnt inconsistency out. This supposedly gives credence to the superiority of the KJV which seemingly does not have this same problem because it uses the word "yet".
Tom merely wants to see if the modern English translations are, in fact, wrong.
Very perceptive of you, Joshua. Thank you for posting.
In HIS Eternal Service,
Tom Castle
**If we will do God's work, in God's way, at God's time, with God's power, we shall have God's blessings!!**0 -
David McClister said:
This is not a question that is settled by referring to Greek terms, nor by examining translations and their relative merits and weaknesses. It seems plain (at least to me) that the answer lies in John 7:3-4. Jesus would not go to the feast in the way and with the purpose they were demanding: with some public display of acclaim and power that would play into the then-current ideas about Israel's Messiah. v 10 then says he went up "as if in secret." It was not going to the feast that was the issue, but rather if Jesus fit with current Messianic expectations. He refused to do the latter even though he did actually go to Jerusalem at the time of the feast.
There are two questions on the table, as I see it. The first is the one presented in the post heading: "Did Jesus lie?" Getting at a satisfactory answer for that question is a massive undertaking, primarily because (as I have discussed above) most people have a grossly limited concept of Who God is and thus what He is capable of--getting at an answer would require tinkering with dearly held ideas (i.e. sacred cows) that would involve engaging in interactions that are likely to produce more heat than light. Few people are willing to entertain the suggestion that they don't "know" YHWH as well as they think they do, Mt. 7:21-22 notwithstanding. This collective insistence doesn't prevent Yeishuu`a from countering that He doesn't know them...His charge being that they actually think and behave as if the Law is done away--the very Law He gave! (Mt. 7:23) It's a good thing that isn't a major doctrine of the Christian church!
The second question, it seems, is "What does the context of Jn. 7 indicate is happening?" I agree with your comments, David, that after doing the Logos-based "homework" (word studies, textual variations, etc.) we arrive at the conclusion that our study is inconclusive. I do agree that what you are expressing is the main issue. He isn't going to do things according to the ways of man or according to their expectations--EVEN WHEN THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE SIMPLY SAYING WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. Even Yeishuu`a's own words in Jn. 18:20 could be viewed as agreeing with His brothers' perspective.
Point being, even with 5-10,000 resources in Logos, the most important resource we have is the one between our ears. If our brain (through preconceptions about YHWH that simply aren't true) lets us down, no resource in Logos can ever properly resolve these difficult issues for us.
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 -
The problem is either the translation or in a specific interpretation of John 7. Logos has plenty of resources that provide reasonable and rational explanations for this "apparent" inconsistency in the translation. Therefore, it is best to assume that our interpretation is the real issue here - especially since interpreting the text to mean Jesus lied obviously contradicts the clear message in the Gospels of who Jesus was.
0 -
Joshua Garcia said:
Therefore, it is best to assume that our interpretation is the real issue here - especially since interpreting the text to mean Jesus lied obviously contradicts the clear message in the Gospels of who Jesus was.
It's obvious, Jesus the man simply changed his mind.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
I'm one of the delusional (and presumably unwashed). But clearly v6 suggests Jesus had thought this whole issue over before he arrived at v8, probably to include whether 'now' (Peshitta) or 'yet' (Syrain gospels earliest) should be included.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0
