Exclusively Christian TheologyThis forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
John 6:27: Don't play it again Mr MuzicMan -
May 7th, 2012, 08:13 AM
.
Mr. Music has once again graced us with his world-shattering theology, this time on John 6:27(-29):
[27] “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. [28] Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? [29] Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”
Mr Muzic acknowledges here that v29 states that the work is actually of God, but simply erases the verse (never to have it reappear again) in deference to v27, for he reasons that Jesus "would have been lying" at v27 if v29 were in fact true.
The converse – that Jesus would have been lying at v29 if v27 were true - doesn’t seem to have occurred to this theological hotshot, but that is understandable: he likes v27 and he doesn’t like v29.
He calls this sort of eisegesis, “exegesis”, which is of course correct if your exegesis is eisegetic.
Of course the error he makes is a common one amongst budding theologians: to flatten out the causal hierarchy of God’s scheme of things so that the various causal levels become juxtaposed and all at the same level.
V27 is in fact not at the same level as v29, but subsumed by v29: Jesus first of all presents the unachievable in v27 in order to amplify at v29 the fact that only God can provide faith.
Let’s read on:
[30] They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? [31] Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. [32] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.[33] For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Here Jesus equates the "meat" of v27 with "bread of life", driving home the fact that this stuff is vital food if we want to live forever.
Now…..if we ignore v29, this presents a dilemma:
to work for spiritual bread, is spiritual work, which requires spiritual energy, which requires spiritual bread, which is what we are working for. Hopefully you see the problem.
[34] “Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. [35] And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”
Ooops!
Part 2 of the dilemma!
If Jesus is the bread we are working for, then:
we work without Jesus, to obtain Jesus. Hmmm…..sort of suggests we don’t need Jesus anyway, for if we are capable of obtaining Jesus by our work, then we’re pretty well on a par with Jesus anyway. Something wrong here!
Let’s see if we can’t find the answer in the next couple of verses:
[36] “But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. [37] All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”
Ah…..problem solved.
V37 tells us essentially the same thing as v29.
Well, guess we’ll keep v29 in the book after all.
And of course we need to tell Mr MuzicMan to put his theological degree back in the Cornflakes packet.
Last edited by Colossians; May 7th, 2012 at 04:40 PM.
Wow.. another thread made just for little old me? I must really be a serious challenge to your theology... Of course, any Scriptural study without the Calvinist colored glasses will do that...
I think you really should be checked out for OCD and get on some medication, Collosians.
(Response in a few... busy ATM.)
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
I must really be a serious challenge to your theology
To be deadly honest with you, I have rarely seen in all my debating years, a less serious contender than yourself.
Your 'works' exist in state of flux between deliberate debauchery of scripture, and complete incompetence, with a sort of schizophrenic emotion over the top of it all which seems to alternate between a full-of-yourself he-man bragadaccio and a sort of dreamy female listlessness.
Judging from the inconsistencies in your modus operandi, I doubt you are born again. You don't display the fruits of the Spirit: you deliberately twist scripture and are wilfully unteachable: your bent is not one naturally maintained, but maintained by virtue of an obstinance which absolutely refuses to see anything new.
America is a strange place, full of strange people with strange contorted ideas. The church culture there is often cultic, and produces people who think they are born again but who aren't.
Judging from the inconsistencies in your modus operandi, I doubt you are born again. You don't display the fruits of the Spirit: you deliberately twist scripture and are wilfully unteachable: your bent is not one naturally maintained, but maintained by virtue of an obstinance which absolutely refuses to see anything new.
SO, you do think that agreement with Calvinist doctrine is a standard of whether one is saved? I mean, from a Calvinist systematic theology point of view, I'm sure my exegesis seems out of place. Unfortunately, you seem unable to disconnect yourself from your systematic theology long enough to look at Scripture to see if what informs your theology is accurate.
That is the process I went through in examining what I was taught growing up.
I learn new things when compelling evidence is actually presented. Unfortunately, all you've presented is the Calvinist doctrinal line, for which I've pointed out many exegetical problems.
Quote:
America is a strange place, full of strange people with strange contorted ideas. The church culture there is often cultic, and produces people who think they are born again but who aren't.
I don't know that Americans are any different than many other peoples.
Quote:
How do you know you're born again?
I believe that Christ died on the cross as a propitiation for my sins and to bring justification to all men, such that all who believe in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. And I place my faith in Him to do just that.
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
One example of your unteachable spirit, is your blatantly obvious refusal to consider what I have written in the opening post: all you are concerned with is scoring points.
Perhaps that simply makes you a baby Christian, however your inconsistencies (you fluctuate from one who thinks he knows it all to one who is too scared to read an opposing OP) tell me that "baby Christian" is too pure a term for you: you are polluted, and the degree of pollution in you suggests to me you are not born again. There is a difficulty in you, an unnaturalness which is not of the Spirit: there is an unsettled striving in you that is uncomely.
One example of your unteachable spirit, is your blatantly obvious refusal to consider what I have written in the opening post: all you are concerned with is scoring points.
In places where your opening post doesn't actually commit a logical error, I engage what you've written. Where it does, I do. Right now, I don't have enough time to address what you've written.
Quote:
Perhaps that simply makes you a baby Christian, however your inconsistencies (you fluctuate from one who thinks he knows it all to one who is too scared to read an opposing OP) tell me that "baby Christian" is too pure a term for you: you are polluted, and the degree of pollution in you suggests to me you are not born again. There is a difficulty in you, an unnaturalness which is not of the Spirit: there is an unsettled striving in you that is uncomely.
I think you're projecting your own weaknesses on others to keep up your own self image.
I say again: Get psychiatric help. You're seriously obsessing on me, and it isn't healthy.
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
Mr. Music has once again graced us with his world-shattering theology, this time on John 6:27(-29):
[27] “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. [28] Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? [29] Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”
Mr Muzic acknowledges here that v29 states that the work is actually of God, but simply erases the verse (never to have it reappear again) in deference to v27, for he reasons that Jesus "would have been lying" at v27 if v29 were in fact true.
Actually, that's inaccurate. I say that when Jesus says, "Work of God" he is answering the question in the mode of verse 28, where the Jews ask what works of God they should do in order to work the works of God. In that verse "works of God" are the works God requires. And there is no issue with having the genative work in that way in that verse.
So, in the sense in which the Jews use "works of God", and the fact that Jesus tells the Jews to work for the bread with leads to eternal life, "work of God" in verse 29 is, just like in verse 28, the works God required, not something that God does.
In the context of these three verse and the text that surrounds it, that is the most natural reading. In order to make faith God's work, one must ignore verse 27 (where Jesus says that it is the Jew's work to do), and verse 28, where the same phrase (using plural works) exists.
Quote:
The converse – that Jesus would have been lying at v29 if v27 were true - doesn’t seem to have occurred to this theological hotshot, but that is understandable: he likes v27 and he doesn’t like v29.
Actually, I'm the only one that makes the two verses work together.
Quote:
Of course the error he makes is a common one amongst budding theologians: to flatten out the causal hierarchy of God’s scheme of things so that the various causal levels become juxtaposed and all at the same level.
SO, Collosians uses his systematic theology to overcome exegesis. An exegetical fallacy.
I prefer to let Scripture define that hierarchy from the exegesis of each passage, rather than using a systematic hierarchy to tell me how to exegete passages.
Quote:
V27 is in fact not at the same level as v29, but subsumed by v29: Jesus first of all presents the unachievable in v27 in order to amplify at v29 the fact that only God can provide faith.
Notice that Collosians is doing exactly what he accused me of doing in throwing out verse 27 in preference to how he wants to understand verse 29. Notice that nothing in this passage actually says that verse 27 is unachievable. Collossians has to insert it there.
Quote:
Let’s read on: [30] They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? [31] Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. [32] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.[33] For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Here Jesus equates the "meat" of v27 with "bread of life", driving home the fact that this stuff is vital food if we want to live forever.
Now…..if we ignore v29, this presents a dilemna:
to work for spiritual bread, is spiritual work, which requires spiritual energy, which requires spiritual bread, which is what we are working for. Hopefully you see the problem.
You all need to notice this. Jesus has not spoken of spiritual bread, spiritual work, spiritual energy, or spiritual anything. These are all concepts invented by Collosians to divert from what Jesus is saying.
Jesus is using the concept of bread as an analogy, and doing so in a very interesting way. If you'll read the story that happens just before this conversation, Jesus fed the 5000 with just a little food. And then the people follow him, apparently looking for another meal. This give Jesus occasion to make this analogy.
And, in reading verses 30-33, we see the Jews "get it", in that they recognize Moses' authority because he gave them manna (bread) to eat in the desert, and demand a sign from Jesus. And Jesus' response is that HE is the sign, HE is the bread from heaven.
Again, nothing about spiritual anything in this text, as we see, here:
Quote:
[34] “Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. [35] And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”
Ooops!
Funny how you placed that so well. Your attempt to make "spiritual" things just fell apart, and a far more natural reading of the text which is Jesus making an analogy of bread to Himself emerges.
So, once we fix Collosians misrepresentation of what I actually said, and remove Collosians impositions upon and deletions from the text, it becomes clearer.
Quote:
Part 2 of the dilemna!
If Jesus is the bread we are working for, then:
we work without Jesus, to obtain Jesus. Hmmm…..sort of suggests we don’t need Jesus anyway, for if we are capable of obtaining Jesus by our work, then we’re pretty well on a par with Jesus anyway. Something wrong here!
This is what is known as the "straw man" fallacy. You see, no one actually claims this is true, so, he is fighting against a creation of his own mind.
It would be silly to say that any human being is on par with God, much less a person who lived a sinless life. However, this does not mean that this is the only other option besides faith being God's work. This is the fallacy of the "false dichotomy."
So, with two fallacies in play, this portion of the argument falls down on its face.
Quote:
Let’s see if we can’t find the answer in the next couple of verses: [36] “But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. [37] All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”
Ah…..problem solved.
V37 tells us essentially the same thing as v29.
Well, guess we’ll keep v29 in the book after all.
And of course we need to tell Mr MuzicMan to put his theological degree back in the Cornflakes packet.
Well, there's a minor Greek issue, here, which should give us some pause. The portion "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me" is in the neuter gender. However, the phrase, "him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" is masculine. So, we need to investigate a bit as to why this is the case.
John 3:34 For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. 35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.
This phrase is very similar to the one on John 6, and denotes that Christ is given all authority over all things.
Which actually makes this verse make sense. Christ has authority over all things, and the one who comes to Christ will not be cast out. Jesus is giving assurance to those who come to him that they won't be turned away.
So, when we take off the Calvinist colored glasses, express exegesis properly, and take some care with our Greek, the message of the passage becomes clear.
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
How do you know you're born again? I believe that Christ died on the cross as a propitiation for my sins and to bring justification to all men, such that all who believe in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. And I place my faith in Him to do just that.
Not a sufficient answer.
There are literally millions of people who say they believe this, and yet aren't born again. The fruits of your bent tell me it is unlikely that you are born again: you are of too hard a heart, and are too insensitive to the Holy Spirit. You certainly are not led by the Spirit.
You are more someone who has an 'inherited faith' and who has been commensurately exposed to the scripture: you might be 'culturally born' again, but not born again in actuality of the Spirit. One of the main indicators of this (in line with a lack of the fruits of the Spirit) is that you are essentially a scripturalist rather than a Christian: your bent is to strain at a gnat as did the Pharisees with regard to scripture, rather than take the overall thrust as would be perceived by an uneducated man and to whom the scriptures are written.
In line with this, I have looked through your post #11, and it fails to refute the OP, but consists instead of a slippery creativity, which is your trademark, and in which you insert unnatural divisions in scripture (synthetic cut-off lines) which are created in order to skew the scripture your way - your separating v27 from v28/29 is an example of this - and in which you play dum and misrepresent certain logical points made by your opponent in the hope that the simple who are reading will more readily agree with your superficial half-truth than the more abstract point to which you ostensibly respond.
And we have seen that when you get into deep waters, you appeal to the Greek, as if the people who translated the bible weren't up to your level, and as if God made a boo boo in giving us the text in English, especially with regard to the average man on the street with his Gideon's bible in his pocket.
Commensurately, you seek to evade the clear teaching of v37 where we are told that only those who are the Father's will come to Christ. Appropriate then are the words of Peter in your regard: "[scriptures] which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
Anyone can create an argument against anything Mr Muzic: the question is whether that argument is not merely possible, but probable and realistic without invoking either a tricky God or a God who simply is not able to sovereignly preside over the promulgation of the correct gospel in the English language - a God who in either case is not worthy to be worshipped.
Mark my word: unless you repent of your manipulations, the destruction of which Peter speaks will follow in one way or another. And we who remain may not even hear about it: you might simply not show up anymore on the forum because of a tragedy.
I once had a date with a young lady who from that point onward resisted the Spirit. 3 years later she was burned to death in a car accident at age 22. A male friend of mine once rebuked me for not believing the prosperity doctrine: 2 years later he was decapitated in a feak car accident. A friend common to both him and me took a shot at me without provocation a couple of years before that: he was soon dead of a brain tumor: while he was in hospital recovering after his first operation, the news came to him of the other guy's decapitation. The brother-in-law of the guy who was decapitated, once called me an idiot. He was hit in the head by a bus in his 40s so that his head blew up to the size of a basketball in hospital and they took the life support off him the same day. The father of my best childhood friend once called me "an aspirin because an aspirin is a slow-acting dope" in front of his kids, without warning and without provocation, when I was about 14 years old: 6 years later the guy was dead of a brain tumor at age 41. The list is endless: I could go on and on and on. God doesn't muck around: you cross the line one too many times, and it's a case of "that's all he wrote". God is not mocked: He is real, He sees the posts on this forum, and vengeance is indeed His. Typing on the internet doesn't provide any sanctuary from the vengeance of God.
You are essentially a modern day Pharisee: a scripturalist masquerading as a member of the Body of Christ. And yet, it is possible that you don't even realise this, for there are many many people who think they are doing things for God, but are not even in Him. Based on the evidence, I would have to put you in that category. I don't care what you say you believe, nor do I care as to how honest you think you are: I can't hear you because your impure manipulations of both scripture and logic, inconsistencies, double-standards, deliberate elusiveness, and general lack of love in the Spirit, are simply speaking too loudly.
Last edited by Colossians; May 7th, 2012 at 07:24 PM.
Hybrid Mode
