NOGO

Actually I would not put that way. The word falsehood is often associated with a lie. To me a myth is a fictitious story expressing a profound human belief.

My point however goes beyond this.
A myth usually has many elements. Some may be historic and other not. For example the crucifixion has many mythical elements. Hebrew 9 speaks of Jesus' sacrifice without ever mentioning nails and the cross.

However if the discussion is focusing on whether a man named Jesus was actually nailed to a piece of wood then the word myth is taken to mean "fictional" rather than any of the other possible meanings. We would be discussing whether the crucifixion is historical or not.

Under those circumstances saying something
like "the crucifixion (true or not) is a myth" is ambiguous if not totally off the topic.

Regards,
NOGO

davidH

Right, sorry folks that I haven't replied for so long - I just haven't had the time.

Right, I hardly know where to begin...

ok, since this started between Nogo and I - I will answer him first of all.



This is in it's self a big topic - at the minute I won't answer this - or things are going to get very complicated, answers longer etc.
So bear with me until we have finished the primary question.

Yes, and I am showing things apart from that.

Nogo - I have already showed you this - you gave your explanation, and I showed you how it couldn't be.
I explained the verses clearly - showing how John was showing that Jesus was God. You did not reply to that - or even try to defend your interpretation of it. I showed that this was exactly what John was saying.

wordsymth has attempted to put another explanation to it - but as he said, if we don't see the Bible as metaphorical etc then we miss the message of it.
If that is the case then any interpretation of the Bible can be given.

Now Wordsymth - I have a question for you. In interpreting the passage of John literally what do you find?

I think you will find that he is suggesting that Jesus = God.

I will go on to replying to your reply in a little while.

Ok lets go through them but remember they also must fit in with everything else that John is saying.

My teaching isn't my own but His who sent me.

Ok lets look at something else that John wrote to help understand what Jesus is saying.

The words that Jesus taught were given to him by the Father to teach the people.
That's why in that other verse I already spoke about says,

Nogo - you cannot take scripture out of context.
Yes like he does in the verse that I showed you.
In verse 16 he is saying that it comes from him who sent me.

Now where do you get the idea that he is saying that it comes from God (not including himself) in this verse?
Jesus repeatedly says - "My Father has sent me."

OK - so in this verse Jesus has to be referring to the Father.


(Also what do you say and wordsymth to this to - how could Jesus have come down from heaven? - Even metaphorically he cannot be shown to speaking about anything else than himself.)


v 17 that you gave.

Jesus is not distinguishing himself from God in this verse. - You took verse 16 completely out of context and so twisted verse 17.

....whether my teaching comes from God.
Note;
JESUS IS NOT SAYING THAT THE TEACHING DOESN'T COME FROM HIM BUT COMES FROM GOD - HE IS SAYING THAT HIS TEACHING IS FROM GOD.

Since Jesus claims to be God then the teaching which comes from him can come from God. Since he is distinguished from the "Father" but is still God.

The Trinity - like I have been saying all along.

No not ie God.!!! The Father - the member of the Trinity.
And no we cannot distinguish between the Word and Jesus, because it plainly contradicts scripture.


Wordsymth lets just examine a few other verses about "the word"

ok....but wasn't it only the word /the law that you would be saved by?
that being the law of God......which he calls his?

Wordsymth - note "my" word. Not God's word which you claim John 1 v 1 is talking about.

But I will answer you fully later.

Ok Nogo, the next verse you gave.


Again this is not a contradiction if you would only read the scripture.

Jesus explains this in John 14 (I have already gone over all these verses.)

So the one that sent Jesus was.....yes the Father.
So then the question arises - if Jesus is clearly distinguished from "the Father" how can he say the above?

Answer; Jesus and the Father are both God.
Jesus is God.

Surely you Nogo aren't so blind as to not see what these verses are telling you?
This also goes to you Wordsymth - this doesn't fit in with your interpretation. - You can't see the Word if it is what you claim it to be.

Just read something;

Lol, yes that is quite something, we are to look at what Jesus is saying? Wouldn't it be easier to hear what Jesus is saying?
You fitted in the word doing there - but in the verse there's nothing about that.

But again about verse 44 - Do you know why Jesus said what he did?
Because to believe in Jesus is to believe in the Father because as that other verse I showed - Jesus and the Father are one.

Also - it is very interesting that again in verse 44 you have left out a word that changes the meaning of the verse.

Did you just copy this from a site or what?
This is what the verse really says;

That shatters what you were trying to say there.
I can't stress enough the importance of putting things in context and getting the wording of it right.

ok the next verse.

verse 49 confirms what I said in response to the first verse you gave, John 7 v 16.
Again the Father doesn't = God, he is a member of the Trinity just like I showed before.
That is why there is a distinguishment between the Father and God.

Nogo you wrote this to the above verses;

True - because Jesus is God too.
Can I back up this statement in the context of the verse you are talking about? The answer is Yes.

These verses speak for themselves Nogo.

Ok next verse

to this you wrote Nogo;

Nogo - in saying

you undermine all the other verses that you put before this one - because in the others you write
"the Father ie God."

So you knew the point that I have made - so why did you put up those verses anyway? - To waste everyone's time?

Anyway, I am assuming as it stands that this is your strongest point.

No, the words "also in me" do not imply that Jesus didn't consider himself to be God.
You are right in saying that to the Jews belief in God (which they had always had) didn't imply to them belief in Jesus.

Jesus was telling them that they were to believe in God - as the OT taught, but they were to accept him as God too - as he had been saying, hence believe in him too.
Jesus is talking to his disciples here - that is why a few verses later he says to Philip "anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."
He is again telling them that he is God.

To say that Jesus = the Father = the Holy Spirit
doesn't contradict anything since they are all God. To say that Jesus = God is true as well because he is God.

(see the previous post where I answered your question with the water example).

ok next verse

You wrote;

Nogo, in that same passage - why does he say that
"anyone who has seen me, has seen the Father" ?
Therefore Jesus = the Father.

It is obvious. Then those verses that you mentioned follow - again reinforcing it.

What day is Jesus talking about?
It is the day of Penticost - when the Holy Spirit came down and into the believers.
Again this confirms the Trinity - the Holy Spirit was inside the believers and since Jesus = the Holy Spirit in the fact that he is God - so he could say that he was in them.
They were in him because they had put their trust in him.

There is no contradiction.

Again the distinction between the Father and Jesus. Just like I had said.

No - I showed that the Word = Jesus and none of these verses contradict anything.


You said,

Ok, there's some background you need to know when reading this passage.
In the OT Israel was regarded as a vine or vinyard. Ezekial 15 v 1-6 etc - there are more if you want.

And who was the one that watched over Israel? - God, the God of the OT.
Again this shows that when saying this parable Jesus is referring to his Father as the God of the OT.

Again there is the distinction between the Father and Jesus - which you recognise this time.
Maybe that was what Jesus was trying to show when he told this.
But Jesus being the vine reinforces the verses where he says that he will be in us and we in him.

It is the Father that cares for the vine and takes care of the branches - pruning and making sure the vine gets a good yield.

But for a mere man to say that he was the vine, and that man had to believe in him rather than God....never mind the fact that he was alluring to the God of the OT (Israel) being his Father.

These verses again confirm that Jesus when referring to his Father was referring to the LORD and so when you put all the other verses together you get Jesus = God.

No - to keep the word of God is to "abide with him" not to "abide in him".

Again look at this verse.

Jesus is referring to himself - not the word of God or anything else. The Jews picked up stones to stone him........they knew exactly what he was referring to.


ok next verse

Firstly you said

Whenever Jesus died on the cross he took our sin upon himself - so that all who would call on him he would forgive and it would be as though those people had never sinned.
That was the authority over all people - they have the right to chose whether to believe in Jesus. Therefore they will be judged according to this decision that they will make.
That is the authority that Jesus got whenever he was to die on the cross.

Though it can be asked - couldn't he forgive in the past? - Answer was Yes, because God existed out of time and so is not limited to it - even though Jesus died in a particular era.

Ok so are you now saying that Jesus wasn't the words that he recieved from the Father?
Wordsymth apparently sees that Jesus was the embodiment of the word of God - doesn't that contradict what Jesus is saying?
If he recieved them - how can he be them?

No - he is not saying that they are one.

Read the verse again.

- so that they may be one as we are one.

"so that".

Jesus here is talking about the Unity of the early church - the disciples and the believers.
Jesus was praying that they would be completely unified on everything they believed - that they would stand as one church - not have fighting or arguing etc.

That why just before those words Jesus asks his Father to protect them.

Jesus and his Father were completely Unified both literally as they were God but also in what they thought and did.

ok next verse

You wrote;

No, you are saying that if they believe in Jesus this means that they have received the word.
This is what it's about.
If they accept Jesus' word they will believe who Jesus claims to be.
Let me ask you a question here - what is the word that Jesus is talking about in these verses?
Just want to see what angle you are coming at this here from.

Cause this is what is written in John 17 v 8 which you Nogo put up.

So the words that Jesus is talking about are words which made people understand that he came from God - not commandments and laws etc.

ok...lets go over what verse 21 says.

Nogo you have neglected the "may they also"
Jesus is stating something entirely different from what he just said before - if was along the same lines then there would be no need for the "may they also"
also = as well. - That implies something different.

So to be "in us" is not referring to "that they may all be one , Father, just as you are in me and I am in me."

So this isn't referring to the unity of the believers, but rather the relationship that we will have with the Father and the Son (God).
You cannot interpret both of these things to mean the same thing Nogo.

So it is not what Jesus is saying when he says, "I and the Father are one."
- In the passage where this verse is found there is no mention of the word or anything else that could suggest that Jesus is referring to anything other than himself.

All those verses are talking about is the unity of the believers - can I back this up with anything in the passage?

The answer is yes.
In John 17 - Jesus praying, the whole theme is about Unity.

you left off at verse 22 - now lets look at verse 23 - the very next verse - this determines and clarifies what Jesus is saying.
(It shouldn't be left out)

Jesus when referring to himself there was referring to the Unity between the Father and himself and asking that the believer's would have this likewise.

ok next verse.

With these verses you wrote;

Again whenever Jesus says he is returning to God - this is not the plural form of God so as the Father = God there is no contradiction.

Rather in saying this Jesus was probably confirming that he was God - since he shows that by the word - Father - he isn't referring to his earthly father but God in heaven.
So when he says, "I and the Father are one" he is saying - "I and God are one."

Then about verse 31 you wrote;

Nogo - you have already discussed with me about the sons of god - in the OT. And I clearly showed that Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and those called that.
You did not reply to what I wrote.

Again here is something for you to think about if you don't accept what I wrote on this a while back.

John 3 v 16

......God's one and only Son.

Jesus' distinction is clear and is backed up.

Even when Jesus is referring to "the Son" it is never in the plural sense which it would have to be if he is meaning the OT verse.

Since Jesus is showing himself to be the Son of God then everything that Jesus says concerning himself to be devine is what the Son of God is.

Nogo - you ask why he doesn't state clearly that Jesus is God. - It is plain from what he wrote that Jesus is God, anyway even if he had said this at the end that would have only provoked more arguement that John interpreted Jesus the wrong way etc.
either way it would have made no difference to you.

ok next thing

True - though some manuscripts do not have the "nor the son".

But anyway it still confirms the Trinity since the son is distinguished from the Father.

Sure they are both God, but they are different.
I suppose this shows one way in which they are different.
Jesus when he was on earth and fully human had to have things revealed to him by the Holy Spirit - after his ressurection he wasn't human in the sense that he had a ressurected body (could pass through walls, disapear etc.)
So whether this has something to do with it I don't know - the Bible doesn't specify.
But this would show why Jesus was quided by the Spirit into the desert.

Guided doesn't literally mean that Jesus didn't know the way to the dessert, but rather implies that the Holy Spirit impressed it upon Jesus to go into the desert and spend those days fasting.

Those are my own thoughts above though - so see if they contradict scripture or not.

So I have explained all those verses that you gave - I must stress again the importance of taking everything in scripture in context - you can't leave out a verse at the end of a passage inorder that it corresponds with what you want it to mean - everything has to be taken together.

Again sorry for the really long reply but your answer required it cause you raised lots of points. Sorry also for not getting to reply sooner but I have been really busy and haven't had time up until now.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: davidH ]</p>

davidH

Wordsymth some of the things in your post may have been answered in my post above.

But I will give a clearer reply later to you - though Nogo has accepted your idea and so my posts will basically answer what you have been saying.

Bede

Sojourner, NOGO, Peter,

I am sorry that I was using myth in a way that caused confusion.

Imagine the set of all events that have happened, and call it E. The subset, H, of events, that are historical facts and that can be proven up to the standards required by critical history, is much, much smaller. That does not mean that all the other events did not happen but they are not historical facts.

There are also the stories, S, of events that did not happen. We cannot use historical methods to distinguish between (E not H) and S. Some of S and (E not H) have important sympolic or cultural attachments. In the case of the virgin birth that might be the way that a supernatural birth validates supernatural claims. These claims are called myths - they are not part of H but neither are they necessarily part of S. In other words they might be true.

Historical Jesus studies are concerned only with events concerning Jesus in H. Hence the VB is excluded, as is the the resurrection. I hope this makes my position clear as I am not willing to discuss theological questions on this forum.

Sojourner, I like to think I use my whole brain and I certainly do not allow my beliefs to be restricted by anything so arbitrary as enlightment bias. Alas, questions of demons etc are not a matter for discussion here, even if I knew the answer to your question. By the way, there are plenty of sources of myths a part from paganism.

Yours

Bede

Vorkosigan

...enlightment bias.

Speaking of myths....

NOGO

Indeed, that would shatter things would it not.
At least you agree that the word ONLY changes the meaning of the sentence.

Let's look at some translations

There are two version above which have added the word ONLY without bothering to tell the reader.
The NIV does this all the time. They correct the word of God.

One version The Amplified Bible (AMP) places the added word in brackets. At least they are honest about it.

The rest do not have the word ONLY. Why? Because it is not in the original text. These are all Chrisitan Bibles, translated by Christian scholars.

Radorth

The problem is in the details. While one might fairly argue that the root story came from myth, the details, particularly agenda-defeating ones, could only be outright lies when inserted. Or proof of an essentially true story, as even some eminent skeptics assert.

At the moment someone said to Luke, "and you know, Jesus couldn't work many miracles there" either an incredibly manipulative lie was told, or something manifestly factual. Again, I think such details are being conveniently ignored because they are inexplicable as anything but outright manipulation. Why would innocent myth-spreaders with chronic writer's cramp go there, practically in every chapter?

Perhaps I should do a thread called Which Pagan myth are these from? Maybe on my next 2 week vacation.

Radorth

NOGO

DavidH, I did tell that I did not want to compare my favourite verses with yours and that is exactly what you are doing.

I will take this one as an example. You keep talking about taking things out of context well ... Behold

Verse 63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I
have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

You will notice that in the verse that have you quoted (v50) Jesus is speaking in a synagogue and therefore to many people.

In verse 63 Jesus is speaking to his disciples. He is explaining to his disciples in private as he often does the words that he spoke in parables to the general public.

And what is the explanation ... "the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life"

Now who is taking things out of context?

You see the ignorant people who listen to Jesus conclude that his body came from heaven and that they have to eat it in order to be saved. These people will also conclude that Jesus is God and will be shocked at his words.

But Jesus is actually saying that it is the words which come from God not his flesh.

Now compare these

John 6:47
he who believes in me has eternal life.

and

Verse 63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I
have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Two things, you complained before that I had said that Jesus received the spirit of God after his baptism but it does not say that he received the "Word" of God. Here Jesus equates the two.

Words = spirit = life.
"the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life"

Secondly, "he who believes in me has eternal life"
Christians have interpreted this as meaning he who believes that Jesus is God has eternal life. But in the context of verse 63 it all becomes clear.

He who believes in me abides by my words, the words which are spirit and life.

I am going to throw back at you one of your favourite lines.

Do you see it?

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

You are seeing far too much in these so called agenda-defeating details.

Everybody knew that prophets were not recognized in their own city/town/village/province. This is not self-defeating it is just answering to popular belief.

This is how one can think himself into a knot.

Sojourner553

I was never questioning you not using your WHOLE brain. Look back at your response, it seemed like it came from a split personality with one half saying "it is a myth", and the other adding, "but it is also true." (Maybe you just had a bad night. But it came across as very bizarre on this end.)

I think you know my real question is whether superstion entered into the Bible. The bit about is it myth or did it come from paganism seems to be JUST A GAME WITH WORDS! to avoid the true issue.

Let's take "enlightenment bias". As the Enlightenment represents science and rationality, does that now mean you are against it. I know your previous position was to show that Christianity is in perfect sync with science and rationality. Have you since changed your stance on this?

(This just comes across as one more bizarre example where half of your sentences seem to esteem science and rationality, and the other to belittle it.)

Bede, so who cares.

My point was HOW MUCH SUPERSTION IS IN THE BIBLE?

I'm sorry you won't come out and say the demon stories are superstition.

Again I gave you an out: Many liberal Christians believe that myth and superstition HAVE entered into the Bible, but still believe the fundamental or core message is still divine (ie the part that still gets them to heaven).

I can't tell if you are in this group or not. That was what I was trying to get you to clarify.

Your responses on this (recently) have had more double meanings than that of a politician.

Best,

Sojourner

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>