Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loomis · 06-14-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Therefore, let us reason:

a) With the current agreed upon idiom, Jesus is saying that he and the Father are of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose.

b) In the same Gospel of John, Jesus states that the Father is greater than he is in John 14.28.

c) With John 14.28 considered, Jesus distinguishes himself as not being equal to the Father, and in fact regards himself to be less.

d) Therefore, the logic concludes that Jesus is not saying that the is the Father or the Supreme Deity in John 10.30, otherwise we must acknowledge a contradiction.

e) We are left with only two choices; 1.) Jesus is not saying he is the Supreme Deity; 2.) Jesus has contradicted himself.

Nope. There is a third choice:

3.) It’s fiction. "Jesus" has contradicted himself and not contradicted himself.

The author is fucking with your mind. He is deliberately frustrating you so that you will continue to read (and enjoy) his story. The author knows he is stimulating you and he is confident that you will spend countless hours trying to reconcile the apparent contradiction; and knows that you will discuss it among your peers.

The “contradiction” is a literary tool. It’s fiction: You can do shit like that. After all, it’s supposed to be mysterious.

FathomFFI · 06-14-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Therefore, let us reason:

a) With the current agreed upon idiom, Jesus is saying that he and the Father are of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose.

b) In the same Gospel of John, Jesus states that the Father is greater than he is in John 14.28.

c) With John 14.28 considered, Jesus distinguishes himself as not being equal to the Father, and in fact regards himself to be less.

d) Therefore, the logic concludes that Jesus is not saying that the is the Father or the Supreme Deity in John 10.30, otherwise we must acknowledge a contradiction.

e) We are left with only two choices; 1.) Jesus is not saying he is the Supreme Deity; 2.) Jesus has contradicted himself.

Nope. There is a third choice:

3.) It’s fiction. "Jesus" has contradicted himself and not contradicted himself.

The author is fucking with your mind. He is deliberately frustrating you so that you will continue to read (and enjoy) his story. The author knows he is stimulating you and he is confident that you will spend countless hours trying to reconcile the apparent contradiction; and knows that you will discuss it among your peers.

The “contradiction” is a literary tool. It’s fiction: You can do shit like that. After all, it’s supposed to be mysterious.

Does not address the point of the essay, and will not be discussed. Please focus on the essay.

Loomis · 06-14-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

It would appear that if Jesus had understood the Jews as accusing him of presenting himself as the Supreme Deity, then he would have used some scripture which would have supported any claim he supposedly made of being the Supreme Deity.

No. You are giving the author too much credit.

I don’t think the author really thought this issue that far through. He was just citing Psalm 82 because it had the phase “sons of God” and so he wanted to work it into his story.

The author didn’t understand Psalm 82 – you can tell because he has Jesus ask, “Is it not written in your law?”

Psalm 82 is a poem; it’s not a law. But that didn’t stop of the author of John 10. He didn’t know. He didn’t really care. He simply didn’t give a shit.

FathomFFI · 06-14-2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

It would appear that if Jesus had understood the Jews as accusing him of presenting himself as the Supreme Deity, then he would have used some scripture which would have supported any claim he supposedly made of being the Supreme Deity.

No. You are giving the author too much credit.

I don’t think the author really thought this issue that far through. He was just citing Psalm 82 because it had the phase “sons of God” and so he wanted to work it into his story.

The author didn’t understand Psalm 82 – you can tell because he has Jesus ask, “Is it not written in your law?”

Psalm 82 is a poem; it’s not a law. But that didn’t stop of the author of John 10. He didn’t know. He didn’t really care. He simply didn’t give a shit.

Does not address the point of the essay, and will not be discussed. Please focus on the essay.

Loomis · 06-14-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Does not address the point of the essay, and will not be discussed. Please focus on the essay.

The point of the essay can be found in its title:

The Meaning of John 10.30

Right?

Who do you think you are kidding?

You’re just mad because you’re at a loss for words.

Right?

If you don’t know what to say, and if you don’t want to discuss it, then just sit on the sidelines.

FathomFFI · 06-14-2008, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Does not address the point of the essay, and will not be discussed. Please focus on the essay.

The point of the essay can be found in its title:

The Meaning of John 10.30

Right?

Who do you think you are kidding?

You’re just mad because you’re at a loss for words.

Right?

Your argument is to contest the validity of the Gospels. I could care less if they are valid or not, because my essay does not concern itself with whether or not the Gospels are valid.

My essay deals directly with the Christian misinterpretation of John 10.30. Regardless if the Gospels are valid is not the point. Even if the Gospel of John is fictional, the point in my essay would still address it even if it was a work of fiction.

The point of my essay does not concern itself with whether or not the Gospel of John is fact or fiction, because my point remains regardless if the Gospel of John is fact or fiction.

So go ahead, call it a work of fiction, I don't care because it will not affect the point of my essay.

Therefore, address the point of my essay, even if you believe the Gospel of John to be fictional. Just think of the Gospel of John as a fictional work of art in which I have pointed out an error.

Approach it from that point of view.

Loomis · 06-14-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Even if the Gospel of John is fictional, the point in my essay would still address it even if it was a work of fiction.

The point of my essay does not concern itself with whether or not the Gospel of John is fact or fiction, because my point remains regardless if the Gospel of John is fact or fiction.

But is the point of your essay to discuss the meaning of John 10.30 with no holds barred?

Or is it only to discuss the meaning of John 10.30 in a limited context that can survive if the Gospel of John is non-fiction?

Loomis · 06-14-2008, 04:34 PM

Be honest. Are you sure you’ve really given this compelling issue all the attention it deserves?

FathomFFI · 06-14-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Even if the Gospel of John is fictional, the point in my essay would still address it even if it was a work of fiction.

The point of my essay does not concern itself with whether or not the Gospel of John is fact or fiction, because my point remains regardless if the Gospel of John is fact or fiction.

But is the point of your essay to discuss the meaning of John 10.30 with no holds barred?

Or is it only to discuss the meaning of John 10.30 in a limited context that can survive if the Gospel of John is non-fiction?

Let me give you a demonstration to illustrate my point.

Let's say that my position on the Gospel of John is that it is a total work of fiction.

Now, what is your argument? If I agree with you that the Gospel of John is a total work of fiction, then are we fine with that?

Yet, even if it is a total work of fiction, does that negate my point in my essay that Christians capitalized the name of "God" in John 10.33 in an effort to substantiate their beliefs that John 10.30 says that Jesus calims to be God?

It doesn't affect it whatsoever. That's my point; it doesn't matter if it's a work of fiction or not. We can claim the Christians are believing in a work of fiction, and we can both be fine with that. But my point would still be valid that the Christians took a work of fiction and purposely altered it to suit their Christian beliefs.

Do you understand?

Loomis · 06-14-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

even if it is a total work of fiction, does that negate my point in my essay that Christians capitalized the name of "God" in John 10.33 in an effort to substantiate their beliefs that John 10.30 says that Jesus calims to be God?

It doesn't affect it whatsoever. That's my point; it doesn't matter if it's a work of fiction or not. We can claim the Christians are believing in a work of fiction, and we can both be fine with that. But my point would still be valid that the Christians took a work of fiction and purposely altered it to suit their Christian beliefs.

Do you understand?

Yes.

I understood you the first time. But you still didn’t answer my question.

Is the point of your essay to discuss the meaning of John 10.30 with no holds barred?

Or is it only to discuss the meaning of John 10.30 in a context that can survive if GJohn was non-fiction?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-14-2008, 04:34 PM	#38
Loomis Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The recesses of Zaphon Posts: 969	Be honest. Are you sure you’ve really given this compelling issue all the attention it deserves?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.