Why is James missing from the Gospel of John? [Archive]

Richard Amiel McGough

11-23-2011, 08:39 PM

RC Christian

11-23-2011, 08:49 PM

Luke 5:10 And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.

[/LIST]So what is going on here? Is it possible to believe that the Gospel of John is consistent with the synoptic Gospels?

John 21:1. Not by name but...

Richard Amiel McGough

11-23-2011, 08:54 PM

John 21:1. Not by name but...

John 21:1 After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself.

What makes you think that James was one of those disciples? His name is nowhere mentioned in John's Gospel.

RC Christian

11-23-2011, 08:59 PM

John 21:1 After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself.

What makes you think that James was one of those disciples? His name is nowhere mentioned in John's Gospel.

Sorry, I meant John 21:2. The only indication and could be applying to John only.

Beck

11-23-2011, 09:10 PM

John seemed not to put himself by name into this Gospel by John. He seems to want to be anonymous for some reason. Would that be a case for leaving out James?

Richard Amiel McGough

11-23-2011, 09:17 PM

Sorry, I meant John 21:2. The only indication and could be applying to John only.
Aha! that makes sense.

John 21:2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.

There they are, the sons of Zebedee. But what are they doing suddenly showing up here in the last chapter after going missing for the entire book? That seems very strange indeed. I'll have to look into this more.

Richard Amiel McGough

11-23-2011, 09:18 PM

John seemed not to put himself by name into this Gospel by John. He seems to want to be anonymous for some reason. Would that be a case for leaving out James?
What makes you think the Fourth Gospel was written by John? It doesn't say who wrote it you know.

RC Christian

11-23-2011, 09:25 PM

Aha! that makes sense.

John 21:2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.

There they are, the sons of Zebedee. But what are they doing suddenly showing up here in the last chapter after going missing for the entire book? That seems very strange indeed. I'll have to look into this more.

Some say Chapter 21 is an added chapter, since Chapter 20:30,31 provides a beautiful ending to the Gospel.

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

Beautiful!

Richard Amiel McGough

11-23-2011, 09:36 PM

Some say Chapter 21 is an added chapter, since Chapter 20:30,31 provides a beautiful ending to the Gospel.

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

Beautiful!
Yeah, I used to quote that verse on my home page. I still have it on my original home page (http://www.biblewheel.com/original.asp) that I kept up for folks who were more familiar with the old style of my website.

I just checked the Greek. It doesn't actually say the sons of Zebedee but "those of Zebedee." And there is a strange pattern in the synoptics. James is usually identified as "of Zebedee" and John is called "his brother." This happens in all three synoptics.

RC Christian

11-23-2011, 09:45 PM

Yeah, I used to quote that verse on my home page. I still have it on my original home page (http://www.biblewheel.com/original.asp) that I kept up for folks who were more familiar with the old style of my website.

I just checked the Greek. It doesn't actually say the sons of Zebedee but "those of Zebedee." And there is a strange pattern in the synoptics. James is usually identified as "of Zebedee" and John is called "his brother." This happens in all three synoptics.

I've noticed noticed both of those points also. Matthew never shows up in the 4th Gospel, either, but we do find a new disciple who seems to be part of the 12...Nathaneal.

This Wikipedia link does a so-so job on the Synoptic vs 4th Gospel breakdown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Apostles#The_Twelve_Apostles

Richard Amiel McGough

11-23-2011, 09:50 PM

RC Christian

11-23-2011, 10:08 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

11-23-2011, 10:25 PM

RC Christian

11-23-2011, 10:58 PM

I think everyone knows that John is special. That's why it's usually the first book that new Christians are told to read.

It only mentions the name "Satan" once (about Judas)...and "Hell" none...my kind of Gospel.

And yes, it has "gnostic" overtones. But do we really know that gnostics were "anti-flesh" or is that something we learned from anti-gnostic propaganda? Most of their writings were destroyed, and we have to try to piece together their teachings from things like Ireneus' "Against all heresies" and other polemical works.

The reason I ask is because modern "gnostics" are really into the goodness of the flesh. Of course, Christians don't like that either. You are supposed to hate your flesh but believe God became flesh. Kinda weird. Like you are supposed to hate the world and believe that God loves the world. Hummm....

Yeah, the Gnostic were a varied bunch, just like the other different sects of early Christianity. Some were about hating the flesh, and longing to be freed from it...while others were about loving the very essence of life...a bunch of philosophers sitting around thinking expansive...my kind of folks. :thumb:

Bob May

11-24-2011, 05:19 AM

Have you ever noticed that Thomas is only called "Thomas Didymus" is the 4th Gospel and Judas Iscariot is only called "Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon" in the 4th Gospel. Also, Simon Peter first receives the name "Cephas" in this Gospel.

I did a list one time on what Christianity would be like without The Gospel of St. John...without the discourse with Nicodemus (who also only shows up in the 4th Gospel)...without the 7 great "I AM's"...without the resurrection of Lazarus and "Jesus wept"...without "In the beginning was the Word...etc.

I wonder how many people realize how much loss their would be in Bible without this one beautiful Gospel, that almost didn't make the final cut because of all the Gnostic undertones. (Even though the premise of the Logos becoming "flesh" was a rather, but not completely, non-Gnostic teaching).

It seems to be a theme of name change going on here. Peter recieves the name Cephas when he recieves "insight" from the Father. Just as Jacob's name changes to Israel when he has direct Spiritual experiences.
Nathanael is another one that is a bit mysterious. Listed 5 times in the first chapter of John and then again only once in John 21:2.
But Bartholomew is mentioned once each in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts and then only in a list of the twelve. Nathanael is not included in these lists. Some think that Bartholomew is Nathanael.
Nathanael is promised the same experience that Jacob had, ..Seeing Angels ascending and descending, etc.
Maybe he got a change of name like Jacob and Peter? But which name came first? The one John knew him as, Nathanael (God has given) or the one the other Gospel writers knew him as? Bartholomew. (Son of Talmai, which means abounding in furrows)

But the curious thing is that Jacob's name does not change to Israel when he sees the ladder. The one vision/experience he is most noted for. Though it does change several other times.

John not mentioning himself or his brother James may be a case of humility. Not a lot of I, Me or Mine involved.

The gospel of Thomas, considered a gnostic text by some, seems closest to John's gospel. But where John seems to point to the aspect of Jesus being larger than all. He was from the beginning and he is the Light and substance of all. Thomas brings home the idea of "At Hand.' He is all around us but we do not see him.
But all we have to do is look for him. Split a piece of wood and you will find me lift up the stone and I am there.

Bob

Beck

11-24-2011, 07:20 AM

What makes you think the Fourth Gospel was written by John? It doesn't say who wrote it you know.

Right, The way I understood that is that either it was written by Peter, James or John becasue of the term used of the disciple 'whom Jesus loved'. That in itself would elimiate Peter (21:7) To which Irenaeus claimed it to be the authorship of John. Which whomever wanted to be anonymous.

But I see I'm behind on this discussion, I find some very interesting comments.

RC Christian

11-24-2011, 08:29 AM

It seems to be a theme of name change going on here. Peter recieves the name Cephas when he recieves "insight" from the Father. Just as Jacob's name changes to Israel when he has direct Spiritual experiences.
Nathanael is another one that is a bit mysterious. Listed 5 times in the first chapter of John and then again only once in John 21:2.
But Bartholomew is mentioned once each in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts and then only in a list of the twelve. Nathanael is not included in these lists. Some think that Bartholomew is Nathanael.

Hello Bob May!

Happy Thanksgiving! The link I've posted below is to a site that discusses the disciples different names. Not an exhaustive study on it, but I like how he gives the meaning of each disciple's name.

In regards that Nathanael could be another name given for Bartholomew, I suppose that's possible. I think most of the apologists really struggled with the discrepancies in the different lists of disciples. They felt a need to make the names match, when in actuality, there's no way to prove it either way. Of course, you may already know my view of the Gospel characters and story. I view them as allegories, so reconciling or not reconciling the name difference doesn't affect my view of any of it...it's just as beautiful as ever, either way. :)

Nathanael is promised the same experience that Jacob had, ..Seeing Angels ascending and descending, etc.
Maybe he got a change of name like Jacob and Peter? But which name came first? The one John knew him as, Nathanael (God has given) or the one the other Gospel writers knew him as? Bartholomew. (Son of Talmai, which means abounding in furrows)

But the curious thing is that Jacob's name does not change to Israel when he sees the ladder. The one vision/experience he is most noted for. Though it does change several other times.

What are the other name changes for Jacob? Are you talking of after becoming Israel, still sometimes being called Jacob...or a different name?

John not mentioning himself or his brother James may be a case of humility. Not a lot of I, Me or Mine involved.

I don't believe the critical evidence on the dating of The Gospel of St. John would allow for John, or any other disciple alive at the time indicated in the Gospel narratives, to have written The Gospel of St. John. I don't know how humble I would call the one whose subjective thoughts were that Jesus loved him above all the rest (unless, of course, it was implied that Jesus directly told him that...then it would be a somewhat objective truth). Actually, as I mentioned earlier in this post, I don't think Chapter 21 was written by the same person that wrote the original Gospel of St. John, and if one utilizes that view, then there is no implication in this Gospel that 'the one whom Jesus loved' and the writer of the Gospel are intended to be viewed as the same person. I actually believe it to be a riddle, of sorts. But, I know one thing, for sure, whoever wrote the Gospel in question wrote a piece of literary beauty that transcends time and thought.

The gospel of Thomas, considered a gnostic text by some, seems closest to John's gospel. But where John seems to point to the aspect of Jesus being larger than all. He was from the beginning and he is the Light and substance of all. Thomas brings home the idea of "At Hand.' He is all around us but we do not see him.
But all we have to do is look for him. Split a piece of wood and you will find me lift up the stone and I am there.

Yeah, I've noticed those differences in The Gospel of Thomas and the 4th Gospel. Man, they had as many varied ideas as Christianity has today...well that may be a stretch :lol: I've never read a lot of the Gnostic Gospels, but I do have F. Bligh Bond's Gematria book, which contains research he and others did on the gematria of Coptic and Gnostic gospels, and found a lot of the same 'stuff' that are found in the Canonical Gospels ...obviously, the same spelled names will yield the same values, etc.

Have you ever noticed that Thomas isn't depicted as being a doubter anywhere in the Gospels, except in The Gospel of St. John? I found that kind of neat when I first came across it.

Thanks for responding to the post and hope you have a great day!

Bob May

11-24-2011, 08:56 AM

Right, The way I understood that is that either it was written by Peter, James or John becasue of the term used of the disciple 'whom Jesus loved'. That in itself would elimiate Peter (21:7) To which Irenaeus claimed it to be the authorship of John. Which whomever wanted to be anonymous.

But I see I'm behind on this discussion, I find some very interesting comments.

Hi all,

I have always thought that this was John. I don't see any reason to think otherwise.

Joh 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Joh 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Joh 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Joh 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
Joh 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Joh 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Joh 13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
Joh 13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

Jesus made a promise to James and John. To be baptised with the baptism that he was baptised with.
This, in my opinion is the baptism of fire and was recorded as John's book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
His description of the Coming of Christ.
John was told to tarry till I come!
Peter was told that John was told that john was to tarry til Jesus came.
That is the second coming. Not some world-wide event. A personal realization. A revelation. The Revelation.

Mt 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Mt 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ is the coming of Jesus Christ.
That does not mean that John was the only one of the disciples that it happened to. But it was promised to him (and James) so the fulfillment of that promise was recorded. In the book of Revelation.

Just as the promise to Nathanael (angels ascending and descending) was recorded at Pentecost. Which came as a rushing, mighty wind. This was the baptism of air.

Maybe James did not survive the experience and that is why John did not mention him.

Bob
He is all around us and within us yet we only become aware of it in stages.
Baptisms, cleansings that enable us to see more and more as we experience these cleansings.

Bob May

11-24-2011, 09:41 AM

Hello Bob May!

Happy Thanksgiving! The link I've posted below is to a site that discusses the disciples different names. Not an exhaustive study on it, but I like how he gives the meaning of each disciple's name.

Hi RC,
Haqppy Thanksgiving to you too.
I think you forgot the link.

In regards that Nathanael could be another name given for Bartholomew, I suppose that's possible. I think most of the apologists really struggled with the discrepancies in the different lists of disciples. They felt a need to make the names match, when in actuality, there's no way to prove it either way. Of course, you may already know my view of the Gospel characters and story. I view them as allegories, so reconciling or not reconciling the name difference doesn't affect my view of any of it...it's just as beautiful as ever, either way. :)

So then, allegorically seaking, John had his new name correct. Bartholomew had his land all furrowed and planted awaiting the Gift Nathanael of fruit. Pentecost.

Nathanael is promised the same experience that Jacob had, ..Seeing Angels ascending and descending, etc.
Maybe he got a change of name like Jacob and Peter? But which name came first? The one John knew him as, Nathanael (God has given) or the one the other Gospel writers knew him as? Bartholomew. (Son of Talmai, which means abounding in furrows)

What are the other name changes for Jacob? Are you talking of after becoming Israel, still sometimes being called Jacob...or a different name?

No, not a different name. Each time Jacob (seeking after God) has a Spiritual experience his name changes to Israel (Favor or Grace of God.) The Spirit bears witness with our Spirit that we are the sons of God.
Then he goes back to being Jacob (the supplanter). Jacob, the supplanter not only took the place of Esau, but takes over for our spirit. Each spiritual awareness we have is precious to us, A Promise, yet we keep going back to normal. But the memories (Stones or altars being set up) eventually overwhelm the Ego until they cannot be denied.

Here is a good example. The last time Jacob's name changes to Israel.

Ge 45:26 And told him, saying, Joseph is yet alive, and he is governor over all the land of Egypt. And Jacob's heart fainted, for he believed them not.
Ge 45:27 And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them: and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived: Ge 45:28 And Israel said, It is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die

So, it is saying that the "spirit" of Jacob is Israel. Jacob is our soul, our Ego. It may be a very good ego, but still an ego.
That Jesus is Alive and has been sustaining us is a reality that we enter. A realization. Joseph, in the story is Jesus. We are Jacob/Israel depending on where we operate from.
When that realization happens to us our spirit (Israel) revives (wakes up or comes back to life). And something inside of us (our world view) changes or dies.
We can never go back to what we were.

Our spirit comes to life again when we realize the gifts (Words and wagonsloads of gifts sent by Joseph) that Jesus is giving us. Eventually the ego will die. The supplanter will stop supplanting and we will live in harmony in Goshen (unity). The little revelations we get from Scripture are the words and gifts that Jesus is speaking to us. This changes us. Eventually we realize that it is Jesus speaking to us through the "living word."

I don't believe the critical evidence on the dating of The Gospel of St. John would allow for John, or any other disciple alive at the time indicated in the Gospel narratives, to have written The Gospel of St. John. I don't know how humble I would call the one whose subjective thoughts were that Jesus loved him above all the rest (unless, of course, it was implied that Jesus directly told him that...then it would be a somewhat objective truth).

I don't know how humble I would call the one whose subjective thoughts were that Jesus loved him above all the rest (unless, of course, it was implied that Jesus directly told him that...then it would be a somewhat objective truth).

It didn't say more than all the rest, but if it had It's not unprecedented.

Ge 37:3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours.
Ge 37:4 And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.

It may be that God loves us more the more we operate from the spirit. Or because we are willing to accept His son more than others do.
But anyone can change at any moment. It's called repentance. We turn, God does not.
When the prodigal son turned from eating swine food and started home his Father ran to meet him while he was still a long way off. Then fell on his neck and kissed him. "My son was dead and is alive again."
That is Israel. Jacob coming to life. That is us.

We are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel. Changes in our awareness of our relationship with the Father.
God wants everyone to come to know him. But our name does not change until WE become aware of it. That is revelation. We become aware of what IS true.
The entire bible is God telling us to wake up.

Actually, as I mentioned earlier in this post, I don't think Chapter 21 was written by the same person that wrote the original Gospel of St. John, and if one utilizes that view, then there is no implication in this Gospel that 'the one whom Jesus loved' and the writer of the Gospel are intended to be viewed as the same person. I actually believe it to be a riddle, of sorts. But, I know one thing, for sure, whoever wrote the Gospel in question wrote a piece of literary beauty that transcends time and thought.

Many riddles.
And I agree. It is my favorite Gospel.

Yeah, I've noticed those differences in The Gospel of Thomas and the 4th Gospel. Man, they had as many varied ideas as Christianity has today...well that may be a stretch :lol: I've never read a lot of the Gnostic Gospels, but I do have F. Bligh Bond's Gematria book, which contains research he and others did on the gematria of Coptic and Gnostic gospels, and found a lot of the same 'stuff' that are found in the Canonical Gospels ...obviously, the same spelled names will yield the same values, etc.

Have you ever noticed that Thomas isn't depicted as being a doubter anywhere in the Gospels, except in The Gospel of St. John? I found that kind of neat when I first came across it.

Thanks for responding to the post and hope you have a great day!

I don't see a big problem with Thomas being a doubter. He needed to see to believe and he was shown.
Then he believed. It only said that those who believed without seeing were blessed. It did not say that those who wanted to see were cursed.
Hearing is the main thing.

Have a great day yourself RC,

Bob

RC Christian

11-24-2011, 01:09 PM

Hi RC,
Haqppy Thanksgiving to you too.
I think you forgot the link.

So then, allegorically seaking, John had his new name correct. Bartholomew had his land all furrowed and planted awaiting the Gift Nathanael of fruit. Pentecost.

Nathanael is promised the same experience that Jacob had, ..Seeing Angels ascending and descending, etc.
Maybe he got a change of name like Jacob and Peter? But which name came first? The one John knew him as, Nathanael (God has given) or the one the other Gospel writers knew him as? Bartholomew. (Son of Talmai, which means abounding in furrows)

Could be. I'm an agnostic on that point.

No, not a different name. Each time Jacob (seeking after God) has a Spiritual experience his name changes to Israel (Favor or Grace of God.) The Spirit bears witness with our Spirit that we are the sons of God.
Then he goes back to being Jacob (the supplanter). Jacob, the supplanter not only took the place of Esau, but takes over for our spirit. Each spiritual awareness we have is precious to us, A Promise, yet we keep going back to normal. But the memories (Stones or altars being set up) eventually overwhelm the Ego until they cannot be denied.

Here is a good example. The last time Jacob's name changes to Israel.

Ge 45:26 And told him, saying, Joseph is yet alive, and he is governor over all the land of Egypt. And Jacob's heart fainted, for he believed them not.
Ge 45:27 And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them: and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived: Ge 45:28 And Israel said, It is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die

So, it is saying that the "spirit" of Jacob is Israel. Jacob is our soul, our Ego. It may be a very good ego, but still an ego.
That Jesus is Alive and has been sustaining us is a reality that we enter. A realization. Joseph, in the story is Jesus. We are Jacob/Israel depending on where we operate from.
When that realization happens to us our spirit (Israel) revives (wakes up or comes back to life). And something inside of us (our world view) changes or dies.
We can never go back to what we were.

Our spirit comes to life again when we realize the gifts (Words and wagonsloads of gifts sent by Joseph) that Jesus is giving us. Eventually the ego will die. The supplanter will stop supplanting and we will live in harmony in Goshen (unity). The little revelations we get from Scripture are the words and gifts that Jesus is speaking to us. This changes us. Eventually we realize that it is Jesus speaking to us through the "living word."

Hey, that's some good insight! Thank you! I've never noticed "when" the name was changing back and forth, just that it did a lot. Have you looked into all the passages where the name change occurs? Because if that remained the case, what a deep spiritual lesson there is to learn there...and it was meant for us to learn it the way you described. I like how you bring in the ego vs the Christ concept. Good job, and thanks for pointing that out. Please do let me know if you have or do find that Jacob/Israel to hold true consistently. :thumb:

It didn't say more than all the rest, but if it had It's not unprecedented.

Ge 37:3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours.
Ge 37:4 And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.

It may be that God loves us more the more we operate from the spirit. Or because we are willing to accept His son more than others do.
But anyone can change at any moment. It's called repentance. We turn, God does not.
When the prodigal son turned from eating swine food and started home his Father ran to meet him while he was still a long way off. Then fell on his neck and kissed him. "My son was dead and is alive again."
That is Israel. Jacob coming to life. That is us.

We are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel. Changes in our awareness of our relationship with the Father.
God wants everyone to come to know him. But our name does not change until WE become aware of it. That is revelation. We become aware of what IS true.
The entire bible is God telling us to wake up.

Sorry if I misunderstood your point. It's really not an issue either way. Just speculation on both of our parts.

I don't see a big problem with Thomas being a doubter. He needed to see to believe and he was shown.
Then he believed. It only said that those who believed without seeing were blessed. It did not say that those who wanted to see were cursed.
Hearing is the main thing.

My point wasn't about Thomas being a doubter. I was asking if you or anyone else has ever realized that he was only depicted as being the famous "doubting Thomas" in The Gospel of St. John...not in any of the other canonical Gospels. I guess the remark was a throw-back to my post about the unique concepts that we gather by having the 4th Gospel...and my favorite Gospel.

gilgal

11-24-2011, 01:39 PM

Since John introduced the Word he is talking about the words of Jesus.
It is strange that John refers to himself in the 3rd person:

John 13:23 KJV - Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
John 20:2 KJV - Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
John 21:7 KJV - Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt [his] fisher's coat [unto him], (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
John 21:20 KJV - Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

John gives the eternally existent nature of Christ "I AM" forever present.

Mark on the other hand says that he sat at the right hand of God as said in Psalm 110.

RC Christian

11-24-2011, 07:39 PM

Since John introduced the Word he is talking about the words of Jesus.
It is strange that John refers to himself in the 3rd person:

Hello Gilgal!

Could you elaborate on what you were expressing in the quote above? I want to make sure I understand correctly what you're saying. Thanks man.

gilgal

11-24-2011, 10:46 PM

Hello Gilgal!

Could you elaborate on what you were expressing in the quote above? I want to make sure I understand correctly what you're saying. Thanks man.
Well...it's simple. Jesus' conversation is more in focus than his actions in the Gospel of John.
Mark is action.
Luke is humanity as I understand.
Luke's account is most probably from women and it involves a few women such as Elisabeth, Mary the mother of Jesus.
Matthew is political and prophetic.

Somehow John has picked up the love that Jesus had for him. Jesus didn't love by word but in deed.

But he puts himself out of focus and concentrates on Jesus. John isn't exalting himself. This is my understanding.

RC Christian

11-24-2011, 11:40 PM

Well...it's simple. Jesus' conversation is more in focus than his actions in the Gospel of John.
Mark is action.
Luke is humanity as I understand.
Luke's account is most probably from women and it involves a few women such as Elisabeth, Mary the mother of Jesus.
Matthew is political and prophetic.

Somehow John has picked up the love that Jesus had for him. Jesus didn't love by word but in deed.

But he puts himself out of focus and concentrates on Jesus. John isn't exalting himself. This is my understanding.

OK. Thanks, I understand what you meant now.

Charisma

11-25-2011, 09:00 AM

Hi RC,

Yeah, the Gnostic were a varied bunch, just like the other different sects of early Christianity.Since when were gnotics anything to do with Christ - the One who can be known?

RC Christian

11-25-2011, 09:09 AM

Hi RC,

Since when were gnotics anything to do with Christ - the One who can be known?

:confused2:

Not sure where to start, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Charisma

11-25-2011, 10:41 AM

Hi RC,

Not sure where to start, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GnosticismYou don't have to answer my question. :) And you may think me rude to say so, but I asked you, not wikepedia.

I could have looked wikipedia up for myself, but they do such a poor job in explaining Christianity and the Bible, that I would not expect them to understand gnosticism, and even if they do, why should I believe their version of it? My strong impression is that 'religion' is not their strong point.

Richard Amiel McGough

11-25-2011, 10:54 AM

Bob May

11-25-2011, 12:12 PM

Could be.

Hey, that's some good insight! Thank you! I've never noticed "when" the name was changing back and forth, just that it did a lot. Have you looked into all the passages where the name change occurs? Because if that remained the case, what a deep spiritual lesson there is to learn there...and it was meant for us to learn it the way you described. I like how you bring in the ego vs the Christ concept. Good job, and thanks for pointing that out. Please do let me know if you have or do find that Jacob/Israel to hold true consistently. :thumb:

Hi RC,

Ge 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
Ge 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
Ge 32:26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
Ge 32:27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
Ge 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed

Ge 35:9 And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padanaram, and blessed him.
Ge 35:10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel

Ge 45:26 And told him, saying, Joseph is yet alive, and he is governor over all the land of Egypt. And Jacob's heart fainted, for he believed them not.
Ge 45:27 And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them: and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived: Ge 45:28 And Israel said, It is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die.

There may be more places but we see here a pattern of Jacob's name changing when he has Spiritual experiences.
He wrestles with an angel until the "breaking of day",..enlightenment.
He sees God.
He realises that his son Joseph (a type of Jesus) is yet alive.

Each time his name changes. Jacob seeks after God but is only able to operate from that level (Israel) for a certain period of time and then goes back to same old way of thinking.

Joseph is a seed buried in a pit by his (12) brothers. These brothers are faculties of our nature. Seeing, hearing, Joining, (love), judgement, etc. Then he goes into Egypt.
But Joseph grows within us in obscurity. The seed of Christ Consciousness.
Hidden within us and growing until it begins to show itself. Jesus at (12) years old came out of the obscurity of Egypt and began to show himself speaking to the doctors of the law and they were amazed at his wisdom.
We also have Spiritual experiences that we do not understand at first. We put them away in Egypt (our subconscious mind) where they are organised within our growing doctrine of "what it is all about." After a while, an incubation period, It shows itself and becomes a part of the "big picture." Understanding.

These are the two sons of Joseph born in Egypt. Manassah and Ephraim. Wisdom and understanding.
Wisdom (Mannasah) comes first. Little revelations. First born.
But Understanding (Ephraim) gets the greater blessing because it is then that we begin to see a pattern to it all.

Bob

RC Christian

11-25-2011, 12:24 PM

Hi RC,

You don't have to answer my question. :) And you may think me rude to say so, but I asked you, not wikepedia.

I could have looked wikipedia up for myself, but they do such a poor job in explaining Christianity and the Bible, that I would not expect them to understand gnosticism, and even if they do, why should I believe their version of it? My strong impression is that 'religion' is not their strong point.

Charisma,

I could tell you my reasons, but they would just be a repeat and rehash of what Bart Ehrman says in this YouTube video, since he is the source that I use in understanding Gnosticism and early Christianity. The video is about his book "Forged" (an excellent and well referenced book). Ehrman is recognized as possibly the world's leading authority on the New Testament and writings of the first and second centuries CE. He actually states, in his lectures, that he has read every single, available text involving Christianity, over the first 5 centuries of the 'faith'. So...

To quote the info under the video (which is accurate) : "About the Author:

Bart Ehrman is the author of more than twenty books, including the New York Times bestselling Misquoting Jesus, God's Problem, and Jesus, Interrupted. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is a leading authority on the Bible and the life of Jesus. He has been featured in Time and has appeared on NBC Dateline, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, CNN, History Channel, and other top media outlets. He lives in Durham, North Carolina."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=cU_26Pn3Bwg

gilgal

11-25-2011, 02:41 PM

Hi RC,

Ge 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
Ge 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
Ge 32:26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
Ge 32:27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
Ge 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed

Ge 35:9 And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padanaram, and blessed him.
Ge 35:10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel

Ge 45:26 And told him, saying, Joseph is yet alive, and he is governor over all the land of Egypt. And Jacob's heart fainted, for he believed them not.
Ge 45:27 And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them: and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived: Ge 45:28 And Israel said, It is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die.
Interesting but to be accurate one needs to look at all the occurrences of Jacob and Israel such as the Prophecies of Isaiah. I like the last one especially. It shows the 2 natures. But even his first name was prophetic since he was holding Esau's heel during birth.

RC Christian

11-25-2011, 03:00 PM

Hi RC,

Ge 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
Ge 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
Ge 32:26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
Ge 32:27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
Ge 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed

Ge 35:9 And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padanaram, and blessed him.
Ge 35:10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel

Ge 45:26 And told him, saying, Joseph is yet alive, and he is governor over all the land of Egypt. And Jacob's heart fainted, for he believed them not.
Ge 45:27 And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them: and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived: Ge 45:28 And Israel said, It is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die.

Bob,

Sorry for not replying sooner. I missed this post earlier. Thanks for the reply and explanation. :signthankspin:

RC Christian

11-25-2011, 06:01 PM

The link below is to 'The Great Courses' website. This is an excellent website for CDs/DVDs on religion, art, science, literature, etc...it's just a great site...period! The link is specifically to the Bart Ehrman series on a comprehensive overview of the history of the New Testament canon. I own the DVD collection, and let me tell you...one can learn a lot from this man. Enjoy!

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=656

Bob May

11-26-2011, 10:00 AM

Interesting but to be accurate one needs to look at all the occurrences of Jacob and Israel such as the Prophecies of Isaiah. I like the last one especially. It shows the 2 natures. But even his first name was prophetic since he was holding Esau's heel during birth.

Hi RC,
Yes, Esau and Jacob are brothers. Esau is the Carnal side of us. Jacob does supplant or take his place and should. He sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.

So Jacob "seeking after God" is a cut above the masses. He is seeking God rather than basing his life on eating, drinking, and screwing just to make a new generation to do the same things all over again.
And in his seeking he has experiences that go way beyond his ability to comprehend. This is Israel.

This is all about US.
When we have true Spiritual experiences we should hold onto them as long as possible and when Jacob inevitably takes over again (Now supplanting or "taking the place of" Israel) we set up a stone in consciousness, a rememberance of these greater than normal states of consciousness.
These are signposts along our path that remind us that "Normal Consciousness" is not the Reality we are seeking after.
And we will inevitably have more such experiences.

Jacob laid his head down on stones (plural)/revelations. Then he saw the ladder and lifted up the "Stone" (singular) and set it up as a stone of rememberance. The little revelations become the one Revelation.

There are more to come and we know that because we have already been experiencing them.
It is our birthright, and our blessing.

Bob

RC Christian

11-26-2011, 11:09 AM

Hi RC,
Yes, Esau and Jacob are brothers. Esau is the Carnal side of us. Jacob does supplant or take his place and should. He sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.

So Jacob "seeking after God" is a cut above the masses. He is seeking God rather than basing his life on eating, drinking, and screwing just to make a new generation to do the same things all over again.
And in his seeking he has experiences that go way beyond his ability to comprehend. This is Israel.

This is all about US.
When we have true Spiritual experiences we should hold onto them as long as possible and when Jacob inevitably takes over again (Now supplanting or "taking the place of" Israel) we set up a stone in consciousness, a rememberance of these greater than normal states of consciousness.
These are signposts along our path that remind us that "Normal Consciousness" is not the Reality we are seeking after.
And we will inevitably have more such experiences.

Jacob laid his head down on stones (plural)/revelations. Then he saw the ladder and lifted up the "Stone" (singular) and set it up as a stone of rememberance. The little revelations become the one Revelation.

There are more to come and we know that because we have already been experiencing them.
It is our birthright, and our blessing.

Bob

I like how you view the Scriptures with more of a Spiritual perspective. You don't find that very often. Have you or anyone else reading this thread ever pondered the passage about Jacob using the striped and speckled rods placed in the watering trough and having the cattle and sheep (I think it was both types of animals) stare at the rods during sex to make them have striped and speckled offspring? (Genesis 30:26-43) If so, what is everyone's take on that?

gilgal

11-26-2011, 02:07 PM

There's no James but there is Jacob in John 4.

gilgal

11-26-2011, 02:13 PM

I noticed your signature RC. You might want to look into this documentary video:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2541-Video-Review-The-Hidden-Faith-of-the-Founding-Fathers-(2010)-by-Christian-Pinto

Pinto talks about who Paine was and Reason vs Faith.

RC Christian

11-26-2011, 02:16 PM

Bob May

11-26-2011, 05:15 PM

I like how you view the Scriptures with more of a Spiritual perspective. You don't find that very often. Have you or anyone else reading this thread ever pondered the passage about Jacob using the striped and speckled rods placed in the watering trough and having the cattle and sheep (I think it was both types of animals) stare at the rods during sex to make them have striped and speckled offspring? (Genesis 30:26-43) If so, what is everyone's take on that?

Hi RC and all,

That is actually a basis of a certain level of Magic. You can find it in the Greater Keys of Solomon or the Lesser Keys of Solomon. Both books are Qabalistic Magic. The Lesser keys deal with invokations and signs and sigils used in the invokation of demons and the Greater pretty much the same thing only dealing with invoking angels and arch-angels.

But from a spiritual perspective, the universe is self-reflecting. That which we see and can know about this Reality is colored by our cultural and personal viewpoint. If it is speckled and spotted, that is what we get back. We are creators, made in the image of the Creator.

God, the Creator made everything to reproduce and replenish "after it's own kind." Trees, plants, grass and the very substance of Reality itself. The Spirit hovered over the "face" (surface) of the waters. This is God beholding himself in a mirror.
Jesus came to give us a pure image into which we grow if we behold that image. A lamb without blemish.

2co 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

1co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Jacob is decieving the deciever. Using the principle of image and reflection to get himself out of his situation.
He made a deal with his father-in-law for one of his daughters. He worked 7 years. (Covenant) He was given the wrong daughter. He worked antoher seven years for the original daughter he was promised. 14 total. (circumcision of heart) (baptism) (a change of self reflection)
We basically do the same things when we use self image to change our own circumstances. We are "tricking" the subconscious mind which has been tricking us. If it is all illusion and reflection anyway, why not believe the original Covenant???

That is growing in faith and crossing over the hurdles that keep us tied to our "life as per usual" mentality.
We believe the promises despite all outward appearances.
What Jacob did to Laban was the same thing that Moses did to Pharoah. And the same thing that Jacob did to Esau. He took the birthright and blessing because it actually belongs to the second born. (He that goes through the realization of Spirit,...born of Spirit or born from above)

These are all aspects of US. We decieve the deciever. We can work ourselves to death keeping ourselves in bondage or use the same amount of effort and escape the bondage.
Same principles being used and the same amount of effort being exerted.
One leads to life and freedom, the other to death and bondage.
That is what Jesus came to bring us and show us. (The Way,..the entire way. Follow me.)
Grace and Truth.
We take the promises and change our spots. That changes our self reflection and something entirely different is born from that.
Bob

Richard Amiel McGough

11-26-2011, 05:30 PM

There's no James but there is Jacob in John 4.
Good catch! I hadn't thought about that. But when we look at the Greek, we see there is a difference between the two. The OT patriarch is Jacob (Strong's 2385) and the NT James is Jacabos (Strong's 2385). I'd never noticed that before.

:signthankspin:

Bob May

11-26-2011, 05:48 PM

There's no James but there is Jacob in John 4.

Good catch Gil,
Jacob rolls away the stone for Rachel to give her water.
Jesus "rolls away" the stone revealing he is the Christ to a samaritan woman. He asks her for water. Giving back what is given.
Jesus, at the last great day of the feast of Tabernacles says if we come to him for water he will cause it to flow from our bellies.

Joh 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

The woman then believes and runs and tells her townsfolk and they believe because of her words. (Flowing out of her belly)
The polarity has changed. She has become a channel.

Joh 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

Joh 4:26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
((The scripture, (and the world around us) comes to life.)) Living waters.

Joh 4:29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? (Synchronicities and the Bible and world speaking directly to us.)

Joh 4:39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.

Bob

Bob May

11-26-2011, 05:51 PM

Good catch! I hadn't thought about that. But when we look at the Greek, we see there is a difference between the two. The OT patriarch is Jacob (Strong's 2385) and the NT James is Jacabos (Strong's 2385). I'd never noticed that before.

:signthankspin:

Our posts were crossing and we used the same words "Good Catch." That is very synchronous of you.
I didn't know the connection between James and Jaobus either.
Double good catch!!!
Bob

Bob May

11-26-2011, 06:31 PM

Our posts were crossing and we used the same words "Good Catch." That is very synchronous of you.
I didn't know the connection between James and Jaobus either.
Double good catch!!!
Bob

zyzx Chaziyz (khaw-zeez'); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 2385

thunderbolt, lightning flash, lightning, storm, cloud
KJV Word Usage and Count
lightning 2
bright clouds 1 (Illuminated by lightening ???)

Interesting the word for James sounds a lot like Jacob's ladder. A flash of inspiration without which Jacob is seeking after God but afterwards realizing he is the house of God.
This is a veil to go through. A horizontal path between Hod and Netzach on the Tree of Life.
The veil that conceals, if meditated upon, reveals that which it conceals.

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/BobMay2008/16.gif

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/BobMay2008/Towerhorizontalpath.jpg

A tower that reaches from heaven to earth, "built with hands", is destroyed when a flash of inspiration from Spirit "Behold a ladder set up" = 888 = Jesus) shows us that that which reaches from heaven to earth, upon which angels ascend and descend is already set up and it is by the Spirit not by might that we get past this veil.
The Lightning Struck Tower is the realization that we do not build the Tower. We realize it is there by inspiration from the Spirit.
That which you seek (the Kingdom of Heaven) is all around you but you do not see it. Paraphrase Gospel of Thomas.

Jesus comes in clouds, but it is bright clouds illumined by the lightening flash that reaches from heaven to earth. Spiritual inspiration. Not by works of our own hands.

Bob

Bob May

11-26-2011, 08:49 PM

I've noticed noticed both of those points also. Matthew never shows up in the 4th Gospel, either, but we do find a new disciple who seems to be part of the 12...Nathaneal.

This Wikipedia link does a so-so job on the Synoptic vs 4th Gospel breakdown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Apostles#The_Twelve_Apostles

I think we are seeing a pattern here.
Jacob has the vision of the ladder. His name doesn't change as it seems it should.
That is because that land he was promised, tht awareness is promised to his "seed" which is Joseph who wears the coat of inheritance that Jacob only sees (as the ladder.)
So, in effect thae name change is the passing off to Joseph the inheritance.

James (Jacob) changes to Nathanael in the book of John. It is Nathanael who gets the promise from Jesus that he will see angels ascending and descending just like Jacob did. He would wear the coat at Pentecost.
Nathanael recieves the promise of Joseph, Inheritance, because he will "put on Christ" or in other words wear the coat of many colors. Jesus said that he would see angels ascending and descending upon the "son of man." That is us if we wear the coat because we are fellow heirs with Christ. Son of Man denotes, not only Christ but all that recieve the inheritance.
Bob

Richard Amiel McGough

11-26-2011, 09:00 PM

zyzx Chaziyz (khaw-zeez'); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 2385

thunderbolt, lightning flash, lightning, storm, cloud
KJV Word Usage and Count
lightning 2
bright clouds 1 (Illuminated by lightening ???)

Interesting the word for James sounds a lot like Jacob's ladder. A flash of inspiration without which Jacob is seeking after God but afterwards realizing he is the house of God.
This is a veil to go through. A horizontal path between Hod and Netzach on the Tree of Life.
The veil that conceals, if meditated upon, reveals that which it conceals.

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/BobMay2008/16.gif

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/BobMay2008/Towerhorizontalpath.jpg

A tower that reaches from heaven to earth, "built with hands", is destroyed when a flash of inspiration from Spirit "Behold a ladder set up" = 888 = Jesus) shows us that that which reaches from heaven to earth, upon which angels ascend and descend is already set up and it is by the Spirit not by might that we get past this veil.
The Lightning Struck Tower is the realization that we do not build the Tower. We realize it is there by inspiration from the Spirit.
That which you seek (the Kingdom of Heaven) is all around you but you do not see it. Paraphrase Gospel of Thomas.

Jesus comes in clouds, but it is bright clouds illumined by the lightening flash that reaches from heaven to earth. Spiritual inspiration. Not by works of our own hands.

Bob
Hey there Bob,

I think there has been a misunderstanding. In my post, I was talking about the two Greek words: Ιακωβ (Jacob, Strong's 2384) and Ιακωβος (Jacabos/James, Strong's 2385). It is curious that these names are similar but different.

Personally, I don't think I would have associated the Tower (Pey) with Jacob or the "Ladder to heaven" because I don't recall any image of being struck by lightening (calamity, sudden change, bursting) in that story.

Richard

Bob May

11-26-2011, 11:04 PM

Hey there Bob,

I think there has been a misunderstanding. In my post, I was talking about the two Greek words: Ιακωβ (Jacob, Strong's 2384) and Ιακωβος (Jacabos/James, Strong's 2385). It is curious that these names are similar but different.

Personally, I don't think I would have associated the Tower (Pey) with Jacob or the "Ladder to heaven" because I don't recall any image of being struck by lightening (calamity, sudden change, bursting) in that story.

Richard

Yes, very similar. John is a deeper book than the other three gospels. It is showing something here that fits a mystery in the story of Jacob and Joseph. Why didn't Jacob's name change to Israel when he had the vision he is most noted for? Because he changed persons, so to speak. The inheritance is symbolised by the coat which is the ladder worn, not merely seen in the future as a future promise. Later it will pass to Ephraim, Understanding.

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/BobMay2008/Towerhorizontalpath.jpg

The Tower path is lying across the verticle path which is the Temperance card. This is a middle pillar path leading right up to Tipareth the Son. Christ Consciousness. Realization of inheritance.
All paths are awarenesses, realizations. Horizontal paths are particularly important in that they are also barriers in our growth. Especially the lightening struck tower. Our entire world view crumbles. Our relationship with God and our place in Reality.

It is not a calamity. But it is a sudden change in awareness that changes everything. That is a very good thing.
"Surely God is in this place and I knew it not." Bethel house of God and the Promised land are all included in that awareness. It is not a place it is a realization that God is in THIS place. In US. It takes a lightning bolt from above to have this experience.

There is no misunderstanding here. I am giving it more importance than you, perhaps. It is an answer to some questions I have had.

Jacob seeks God but only finds him when God touches him. That is us.
Israel and Joseph is God finding us. So was the promise to Nathanael.
That is also us because they (the Apostles) were a type of firstfruits. We are the latter fruit.

Jas 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

And what is that "Glory" that Jesus was given? Sonship. And the sign is the coat of many colors.
The rainbow is the sign of Promise. It was given at noah's ark. It was in the coat that Jacob gave to Joseph. He recieved it as the ladder that reached from heaven to earth and in the rainbow above the angels head in the Temperance card. It is not the ladder that crumbles. It is the awareness of sonship that crumbles the tower. Both awarenesses are interlocked with one another.
When we recieve freedom we also are necessarily aware of what has been keeping us from realizing that freedom.
We covered a lot of these things in the meaning of Matthew 17.
These seem to me to be some missing pieces that I have wondered about.
Bob

Richard Amiel McGough

11-26-2011, 11:40 PM

There is no misunderstanding here. I am giving it more importance than you, perhaps. It is an answer to some questions I have had.

It still looks like a misunderstanding to me. Why are you talking about the Tower card? I thought it was becuase you had looked up the Hebrew word corresponding to Strong's 2385:
Strong's 2385
חזיז chaziyz {khaw-zeez'} from an unused root
meaning to glare; TWOT - 635a; n m AV - lightning 2, bright clouds 1; 3 1)
thunderbolt, lightning flash, lightning, storm, cloud

I got this idea because of what you had written this:

zyzx Chaziyz (khaw-zeez'); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 2385

thunderbolt, lightning flash, lightning, storm, cloud
KJV Word Usage and Count
lightning 2
bright clouds 1 (Illuminated by lightening ???)

Interesting the word for James sounds a lot like Jacob's ladder. A flash of inspiration without which Jacob is seeking after God but afterwards realizing he is the house of God.
This is a veil to go through. A horizontal path between Hod and Netzach on the Tree of Life.
The veil that conceals, if meditated upon, reveals that which it conceals.

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/BobMay2008/16.gif

In your comment, you said "the word for James sounds a lot like Jacob's ladder. A flash of inspiration..." Everthing you wrote looks like you mistakenly looked at the Hebrew word corresponding to Strong's 2385. Am I missing something here?

All the best,

Richard

debz

11-27-2011, 09:23 AM

Our posts were crossing and we used the same words "Good Catch." That is very synchronous of you.
I didn't know the connection between James and Jaobus either.
Double good catch!!!
Bob

I just started reading this thread...I love your insights, Bob! Just wanted to comment on James/Jacob -- I heard that the book of James was originally actually the book of Jacob, it was King James who insisted on the change when he commissioned his famous Bible.

Charisma

11-27-2011, 09:29 AM

I heard that the book of James was originally actually the book of Jacob, it was King James who insisted on the change when he commissioned his famous Bible. Hi debz,

So, it's very interesting that King James VI of Scotland, famously also James I of England, was really 'King Jacob'. :)

Bob May

11-27-2011, 10:34 AM

It still looks like a misunderstanding to me. Why are you talking about the Tower card? I thought it was becuase you had looked up the Hebrew word corresponding to Strong's 2385:
Strong's 2385
חזיז chaziyz {khaw-zeez'} from an unused root
meaning to glare; TWOT - 635a; n m AV - lightning 2, bright clouds 1; 3 1)
thunderbolt, lightning flash, lightning, storm, cloud

I got this idea because of what you had written this:

In your comment, you said "the word for James sounds a lot like Jacob's ladder. A flash of inspiration..." Everthing you wrote looks like you mistakenly looked at the Hebrew word corresponding to Strong's 2385. Am I missing something here?

Hi Richard,

All the best,

Richard

Oh, ok! I see what you are looking at.
The 2385 (Hebrew) might not fit there, (though it seems to add to what I was getting at.)

zyzx Chaziyz (khaw-zeez'); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 2385
thunderbolt, lightning flash, lightning, storm, cloud
KJV Word Usage and Count
lightning 2
bright clouds 1

Or 2384 (Hebrew) (This also seems to fit with what I am relating here)

!wyzzx Chizzayown (khiz-zaw-yone'); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 2384
vision (Would apply to Joseph.)
vision (in the ecstatic state)
valley of vision (perhaps fig. of Jerusalem or Hinnom)
vision (in the night) (Would apply to Jacob.)
vision, oracle, prophecy (in divine communication)

But, ignore those two words. My mistake. (((But from the looks of it it might be a good idea to keep it in mind.
Maybe there is a relationship between the Strongs Hebrew and the Strongs Greek numbers???)))

It was the 2384/2385 (Greek) is what got me going on this line of thinking because it fit with the original question. (Both seem to have Jacob as the root word.)

Why is James not mentioned in the Gospel of John. Gilgal pointed out that he is in the "person" of Jacob.
The story that is related in John 4 has to do with a revealing of Christ. living water flowing out of the belly.
This too relates to the Temperance card/Jacob's Ladder/Coat of Many Colors because it is on the middle Pillar between Yesod, Foundation and Tipareth Christ consciousness. It is the manifestation of a promise given to Jacob and his "seed".

The angel in the card is pouring water from one cup to another in front of his "belly."
Subconscious symbolism being revealed by the light from heaven. Realization and manifestation of Promises.
The son is hidden in the father and the father revealed in the son.

The story of Jacob and Joseph seem to be "hidden" in the fact that James is not mentioned in John.
James is equivalent to Jacob. (Same root word.) Jacob is us seeking after God. Jacob keeps disappearing and being taken over by Israel. This happens whenever he has a lightning flash from God. Illumination.

The story of Jacob and his sons is interupted by the story of Joseph. The inheritor signified by the coat of many colors.
The character of James also disappears and is replaced by Nathanael who was promised the coat of many colors/ angels ascending and descending upon the "Son of Man."
When we realize we are sons of God, inheritors, the term "son of Man also applies to us as "Fellow Heirs."
This changes everything we thought we knew (the tower built with hands collapses as a realization of our inheritance.)

ÅIakwvb Iakob (ee-ak-obe');
Word Origin: Hebrew, Noun Masculine, Strong #: 2384

Jacob = "heel-catcher or supplanter" was the second son of Isaac
the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary

ÅIavkwboß Iakobos (ee-ak'-o-bos);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Masculine, Strong #: 2385

James = "supplanter" son of Zebedee, an apostle and brother of the apostle John, commonly called James the greater or elder, slain by Herod, Acts
an apostle, son of Alphaeus, called the less
James the half-brother of Christ
an unknown James, father of the apostle Judas (?)

I have already related the coat of many colors and Jacob's ladder in our discussion of Matthew 17.
As something Jacob saw and Joseph wore. Joseph is the son of Jacob in both the old and new Testaments.
What is promised to Jacob is actualized in Joseph.
We are to put on Christ. Fellow heirs.

So ignore the 2385 bright clouds, if you want.
That was not what led me to these conclusions.
The Tower card and the Temperance card cross each other. The awarenesses they symbolize are intimately connected. The reality of what happens to us as we touch on these paths hits us all at the same time but then we have to catch up by the illumination of these symbols.
In other words we begin to see a piece at a time what has already been done for us.

Bob

Bob May

11-27-2011, 10:39 AM

Hi debz,

So, it's very interesting that King James VI of Scotland, famously also James I of England, was really 'King Jacob'. :)

Weren't his followers/supporters called Jacobites?

The Jacobite Risings were a series of uprisings, rebellions, and wars in Great Britain and Ireland occurring between 1688 and 1746. The uprisings were aimed at returning James VII of Scotland and II of England, and later his descendants of the House of Stuart, to the throne after he was deposed by Parliament during the Glorious Revolution. The series of conflicts takes its name from Jacobus, the Latin form of James.

I love it when things fit.

Bob

gilgal

11-27-2011, 02:47 PM

Hi debz,

So, it's very interesting that King James VI of Scotland, famously also James I of England, was really 'King Jacob'. :)
This is a subject that had caught my attention in association to the 15th spoke:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?70-Spoke-15-and-the-15th-century

First when the Scottish gained their independence from the British they enthroned a Templar. But a steward (Stuart bloodline) took over the throne and for the next century and more those who took over the throne were all named James until James VI which became James I of Great Britain. The Templars of course were known to have headquartered in France but after the execution of Jacques DeMolay fled to Scotland and helped the Scottish gain their independence from England. In honor to Jacques DeMolay many Scottish Kings were named after him.

But after King James II of Great Britain they fled to France again and this time instead of taking over thrones they founded the Jacobinism.

I think the Jacobins were responsible of supporting many revolutions starting with the French Revolution. Could this be the reason of the name James/sub-planter?

One of the famous Stuarts was Bonnie Prince (Edward) Charles whom as far as I know was offered to be King of America but declined because of the increasing popularity of the idea of forming a republic.

One common belief is that the Stuart bloodline was Catholic. I don't know. How could it be Catholic when James I of England authorized the King James Bible?

Richard Amiel McGough

11-27-2011, 02:50 PM

I just started reading this thread...I love your insights, Bob! Just wanted to comment on James/Jacob -- I heard that the book of James was originally actually the book of Jacob, it was King James who insisted on the change when he commissioned his famous Bible.
That's not true. The Geneva Bible, published 60 years before the KJV used the name "Iames" which is just "James" because the I and J were interchanged a lot back then.

There's more unsubstantiated rumors about the Bible than anything else I can think of.

Charisma

11-27-2011, 03:45 PM

Hi Bob,

Weren't his followers/supporters called Jacobites?James VI and I had been king in Scotland from a very early age, and when he became the legitimate heir to the throne of England, he was welcomed partly because of the Presbyterian element in Parliament, who hoped he would bring Presbyterianism to England. From crossing the border while travelling south, he handed out titles and land like confetti, and thereby made himself quite popular. It was he who promoted the doctrine of the divine right of kings, which eventually got his son Charles I into much trouble because he took it too far, alienating Parliament.

James VII of Scotland and II of England was the Catholic brother of Charles II, (who had seen his father Charles I beheaded, and eventually found refuge in the French Court where his cousin on his (French Catholic) mother's side was reigning), until it was safe to come back after Oliver Cromwell's rule.

One common belief is that the Stuart bloodline was Catholic. I don't know. How could it be Catholic when James I of England authorized the King James Bible? Hi gilgal,

It isn't simple to explain this. You could do a bit more reading around the subject. :)

The key to remember is that in England the concept of a national religion meant that whatever 'church' the king (or queen attended) was supposed to be everyone else's first choice, too. There was a vigourous system of fines for not attending church, and many things were affected by whether a man was known as a church-goer of good character, or not. Charles II 'Indulgence to Tender Consciences', began to allow freedom of worship under certain circumstances, and he himself attended the Church of England while secretly negotiating the Secret Treaty of Dover, always hoping to return England to Catholicism. But, there had been so much bloodshed over Catholicism for so long both in Scotland and England, that by his reign, no-one wanted to return to such a situation. Elizabeth I who followed her sister Mary, ruled for over forty-five years, I think, as a Protestant, and James VI and I followed her in succession. (The last Catholic on the throne of England had been Henry VIII's daughter (bloody) Mary.) As for the Jacobite Risings, I can't give as detailed an account of what was going on 'Bonnie Prince Charlie'.

Protestantism had arrived by a different route, in Scotland, than England, although there were sympathisers all over both countries.

Bob May

11-28-2011, 08:15 AM

The four Gospels divide naturally into the three synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and the "standalone" Gospel of John. In my previous studies, I have looked at how the four Gospels form a quaternity of the form 3 + 1, which is a pattern seen in other Biblical quaternities such as the four cherubim and the four beasts in Daniel's vision. In this thread, I want to look at the very unique features of John's Gospel which I find deeply mysterious. An brief overview of many of the differences may be found on this page: Contrasts between John and the Synoptics (http://catholic-resources.org/John/Synoptic-Differences.htm) (or see PDF attachment). Many of the most important events in the synoptics are completely missing from John. There is no story of the Transifiguration (Matt 17:1, Mark 9:2, Luke 9:28). There is no Olivet Discourse (Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21)! Indeed, no prediction of any "coming" of the Son of Man at all. The main story of Christ is radically different in John's gospel. So different, in fact, that I do not beleive it is possible to harmonize the four Gospels into a single narrative of the life of Christ.

The most stunning of all ommissions in John is this. There is no mention anyone named James anywhere in the fourth Gospel! How is that possible? What does it mean? [/LIST]So what is going on here? Is it possible to believe that the Gospel of John is consistent with the synoptic Gospels?

Hi Richard and all,
So back to the original question. Why is James missing???
I see a pattern here that whenever Jacob has an experience his name changes to Israel.
Then in the NT James (of which a connection with Jacob is established, I believe) seems to have been replaced by Nathanael (God has Given).

You mentioned the 3+1 pattern.
1jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1jo 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

I am looking at this as the three (First three Gospels) are bearing witness to the fourth, the book of John.
These three "agree in one." These three lead to a "Threshold experience." A different way of recieving from God. John's viewpoint was obviously different from the Synoptic Gospels in many ways. One of which you pointed out, Richard. No prediction of the coming of the Son of Man. Yet Jesus tells Nathanael that he will see angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.
So could that be directed at Nathanael being that son of man??
I think it is.

We can pursue this line of thought or not. But I think the answer lies in the differences between Jacob and Israel.

Here are a few examples.

1ch 16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
1ch 16:16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
1ch 16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
1ch 16:18 Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance;

Ps 135:4 For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.

Isa 44:1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:

Isa 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

It seems to me to be the way in which we deal with God or God deals with us that which is being pointed out here.
The last verse, Isa 41:8 seems to be speaking as if the two are the same person, and they are/it is. And I believe it is us. But it is two aspects of us.

But it also mentions "Abraham my friend". Jesus called the disciples "friends" in a very specific context.

Joh 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Like I said, maybe I am off base here. It may be distracting to the original question and posted as another thread. But I think there is a lot of material here for consideration.
Or we can drop it.

Bob

kathryn

11-28-2011, 10:00 AM

Hi Richard and all,
So back to the original question. Why is James missing???
I see a pattern here that whenever Jacob has an experience his name changes to Israel.
Then in the NT James (of which a connection with Jacob is established, I believe) seems to have been replaced by Nathanael (God has Given).

You mentioned the 3+1 pattern.
1jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1jo 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

I am looking at this as the three (First three Gospels) are bearing witness to the fourth, the book of John.
These three "agree in one." These three lead to a "Threshold experience." A different way of recieving from God. John's viewpoint was obviously different from the Synoptic Gospels in many ways. One of which you pointed out, Richard. No prediction of the coming of the Son of Man. Yet Jesus tells Nathanael that he will see angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.
So could that be directed at Nathanael being that son of man??
I think it is.

We can pursue this line of thought or not. But I think the answer lies in the differences between Jacob and Israel.

Here are a few examples.

1ch 16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
1ch 16:16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
1ch 16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
1ch 16:18 Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance;

Ps 135:4 For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.

Isa 44:1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:

Isa 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

It seems to me to be the way in which we deal with God or God deals with us that which is being pointed out here.
The last verse, Isa 41:8 seems to be speaking as if the two are the same person, and they are/it is. And I believe it is us. But it is two aspects of us.

But it also mentions "Abraham my friend". Jesus called the disciples "friends" in a very specific context.

Joh 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Like I said, maybe I am off base here. It may be distracting to the original question and posted as another thread. But I think there is a lot of material here for consideration.
Or we can drop it.

Bob

Hi Bob....I think you're spot on. James was the son of "my gift" (Zebedee)...so the name change to Nathanael (God has given) flows nicely. I really love the Jacob/Israel connections you have brought up.

debz

11-28-2011, 10:30 AM

I am looking at this as the three (First three Gospels) are bearing witness to the fourth, the book of John.
These three "agree in one." These three lead to a "Threshold experience." A different way of recieving from God. John's viewpoint was obviously different from the Synoptic Gospels in many ways. One of which you pointed out, Richard. No prediction of the coming of the Son of Man. Yet Jesus tells Nathanael that he will see angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.
So could that be directed at Nathanael being that son of man??
I think it is.

We can pursue this line of thought or not. But I think the answer lies in the differences between Jacob and Israel.

Here are a few examples.

1ch 16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
1ch 16:16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
1ch 16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
1ch 16:18 Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance;

Ps 135:4 For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.

Isa 44:1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:

Isa 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

It seems to me to be the way in which we deal with God or God deals with us that which is being pointed out here.
The last verse, Isa 41:8 seems to be speaking as if the two are the same person, and they are/it is. And I believe it is us. But it is two aspects of us.

But it also mentions "Abraham my friend". Jesus called the disciples "friends" in a very specific context.

Joh 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Like I said, maybe I am off base here. It may be distracting to the original question and posted as another thread. But I think there is a lot of material here for consideration.
Or we can drop it.

Bob

Bob, I could see how this could point to a "threshold" experience -- I see a similar pattern in the tabernacle blueprint, with the 3 bearing witness (I Jn 5:8 -- because 1 Jn 5:7 is actually not in early manuscripts) as the blood, water and spirit -- in tabernacle blood/altar, water/laver, spirit/priests had to be anointed with oil before entering "the Holy Place." The Holy Place is a new realm, new way of knowing the Lord. Same with Jesus saying I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life...in the Temple the gate was known as "the way," the entrance to Holy Place as "the truth," and the entrance to the Most Holy Place as "the life" -- three different realms or deeper ways of knowing the Lord. And yes, it takes time to develop a relationship with the Lord that results in being "his friend," but it is also worth pursuing, because He shares His secrets with His friends (Amos 3:7).

However, I think when Jesus spoke to Nathanael about seeing the angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man, He was actually claiming Himself to "be" that ladder from Jacob's vision. Jacob said "Surely God is in this place - this is none other than the house of God." This was a place of accessing heaven - Jesus made the way for us to access heaven...

RC Christian

11-28-2011, 11:05 AM

Hi Bob....I think you're spot on. James was the son of "my gift" (Zebedee)...so the name change to Nathanael (God has given) flows nicely. I really love the Jacob/Israel connections you have brought up.

Hi Kathyrn,

When this thread was started, I posted a reference to The Gospel of St. John, chapter 21:2, "There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples."

It would seem like the writer of The Gospel of St. John separates "Nathanael of Cana in Galilee" distinctly from "the sons of Zebedee".

I haven't followed this thread, but it seems like it has went in a circle. Also, "the Apostle Paul" references "James" by name several times in the Epistles, without indicating a name change, although "Peter" is interchanged with "Cephas" several times, which was a given name change, or "extra" name.

Charisma

11-28-2011, 02:06 PM

gilgal

11-28-2011, 03:18 PM

Wasn't Nathanael the second name of Bartholomew?

Charisma

11-28-2011, 03:25 PM

Wasn't Nathanael the second name of Bartholomew? I think you might be right. Nathanael is not listed in any of the lists of all the twelve.

This comes close to the list:
Acts 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas [the brother] of James.

gilgal

11-28-2011, 03:50 PM

I think you might be right. Nathanael is not listed in any of the lists of all the twelve.

This comes close to the list:
Acts 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas [the brother] of James.
We could say that some of the names of the disciples were not mentioned in John.
Such as Matthew.

Richard Amiel McGough

11-28-2011, 04:32 PM

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but wasn't James the brother of John killed very early in the narrative of the Church?

The James who is mentioned - the book by James - is by the elder at Jerusalem who was a younger brother of Jesus the Christ.

I don't know about James the son of Alpheus.

Richard, which James were you asking about?
I'm asking about James, the son of Zebedee and his brother John. They are prominent throughout the three synoptic Gospels, and they are both entirely absent from the fourth Gospel except perhaps a single mention as "those of Zebedee" in the last chapter:

John 21:2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.

Richard Amiel McGough

11-28-2011, 04:35 PM

Bob, I could see how this could point to a "threshold" experience -- I see a similar pattern in the tabernacle blueprint, with the 3 bearing witness (I Jn 5:8 -- because 1 Jn 5:7 is actually not in early manuscripts) as the blood, water and spirit -- in tabernacle blood/altar, water/laver, spirit/priests had to be anointed with oil before entering "the Holy Place." The Holy Place is a new realm, new way of knowing the Lord. Same with Jesus saying I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life...in the Temple the gate was known as "the way," the entrance to Holy Place as "the truth," and the entrance to the Most Holy Place as "the life" -- three different realms or deeper ways of knowing the Lord. And yes, it takes time to develop a relationship with the Lord that results in being "his friend," but it is also worth pursuing, because He shares His secrets with His friends (Amos 3:7).

However, I think when Jesus spoke to Nathanael about seeing the angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man, He was actually claiming Himself to "be" that ladder from Jacob's vision. Jacob said "Surely God is in this place - this is none other than the house of God." This was a place of accessing heaven - Jesus made the way for us to access heaven...
Hey there Deb,

I hadn't noticed the "blood, water, spirit" connection with the typology of the tabernacle before. That's helpful. Thanks! :yo:

And yes, it seem clear that Jesus was portraying himself as the "place of accessing heaven" in John 1:51.

debz

11-28-2011, 05:41 PM

Hey there Deb,

I hadn't noticed the "blood, water, spirit" connection with the typology of the tabernacle before. That's helpful. Thanks! :yo:

And yes, it seem clear that Jesus was portraying himself as the "place of accessing heaven" in John 1:51.

Yay...another point of agreement!

Richard Amiel McGough

11-28-2011, 05:51 PM

kathryn

11-29-2011, 07:57 AM

Hi Kathyrn,

When this thread was started, I posted a reference to The Gospel of St. John, chapter 21:2, "There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples."

It would seem like the writer of The Gospel of St. John separates "Nathanael of Cana in Galilee" distinctly from "the sons of Zebedee".

I haven't followed this thread, but it seems like it has went in a circle. Also, "the Apostle Paul" references "James" by name several times in the Epistles, without indicating a name change, although "Peter" is interchanged with "Cephas" several times, which was a given name change, or "extra" name.

Hi RC...Sorry! Thanks for pointing that out.

Bob May

11-29-2011, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by debz
Bob, I could see how this could point to a "threshold" experience -- I see a similar pattern in the tabernacle blueprint, with the 3 bearing witness (I Jn 5:8 -- because 1 Jn 5:7 is actually not in early manuscripts) as the blood, water and spirit -- in tabernacle blood/altar, water/laver, spirit/priests had to be anointed with oil before entering "the Holy Place." The Holy Place is a new realm, new way of knowing the Lord. Same with Jesus saying I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life...in the Temple the gate was known as "the way," the entrance to Holy Place as "the truth," and the entrance to the Most Holy Place as "the life" -- three different realms or deeper ways of knowing the Lord. And yes, it takes time to develop a relationship with the Lord that results in being "his friend," but it is also worth pursuing, because He shares His secrets with His friends (Amos 3:7).
However, I think when Jesus spoke to Nathanael about seeing the angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man, He was actually claiming Himself to "be" that ladder from Jacob's vision. Jacob said "Surely God is in this place - this is none other than the house of God." This was a place of accessing heaven - Jesus made the way for us to access heaven...

Good find Debz,
That really fits.
If it fits, wear it.
And yes, Jesus is the ladder. It is already set up. "Behold, a ladder set up"= 888= Jesus in Greek.
But we are supposed to put on Christ.
Jacob saw the Ladder, it was promised to his seed after him, ..Joseph.
Joseph wore the ladder/Coat.
Nathanael was promised to have that experience.
We are also in the lineage of Joseph because he had the inheritance. Later the coat is covered in blood.
The world is speaking from heaven. Jesus is speaking through the world. Through all worlds. Physical, Astral/Dreams, Spiritual visions and experiences. Conscious, subconscious, super-Conscious.

Those are levels of understanding and experience promised to US.

Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

So take the entire prayer in John 17 and apply it to yourself.

Welcome to the conversations,
Bob

RC Christian

11-29-2011, 10:34 AM

Hi RC...Sorry! Thanks for pointing that out.

Hi Kathryn,

No problem. It just struck me funny when I checked back into the thread, that there was some discussion about Nathanael and James being the same person, after I had posted that verse initially. Thanks for the reply.

Charisma

11-30-2011, 07:53 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

11-30-2011, 10:01 AM

Hi Richard,

I'm asking about James, the son of Zebedee and his brother John. They are prominent throughout the three synoptic Gospels, and they are both entirely absent from the fourth Gospel except perhaps a single mention as "those of Zebedee" in the last chapter:
Here is another instance of a name not being mentioned.

Matthew 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping [him], and desiring a certain thing of him. 21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

To my mind, John is simply giving as much centrality and thereby glory, to Jesus.

There is an interesting study to be done on all the times 'greater than' appears in the NT. It shows up the argument amongst the disciples as to who would be the 'greatest', as somewhat inglorious.
Hi Charisma,

I don't see how that solution could work. Our attention had been drawn away from Christ by the apparent inconsistency between John and the synoptics. It simply does not make sense to me that John was talking about the same Jesus without any mention of two of the central characters that were so closely associated with him in the other Gospels.

And besides, if you suggestion were true, why would John introduce the new characters - Philip and Nathanael - into the very place where James and John had been in the story of the calling of the first disciples?

Charisma

11-30-2011, 02:19 PM

Hi Richard,

It simply does not make sense to me that John was talking about the same Jesus without any mention of two of the central characters that were so closely associated with him in the other Gospels.First, I can't imagine how you can read John's gospel without seeing that Jesus Christ is central to the whole narrative.

Second, which other characters are you looking for (apart from James) who are not mentioned?

And besides, if you suggestion were true, why would John introduce the new characters - Philip and Nathanael - into the very place where James and John had been in the story of the calling of the first disciples? What is to stop him, if He was being led by the Holy Spirit?

Richard Amiel McGough

11-30-2011, 02:36 PM

First, I can't imagine how you can read John's gospel without seeing that Jesus Christ is central to the whole narrative.

I couldn't see how I could do that either. What makes you think I could?

My point is that it makes no sense for John to leave out central characters to "make Jesus more prominent." That's just don't find that argument convincing.

Second, which other characters are you looking for (apart from James) who are not mentioned?

The Apostle John. There is a strong (but not conclusive) case to be made for the beloved disciple being Lazarus.

And the narrative is so different than the synoptics that it doesn't seem to be describing the same "Jesus." When I was a Christian I just swept these problems under the rug. I don't have any reason to do that now, so I am looking at them. It's not really a big deal to me since I already know that the Gospels cannot be "literal" and probably were never intended to be interpreted that way. The modern "Newspaper" mentality - where folks want and expect "nothing but the facts, ma'am" is not how the ancients thought. So it might be that we have created a lot of problems with the NT that never should have existed. But then again, the early church fathers struggled to "harmonize" the Gospels, which indicates that they were reading the "literally" to some degree at least. But they might have been wrong ... they certainly were wrong about a lot of things, and they were just humans like you and me, no reason to think they had any special knowledge.

What is to stop him, if He was being led by the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Spirit would have led him to write the truth, and his story does not cohere with the synoptics if it is interpreted literally. For example, try to write a coherent account for the Passion Week using all four Gospels and leaving nothing out. It can't be done. Rose struggled for over a month to harmonize the account of Christ's visit to Bethany. She tried with all her might. It couldn't be done.

heb13-13

12-05-2011, 10:18 PM

This may be a "clue" why James is not mentioned in John and why John does not refer to himself in the first person. He only refers to himself, indirectly.

But read about the situation with the two brothers in Matthew.

Mat 20:20
Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

Mat 20:21
And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

Mat 20:22
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

Mat 20:23
And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Mat 20:24
And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.

That must have been quite a tenuous situation when the other 10 were moved with indignation (very angry) at John and James. This is something they did not forget and their humility is reflected in their writings.

John's name is never mentioned in any of his epistles, in the last two he just refers to himself as "the elder". In the his gospel he refers to himself indirectly. In Revelation he is mentioned 5 times and not once is he mentioned with any additional dignity or honor. Very unlike today.

Rick

Charisma

12-06-2011, 03:47 AM

Rick, thank you for putting that last post together.

Hi Richard,

When you said:

The Holy Spirit would have led him to write the truth, and his story does not cohere with the synoptics if it is interpreted literally. For example, try to write a coherent account for the Passion Week using all four Gospels and leaving nothing out. It can't be done. Rose struggled for over a month to harmonize the account of Christ's visit to Bethany. She tried with all her might. It couldn't be done. I don't see that as a problem. The others are called 'synoptic' because they record similar stuff - which helps us to believe them. Once there's triangulation, one doesn't really need a fourth point for accuracy.

There is a brother (in the Lord) I know, who is an artist. When asked whether he has 'free' time for something not on his schedule, he is thinks in shapes. If he can find 'free' time, he calls it 'asymmetric time', and then translates it back into normal English for the rest of us. In this, he reminds me of John's asymmetric perspective, for which we have to find the proper translation.

Regarding Philip and Nathaniel, I absolutely love that insight into how Jesus 'was' with people - how Jesus operated 'when you were under the fig tree I saw you' - as if this is how a normal human being should be able to 'see' (what the Father is showing them), and that He appreciated Nathaniel's childlike honest expression of his thought. Then, He makes Nathaniel a promise which is so rooted in revelation and Hebrew history, that it's irresistable to a man whose disconsolate because he's been waiting for the Messiah with all his heart for years (my paraphrase).

This is beautiful insight to what it was to be living in those days, yet again in captivity, but this time on their home turf. You will notice that it was John and Andrew who had 'heard' was John the Baptist was saying about 'the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world, and taken the offensive to leave following John, so they could start following Jesus. Again, that's a beautiful example of how our hearts are capable of guiding us into greater truth, even though our hearts still need changes to take place for truth to be established in them.

I was reading the end of Luke recently - the Emmaus road portion, and it seemed to me that what happened was almost John's account of hearing of Jesus for the first time - but in reverse. They knew what they were doing when they chose to go with Jesus. Jesus was leading. Jesus was openly revealing Himself to them. They knew who He was (according to John the Baptist). They had asked, 'Rabbi, where do you live?' and He had said, simply, 'Come and see'. In Luke, it's all the other way round. The men are leading (walking along the road) when Jesus finds them and goes with them to where they are going. He tells them things they didn't understand - things they didn't know they didn't understand - and then has to be persuaded (it appears) to stay the night where they are going to be spending it. Then, He reveals Himself by doing something they had seen before, and they 'get it'. Now they know 'who' He is, and that the women's report of Him being alive, are true. Note, Jesus had gone the long way round with them, to bring them to that understanding. When they had mentioned the women on the road, He had said 'O slow of heart to believe what the prophets had written'. He hadn't said, 'O slow of heart to believe what the women told you'. His point seems to have been something they should have known already - which is a challenge to us in our own day -

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

(This verse now reminds me of yesterday, coming across Deuteronomy 29:29 in a thread (which I cannot find now, to comment). Do you recall where you had mentioned it?)

Jesus words on the Emmaus road also agree with, 'If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.' Luke 16:31

So, going back to the perception that it's necessary for John's gospel to record everything which the others do, to be believable, it seems to me that believability is a separate issue from knowledge. There is so much to be gained by adding what is not similar between the synoptic gospels, that John's gospel seems to many as a goldmine of new inisight and information about both Jesus Himself, and His teachings, and His preparation of the disciples for their future after He had ascended. For Jesus fans, it's a treasure trove. For those following Jesus in life, and into death, those explanations are most comforting. It could be said that John captured the confusion of the disciples before Jesus' death, and the confidence with which Jesus faced persecution and death, for the most necessary edification of His followers. Questions like 'where are you going?' and, 'how can we know the way?' are imperative, modern questions, even though two thousand years old.

duxrow

12-06-2011, 08:24 AM

gilgal

12-06-2011, 11:44 AM

1. Neither is name of John found in the Book of James. :winking0071:

2. The name "Didymus" used 3 times in John's Gospel -- never in the synoptics.

3. I see Nathanael as a contrast to Thomas. He believed on basis of very little evidence..

Sorry didn't get here sooner (wasn't born in Texas, but made it ASAP) :thumb:

John 1:45 KJV - Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
John 1:46 KJV - And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
John 1:47 KJV - Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
John 1:48 KJV - Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
John 1:49 KJV - Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
John 1:50 KJV - Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
John 1:51 KJV - And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

Jacob's ladder; Jacob who is Israel. Jesus put some faith in the Israelite by saying that he saw him under the fig tree.

duxrow

12-06-2011, 12:03 PM

Doubt if I'd be impressed with a peeping-tom story, but agree it's probably a fig. of speech that meant somethiing to Nathanael -- altho the words of Jesus seem surprised, doncha think? :yo:

heb13-13

12-06-2011, 12:48 PM

Rick, thank you for putting that last post together.

Hi Richard,

When you said:

I don't see that as a problem. The others are called 'synoptic' because they record similar stuff - which helps us to believe them. Once there's triangulation, one doesn't really need a fourth point for accuracy.

There is a brother (in the Lord) I know, who is an artist. When asked whether he has 'free' time for something not on his schedule, he is thinks in shapes. If he can find 'free' time, he calls it 'asymmetric time', and then translates it back into normal English for the rest of us. In this, he reminds me of John's asymmetric perspective, for which we have to find the proper translation.

Regarding Philip and Nathaniel, I absolutely love that insight into how Jesus 'was' with people - how Jesus operated 'when you were under the fig tree I saw you' - as if this is how a normal human being should be able to 'see' (what the Father is showing them), and that He appreciated Nathaniel's childlike honest expression of his thought. Then, He makes Nathaniel a promise which is so rooted in revelation and Hebrew history, that it's irresistable to a man whose disconsolate because he's been waiting for the Messiah with all his heart for years (my paraphrase).

This is beautiful insight to what it was to be living in those days, yet again in captivity, but this time on their home turf. You will notice that it was John and Andrew who had 'heard' was John the Baptist was saying about 'the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world, and taken the offensive to leave following John, so they could start following Jesus. Again, that's a beautiful example of how our hearts are capable of guiding us into greater truth, even though our hearts still need changes to take place for truth to be established in them.

I was reading the end of Luke recently - the Emmaus road portion, and it seemed to me that what happened was almost John's account of hearing of Jesus for the first time - but in reverse. They knew what they were doing when they chose to go with Jesus. Jesus was leading. Jesus was openly revealing Himself to them. They knew who He was (according to John the Baptist). They had asked, 'Rabbi, where do you live?' and He had said, simply, 'Come and see'. In Luke, it's all the other way round. The men are leading (walking along the road) when Jesus finds them and goes with them to where they are going. He tells them things they didn't understand - things they didn't know they didn't understand - and then has to be persuaded (it appears) to stay the night where they are going to be spending it. Then, He reveals Himself by doing something they had seen before, and they 'get it'. Now they know 'who' He is, and that the women's report of Him being alive, are true. Note, Jesus had gone the long way round with them, to bring them to that understanding. When they had mentioned the women on the road, He had said 'O slow of heart to believe what the prophets had written'. He hadn't said, 'O slow of heart to believe what the women told you'. His point seems to have been something they should have known already - which is a challenge to us in our own day -

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

(This verse now reminds me of yesterday, coming across Deuteronomy 29:29 in a thread (which I cannot find now, to comment). Do you recall where you had mentioned it?)

Jesus words on the Emmaus road also agree with, 'If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.' Luke 16:31

So, going back to the perception that it's necessary for John's gospel to record everything which the others do, to be believable, it seems to me that believability is a separate issue from knowledge. There is so much to be gained by adding what is not similar between the synoptic gospels, that John's gospel seems to many as a goldmine of new inisight and information about both Jesus Himself, and His teachings, and His preparation of the disciples for their future after He had ascended. For Jesus fans, it's a treasure trove. For those following Jesus in life, and into death, those explanations are most comforting. It could be said that John captured the confusion of the disciples before Jesus' death, and the confidence with which Jesus faced persecution and death, for the most necessary edification of His followers. Questions like 'where are you going?' and, 'how can we know the way?' are imperative, modern questions, even though two thousand years old.

Hi Charisma,

Really excellent insights. I always appreciate the time and effort you take to break things down.

The Lord teaches by omission quite a bit, I have noticed. We do the same thing in our relationships sometimes without knowing it. I think the Lord always knew what He was trying to get across either by inclusion or omission. It took me awhile in my walk to start looking for what was "missing" in the scriptures and to learn, that it is only missing on paper. As you walk the Word out and prove the Lord, He fills in the blanks so that one sentence in scripture becomes a book to us.

Thank you so much and may the Lord continue to use you,
Rick

Charisma

12-06-2011, 02:05 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

12-06-2011, 02:23 PM

Hi Richard, :)

In answer to your question:
I couldn't see how I could do that either. What makes you think I could?My comment (quoted next)

First, I can't imagine how you can read John's gospel without seeing that Jesus Christ is central to the whole narrative.was the answer to this comment from you:
It simply does not make sense to me that John was talking about the same Jesus .I hope that's cleared up now. :)

Well, not really, because I agree that Jesus Christ is central in "the whole narrative" but still the person and life of the Jesus presented in John's Gospel looks very different than what we see in the synoptics.

You said it wouldn't be a problem to present a continuous narrative of the Passion Week using all four Gospels without omitting any details. I disagree. I think it is probably impossible. As far as I know, it has never been done in the last 2000 years. We have a thread called Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1852-Dan-Barker-s-Resurrection-Challenge) where we discussed this. No one on the forum has yet satisfied the conditions of the challenge. Maybe you could give it a shot?

heb13-13

12-06-2011, 02:30 PM

Well, not really, because I agree that Jesus Christ is central in "the whole narrative" but still the person and life of the Jesus presented in John's Gospel looks very different than what we see in the synoptics.

You said it wouldn't be a problem to present a continuous narrative of the Passion Week using all four Gospels without omitting any details. I disagree. I think it is probably impossible. As far as I know, it has never been done in the last 2000 years. We have a thread called Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1852-Dan-Barker-s-Resurrection-Challenge) where we discussed this. No one on the forum has yet satisfied the conditions of the challenge. Maybe you could give it a shot?

Thanks for the reminder, Richard. I had forgotten about Dan Barker. (so much to do, so little time) :mmph:

Charisma

12-06-2011, 02:41 PM

Hi Charisma,

Really excellent insights. I always appreciate the time and effort you take to break things down.

The Lord teaches by omission quite a bit, I have noticed. We do the same thing in our relationships sometimes without knowing it. I think the Lord always knew what He was trying to get across either by inclusion or omission. It took me awhile in my walk to start looking for what was "missing" in the scriptures and to learn, that it is only missing on paper. As you walk the Word out and prove the Lord, He fills in the blanks so that one sentence in scripture becomes a book to us.

Thank you so much and may the Lord continue to use you,
Rick Hi Rick,

I'm glad you enjoyed it. :) I read it again because of what you said, as a little distance on a piece of writing is always useful, and now I am somewhat horrified at the grammatical mistakes I can see in the post - whose instead of who's, the women's report ... are true, (argh!)!!

Now, about the things the Lord doesn't say, I think often He has said them somewhere, somehow; it's that He's looking for us to remember and continue in obedience, or faith, justifying to ourselves our obedience and faith through the explanation He's given at the time, often hidden in some narrative.

There's a great example of this spelled out in Esther Ibanga's sermon which begins with the life of Abraham. We would think Abraham had obeyed God by leaving his home and travelling to an unknown place. But he had taken his family with him - including his father (probably) and his nephew Lot. Eventually, his father has died, and then, he and Lot separate, but still God is not satisfied. It's not until after He has asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, that God re-affirms the blessing He had given to Abraham many years before, finally justifying His decision in the words, 'because thou hast obeyed my voice.'

God wants us to think for ourselves, at times, and learn how to make decisions which are pleasing to Him.

heb13-13

12-06-2011, 02:51 PM

Hi Rick,

I'm glad you enjoyed it. :) I read it again because of what you said, as a little distance on a piece of writing is always useful, and now I am somewhat horrified at the grammatical mistakes I can see in the post - whose instead of who's, the women's report ... are true, (argh!)!!

Now, about the things the Lord doesn't say, I think often He has said them somewhere, somehow; it's that He's looking for us to remember and continue in obedience, or faith, justifying to ourselves our obedience and faith through the explanation He's given at the time, often hidden in some narrative.

There's a great example of this spelled out in Esther Ibanga's sermon which begins with the life of Abraham. We would think Abraham had obeyed God by leaving his home and travelling to an unknown place. But he had taken his family with him - including his father (probably) and his nephew Lot. Eventually, his father has died, and then, he and Lot separate, but still God is not satisfied. It's not until after He has asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, that God re-affirms the blessing He had given to Abraham many years before, finally justifying His decision in the words, 'because thou hast obeyed my voice.'

God wants us to think for ourselves, at times, and learn how to make decisions which are pleasing to Him.

Hi Charisma,

I see what you mean. And also, as we read the Bible we have the benefit from seeing other's lives, the end from the beginning and vice-versa. We don't have that benefit in this life. But, just let a few years pass by and we may understand the fruit of our earlier decisions. We do have the benefit through God's word of generally knowing what our decisions will yield however, not necessarily specifically.

And object lessons abound all around us not only in our lives but others.

Best to you,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

12-06-2011, 02:54 PM

Thanks for the reminder, Richard. I had forgotten about Dan Barker. (so much to do, so little time) :mmph:
You and me both, brother-man.

I'm flying down to SF tomorrow for a week to attend a four day conference and visit some family and see the City. I'll be checking in a few times every day, but my participation will probably be pretty slim compared to lately. I trust you folks will all behave while I'm gone! :p

heb13-13

12-06-2011, 03:14 PM

You and me both, brother-man.

I'm flying down to SF tomorrow for a week to attend a four day conference and visit some family and see the City. I'll be checking in a few times every day, but my participation will probably be pretty slim compared to lately. I trust you folks will all behave while I'm gone! :p

Have a good :plane: , Richard. I was just in Palo Alto a few weeks back and it is starting to get :specool: so dress warm. I am taking the last 2 weeks of December off and my participation will probably be minimal. :( I'll miss everyone on BWF, but you know how it is? Gotta recharge dem batteries, have fun with the family and catch up on some:aim14:and :pray:.
I appreciate the mutual respect and kindness that everyone shows to one another in this forum. We may throw some :snowfight: but at least we don't throw :bricks:

God bless you and safe travels,
Rick
:anim_32:

Speaking of mutual respect, I sure am missing R.C. Hope he is ok.

Richard Amiel McGough

12-06-2011, 04:21 PM

Have a good :plane: , Richard. I was just in Palo Alto a few weeks back and it is starting to get :specool: so dress warm. I am taking the last 2 weeks of December off and my participation will probably be minimal. :( I'll miss everyone on BWF, but you know how it is? Gotta recharge dem batteries, have fun with the family and catch up on some:aim14:and :pray:.
I appreciate the mutual respect and kindness that everyone shows to one another in this forum. We may throw some :snowfight: but at least we don't throw :bricks:

God bless you and safe travels,
Rick
:anim_32:

Speaking of mutual respect, I sure am missing R.C. Hope he is ok.

Your contributions to this forum are really appreciated Rick. And I'm sure they'll be even better after you get some R&R and recharge those batteries.

I expect a lot of folks will be busy doing family stuff during the last two weeks of December. Then we'll all bring in 2012 with a blast of energy from our refreshed hearts and minds.

RC sent me a PM the other day saying he's been real busy and missed the folks here. I expect him back soon, I hope!

All the best to you my friend,

Richard

Charisma

12-06-2011, 05:46 PM

I see what you mean. And also, as we read the Bible we have the benefit from seeing other's lives, the end from the beginning and vice-versa. We don't have that benefit in this life. But, just let a few years pass by and we may understand the fruit of our earlier decisions. We do have the benefit through God's word of generally knowing what our decisions will yield however, not necessarily specifically.

And object lessons abound all around us not only in our lives but others. Yes, Rick, so true!

RC sent me a PM the other day saying he's been real busy and missed the folks here.Hi Richard, I was wondering where he'd disappeared to. Glad he's okay. :)

heb13-13

12-06-2011, 08:23 PM

Charisma

12-07-2011, 03:12 PM

Hi Richard,

I didn't think my post required an answer! But I see you have a purpose in it - Dan Barker's Challenge.

You said it wouldn't be a problem to present a continuous narrative of the Passion Week using all four Gospels without omitting any details. I disagree. I think it is probably impossible. As far as I know, it has never been done in the last 2000 years. We have a thread called Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge where we discussed this. No one on the forum has yet satisfied the conditions of the challenge. Maybe you could give it a shot? In bolds - you know I didn't really say that. If that is what you thought I said, please re-read my post?

:yo:

I will take a look at Dan Barker's Challenge. It depends how much detail he is looking for. The week is covered, but it's ridiculous to think we have all the details of it. I'm guessing he means just the details given in the gospels.

Richard Amiel McGough

12-07-2011, 03:25 PM

Hi Richard,

I didn't think my post required an answer! But I see you have a purpose in it - Dan Barker's Challenge.

In bolds - you know I didn't really say that. If that is what you thought I said, please re-read my post?

:yo:

I will take a look at Dan Barker's Challenge. It depends how much detail he is looking for. The week is covered, but it's ridiculous to think we have all the details of it. I'm guessing he means just the details given in the gospels.
I'm glad you brought that to my attention. I never want to misrepresent what some one meant! That only leads to confusion and broken communication and endlessly frustrating posts going back and forth and escalating into more and more frustration. Bleh! I want none of that!

Here's what I was thinking. I had written that the Gospels could not be harmonized:

The Holy Spirit would have led him to write the truth, and his story does not cohere with the synoptics if it is interpreted literally. For example, try to write a coherent account for the Passion Week using all four Gospels and leaving nothing out. It can't be done. Rose struggled for over a month to harmonize the account of Christ's visit to Bethany. She tried with all her might. It couldn't be done. I don't see that as a problem. The others are called 'synoptic' because they record similar stuff - which helps us to believe them. Once there's triangulation, one doesn't really need a fourth point for accuracy.
And you answered by saying this:
I don't see that as a problem. The others are called 'synoptic' because they record similar stuff - which helps us to believe them. Once there's triangulation, one doesn't really need a fourth point for accuracy.

There is a brother (in the Lord) I know, who is an artist. When asked whether he has 'free' time for something not on his schedule, he is thinks in shapes. If he can find 'free' time, he calls it 'asymmetric time', and then translates it back into normal English for the rest of us. In this, he reminds me of John's asymmetric perspective, for which we have to find the proper translation.
I took the "I don't see that as a problem" to mean "the Gospels can be easily haromized." But now I see that you probably meant something more like "the differnces are due to different forms of expression. They are not really contradictory." But that doesn't imply it would be easy to harmonize them.

I stil think they can't be harmonized as along as they are taken as literal history. But I see absolutely no problem at all if we take them as parables of the life of Christ.

Charisma

12-08-2011, 10:51 AM

Hi Richard, :)

You did well with retranslating my post!

I took the "I don't see that as a problem" to mean "the Gospels can be easily haromized." But now I see that you probably meant something more like "the differnces are due to different forms of expression. They are not really contradictory." But that doesn't imply it would be easy to harmonize them.

I stil think they can't be harmonized as along as they are taken as literal history. But I see absolutely no problem at all if we take them as parables of the life of Christ. It is not that I think it would be easy to harmonise them, but that I don't think it matters that we find it difficult to do so.

Having looked at Dan Barker's challenge, I won't even attempt it. It's great that some people would like to, and may the Lord bless them in the attempt.

Roberto

12-19-2011, 10:54 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

12-19-2011, 11:34 AM

It's cool that things on the surface of the bible seems confusing, but it makes sense for the believer who search for answers. It's like all the symbolics in Revelation as the last book, so if you understand all wriddles and symbolics in all books before Revelation, Revelation can also be understood.
I think John is the author of gospel of John, and unlike Peter, he understood that Jesus loved John, and all people in the world.

Peter says he loves Jesus
John says Jesus loves him.
Three people are mostly with Jesus.
Peter, James and John. James is actually Jacob which means "replace"
John, means "Gods grace", and Peter which means "stone" is like "the law written in stone.
Them together means for the believer "Gods grace replace the law written in stone."

You will see that this gives more "power and strength" to the believer of grace, as in the story where "the one Jesus loves", outruns Peter when they are running to the empty grave.

And for all the gospels, you can find things in one gospel, that fills in the blanks in other gospels, in the begining, its confusing, but Jesus confuses the people by speaking in parables, so people that dont want to get into it, goes away.
But when we gather together, we learn from eachother what it says, and God Himself will be with us, to explain if we gather together, even alone, if we have the Holy Spirit, we will be already two gathered in His Name:winking0071:
Here is a video from Chris Putman i enjoyed watching about the gospels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGVLeC5HbSQ
Hey there Roberto, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Your method of interpretation adds a lot of depth to the Bible. It reminds me of Chuck Missler's Gospel in Genesis (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/) -

Hebrew
English

Adam
Man

Seth
Appointed

Enosh
Mortal

Kenan
Sorrow;

Mahalalel
The Blessed God

Jared
Shall come down

Enoch
Teaching

Methuselah
His death shall bring

Lamech
The Despairing

Noah
Rest, or comfort.

Which he puts together to say: Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.

In my own studies, I have found a lot of very significant correlations between the fine details in the Gospels and their placement on the Bible Wheel. Things that caused people to doubt the veracity of the Bible now looked like they had been carefully designed in accordance with the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet as laid out, for example, in Psalm 119. The book of Matthew is on Spoke 18 which corresponds to the 18th letter Tzaddi which represents Tzedakah (Righteousness). Therefore, I was amazed to find that Matthew inserted the word "righteousness" in otherwise nearly identical passages found in Luke (this is from my article Solution to the Synoptic Problem (http://www.biblewheel.com/canon/SynopticSolution.asp)):

Parallel Verses where Matthew = Luke + Righteousness

Matthew
Luke

[5:6] Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

[6:21] Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled.

[5:10] Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the king¬dom of heaven.

[6:22] Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.

[6:33] But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

[12:31] But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.

[10:40] He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

[9:48] And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

[13:17] For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

[10:24] For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

[23:35] That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

[11:50] That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

[23:29] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

[11:47] Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

Similar patterns are found in all four Gospels, and indeed, on all the Spokes around the Wheel.

Now on the other hand, we know that Jesus didn't say both things, so a careful analysis of Scripture also teaches us that we cannot interpret the Bible literally. I used to think that the Bible Wheel and similar evidence was "proof" that the Bible was the Word of God. Now I don't know what it means exactly, but I'm thinking that the Bible is like a lens that reveals the "faces of God" not unlike the vairous God's of Hinduism. Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Sustainer, Shiva the Destroyer. So in the OT we see God like the Goddess Kali commanding his people to destroy every man, women, and child in the promised land. The Bible looks like the product of the Cosmic Mind and it reveals the many faces of God.

Getting back to the topic at hand, the omission of James and John from the Fourth Gospel is additional evidence that the whole Bible is parabolic - it cannot be interpreted literally. It simply cannot be "harmonized" as literal history. But neither can we simply reject it, for it bears signs of being an intelligent manifestation of the cosmic mind. So that's how I take it ~ as a "mandala" for devotional meditation upon Ultimate Reality. And that's how it's been used forever anyway. Each person makes of it what they will.

All the best,

Richard

Roberto

12-19-2011, 12:47 PM

Hey there Roberto, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Your method of interpretation adds a lot of depth to the Bible. It reminds me of Chuck Missler's Gospel in Genesis (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/) -

Hebrew
English

Adam
Man

Seth
Appointed

Enosh
Mortal

Kenan
Sorrow;

Mahalalel
The Blessed God

Jared
Shall come down

Enoch
Teaching

Methuselah
His death shall bring

Lamech
The Despairing

Noah
Rest, or comfort.

Which he puts together to say: Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.

In my own studies, I have found a lot of very significant correlations between the fine details in the Gospels and their placement on the Bible Wheel. Things that caused people to doubt the veracity of the Bible now looked like they had been carefully designed in accordance with the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet as laid out, for example, in Psalm 119. The book of Matthew is on Spoke 18 which corresponds to the 18th letter Tzaddi which represents Tzedakah (Righteousness). Therefore, I was amazed to find that Matthew inserted the word "righteousness" in otherwise nearly identical passages found in Luke (this is from my article Solution to the Synoptic Problem (http://www.biblewheel.com/canon/SynopticSolution.asp)):

Parallel Verses where Matthew = Luke + Righteousness

Matthew
Luke

[5:6] Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

[6:21] Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled.

[5:10] Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the king¬dom of heaven.

[6:22] Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.

[6:33] But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

[12:31] But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.

[10:40] He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

[9:48] And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

[13:17] For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

[10:24] For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

[23:35] That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

[11:50] That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

[23:29] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

[11:47] Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

Similar patterns are found in all four Gospels, and indeed, on all the Spokes around the Wheel.

Now on the other hand, we know that Jesus didn't say both things, so a careful analysis of Scripture also teaches us that we cannot interpret the Bible literally. I used to think that the Bible Wheel and similar evidence was "proof" that the Bible was the Word of God. Now I don't know what it means exactly, but I'm thinking that the Bible is like a lens that reveals the "faces of God" not unlike the vairous God's of Hinduism. Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Sustainer, Shiva the Destroyer. So in the OT we see God like the Goddess Kali commanding his people to destroy every man, women, and child in the promised land. The Bible looks like the product of the Cosmic Mind and it reveals the many faces of God.

Getting back to the topic at hand, the omission of James and John from the Fourth Gospel is additional evidence that the whole Bible is parabolic - it cannot be interpreted literally. It simply cannot be "harmonized" as literal history. But neither can we simply reject it, for it bears signs of being an intelligent manifestation of the cosmic mind. So that's how I take it ~ as a "mandala" for devotional meditation upon Ultimate Reality. And that's how it's been used forever anyway. Each person makes of it what they will.

All the best,

Richard

Yes, i have your book, and i have read much of it, and i very much like the patterns of the books of each letter, espesially, on the four gospels, about, John, and the light of the world, much like proverbs many "sun" verses. Or like some of the gospels arameic or hebrew words showing like Talitha Qumi, and Qurban the gift, in Qouph, Gospel of Mark, and all the running of the story:winking0071:
Or the pool of Siloam in Shin, Gospel of John.
And in Luke, who has much "friend,see" "Reyah,Ra'ah", and Luke that is a doctor "ropeh".
Its so cool. We must be dealing with a God of order here:winking0071:

Now, I know also about you not being sure anymore, as i have read a little bit here in the forum and on your blog.
Yes, there are "faces of God", but like the bible has its own telling of god that are not gods, i think that is hindugods and other moon and sun and greek gods. They can have a little bit of the truth, but God of the bible don't want you to go there. You have free choice, as it is said.
Should we go on forever discussing that Jesus is not or may be.? I think i have enough to believe that Jesus is, and wanting to preach Jesus is your Saviour who died for your sins, be really free in that grace, and live a fully life, not caring if the goverment uses you, in the end, you as a believer will use the goverment more, and maybe influencing the goverment if more and more people really believe in Jesus and want to sin no more, we will have a good goverment.
Show the goverment that we are people that do not steal and do our work instead of complaing all the time, and be something that the goverment can really benifit from, then, maybe they will understand that this is Jesus working in us that does them good, and may be repenting from their corruption. But if they corrupt you, and you have the law on your side, don't turn your cheek like you surrender, turn your cheek to the left, then you show that your challenging the corruption against you. Have you ever seen in movies that a challenge is brought forth by someone taking their glove, and slapping the other on the left cheek with their right hand? Thats how to interpret the turning of cheek, you say, do you have the right to do that by turning the cheek, not, i surrender.
We are transformed by the grace of God to be good people of the world, and tell the world that it is the grace of God, not by law, but by grace and truth of Jesus.
The goverment in China is realising that the best chinese workers is christians, and now they want the gospel to be preached more and more, so they can have good workers there.

Im from Norway by the way, if you remember, i greet myself with, "excuse my bad english":lol:

Richard Amiel McGough

12-19-2011, 01:53 PM

Yes, i have your book, and i have read much of it, and i very much like the patterns of the books of each letter, espesially, on the four gospels, about, John, and the light of the world, much like proverbs many "sun" verses. Or like some of the gospels arameic or hebrew words showing like Talitha Qumi, and Qurban the gift, in Qouph, Gospel of Mark, and all the running of the story:winking0071:
Or the pool of Siloam in Shin, Gospel of John.
And in Luke, who has much "friend,see" "Reyah,Ra'ah", and Luke that is a doctor "ropeh".
Its so cool. We must be dealing with a God of order here:winking0071:

Now, I know also about you not being sure anymore, as i have read a little bit here in the forum and on your blog.
Yes, there are "faces of God", but like the bible has its own telling of god that are not gods, i think that is hindugods and other moon and sun and greek gods. They can have a little bit of the truth, but God of the bible don't want you to go there. You have free choice, as it is said.

Yes, there are many amazing things in the Bible, and the Bible Wheel helps see some more of them. And yes, that indicates that "God" is a "God of order" in some sense, but does that mean that the Bible should be interpreted literally? I don't think so. And it is that literal interpretation that messes with people's heads ... and hearts. We need to follow our own intuitions since otherwise we are following what??? Another man's interpretations? So we must follow our own understanding. And when I look at the Bible, I see that Yahweh, as the God of the OT, is often very cruel and savage and commands things that I do not agree with. So why should I believe in that God? It helps if I think of the Bible as revealing many "faces of God" not unlike Hinduism. Here is a pic of Kali - she looks a lot like Yahweh in the OT:

246

Here is how she is described:

Kali is The Slayer of Time & Death; The Destroyer of Illusion. Kali literally means 'death' and 'time", but also 'black'. sickle, represents the state where time, space and causation have disappeared. She is both the destroyer and creatrix. She holds a sickle, wears a girdle of severed arms, a necklace of skulls or severed heads, earrings of children's corpses, cobras as bracelets or garlands. Her mouth is blood-smeared. She is accompanied by she-demons.

Now there also are hints in the Bible that Yahweh was originally part of the pantheon of Canaanite gods:

Psa 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty [gods]; he judgeth among the gods.

And the title "El Elyon" (God most high) was apparently the name of the top Canaanite god (El Elyon). You can read about that here (http://fuzzyquark.comxa.com/gods.html). So it seems to me that we need to think about the Bible and if it really is from a Supreme Intelligence this is exactly what he would want us to do! The fruit of "blind faith" is very bitter and deadly. Just look at those who followed Hitler. If God wants anything from us he wants us to think for ourselves. Else we would be fools and easily used for evil.

Should we go on forever discussing that Jesus is not or may be.? I think i have enough to believe that Jesus is, and wanting to preach Jesus is your Saviour who died for your sins, be really free in that grace, and live a fully life, not caring if the goverment uses you, in the end, you as a believer will use the goverment more, and maybe influencing the goverment if more and more people really believe in Jesus and want to sin no more, we will have a good goverment.

Show the goverment that we are people that do not steal and do our work instead of complaing all the time, and be something that the goverment can really benifit from, then, maybe they will understand that this is Jesus working in us that does them good, and may be repenting from their corruption. But if they corrupt you, and you have the law on your side, don't turn your cheek like you surrender, turn your cheek to the left, then you show that your challenging the corruption against you. Have you ever seen in movies that a challenge is brought forth by someone taking their glove, and slapping the other on the left cheek with their right hand? Thats how to interpret the turning of cheek, you say, do you have the right to do that by turning the cheek, not, i surrender.
We are transformed by the grace of God to be good people of the world, and tell the world that it is the grace of God, not by law, but by grace and truth of Jesus.
The goverment in China is realising that the best chinese workers is christians, and now they want the gospel to be preached more and more, so they can have good workers there.

Im from Norway by the way, if you remember, i greet myself with, "excuse my bad english":lol:
Some people need to have their "sins forgiven." We're not all like that. It doesn't even make sense when we read the bible because it is talking about the Jewish "law" which I was never told to obey, and so I didn't need to be made free from it!

It's really funny how many confused ideas become obvious as soon as you begin thinking freely about what the Bible really says. Gentiles were never under the "law" so they did not need to be freed from it! Hummm ... think about that for a while ...

Great chatting,

Richard

Roberto

12-19-2011, 02:31 PM

Yes, there are many amazing things in the Bible, and the Bible Wheel helps see some more of them. And yes, that indicates that "God" is a "God of order" in some sense, but does that mean that the Bible should be interpreted literally? I don't think so. And it is that literal interpretation that messes with people's heads ... and hearts. We need to follow our own intuitions since otherwise we are following what??? Another man's interpretations? So we must follow our own understanding. And when I look at the Bible, I see that Yahweh, as the God of the OT, is often very cruel and savage and commands things that I do not agree with. So why should I believe in that God? It helps if I think of the Bible as revealing many "faces of God" not unlike Hinduism. Here is a pic of Kali - she looks a lot like Yahweh in the OT:

246

Here is how she is described:

Kali is The Slayer of Time & Death; The Destroyer of Illusion. Kali literally means 'death' and 'time", but also 'black'. sickle, represents the state where time, space and causation have disappeared. She is both the destroyer and creatrix. She holds a sickle, wears a girdle of severed arms, a necklace of skulls or severed heads, earrings of children's corpses, cobras as bracelets or garlands. Her mouth is blood-smeared. She is accompanied by she-demons.

Now there also are hints in the Bible that Yahweh was originally part of the pantheon of Canaanite gods:

Psa 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty [gods]; he judgeth among the gods.

And the title "El Elyon" (God most high) was apparently the name of the top Canaanite god (El Elyon). You can read about that here (http://fuzzyquark.comxa.com/gods.html). So it seems to me that we need to think about the Bible and if it really is from a Supreme Intelligence this is exactly what he would want us to do! The fruit of "blind faith" is very bitter and deadly. Just look at those who followed Hitler. If God wants anything from us he wants us to think for ourselves. Else we would be fools and easily used for evil.

Some people need to have their "sins forgiven." We're not all like that. It doesn't even make sense when we read the bible because it is talking about the Jewish "law" which I was never told to obey, and so I didn't need to be made free from it!

It's really funny how many confused ideas become obvious as soon as you begin thinking freely about what the Bible really says. Gentiles were never under the "law" so they did not need to be freed from it! Hummm ... think about that for a while ...

Great chatting,

Richard

I could make a god right now, call him Boomshakala, and tell things about him in different ways, and then you could see that this looks a little bit like God in the bible. Its how we see god, and then make a story of him. You are to believe whatever you want. But i think thatwhen we gather together with the bible, and ask eachother and answer eachother, we are to eat the words of the bible, and the different oppinions of the people gathered, when many come to same conclusion, it might be the Spirit of God involved for those answers that many agree. So God wants us to have His Spirit to tell whats the truth in what you read, of course there are many that follow their own intuition, but many hide their intuition, because it has evil intension, and when their intution tell them that Jesus isnt true, they can use evil intension in weak people that many christians are. Just trying to say that following your own intuition can lead you to alot of me,me,me, which dosent have room for Jesus, as if Jesus isnt gonna do them good. I think so in my life.
Alot of people need their sins forgiven, be cleansed to start over again. And as repenting seems harsh, its just meaning to turn around, dont go in the ways of sins, God is in the other direction. We are all under some kind of law. Each nation has a law, that we shall follow, if you do this, you are a good person. But the problem with law, is that it gives power to sin. The more laws, the more confusing and not being able to do all, and break you one, you can just slowly break other laws, and worse and worse.

But its not about showing off on the outside that you are a good person, Jesus is about cleansing you inside and out. This is the heaven inside us.
Your flesh will not like it, espesially if your watching all the bad media today, i know my flesh will have to fight Jesus inside me to feel better. I know its a good struggle, that struggle is in the law as well, if you are bad, you will hate the law, but you can trick the law, Jesus you have to cast out.
But as Peter who is a picture of the law, when John outruns him to the grave, it shows how Gods grace is much better and stronger then following some outward laws.
And as a new-believer i was to think that i had to be holy immediatley, or else, i was bad. That was the worst part of my life.
But after hearing Joseph Prince, i understood Grace-teaching, and seeing words in the bible i did'nt see before when i had my "lawish" eyes on.
Almost all NT is about Gods grace for us, put our eyes on Jesus, the tree of life. It is truly finished, the bride is cleansing, much faster than if were to trust on our selves.

Richard Amiel McGough

12-19-2011, 03:25 PM

I could make a god right now, call him Boomshakala, and tell things about him in different ways, and then you could see that this looks a little bit like God in the bible. Its how we see god, and then make a story of him. You are to believe whatever you want. But i think that when we gather together with the bible, and ask each other and answer each other, we are to eat the words of the bible, and the different oppinions of the people gathered, when many come to same conclusion, it might be the Spirit of God involved for those answers that many agree. So God wants us to have His Spirit to tell whats the truth in what you read, of course there are many that follow their own intuition, but many hide their intuition, because it has evil intension, and when their intution tell them that Jesus isnt true, they can use evil intension in weak people that many christians are. Just trying to say that following your own intuition can lead you to alot of me,me,me, which dosent have room for Jesus, as if Jesus isnt gonna do them good. I think so in my life.

Well, that's the funny thing about our own "intuition" - each person is using their own "intuition" even when they say they are not. Of if they really are not, then they have lost their soul to "another" and are only doing what they are "told" by the "other" who they have placed over themselves. There really is no other choice - you either do what you personally think is right, or you subject yourself to another.

The Bible is a perfect example. Take a hundred people and let them each read the Bible without any input from anyone else. Then put them in a room to talk about what it "really means." You will find a thousand different opinions! And that's just from a hundred people! It's a fascinating challenge - there's no way to avoid our personal responsibility.

Alot of people need their sins forgiven, be cleansed to start over again. And as repenting seems harsh, its just meaning to turn around, dont go in the ways of sins, God is in the other direction. We are all under some kind of law. Each nation has a law, that we shall follow, if you do this, you are a good person. But the problem with law, is that it gives power to sin. The more laws, the more confusing and not being able to do all, and break you one, you can just slowly break other laws, and worse and worse.

Yes, that is true - but it evokes the question of Why do people feel a need to be forgiven? Who told them they were "guilty" in the first place? Guilty of what? Throughout most of Christian history, the children were taught that they were born sinners - guilty because they were children of Adam and so they inherited his guilt. Do you believe that? I don't, and it's a very strange doctrine because guilt only makes sense for things that you are responsible for, and no one is responsible for Adam's sin. But even so, modern Christian teachers teach this doctrine. Hank Hanegraaff says that if you don't like being accounted guilty for Adam's sin, then you probably wouldn't like being found innocent on account of Christ's righteousness. And to that I say "Right on!" What does it even mean to say that I am "righteous" because of what Christ did? I find the whole topic terribly confusing.

But its not about showing off on the outside that you are a good person, Jesus is about cleansing you inside and out. This is the heaven inside us.

Yes, that makes lots of sense - when our hearts are cleansed by pure intention for the good.

Your flesh will not like it, espesially if your watching all the bad media today, i know my flesh will have to fight Jesus inside me to feel better. I know its a good struggle, that struggle is in the law as well, if you are bad, you will hate the law, but you can trick the law, Jesus you have to cast out.
But as Peter who is a picture of the law, when John outruns him to the grave, it shows how Gods grace is much better and stronger then following some outward laws.
And as a new-believer i was to think that i had to be holy immediatley, or else, i was bad. That was the worst part of my life.
But after hearing Joseph Prince, i understood Grace-teaching, and seeing words in the bible i did'nt see before when i had my "lawish" eyes on.
Almost all NT is about Gods grace for us, put our eyes on Jesus, the tree of life. It is truly finished, the bride is cleansing, much faster than if were to trust on our selves.
Well, I can understand the basic "idea" of the "law" but not the way it's used in the Bible since there is seems to be talking about the specific commandments of the OT which weren't very "righteous" at all. I mean, what does avoiding seafood or resting on Saturday have to do with authentic righteousness? And besides, as a Gentile those laws never applied to me anyway. So what "law" was I freed from?

And now that I am free from religion, I feel no "struggle" between my desires and some "law." On the contrary, I know my heart wants what is good, and so I am at peace. When I see women on TV that might appeal to my flesh I acknowledge that truth, but I also see the greater reality that my fleshly desires would lead to pain if allowed to rule, so I don't let them "rule." I have a wife and we love each other and my whole life is peaceful and good if I find satisfaction "drinking from my own fountain." This is basic wisdom that any enlightened soul would know. And it's in the book of Proverbs too. So where is the big struggle? It vanishes when you open your eyes and see the light.

Great chatting,

Richard