Dave and lance discussion post for cleaner comments

29 thoughts on “Dave and lance discussion post for cleaner comments

  1. Hi Lance,

    I’m sorry, I think I have gotten pretty lost between your posts over the past day — between this thread, the other one, the prayer you posted.

    I have understood you to say that you and I have different Gods (and that I can have my blessed place in heaven with him while you’re in Hell — you’re cool with that. You sounded a little angry though.) And, I have understood you to say that you and I have the same God.

    I have understood you to say that we agree on The Big Story, and I have understood you to say that it is pointless to talk about it because we can only talk about what we each think it is.

    And, in your prayer, you don’t sound very hopeful. You don’t sound like you expect to be heard.

    I don’t know what would be the most helpful way to respond. Is there something in particular you would like me to pay attention to?

    1. Im not angry. sorry; on text sometimes things can come across that are intended.
      I was trying to making a point, which I have brought up before, about the question of what happens to people who don’t accept Christ. Perhaps I was being a bit too presumptuous. What happens to them?

      I don’t think it is pointless, but from my end often (but not only with you) in the discussion it appears that there indeed points that would seem to require a kind of turn (from my perspective), but no turn is taken (in the discussion). This appears to me odd, but it happens again and again with various people Ive talked with.

      What happens is, it appears to me, that when there is no other option, the person does not take that option and actually then reverts back into a line of argument that I thought we had already discussed. The lends me to make the observation that people cannot escape their truth, even if their truth is that they can choose between truths. At some point in the conversation the next step, it seems to me, not merely cannot be made by them, and it is not merely that they think it makes no sense or is nonsense or illogical or something of that sort. It appears to me that the next step is entirely inconceivable to them. So what I try to do is present the picture in a slightly, perhaps more conceivable manner. But then what happens (almost invariably) is that they answer with a question or issue that I feel we already resolved earlier in the conversation.

      To reiterate: Our discussions appears to me to move along certain vectors of meaning that reduce to a certain point where the other person resorts back into discussion what we already resolved. Its as if they argue in a circle that they cannot see.

      every line of discussion eventually lead to a necessary conclusion that it appears the person cannot make, and no matter how many ways I describe the meaningful results of this conclusion, the simply cannot understand what I am presenting.

      It is quite odd.

      *

      So the conclusion from this situation is that people have their truth and they cannot get beyond it.

      It doesn’t mean we can’t still talk or discuss. If nothing else occurs, Im hoping that through our discussion I will be relived of this option tat no on else seems to comprehend. lol Or the someone will be able to make the necessary move. Either way, it does really matter. If anything, I get better versed in the Bible. 🙂

      __

      It does kind of sound like a prayer, huh? Its actually a song I wrote 30 years ago when I was 18 or 19. It is a kind a description of what was going on back then with me, and at that a poetic descpriton of the conceptual bind many of us find ourselves in in the consideration of what God might be and out reaction to It.

      Actually, I think it describes a certain state of being.

      *

      And I suppose I do get in the mode of trying pointing out contradictions in Christianity.

      For example: If we come to God by God’s grace through Jesus, then how do I choose to be in God’s grace?

      1. Maybe your question about grace is an example of where you see a turn needing to be taken.

        Grace extended and grace received are different things. Does that matter?

        In the past, you have also said that it doesn’t matter whether or not Jesus died and rose from the dead. I disagree. What is the turn that can happen in that case?

        You asked me what happens to a person who does not receive Jesus. Is this statement from 1 John 5 helpful:

        “And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have God’s Son does not have life.”

        And — you are familiar with this — The Bible indicates that a day is coming when this will become a horrifying reality for those who don’t have God’s Son.

      2. People do not need Jesus outside of the story. “A rose…”

        You k ow Anslem’s argument for the prof of God is something like this: think of the greatest thing possible. There is something that exists that is the greatest of any category. We can think it because it exists and we can find evidence of it. So then think of that which is even greater than what is greatest. This too must exist even if it is inductive, because we can think it. God is that which exceeds all categories.
        Something like that.

        We could apply this manner to our situation of The Big Story. Th Big Story is the greatest (most complete telling) of existence. Is there a story that is even more complete?

        John simply says that a person which does not have Christ does not live or will not have eternal life.

        If I look around it is obvious to me that there are many people who live who do not have Christ. So that leads me to think he must be speaking of something else besides the life that I notice when I look around.

        So the same with Eternal life. I should think he is also referring to something other than what I think of when I consider what eternal life is.

        So likewise maybe I should ponder what a horrifying reality is in this same context. (Does he really say ‘horrifying reality??).

      3. You asked if there is a story that is more complete. No. I understand that we could never have the complete story — every detail of every moment in the universe’s history. But, when I speak of The Big Story, I am referring to our essential story, the one that most faithfully expresses the story that all of humanity shares. So, when you ask me if there is a story that is essentially more complete than The Bible’s story, I say that I don’t think there is. If there is, I am interested in hearing it.

        So, when you say that people don’t need Jesus outside the story, that sounds like nonsense to me. The Big Story is, by definition, the story we all share, the story within which we all live. It could only be the case that people don’t need Jesus within the story.

        The words “horrifying reality” were my words. John’s words were within the quotation marks.

      4. Ansley’s proposal is that because we are capable of having the idea, it necessarily exists, even if this existence is only in the mind.

        So, if we follow Anslem, because you can understand me, because you can entertain the idea “a more complete Big Story” it necessarily exists.

        My next post has to do with the aspects of his idea.

        There are two things going on:

        1) the thought that is understanding the concept could be true or false.

        2) believing that the concept is true

        Anslem’s proposal is that this state is unstable and will necessarily resolve itself within the concept itself.

        For his example, though, is about God. That because someone can know what I mean when I say God, God necessarily exists. And, In so much as they may not believe in God, there is a unstable condition that will inevitably resolve in their affirmation of God.

      5. I haven’t really found Anselm’s ontological argument to be very compelling. And, as it has to do with applying this approach to The Big Story in order to point to a more complete story, that doesn’t strike me as being an especially helpful route to take.

        First, our story certainly is more detailed than we know. Second, just because we can imagine any number of things or events, it wouldn’t mean that they have been a part of our story.

        I think there are better approaches to discovering and clarifying our essential story, the most faithful telling of The Big Story.

      6. I guess that kinda goes to the question of different kinds of Christianity. It is Saint Anslem. A Benedictine monk.

        How does the Big Story account for various types of Christianity?

      7. I guess we could take Anselm’s ontological argument as an opportunity to talk about differences within Christianity, but I would rather not. I don’t think there is really anything uniquely Catholic about his ontological argument, for one thing.

        What about your question about grace? (I asked if it matters that there is a difference between grace extended and grace received.)

        What about your perspective that it doesn’t matter whether Jesus died and rose from the dead or not?

        What about your statement that people don’t need Jesus outside of the story?

        What about The Bible’s statement that whoever has Jesus has life, and whoever does not have Jesus does not have life?

        These all seem like they could provide you with better opportunities to highlight points at which our conversation could turn.

  2. When you say that you want someone to prove to you that what you know is incorrect, I’m not sure what you are driving at. But in this discussion, I think it’s fair to say that your paraphrase of Jesus’ interaction with Martha, and your characterization of what is being communicated between them, is incorrect.

    Yes, it is by grace that we are saved, and God has chosen to extend that grace to us. In the most faithful telling of our story, that grace is extended to us effectively and exclusively through Jesus.

    1. Just saying someone is incorrect doesn’t prove to them that they’re incorrect. We could go on the rest of our lives talking back-and-forth, and we probably will do a lot more talking for sure it’s great thank you- there are many things that people can bring up and argue with me that can change my opinion. For example when you re-framed the people that were with Mary and Lazarus. I know that’s probably a small thing but it is a case in point where through our discussion you showed me where I was wrong and so I had to capitulate and agree with that point. It didn’t really go so far as to change my whole view the situation, but you did change my opinion of that one instance.
      It is very apparent to me that my view upon the Bible is not shared by very many people. Most people cannot even stand to get even their big toe wet in this kind of discussion.

      I know that you don’t agree with me, but as I keep saying, most of the things that you say I agree with but then when I go into a description about how I describe what you’re saying then you say that you don’t agree with me. Lol

      I think it is a certain type, what I call an orientation of view upon things. I do not feel it’s necessary, I in certain cases I don’t feel compelled to have to reduce everything to an eventual one thing again For example, I’m not saying that I am right and you are wrong. I’m saying that we’re both right. That most people cannot bear to have that kind of understanding set within their conception of things.

      So when I say that I want to be proven wrong it’s because everything that I say is a question. Even though it might sound like a declarative order imperative or command or an opinion or an ethical standpoint, everything I say is up to be challenged and indeed is asking for challenge. I behave as if there is a truth that I’m trying to get across to people, but really all they are his questions. For example, if I say that everything I say is a question and the question that is inherent in that statement is “really”? And maybe for their “how is it possible” or maybe “what do you mean by that”. Basically I approach everything that I say within the possibility that it could be wrong and I’m waiting for something to show me where it’s wrong in a manner that I can’t deny, in a manner that I can’t come back with a reason that’s at least as possible.

      I’m just asking that if God’s grace, his forgiveness, goes beyond all human conception, then why does he wait for me to make a choice but on a particular way of saying things? Why would it be and so important that particular words come out my mouth? Can’t God see into my heart? Doesn’t God already know everything that I’m going to do even before I do it?

      I think that God gave me these capacities to question and so for him to turn around and say don’t question this one particular thing I’m gonna say well thank you then I guess you just lost another soulSLol

      I want to know , I want to be convinced.

      For example, I don’t know what your opinion on people who are gay is. But I think it kind of goes back to the well known rebuttal to the accusation that gay people are sinful or somehow are being lustful and taking the easy way out or something like that: Gay people will say, or they have said in the past, it’s much more difficult to be gay then it is to be heterosexual in this world. No one would choose to be gay.

      I want to be convinced just because there is this book that says all these things doesn’t really mean one thing or another and the perfect example of this is because I have a perfect understanding of what the Bible is saying but it’s not the same perfect understanding that you have. How are you going to speak to me Bible verses that do not automatically fit into my understanding that already have a van?

      .

      1. I’m glad for the opportunity to discuss these things with you over the past few years.

        I don’t think I have a good understanding of what you think we agree on when we discuss The Bible. In fact, as I have listened to your thoughts on John 11 recently, my prevailing thought is, “Man, are you ever butchering this passage!”

        ***

        What are the particular words that you feel like you are being required to say?

        What is the thing that you feel like God is not allowing you to question?

        I’m glad to talk about sexuality sometime, but it seems a little off-topic right now.

      2. The NIV version: “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.” Now, this is a butchering of it.

        I know the traditional version: Lazarus gets sick and dies. they tell Jesus, He comes. He says its good that this happened so I can prove to you all that I am indeed the son of God. He brings him back to life.

        The point is that human beings are so separated from God that God had to send a his Son in the form of a human being down in order to do various things so that some people will believe in God who is so lonely and bored that he had to make a grand universal game where humans are the pieces, and we live in the great test called life to see if we will fall in line with Gods plan or goto hell for eternity.

        Hows that for butchery?

        I read the modern translations of the Bible and to me it has lost all meaning. I can’t even really explain it here.

        when did sex come up? lol

        You are not allowed to question God. Adam was not allowed to eat the fruit.

        I don’t think there is any amount of sense that is going to make me understand who God would create a human being who he knows is going to sin, and then unfold time for the purpose of doing things so only a few people ‘come back’. It just seems silly to me.

        But it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It just means that it doesn’t matter to me. I want someone to show me something that makes me care about this God who wants me to believe in Jesus or goto hell.

        Regardless of what you think is true, the basic and fundamental fact is that your truth condemns me because I have a God who actually love everyone unconditionally.

        So thats fine. If you are Ok with it thats great to. But then you have to admit some harsh facts about what you condor love and justice. Its cool if you get to goto heaven and I fry in hell. Its cool that you get to sit up in eternal happiness and God blessedness, or whatever, and know that I am fretting and gnashing my teeth in hell.

        Im good with it too.

      3. You have a God who actually loves everyone unconditionally, and you will not tell me the story of humanity and that God? I don’t understand.

        Sexuality. . . . You wondered about how I view gay people.

      4. oh right. sex. we don’t need to get into that. lol

        The story is in the Bible. Its like I said: I agree with you; it is you that doesnt seem to agree with me. I agree that it is the Big Story of the development of humanity in history. and follows a ‘divine order’ that such and such happened and will happen… yes. ;

        Lets try examples from : John 13 and 14

        ““For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

        “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

        I say: Yes.
        You say: Yes.

        so what.

        My questions go into every term: what is God? What is his son? what is it to believe? What does it mean ‘perish”? What is eternal life?

        Now. these questions never arose toward a route to knowing. These questions occur after and indicate the route of understanding, rather than lead to understanding. They indicate what is already occurring.

        I say snow doesn’t need my faith. It requires only that I experience snow. You said as much about the Big Story: It doesn’t need you faith for it to be true. So I have said: I know this is in you, but you will not admit it because you are incapable of admitting something that is not already true to you. Even if you chose not to believe, it would be a false belief because you would be going against what you already know.

        Once I have experienced snow, there is no amount of believing or choosing I have in the knowledge of snow, what it is, what it does, how it communicates, my relationship to it, etc.. All questions and answers about snow are delivered to my knowledge of snow as it is, regardless of what I believe about it or choose to think about it.

        So it is with the Bible. Christ is the door. He is the shepherd. the way the life. the truth. He is the alpha and omega, not just the end, but both. Through Christ one knows the father because Christ and God are one. Christ does the works but the father does the works. they are inseparable. Once a person knows Christ, then he knows God; Jesus says “How come you say you know me and yet not know the father?” Once this situation is known, in the same way as someone knows snow, that person no longer needs Christ as a belief: One does not need a belief in what snow is after they have encountered snow. It is only before the encounter with snow that someone needs someone else to tell them about it and then choose whether to believe it or not.

        How much more obvious can Jesus and the Bible be: I am the Way. the way to God. the Truth: Once the truth is known, there is no more choice in the matter: It is the truth. I am the life: I cannot be separated out from life: I am “the Life” itself. Christ is the manner by which a person comes to God (the way), finds out the truth about life. Christ shepherds a person to God, and is the door, call his sheep by name, but because he and the father are one, once the door is used, and the shepherd takes the person to God, Christ really stops being in play, again, except as a story to tell people about what occurred.

        When a person still needs to worship Christ as as sort of only right way to be, they are being like the Pharisees who Jesus told “It is not sufficient to have Abraham as your ancestor”. It is not sufficient, for the understanding that Christ is, to merely adhere to traditional lineage of thinking. God is God. When a person knows Christ they know God. When this occurs the ‘sin’ of separation no longer has meaning because Christ has absolved one from such tempering knowledge. One has as a matter of fact ‘believed in Christ’ totally, actually believed what he has to say totally. One then knows Christ and God because one ‘believed’ Christ was the ‘Way’. So one then takes ‘the way’ and finds God is not separate from Christ, but indeed, because of Christ, one is no longer separated from God.

        What other verses have I butchered? 🙂

        If Hwy 10 is the way to get to Los Anglels, once Im in LA I don’t need HWY 10 anymore. It is only when Im in Michigan that I know that HWY 10 is the way, that I believe it is the way and must continue to believe that HWY 10 goes to LA. Once I get to LA it no longer matters except as a kind of ‘story’ to tell about what happened.

        The Bible is a story about a small number of people who had an experience. They are speaking in a manner so that people who ‘have been called’ know that it indeed is true, but also what most likely will happen to them.

        The only difference between you “Yes” above, and my “yes” is one of orientation, and not ‘belief’.

        The real issue his whether I am going to hell for blasphemy, or to the asylum for insanity.
        🙂

      5. The Interesting oddity is that one does not disprove the other. In fact both are necessary and involved with the other in a kind of discursive semantic dance.

        That’s why the Pharisees get upset; because they think Jesus is telling them that they’re wrong, and he’s only telling them that they’re wrong in as much as they see that he is telling them that they are wrong. Jesus is actually saying hey I’m only talking to these people over here thank you for your participation

      6. … he saying that the Pharisees are making themselves wrong through a particular kind of interpretation that is missing the point of the discussion

      7. So as I say, I am only disagreeing with you in as much as you might see that I am trying to tell you your interpretation is incorrect. I am saying that there are two meanings to be had that do not reduce to the other. And I am saying the Bible expresses this dichotomy.

      8. I mean think about it: the Bible is the story. Why do you need to fill me in on what it’s really saying? It’s The Big Story. What we are telling each other about it is not The Big Story. We are telling each other what we think The Story of The Story is. If the Big Story was sufficient in its meaning, why would I have to tell you what it’s really saying?

  3. I sent a brief comment a while ago, but maybe I accidentally buried it in the old threads.

    Anyway, this conversation got going with you asking me what, in particular, the Gospel of John says that Jesus did that you have shown little regard for.

    I think your treatment of John 11:25-27 is a pretty good example.

    The Bible says:

    Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

    “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

    Jesus makes a remarkable statement about His identity and power in this passage. It’s a very Jesus-centered statement, and He calls on Martha to answer with a statement of belief.

    Several times, just in our conversation, I think you have been dismissive of her explicit response, paraphrasing it as something like, “Yep, OK, thanks. Now, I’m going to get Mary.”

    I don’t think that’s a good paraphrase, and I don’t think that what is essentially going on in this passage is Jesus reminding Martha of a basic, innate knowledge or understanding that they share. I think you are showing little regard for the specific statement Jesus makes about Himself, His request for a specific response from Martha to Himself, and her specific, explicit, and remarkable-in-its-Biblical-context response to Jesus.

    1. I just think it is remarkable that nothing else occurs between them, or the bible doesn’t say anything.

      Here, maybe if I try to put it in a slightly different context. and yes, it is vastly different in historical scope.

      I come up to you and I say “Darth Vader is my father and because of that I am string in the force and will bring peace to the world”

      Note your response. Right now. Notice it.

      Why wouldn’t Martha have a similar response to what Jesus said. Why wouldn’t she say (in effect) “wow. did you drink too much wine?”

      or even with a tiny bit of faith “wow man, thats totally cool; and that involves me how? Sounds good; can you tell me how I am involved”.

      I think it speaks in a similar manner about the ‘fishers of men’ earlier. Why did they follow Jesus? It may well be that God moved them, but I ask how it manifests humanly. What is the ‘interface’. What occurs in a person? I think Jesus spoke in a certain fashion that allowed them to see that he knew what they knew. To say something like ‘Jesus is the son of God and they recognized that’, or ‘he had a magical power’, or ‘God moved them’, doesn’t really say very much and, frankly, demands that one chooses to believe it or not. I think the bible is speaking directly of simple matters and not ‘encoding’ any larger meaning. Or rather, that to see the bible as encoding larger human matters evidences a particular human way of coming upon the world; it is not incorrect, it is merely a usual and common manner.

      Strangely enough; I seem to have been given a view that does not require of me to ‘believe’; the story makes perfect sense without me having to choose anything about it: it is as if I was/am indeed ‘given’ a complete cogent meaning. I wonder why most people, it seems, have not had a similar experience.

      And, I realize that Star Wars is merely a popular movie, but so far as both of us do indeed know the reference, I think this is a good analogy, because Jesus and Martha were both Jews; they would know the references. (we could discuss what the difference between culture and religion is elsewhere. lol)

      So, what is it that grants Jesus significance to Martha, but not to, say, the Jews who were with Mary at this time? What is going on in the various human beings that some believed and others did not? Why does Jesus constantly have to correct people and not others?

      I think Martha is using ‘believe’ in a different sense that the ‘regular’ sense. It seems to me there are many instances of various other Jews and Pharisees who ‘believe’ and Jesus says to them every time that such ‘believing’ is not enough.

      1. I’m sorry, I must have forgotten to check the “Notify me of new comments” box. I didn’t realize that you had made another comment.

        I don’t know that it’s remarkable that “nothing else occurs between them.” If you look at the opening verses of the chapter, it looks like this event takes place in the context of a relationship that Jesus had with this family. The mourners’ statement, “See how he loved him” (verse 36) also suggests this. I don’t know that we should assume that Martha is having her “Darth Vader is my father” moment with Jesus in John 11. It seems possible, and even likely, that she’s had some of those moments before this event.

        And, I don’t know how remarkable it is that “the bible doesn’t say anything” about Martha’s reaction. Although you are interested in the “interface” and “what occurs in a person” in an interaction like this, it doesn’t look like explaining the mechanics of what occurs in a person is a priority for the writer of the book of John — at least in this passage.

        It bothers you that saying “something like ‘Jesus is the son of God and they recognized that’, or ‘he had a magical power’, or ‘God moved them’, doesn’t really say very much and, frankly, demands that one chooses to believe it or not.” But, in John 20, the writer says that this is exactly why he has written this book:

        “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31)

        So, when you say that you think The Bible is “speaking directly of simple matters,” it seems to me that the central, simple and direct matters in this story are that
        – Lazarus was dead,
        – Jesus raised him from the dead,
        – Jesus claimed to be the resurrection and the life
        – Jesus asked Martha if she believed this
        – Martha said “Yes,” and she detailed her belief by telling him that she believed that He is “the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

        And, the writer of John is explicit in stating his purpose in writing this story and his entire book, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

        Your simple and direct approach to the book of John doesn’t seem as simple and direct.

      2. It is simple and direct because I can’t escape the meaning has been given to me. I didn’t choose it. It is obvious.

        It appears as not simple or direct to you because (I would imagine) that you interpret the Bible through teachings and guidance from others through you life, such that at some point you realized you had a choice involved in the interpretation. (Or probably something like that. you can correct me of course.)

        I am saying that I had no choice upon the obvious and clear understanding I had/have of the bible. One day I read the Bible and the teachings that I had been taught just changed form (in a manner of speaking). I did not choose this. I had no thought on the matter, no cause to rebel against. No reason not to believe what I have been taught. No consideration as to what I am supposed to believe. In fact, when this different meaning appeared I doubted it, as I still doubt it.

        I mean, in my youth as a Lutheran, I did question why it was necessary to go to communion when the point of our religion was to have a one on one relationship with God. I wasn’t sure why I would need to goto church if the church has done its job at instilling in me a one on one with God. Indeed. I was living my religion as I was taught: I had a one on one relationship with God, and God guided me in life. In a manner of speaking, if I reflect on it, Christ, in effect, was like a doorman, like a Shepard, who guided his sheep to God, and once the sheep met God, Christ went back down to find some more sheep. Its really kind of crazy stupid. lol Then at some point, I read the bible and a different meaning emerged. there was no inconsistency to what I was taught: It was total consistency. Thats why I say I agree with you. But you aren’t agreeing with me. Why is the burden of proof on me? Even when I say I want to be proven incorrect?

        I should ask you where the message you have been taught is failing, and that you need to pull out the big guns. For some reason, you faith is not sufficient (yet) to move me to accept Christ.

        That why I want someone to say something, argue something, present me with something that displaces what I know is true. I want someone to prove to me that what I know is incorrect.

        Maybe its like water, or snow. Someone who has not actually encountered snow, but perhaps lives in the heat and is told of snow. the person ‘has faith’ that there is snow. He goes in search of this snow, and believes that it is true.

        But there person who has experienced snow has no faith to hang on to. Neither can they remove themselves from the truth of that experience.

        I person comes from the snow to the person looking for the snow, and says, you don’t have to believe it, there is no faith required. The person looking would likely be offended because it is the sole reason behind his journey.

        *

        This brings me to my latest juncture:

        Do not we get saved by God’s grace alone?

        Is it not by God’s grace that we are saved?

        What is the relationship between, say, me choosing to believe Christ, and that God choose me to believe?

        What happens first? Do they occur together?

  4. So, you can “tell the story and account for all the action while retaining the merely human beings who cannot perform actual supernatural magic or people who actually came down from some extra-earthly plane of existence called heaven.”

    Why should I prefer that kind of account especially when, in the immediate context, Jesus addresses the disciples’ confusion by telling them that Lazarus is dead (verses 12-14), and the people on site put his body in a tomb for four days — and, in the larger context of the book of John, Jesus makes comments like “I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of Him who sent me.” (6:38) and “I am the bread that came down from heaven” (6:41)?

    ***

    I wouldn’t mind if you wrote Martha’s actual response out every time you refer to it because, “Yup, OK, thank you, I’ll go get Mary now” isn’t even close. I don’t think it’s an acceptable shorthand/characterization of her response to Jesus.

    ***

    Do you really think that inferred anger is the best foothold/context for understanding this interaction between Jesus and Martha?

    ***

    You’re welcome. Are you thanking me for pointing out those geographical matters? (I understand that you’re appreciating the long-term conversation as well. I appreciate your patience and persistence too.)

    1. I am thanking you for the interaction but also specifically for locating an aspect of my presentation that is incorrect.

      The point I’m making about the ‘I am the resurrection ‘part is that they both already knew. Not that the actual sentences are unimportant but that Martha didn’t think he was insane.yhe context was known between them; she understood it when he redirected her thoughts to what was occurring and she basically repeated it with a slight elaboration. It wasn’t new to her.

      Have you read theMoses part?

      And you do t have to prefer it; it’s not an argument of proving to you, it’s an argument if description. Like math; Like x+y=7. You don’t have to agree about any values about x And y.

      Also. In the past People were perfectly content to explain the ‘truth’ of pregnancy and birth as the sperm/male part being the seed. People seemed to prefer it. But the actual mechanism is not male seed. But female. The truth does not rely upon preference. But that being said, people can prefer any idea about the world and living and it mostly works fine and Their lives are happy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s