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
