The curious case of John 5:4

[Eternally Grateful]

Who got to Jesus' tomb first?
Was there a census in Jerusalem to which Joseph and Mary had to travel?
Was Jesus born in a manger?
When did the Magi show up?
Was Jesus silent on the cross or did He say some things?

There's just too much.
If you want a link, I'll post it, but maybe not here.

If you think these are contradictions I could see why someone faith could be shaken.

again, context could answer every one of these. And also we can resolve these in a way as to not cause contradiction.

I do not know why anyone would want a bible that contradicts itself. if the Bible is the thing to which God says can make us throughly complete in God. Then it can not have any contradictions.


God can not say, You are born again when you trust me,,

Then later say, You are born again when you die and are risen into heaven.

those are contradictory terms which can ot align, ie they both can not be right.. even though if the Bible said both, it would appear they contradict each other.. but do they?

 

[GodsGrace]

He is one of the Cappadocian Fathers; Nicene affirming to the core.

Gregory of Nyssa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He made a very clear statement about Jewish monotheism, unequivocally calling it heresy.

Will read it later on....dinner time over here.
Or at least, the preparation of it....
Sounds interesting....

 

[Matthias]

OK, but I don't know how to get around that.

The only way is to abide by the policy.

Of course the Jews were monotheistic.
Of course Jesus was Jewish.
He believed in montheism.

Jesus is a Jewish monotheist.

So do Christians!
There is only One God....

That’s right.

What about Gregory??

Defender of Nicene Christianity. Outspoken against Jewish monotheism.

 

[GodsGrace]

If you think these are contradictions I could see why someone faith could be shaken.

again, context could answer every one of these. And also we can resolve these in a way as to not cause contradiction.

I do not know why anyone would want a bible that contradicts itself. if the Bible is the thing to which God says can make us throughly complete in God. Then it can not have any contradictions.


God can not say, You are born again when you trust me,,

Then later say, You are born again when you die and are risen into heaven.

those are contradictory terms which can ot align, ie they both can not be right.. even though if the Bible said both, it would appear they contradict each other.. but do they?

OK
So what you're saying is:
ONLY contradictions regarding salvific issues would be important to you.....?

But you originally said any contradiction would be a flaw....
Which is it?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

If you read my post carefully, you'll find that it DOES NOT state that they are not saved.
Just that to be defined as a Christian, a person must accept the definition of Christian.

but who makes this defenition?

It's not legalistic.

It’s legalistic if you say if you do not accept some creed made after the church was started and after the word was completed. You are not a christian.

If you want to work for Google, they have a set standard for what they expect from a computer expert.
You might be a very nice person,,,,a very smart computer person....no one can deny this.

I agree,
Just like God sets the standard. he spent 2000 years putting that standard together for us.

in the same way a google emplyee may disagree with something that Google set in stone is their truth..

we can not say we disagree with Gods standard, which he set in truth.

we either accept it as whole or as truth.

BUT, if you want to work for Google, you have to accept THEIR standard and be able to fulfil it.

Yes,

just like you have to accept Gods standard.

God’s standard is not the some creed. God did not write that standard..Man did. It may agree with a lot of things or all the things in the word. But it is not. And should not be the standard

If a company will ONLY hire persons with green hair, and you want to keep your brown hair, and they tell you this and you're aware of it...then you cannot work for them unless you have green hair.

Yes, again agreed,

This is true of any organization.

If I want to attend an AofG church, I have to believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
If I want to be Catholic...I have to accept all their doctrines.
If I want to be reformed...I have to accept the teachings of someone like John Calvin.

We can't make up our own definition of what a Christian is.
Otherwise the term becomes MEANINGLESS.

This is, BTW, a big problem we Protestants have.

But the true church accepts Gods standard.

Not accepting the catholic standard. Or baptist, or Lutheran or anyone else standard.

Gods standard is in his word. You have to accept it.. Not all of the churches mentions agree with what the word of God says.

so in the end, who gets to determine who is correct and who is not?

The pope? the pastor? The minister? The church elder? The church institution?

or God?

that is the point that I am tryign to make, and I believe @Matthias is making also. To say he must submit to some creed if he wants to be a christian is legalistic..

 

[Matthias]

Will read it later on....dinner time over here.
Or at least, the preparation of it....
Sounds interesting....

He’s an extremely important figure in the post-biblical development of Nicene Christianity.

Enjoy your meal. Read Gregory of Nyssa. He won’t upset your digestion!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

He is one of the Cappadocian Fathers; Nicene affirming to the core.

Gregory of Nyssa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He made a very clear statement about Jewish monotheism, unequivocally calling it heresy.

Wow this came out of no where.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

OK
So what you're saying is:
ONLY contradictions regarding salvific issues would be important to you.....?

But you originally said any contradiction would be a flaw....
Which is it?

I still have not seen any contradictions.

All of the things you showed me can be answered in a way they do not contradict

if they truly contradict. Then the Bible is flawed.

You would not say a science book that is contradictory or has things that appose itself would be a perfect blood. You would say it is flawed. (i would hope anyway)

why would we hold the Bible up to a different standard?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Will read it later on....dinner time over here.
Or at least, the preparation of it....
Sounds interesting....

Enjoy Dinner, It is lunch time here

 

[Matthias]

Wow this came out of no where.

It also comes out of Church history. For those interested in reading for themselves what Gregory said about Jewish monotheism, I’m alluding to his Oratio Catechetica 3. It’s easy to find it online and read at no cost.

Naturally Gregory also speaks about the subject which by Board policy can’t be discussed here in his work. Any discussion of his work would have to focus strictly on Jewish monotheism. I do understand and appreciate the difficulty involved in doing so. I agree with @GodsGrace that it may be best to leave it at that.

 

[Matthias]

Would belief in Jewish monotheism cause someone to question the reliability of the Bible? I don’t think so but I’m willing to listen to anyone who thinks that it would, or that it might.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It also comes out of Church history. For those interested in reading for themselves what Gregory said about Jewish monotheism, I’m alluding to his Oratio Catechetica 3. It’s easy to find it online and read at no cost.

Naturally Gregory also speaks about the subject which by Board policy can’t be discussed here in his work. Any discussion of his work would have to focus strictly on Jewish monotheism. I do understand and appreciate the difficulty involved in doing so. I agree with @GodsGrace that it may be best to leave it at that.

Again, I think it all comes down to how one interprets a word.

Did Jesus contradict himself?

When Jesus believed in monotheism, was his interpretation of that wrd the same as the jews who rejected him?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Would belief in Jewish monotheism cause someone to question the reliability of the Bible? I don’t think so but I’m willing to listen to anyone who thinks that it would, or that it might.

I think, paul as a jew would interpret monotheism different than say like the high priest Ciaphis.

but yes, I have actually seen people question the authority and reliability because of this very issue, which is sad.

 

[Matthias]

To say he must submit to some creed if he wants to be a christian is legalistic..

I do submit to a creed - the creed of Judaism, the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) - but it isn’t the one (or more?) that @GodsGrace does. What I don’t do is insist that everyone must submit to the only creed that I submit to in order to be Christian.

 

[Matthias]

Again, I think it all comes down to how one interprets a word.

Did Jesus contradict himself?

I think we should all be able to agree that he didn’t. I concede that there may be some who will say that he did.

When Jesus believed in monotheism, was his interpretation of that wrd the same as the jews who rejected him?

I believe that it is. The issue isn’t about monotheism in his dispute with his fellow Jews - they were all, including himself, Jewish monotheists who believed in the same God - but rather about whether or not he is their God’s promised Messiah.

 

[Matthias]

I think, paul as a jew would interpret monotheism different than say like the high priest Ciaphis.

It’s important for us to remember that Jesus and Paul are both Jews. Christianity is Jewish; a sect of Judaism which is at odds with other sects of Judaism.

I think Jesus and Paul and the High Priest all held the same understanding of monotheism.

What separated Jesus and Paul from the High Priest (and all other Jewish sects) was the issue of whether or not Jesus is the Messiah. Along with that goes the issue of the authority of Jesus - the Messiah has greater authority than the High Priest, which even the High Priest himself would acknowledge - and Jesus’ interpretation / understanding of the law, which is elaborated on by Paul.

but yes, I have actually seen people question the authority and reliability because of this very issue, which is sad.

Were they people who self-identified as Christian?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I think we should all be able to agree that he didn’t. I concede that there may be some who will say that he did.



I believe that it is. The issue isn’t about monotheism in his dispute with his fellow Jews - they were all, including himself, Jewish monotheists who believed in the same God - but rather about whether or not he is their God’s promised Messiah.

On thing to remember,

he told them they needed rescued.

they did not think they needed rescued.

And since he did not come to free them from Rome,, They rejected him as not only their savior. But their messiah.

the first one was a damnable offense.. the second one caused them to lose blessings.. they could have been freed, even while under rome

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It’s important for us to remember that Jesus and Paul are both Jews. Christianity is Jewish; a sect of Judaism which is at odds with other sects of Judaism.

I think Jesus and Paul and the High Priest all held the same understanding of monotheism.

What separated Jesus and Paul from the High Priest (and all other Jewish sects) was the issue of whether or not Jesus is the Messiah. Along with that goes the issue of the authority of Jesus - the Messiah has greater authority than the High Priest, which even the High Priest himself would acknowledge - and Jesus’ interpretation / understanding of the law, which is elaborated on by Paul.

I personally think when Jesus and paul thought of monotheism, they thought of one Godhead. The father, the son and the spirit. Even in the OT. The God of Israel (jesus) said he was sent by the father and his spirit.

when the high priest on the other hand thought of it. He thought of one person not one unit..

Were they people who self-identified as Christian?

many people self identify as Christian. The universalist. The legalist, the licentious, the perfectionalist (think they are sinless) the futurist, the non futurist or preterists, the calvinist, the arminian, the catholic and the protestant.

Not all of them believe in the infallibility of the biblical message

 

[Matthias]

No. He's not one of the ECFs that I know.

I may be speaking presumptuously but since you aren’t familiar with Gregory of Nyssa you probably aren’t familiar with Gregory of Nazianzus. He is another key figure in Nicene Christianity.

You should read him too. What he said about ”the wide amongst us” in A.D. 380 will, I think, surprise you. I won’t spoil the surprise (I’ll provide a link to Schaff’s History of The Christian Church if you would like for me to) but you may wrest assured that Gregory of Nazianzus is a major proponent of Nicene Christianity.

There are three important dates in Christian history that every Nicene affirming Christian know: A.D. 325 (Council of Nicaea), A.D. 381 (Council of Constantinople) and A.D. 451 (Council of Chalcedon).

Of the three, A.D. 381 is the most crucial.

The Council of Nicaea had to be amended, and that is where the quote from Gregory of Nazianzus becomes important for all students of Church history.

 

[Matthias]

I personally think when Jesus and paul thought of monotheism, they thought of one Godhead. The father, the son and the spirit. Even in the OT. The God of Israel (jesus) said he was sent by the father and his spirit.

There is, as you probably know, a veritable mountain of books written on the subject. It sometimes surprises my readers, as it did many of my students, that I recommend - almost exclusively - reading trinitarian authors on the matter. Catholic scholars are, in my opinion, better than Protestant scholars in this area.

If after I die someone who doesn’t know me were to try to figure out solely from the books contained in my personal whether or not I’m a Jewish monotheist, they’ll almost certainly conclude that I’m not.

when the high priest on the other hand thought of it. He thought of one person not one unit..

That’s a fair description of Jewish monotheism. It has implications for the faith and practice of Jesus, himself a Jewish monotheist.

many people self identify as Christian. The universalist. The legalist, the licentious, the perfectionalist (think they are sinless) the futurist, the non futurist or preterists, the calvinist, the arminian, the catholic and the protestant.

Not all of them believe in the infallibility of the biblical message

That’s true.