What was Jesus implying...........................

by defd 87 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Deputy Dog

  Pete

  The confusion is in part due to the fact that the translators have to discern whether the expression "And his/His name will be called..." refers to Yahweh or the king. They are split and so in some cases you see the "His" as capitalized referring to God and in others not when interpreted as reference to the king. Also this section is separated by a semi-colon or not. It is then either Yahweh who "shoulders the government" and "sustains it with justice and righteousness" or this representative king. The least complicated understading is that these expressions in question refer to Yahweh, given the reference to the "throne"(kingship) as a separate entity being blessed in verse 6.

  I think the least complicated understanding is that these expressions refer (just as it reads) to both, Yahweh, The King

  Forgive me if I except Matthew's translation over yours.

  Mat 1:22

  Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, :23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Another question is, what is really meant by the focus on "Jesus" and even by pistis in GJohn? Ascribing them the default "orthodox" use is perhaps misleading.

  Hmmm. Thats bit of a stumper for me. I'm not sure how the gnostic views on salvation and the Revealer(knowledge for the release from hylic existence) could be brought together with the gospel's Lamb of God symbolism (atonement and salvation from sin). But like you said:

  Perhaps there is some connection between the Johannine Revealer as "the light of the world" and "what has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people"...

  Somewhere in John, Jesus said that if anyone didn't eat of his flesh or drink of his blood, they wouldn't have life in them. How does the following hodge-podge of mysticism and quasi-gnosticism sound? The life was the light of all....The channel to the "real life" only comes from communing (the blood/body as symbols of that communion) with the divine that is within.
• 

  Narkissos

  Somewhere in John, Jesus said that if anyone didn't eat of his flesh or drink of his blood, they wouldn't have life in them. How does the following ;hodge-podge of mysticism and quasi-gnosticism sound? The life was the light of all....The ;channel to the "real life" only comes from communing (the blood/body as symbols of that communion) with the divine that is within.

  Again, you are intuitively pointing to one passage (John 6:51b-59) which is most widely recognised as an "orthodox" (in that case, sacramental) addition into the Gospel of John, disrupting the very different talk about the "bread from heaven" (even the Catholic Jerusalem Bible acknowledges that in a footnote). Remember, the Fourth Gospel has no Eucharistic institution. This is one of the many adjustments that the Johannine text had to receive to make its way into the canon.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Thank You Narkissos. I never came across that point. Having that passage be an addition, removes the problem for me of trying to reconcile it with the gnostic elements. No need for the mental gymnastics. I think I may give the WT a run for their money on that count.
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos....I am not familiar with the specific evidence relating to the passage in John 6:51b-59, and the literature discussing this matter (e.g. Koester only mentions v. 39b, 40b, 44b as redactional). I am certainly open to the possibility as the gospel as a whole evidences a complex literary history. But I am not sure that v. 51b-59 is necessarily (or primarily) Eucharistic..."eating" and "drinking" would not refer to literal ingestive practices but would be understood figuratively along the lines of "drinking living water" in ch. 4 and 7, and identifying the bread as "my flesh" and "the flesh of the Son of Man" (which sounds a lot like the Eucharist) develops Jesus' identification with "the bread of life" one step further ("I am the living bread ... anyone who eats this bread will live forever", v. 50-51). The main piece of evidence that gives me pause on accepting the theory that v. 44-51a and 51b-59 are from different hands is the parallel to Sirach 24 which is shared by both passages:

  Sirach 24:21-22: "Those who eat of me (hoi estheontes me) will hunger for more (eti peinasousin), and those who drink of me (hoi pinontes me) will thirst for more (eti dipsésousin), for whoever obeys me (ho hupakouón mou) will not be put to shame (ouk aiskhunthésetai)."

  John 6:35, 54, 57: "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me (ho erkhomenos pros me) shall not hunger (ou mé peinase), and he who believes in me (eis eme) shall never thirst (ou mé peinasé pópote).... He who eats my flesh (ho trógón mou tén sarka) and drinks my blood (pinón mou to aima) has eternal life ... so whoever eats me (ho trógón me) will draw life (zései) from me."

  Maybe the allusion is not close enough to warrant strong consideration of this piece of evidence (as Sirach makes no mention of "flesh" or "blood" and John phrases things in the negative), or perhaps a later redactor detected the allusion to Sirach 24 in v. 35 and continued the allusion in v. 54, but considering John's dependence elsewhere on the Wisdom/Logos traditions, it is possible that the passage in v. 53-58 adapts such Wisdom language to the person of Jesus and has the sapiential concept of consuming Wisdom in view, not Eucharistic sacramentalism per se. I am reminded also of the "milk" of the Father that is drunk by the believer in the Odes of Solomon (19:1-4). Perhaps the "orthodoxizing" redaction was limited to expanding an original "me" to "my blood" and "my flesh".

  I just found this interesting essay on the passage:

  http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/john-food.html
• 

  Narkissos

  Leolaia,

  On 6:51b-59 as an addition, see R.E. Brown.

  Of course the main evidence is the shift of focus from a sapiential (or halfway from sapiential to Gnostic) to a sacramentary "eating and drinking" (this of course being done with the very same verbs).

  Actually the editorial work may not be limited to 51b-59. It has been pointed out that, in 28-51a, the Father gives the true bread, and in both 26f and 51b-59 the Son gives the true food (although only the latter passage has a distinct sacramentary ring); v. 60ff seem to resume the first thread (going back to heaven where he came from) and uses "flesh" negatively, in opposition to v. 51b-59. Add to that the awkward transitions in v. 22-24 and v. 59...
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  At John 10:30 Jesus said " I and the Father are one" What was he implying? Was it a claim to be Almighty God? What is your thoughts and why?

  i think jebus was possibly high on dope. i have found myself saying similar things like:

  "me and hank, we are like this (crosses fingers). we are one. all is one, and one is all. pass the hookah man..."

  so, really, to take more from it than that, is rather presumptuous, wouldn't you say? TS
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Tetra,

  You've probably heard of book clubs where people get together and discuss particular books. What was the author trying to get across here or there? Is it making some kind of commentary for its contemporary society (like very good sci-fi ooften does)? Etc. It can be very interesting when these works incorporate alot of historical research too (Like Dorothy Dunnett's several books).

  Apparently different christian communities favoured different gospels. I see these sorts of discussions (even if all these texts were purely works of fiction) as giving us insight into the beliefs of the authors and those communities. Also by keen observations, noting incongruous shifts in themes etc., one can detect possible locations where these texts were redacted to favour one side or another on a debated issue. That's appealing from a historical perspective.