budaatum:
John 2

Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!

In this chapter Jesus makes two things, wine and a whip of cords.
As the skeptic that I am, I am more likely to believe there was some science behind the wine making.
Besides, it reminds me of my clubbing days when people used to ask me for pills and I freely gave them Tictacs.
You wouldn't believe how high people got on them!

What a conniving thing to do, masquerading tictacs as pills

budaatum:
Perhaps the wine wasn't the fermented sort, is what I am suggesting here as sufficient time for fermentation had not elapsed.
Or perhaps it's like the palmwine in the Orolu Kingdom - it tastes better diluted.

Sufficient time for fermentation had not elapsed? So?
Abraham's wife Sarah's was past the menopause yet she conceived. Mary knew no man yet she conceived.
Back to the wine incident.
Compare, the interaction between the man and woman here, with the interaction between the other woman and man in the garden
Do you notice relunctance and self-gratification?

budaatum:
I'll focus more on his Daddy Freezeness act of asking that the temples not be made into shops!
Rather pertinent to our own times, won't you agree?
It does amuse me that he too is asked what/who authorises him to tell the pastorpreneurs of his day to stop selling their fake gods!

Concur its pertinent to our own times
Freeze is against the modern day or 21st century version of biblical teachers of law, Sadducees and the Pharisees

Apparently commercialising the gospel and obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception is abhorrent to God

Freeze has just woken up to a few "elephant in the room" topics, that so many posters from the dawn of day
and over the years, in past, on Religion section of Nairaland, have extensively written about and discussed

The truth is, anyone that consciously or unconsciously does, any or all, that Jesus taught, preached and/or commanded as entry criteria into the Kingdom, will enter it

budaatum:
The fact he didn't "entrust himself" to those who believed him is saying something I am sure we'd return to later.

²³Because of the miraculous signs Jesus did in Jerusalem at the Passover celebration, many began to trust in him.
(i.e. many believed in His name when they saw the signs that he was doing)
²⁴But Jesus didn’t trust them, because he knew human nature.
²⁵No one needed to tell him what mankind is really like
- John 2:23-24

I did earlier say that, if you're bent on going through the entire book chapter by chapter,
then you need to be careful though
because remember the bible wasnt originally in chapters and verses
John chapter 2 actually appropriately could have ended at John 2:22

MuttleyLaff:
Sufficient time for fermentation had not elapsed? So?
Abraham's wife Sarah's was past the menopause yet she conceived. Mary knew no man yet she conceived.
Back to the wine incident.

It is claimed Sarah's was past the menopause and that Mary knew no man, claims we unfortunately cannot verify but which those who believe in do so by faith, an attitude we atheists have a deficit in. Our attitude is as is said in Porgy and Bess, "the things you are likely to read in the Bible, it ain't necessarily so".

MuttleyLaff:
The truth is, anyone that consciously or unconsciously does, any or all, that Jesus taught, preached and/or commanded as entry criteria into the Kingdom, will enter it.

I find it a pity that "For God so loved the world...." was inserted into the text. It does contradict what has been declared as Christ's actual teachings, and contradicts it in parts. It makes more sense for it to have read "that whosoever does as he taught....". And would have ensured a seeking for better understanding of his teachings.

MuttleyLaff:
I did earlier say that, if you're bent on going through the entire book chapter by chapter,
then you need to be careful though
because remember the bible wasnt originally in chapters and verses
John chapter 2 actually appropriately could have ended at John 2:22

Well, its written already, and I take it as it is. You can see my preference above if I had written it. Goes to show though that the writers had an intention in mind. Usurping God with a new God perhaps?

budaatum:
It is claimed Sarah's was past the menopause
and that Mary knew no man, claims we unfortunately cannot verify
but which those who believe in do, so by faith, an attitude we atheists have a deficit in.

You omitted the part where God waited, almost 15 years for Abraham to be an impotent old man, before fulfilling the promise of giving him a son, Isaac

Isnt it strange, that demons, as atheists would do, never fall into that vice of not knowing who God is or not believing in God.

budaatum:
Our attitude is as is said in Porgy and Bess, "the things you are likely to read in the Bible, it ain't necessarily so".

It is so true that the children of this world are in their generation, wiser than the children of light.
Didnt by the way, perceive you as an opera going individual
Anyway, Sportin' Life is right about things you are likely to read in the Bible, arent necessarily what you believe them to be
because Bible passages arent, as some would like to believe, necessarily monosemous

budaatum:
I find it a pity that "For God so loved the world...." was inserted into the text.
It does contradict what has been declared as Christ's actual teachings, and contradicts it in parts.
It makes more sense for it to have read "that whosoever does as he taught....".
And would have ensured a seeking for better understanding of his teachings.

¹⁴Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
¹⁵Henceforth 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
- John 15:14-15

Your wish is granted, as is seen, in John 15:14 above

budaatum:
Well, its written already, and I take it as it is.
You can see my preference above if I had written it.
Goes to show though that the writers had an intention in mind

Yes my dear friend, yes.
The writers had good intentions,
only that quoting scripture by citing the exact chapter & verse where it appears isnt necessarily inspired by God.
Jesus, Paul, the early disciples never quoted passages of scripture by citing chapters and verses where it is
All scripture is inspired by God, but scripture translating, breaking it up into chapters & verses arent necessarily inspired by God.

budaatum:
Usurping God with a new God perhaps?

My dear friend, no.
Where did you see usurping God with a new God?
Alas friend, there is only one God. Apart from God, there is no other God.
There is no new God anywhere except for the one God

MuttleyLaff:
You omitted the part where God waited, almost 15 years for Abraham to be an impotent old man, before fulfilling the promise of giving him a son, Isaac

I omitted a lot of stuff. As does the Bible itself.

Amongst my people, and probably Abraham time people, not producing offspring is just about the second worst thing a man could do. The first is not marrying at all.

In my home town, Sarahs would have been told to find some young man to get her pregnant before its too late. Even Abrahams would do what the biblical Abraham did, as its the only way they had for fertility tests in those days. It's not even strange for the Abrahams to tell the Sarahs to go get herself pregnant if he'd tried elsewhere and failed. And if either got pregnant, "Thank God", is what they'd both say.

MuttleyLaff:

Isnt it strange, that demons, as atheists would do, never fall into that vice of not knowing who God is or not believing in God.

Yeah, those bloody demons are going to heaven. Hopefully they would change their nature first. Can't have them being demonic in heaven!

budaatum:
I omitted a lot of stuff. As does the Bible itself.

Amongst my people, and probably Abraham time people, not producing offspring is just about the second worst thing a man could do.
The first is not marrying at all.

In my home town, Sarahs would have been told to find some young man to get her pregnant before its too late.
Even Abrahams would do what the biblical Abraham did, as its the only way they had for fertility tests in those days.
It's not even strange for the Abrahams to tell the Sarahs to go get herself pregnant if he'd tried elsewhere and failed.
And if either got pregnant, "Thank God", is what they'd both say.

Sarah did tell Abraham to sleep with her Egyptian handmaid, Hagar
That's how Abraham had his first son, Ishmael.

The snag with Ishmael, is that the promise of a son, was to be between Abraham and Sarah,
and not between Abraham and a surrogate

Though Abraham succumbed to his wife's
he nonetheless believed and hoped for the son from her,
even when there was no reason for hoping, especially after becoming impotent
but God kept His word, fulfilled the promise and so Abraham became "the father of many nations"
Just as the scripture said, declaring, "Your descendants will be as many as the stars."

budaatum:
Yeah, those bloody demons are going to heaven.
Hopefully they would change their nature first.
Can't have them being demonic in heaven!

I dont think they have on their radar, any desire to go heaven
Their preferred abode or first choice is a herd of pigs

MuttleyLaff:
Sarah did tell Abraham to sleep with her Egyptian handmaid, Hagar
That's how Abraham had his first son, Ishmael.

The snag with Ishmael, is that the promise of a son, was to be between Abraham and Sarah,
and not between Abraham and a surrogate

Though Abraham succumbed to his wife's
he nonetheless believed and hoped for the son from her,
even when there was no reason for hoping, especially after becoming impotent
but God kept His word, fulfilled the promise and so Abraham became "the father of many nations"
Just as the scripture said, declaring, "Your descendants will be as many as the stars."

The problem with all this is that no one could have provided the detail about Abraham and Sarah so as to be able to write this story. It wasn't as if either of them left a journal. Leaves one to assume, and perhaps conclude that it was made up after the fact. Or perhaps the angel Gabriel narrated it to someone.

I guess I am questioning how the story of Abraham came about. Its not as if I take it as a given, or a record of a historical fact.

budaatum:
The problem with all this is that
no one could have provided the detail about Abraham and Sarah so as to be able to write this story.
It wasn't as if either of them left a journal. Leaves one to assume, and perhaps conclude that it was made up after the fact.
Or perhaps the angel Gabriel narrated it to someone.

I guess I am questioning how the story of Abraham came about.
Its not as if I take it as a given, or a record of a historical fact

Sorry about that.
Your scepticism problem is aptly noted

MuttleyLaff:

Your scepticism problem is aptly noted

A problem to you. A virtue to me.

But as I say, Alice did not really fall down a hole except as a work of fiction. Still words still mean what I say they mean, a la humpty dumptyism.

So, what, apart from the 'facts', is of significance here? Remember the start of this was my statement that,

"As the skeptic that I am, I am more likely to believe there was some science behind the wine making."

Do note that when I believe a thing, I mean that I do not know if a thing is quite as I claim it is but I hold that it might be as I claim for convenience. Hence, if I believe it is raining outside, it is because I am not certain that it is raining outside but I am willing to go by that assumption and go out with an umbrella. If I were certain, I would say "It is raining outside". One might think the result is the same, but sticking my head outside to check if it were raining would better inform my need, or not, for an umbrella.

budaatum:
A problem to you. A virtue to me
But as I say, Alice did not really fall down a hole except as a work of fiction. Still words still mean what I say they mean, a la humpty dumptyism.

So, what, apart from the 'facts', is of significance here? Remember the start of this was my statement that,

"As the skeptic that I am, I am more likely to believe there was some science behind the wine making."

Do note that when I believe a thing, I mean that I do not know if a thing is quite as I claim it is but I hold that it might be as I claim for convenience. Hence, if I believe it is raining outside, it is because I am not certain that it is raining outside but I am willing to go by that assumption and go out with an umbrella. If I were certain, I would say "It is raining outside". One might think the result is the same, but sticking my head outside to check if it were raining would better inform my need, or not, for an umbrella

Straw man.
You brought up the word "problem"
with the "The problem with all this is that" remark, not me.
I was just acknowledging that the problem you raised is noted.
What you have as a problem doesn't come across to me as one.

MuttleyLaff:
Straw man.
You brought up the word "problem"
with the "The problem with all this is that" remark, not me.
I was just acknowledging that the problem you raised is noted.
What you have has a problem doesn't come across to me as one.

From whose perspective do we have it, is a valid question. The problem stems from the story itself, and not from my scepticism. Its definitely not from Abraham nor Sarah, nor does the narration claim God wrote it. A believer may not require answers to such questions, but I would assert that anyone who desires to wring the ultimate knowledge and understanding from the narration would definitely wish to consider it.

budaatum:
From whose perspective do we have it, is a valid question. The problem stems from the story itself, and not from my scepticism.
Its definitely not from Abraham nor Sarah
nor does the narration claim God wrote it.
A believer may not require answers to such questions, but I would assert that anyone who desires to wring the ultimate knowledge and understanding from the narration would definitely wish to consider it.

Every Scripture passage is inspired by God. All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting people, and training them for a life that has God's approval.

Are you familiar with the verse quoted above there?

budaatum:

From whose perspective do we have it, is a valid question. The problem stems from the story itself, and not from my scepticism. Its definitely not from Abraham nor Sarah, nor does the narration claim God wrote it. A believer may not require answers to such questions, but I would assert that anyone who desires to wring the ultimate knowledge and understanding from the narration would definitely wish to consider it.

MuttleyLaff:
Every Scripture passage is inspired by God. All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting people, and training them for a life that has God's approval.

Are you familiar with the verse quoted above there?

Check....

budaatum:
From whose perspective do we have it, is a valid question.
The problem stems from the story itself,
and not from my scepticism.
Its definitely not from Abraham nor Sarah
nor does the narration claim God wrote it.
A believer may not require answers to such questions, but I would assert that anyone who desires to wring the ultimate knowledge and understanding from the narration would definitely wish to consider it.

MuttleyLaff:
Every Scripture passage is inspired by God. All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting people, and training them for a life that has God's approval.

Are you familiar with the verse quoted above there?

Sarassin:
Check....

Abi ooo. Check indeed...
My dear other brother
from another mother

MuttleyLaff:
Every Scripture passage is inspired by God. All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting people, and training them for a life that has God's approval.

Are you familiar with the verse quoted above there?

Yes I am familiar with it. And can agree with it depending on how it is meant. Teaching of the literal facts of a matter, or a non-literal idea.

Take for instance, the first Chapter of the Bible. It describes a good plan for when embarking on a project. You go step by step, assessing the terrain, planning out what you wish to accomplish, executing each step of your plan then assessing if it is adequate before building on top of it until the last brick is laid. But as a narative for how the world came about? It sucks.

John 5

Does His Word Dwell In You‎?‎‎
‎
D‎o you have the love of God in your hearts‎?
‎
And, my question, to make up a third is:
‎
What is ‎the love of God?‎


I have intentionally limited myself to the above with this chapter because there is so much to it that I consider that making any one single claim about it is damaging. My hope is that on reading it, you would put flesh on this bone and share it with the rest of us.

Answer the question if you would, though, and enjoy the week.

John 6

“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”‎‎‎
‎
If his disciples said that, it should come as no surprise that we have some amongst us who constantly demand for evidence and proof. Miracles, or what someone recently referred to as his "Sphere of influence", does not seem to be enough.

However, I would propose that Jesus was not asking them to believe in him because of the miracles he had performed.‎ He sure was not asking them to believe in the miracles themselves, for it does not seem they doubted much that he had actually performed them. Nor could he have been asking them to believe that when they ate the bread he gave them, that he had cut off some of his flesh and fed it to them. It was they, after all, who had brought the bread to him, and I feel they would know the difference between bread and raw flesh. ‎Were they ‎baulking at the idea that God had sent him, or that he had seen the Father perhaps? ‎ ‎‎
‎
‎Jesus meant way more than what is seemed on the surface. For the words he spoke "are full of the Spirit‎ and life”‎, and he should therefore be understood in a way that imbues every word with "Spirit‎ and life‎". After all, if it were as simple as just "believing", those who witnessed him performing wonders could hardly have claimed it were "hard teachings", or ask, "who can accept it?"
‎‎‎
With that in mind do I therefore ask, What, exactly, is God's work?‎
‎
Enjoy the week.

budaatum:
Yes I am familiar with it. And can agree with it depending on how it is meant.
Teaching of the literal facts of a matter, or a non-literal idea.

Two days ago, my friend took me for a spin in his car driving on the autobahn, as slow as a snail
so yesterday, to show him how to properly drive a high performance car, we swapped seats
and headed for same autobahn, flying down it
Today, in similar car, I drove, doing 20 miles per hour, in built up areas

We must do the same, when we read the Bible, know "teaching of literal fact of a matter" aside "non-literal idea"

budaatum:
Take for instance, the first Chapter of the Bible.
It describes a good plan for when embarking on a project.
You go step by step, assessing the terrain, planning out what you wish to accomplish

You're correct that the first and second Chapter of the Bible are synoptic biblical stories of creation
(i.e. expressing a general view of how the world came about)
Both shows a GOOD PLAN PROJECT done in a careful step by step and orderly process
by an Intelligent, Presence, Power, Force, Existence, Influence with Authority and Knowledge

budaatum:
executing each step of your plan then assessing if it is adequate before building on top of it until the last brick is laid

IV&V (i.e. Independent Verification and Validation) is assessing if the starting point, is adequate before building on top until last brick is laid
That is why and how the Tree of Life and The tree of knowledge of Good and Evil are side by side, centrally and openly placed
as necessary for the starting point
After all, moment of choice, is a moment of truth.
Moment of truth to see, whether or not, the starting point is adequate before building on top of it until the last brick is laid

budaatum:
But as a narative for how the world came about?
It sucks.

I disconcur with the remark, that narrative for how the world came about sucks
Naija local parlance will say:
''Ti a ba bu ounjẹ, sinu epo ẹpa, ẹni ma jẹun yo, a yo"
loosely means
''Even if and when food is served, in teeny weeny groundnut pods, diners, who'll eat, enjoy the food and be full, will be''

There is enough information in the teeny weeny groundnut pod narrative to fill your boots with

So reiterating, the first and second Chapter of the Bible are just synoptic biblical stories of creation
(i.e. general view of how the world came about)
There is plenty to go around and enough for everyone.
You just have to make sure you have your feel and fill of it.

budaatum:
John 5
Does His Word Dwell In You‎?

Yes‎‎
‎

budaatum:
D‎o you have the love of God in your hearts‎?

Yes
‎

budaatum:
And, my question, to make up a third is:
‎
What is ‎the love of God?

God‎

budaatum:
John 6

“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”‎‎‎
‎
If his disciples said that, it should come as no surprise that we have some amongst us who constantly demand for evidence and proof.
Miracles, or what someone recently referred to as his "Sphere of influence", does not seem to be enough.

You misundertood me, when I wrote:
"You're right, because we live in a world of fantasy and reality,
we have gods, that are human constructs,
Meanwhile other gods, are just as like, all God is about,
only that, these other gods, due to their essence(s), have their authority limited to each own's sphere of influence"
- © Muttleylaff

What I meant to say, was "circle of influence" and not "sphere of influence"
so anywhere you've read me say "sphere of influence", I actually am saying, "circle of influence"

The authority, the power, control or right a drink of liquor has over the drinker is limited to the drink's circle of influence
Drinking liquor wont make one sprout flowers on the head.
Why, because liquor hasnt got the authority nor wasnt given the authority to do so

The many disciples who turned their backs, no longer walking with Jesus and so leaving Him,
did so because they allowed their circle of concern increase at the expense of a decreased circle of influence

Jesus faced the Twelve and asked them:
"Do you want to leave too?"

Simon Peter replied:
"Lord, to whom would we go?
You have the words of eternal life.
We believe and know that You are the Holy One of God"

budaatum:
However, I would propose that Jesus was not asking them to believe in him because of the miracles he had performed.‎
He sure was not asking them to believe in the miracles themselves, for it does not seem they doubted much that he had actually performed them.
Nor could he have been asking them to believe that when they ate the bread he gave them, that he had cut off some of his flesh and fed it to them.
It was they, after all, who had brought the bread to him, and I feel they would know the difference between bread and raw flesh. ‎
Were they ‎baulking at the idea that God had sent him, or that he had seen the Father perhaps? ‎ ‎‎
‎
‎Jesus meant way more than what is seemed on the surface.
For the words he spoke "are full of the Spirit‎ and life”‎,
and he should therefore be understood in a way that imbues every word with "Spirit‎ and life‎".
After all, if it were as simple as just "believing",
those who witnessed him performing wonders could hardly have claimed it were "hard teachings", or ask, "who can accept it?"

It would be hard for a fish to swim beautifully without grace
It will be, hard flying, for a bird to fly beautifully without grace

Those who witnessed him performing wonders but still turned their backs, no longer walked with Jesus and so left Him
because the "hard teachings" circle of concern, in the presence of negative energy got magnified and became bigger than their circle of influence

Notice the name order was, Simon Peter. Simon mentioned first, before Peter.
Unsteady before Steady, though being Unsteady Steady, he still managed to say the right thing

budaatum:
With that in mind do I therefore ask,
What, exactly, is God's work?‎
‎
Enjoy the week.

The work done in God's name is God's work
Works that the Father has given out to accomplish is God's work
Enjoy the week too

MuttleyLaff:

What I meant to say, was "circle of influence" and not "sphere of influence".

The "sphere of influence" I meant was not yours. It was said by someone else. If you wrote it too, I am afraid I missed it.

budaatum:
The "sphere of influence" I meant was not yours.
It was said by someone else.
If you wrote it too, I am afraid I missed it.

Previous page, last post and the very bottom?

And also at another thread here below before the one on this thread's previous page:
https://www.nairaland.com/4357359/what-god/1#65265961

MuttleyLaff:
Previous page, last post and the very bottom?

And also at another thread here below before the one on this thread's previous page:
https://www.nairaland.com/4357359/what-god/1#65265961

Noted. Still didn't mean yours.

I meant to say "spending spree", but guess you were more on my mind.

budaatum:
Noted. Still didn't mean yours.

Anyway, anywhere on those two threads or in private chats that anyone or you have read me say "sphere of influence", I actually, am saying, "circle of influence"
nuance
Very often, people confuse "sphere of influence" with "circle of influence".
so in the context of our discussion, I dont want the nuance lost on any,
this is why I seized the chance to give ammends, do the heads up and correction

John 7

“Are you from Galilee, too?"‎‎‎

It is possible that the Pharisees were not aware that Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Elijah, and Elisha possibly came from Galilee. However, considering their agenda to eliminate this rable rouser who claimed to have been sent by God, "eat my flesh, drink my blood", one might not be wrong in claiming they desired to distort Scripture to suit their end. He didn't exactly make it easy for them with what non-believers could only call wild antics, and his claim 'to be sent by God'!

The facts for many however, were different. "Is this truly the Messiah?" some asked. 'I thought they were going to kill him, but don't they seem afraid of him instead? But they were the "foolish crowd", ignorant of the law, with God’s curse on them, the sheepee, so to speak.

The ‎Pharisees appear to have no knowledge or the desire to interpret the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah which claims, "Galilee" is to be made glorious by a son who is to be called "Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace". I guess they were not having his "I Am" claims neither!
‎
Which gives this week's simple question, along with the many posed in the chapter which are worth considering.

Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own.

Would you have accepted that "I Am"?


Do note that if I have butchered the previous chapters, what I've done to this one is butchered it with my eyes shut!

budaatum:
John 7

“Are you from Galilee, too?"

It is possible that the Pharisees were not aware that Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Elijah, and Elisha possibly came from Galilee. However, considering their agenda to eliminate this rable rouser who claimed to have been sent by God, "eat my flesh, drink my blood", one might not be wrong in claiming they desired to distort Scripture to suit their end. He didn't exactly make it easy for them with what non-believers could only call wild antics, and his claim 'to be sent by God'!

The facts for many however, were different. "Is this truly the Messiah?" some asked. 'I thought they were going to kill him, but don't they seem afraid of him instead? But they were the "foolish crowd", ignorant of the law, with God’s curse on them, the sheepee, so to speak.

The ‎Pharisees appear to have no knowledge or the desire to interpret the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah which claims, "Galilee" is to be made glorious by a son who is to be called "Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace". I guess they were not having his "I Am" claims neither!
‎
Which gives this week's simple question, along with the many posed in the chapter which are worth considering.

Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own.
Would you have accepted that "I Am"?

Do note that if I have butchered the previous chapters, what I've done to this one is butchered it with my eyes shut!

[img]https://s1/images/WeirdLookUp.gif[/img]

John 8

“The truth will set you free."‎‎‎

I went to see Mary Magdalene during the week. Main point of the film was the attitude to women in those times, and the relevance of Mary to Jesus. She is referred to as one of his disciples.

Chapter 8 is one of those chapters we atheists would never get our heads around (we'd most likely have the same issue with the entire GoJ, really). When people make the claims that Christ is making here it can't help but sound like a teapot between Earth and Mars kind of claim, and you'd by now know we react no different to how the Pharisees reacted, with incredulity.

“You are making those claims about yourself! Such testimony is not valid.”

“You Samaritan devil! Didn’t we say all along that you were possessed by a demon?”

I must confess that that is exactly the reaction I have to the text until I switch on my god gene, the gene that makes things divine make some sense. It does involve some acrobatics however, and for it to make total sense, one does need the "belief gene", which happens to be the gene that the atheist is completely devoid of.

The core point is that Jesus is not pleased with the religious attitude of the day. It seems that there was more concern for the observation of the religious dictats and no regard for the person behind the religion. More like me condemning a person because they think differently to me and completely disregarding the fact that there's a human being behind their thoughts. Very easy to do I guess. How many times has one read condemnation of another on here? Par for the course, it would seem. And no, you are no better than the rest of us! This is one sin all are guilty of! Though we think it ok to stone others! And despite a sticky thread begging you please!

The film, Mary Magdalene, is an Easter film and is well worth seeing, though it did give me the winks (probably more due to the sleepless night before).

Have a good week as we prepare two pieces of wood.

John 9

“Are you saying we’re blind?”‎‎‎

This week is Passover, when Jews celebrate their freedom from Egypt, and Easter weekend, when Christians celebrate the Crucifixion of Christ.

The gulf between the Jews and Christ is shown again in this chapter. I've said it before, that the Jews would have found it rather difficult to accept that Jesus was the healer, sent by God. “God should get the glory for this", they claimed, but it was obvious who had healed, as the text specially states that the man was made blind "so the power of God could be seen in him". And on the Sabbath, at that!

I can't help see the similarities between Jesus and the Pharisees, and the believers and unbelievers on Nairaland, with both insisting the other must believes as they say they should. It must have been impossible for the Pharisees to believe God sent Jesus. They knew God spoke to Moses, "but we don’t even know where this man comes from.” “God should get the glory for this, because we know this man Jesus is a sinner.”

“Are you saying we’re blind?” The atheist would ask.

“If you were blind, you wouldn’t be guilty. But you remain guilty because you claim you can see." The believers would claim, essentially meaning, "you are spiritually blind".

You might understand the gulf that exists between the two!

Happy Easter.

John 5

We atheists would point out contradictions in the Bible and literally speaking, this is one (and apart from whether the Sabbath is Sunday or the day before, which is of contention itself), for is it not written that thou must: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Yet here is Jesus claiming certain types of work are acceptable, including cutting ears off corn to eat on the Sabbath, healing the sick and getting ones sheep out of a well. Are holy works then acceptable (though cutting ears off corn would have to be stretched to fit, as would minimising ones loss down the well!) I would suggest that it would have been correct for Jesus to postpone the healing of the invalid of thirty-eight years. What difference would a day make afterall, though reading today that he did so would rather enslave him to Scripture.

Perhaps this stands as an example of what it might mean to fulfil the law, as God would have to be quite wicked if say the Priest, the Levite and the Samaritan had all refused to help the man who had been robbed because no work should be done on that day. I guess, for the parable to hold, the Samaritan would have returned the next day to help. Thankfully, that's not the issue in that parable, as it would only have complicated issues further!

It should be noted that the no Sabbath work rule did not prevent Joshua from marching around Jericho for seven consecutive days, nor did it prevent the chief priest Jehoiada from organizing a palace coup on the Sabbath in order to remove queen Ataliah from the throne and replace her with Joash, so, Jesus had precedence to justify his Sabbath work.

One could argue that he adopts Isaiah's view of "rather than going one's own way or do idly as one pleases on the Sabbath, one should do that which is holy", and what is holier than loving other sentient beings?

"You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life," says Jesus. As is my wont, I'd say, "Some believe because they think in doing so they have eternal life". Seems to me like Jesus saw it differently.

The Book of John is distinct. My first time of reading it I saw Christ in a new light. I saw a fierce and a no nonsense person. His messages to the pharisee and scribes were lather. I saw a total description of Christ.

OP, You are an atheist? Why are you interested in the Bible?

luvmijeje:
OP, You are an atheist? Why are you interested in the Bible?

It is a book read by many around me. Only a fool or one who has no interest in understanding their fellow human being would not read it. They would then fabricate lies to justify hating their neighbours. I refuse to be ignorant.

luvmijeje:
The Book of John is distinct. My first time of reading it I saw Christ in a new light. I saw a fierce and a no nonsense person. His messages to the pharisee and scribes were lather. I saw a total description of Christ.

Very distinct that I confess to making a complete hash of it. For instance, I am not focusing on the mysticism in it, yet, and might not do so in this thread.

However, and hopefully, this reading still serves a purpose.