John 1 12 13. Does the passage refer to Christ?
I have concluded it does not refer to Christ. It refers to the time before Christ's presence (physical) on earth. John the probable author is speaking of before Christ.
The next verses speak of the flesh of the Savior.
But many seem to quote these two verses to rally against Universalism. "Houston we have a problem"
""12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.""
And then the next paragraphs start with a title: The Word Becomes FleshThis is very interesting Eric. I need time to ponder on this. I have over looked your point about 14 coming after 12 and 13. Now I am curiouse.
I am wholly convinced now that John had it right. And makes perfectly clear in following verses that all are now saved. I do not know what it takes to become unsaved. But it would have to be an act of volition not omission for sure. And so it becomes clear that the work of the Christian is less about going out and saving, and more about, not causing one to stumble.
Eric, do you believe that once the truth is revealed to all, that one, some or even many will refuse the great gift of grace that is already given to us all? I am just curious what you think about UR.
I am just unfortunate enough to have witnessed Christians pissing folks off enough to get them to reject. There is an error in Churches to try and convert. Mankind rejects such things. Good for mankind. There is only one method to convert and that is love. There is no reason for a man to speak out loud that he loves. But if he does love then he has received. I am not UR. I am just one that believes God is Love, and therefor all who love know God. Us calling it God only frustrates the mission.
Your observation is entirely caused by the latter, hence Christians can stop pissing off folks anytime.
Thats the thing, Eric. Has there ever been a person that has never known love? My wife would agree with you about love and God. I am still searching this thought. Yes there is a gross error in the church (ecclesia), and it needs prayer and healing. I believe that the current condition of the world is not because of atheists, buddists, hindues, muslims or any other form of religious belief, the state of the world is because of the church and the history of Christianity and its belief system.
What do you mean by that?
"Us calling it God......"
By the way, I think you're trying to read too much into the verse in question....
It is about Jesus. It simply refers to the "new birth" that Christ's resurrection obtained for anyone who accepts Him.......being "born again".....Spiritually, as opposed to being born into some form of earthly inheritance or family.
The fact that the verse comes before "And the word was made flesh"......doesn't imply any ulterior significance.Bravo Brenda! Context is king here and any reasonable reading of the text, in my opinion, leads to no other conclusion than the fact that Jesus is in view. Also, we need to remember that it is quite dangerous to embrace a position of interpretation that is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture...In other words, even if a case could be made that this is an obscure passage (I think not) it would still behoove us to base our interpretation of it on the passages which are less ambiguous. Yet again, I maintain that there is no ambiguity in this passage. With all due respect to Eric and Sword...there is simply too many references in Scripture contrary to the idea of Universalism to ignore, deny or explain away. I think the concept of "Forced Love" which is required in order to embrace Universalism, will prove very problematic for those who wish to intellectually wrestle with it with honesty. I must agree with C.S Lewis who once stated, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end. ‘Thy will be done’ ” (Lewis, The Great Divorce, 69).
How many referrences are there in scripture that are contrary to Universalism? Because I have found of 600 that says the exact opposite.
What I like best about believing in universalism (If it is true?) is that it makes no difference if we believe in it or not. It is what it is!
(if it is true?) there is no need to convince any one of its truth, it is what it is!
I think that unless every time a baby is born into this physical realm a NEW spirit/soul is created ...?
Now that sounds silly to me! Does the sex act between two humans create new spirits/souls? Is that scriptural? Or did God breath the soul into the body?
If the latter is the case, the soul existed before it entered the body! And if the soul existed before it enters the body AND it continues to exist after it leaves the body, it is then eternal.
Can an act that it commits, within a time frame which must in comparison, seem to take less time than a sneeze cause it to lose its eternalness? In the same way that an evil act, which only lasted 30 seconds when you were a teenager abolish the person that you are today?
Or something like that.Only the Holy Spirit can confirm the Gosple is true to believer and none believer. It is my desire to free believers of hell from this insane belief.
I have come to the same conclusion as you concerning universalism; but I have come to this conclusion from a completely different direction.
I forget where it was written, but, I have read that prophesy was given that we might prove scripture. I think in this instance the word “prove” could have/should have been interpreted “understand”. Religion attempts to prove the prophesy with understanding of scripture. Doing so is kinda like deciding what the hubcap looks like before we build a tire for it to fit on, and then building the vehicle to fit the tire before we determine what the purpose of the vehicle is going to be.
The point of this statement is that having a preterist/historicists view brings me to the conclusion that the confusion created by the many different doctrines of Christianity and Islam was preordained through prophesy. This also causes me to see scripture in a different light than that seen by Futurists. These beliefs bring me to the conclusion that universal salvation is the right answer.
I do not understand how futurists understand scripture the way they do, as they can not understand why I see things the way I do.
However, with being a universalist, I don’t think it really matters which of us are right in our thinking.What helped me alot was when I felt God was leading me away from the church I last attended (Pentacostel). I felt and knew something was wrong. It happened about two weeks after I asked my old pastor to pray for me so I could be baptised by the Holy Spirit. I felt a change in me. I started to doubt the tithe and other teachings my old pastor taught us. I left the church, and I then decided to erase everything I was taught by the church and start a new. I have learned alot since then, and many wonders in scripture. i have attempted to share them with other Christians but they refused to even listen. I came to the conclussion that they are not ready yet. I wasn't for the longest time ready.
It was kinda the same for me. (the short version) I was alone at home and prayed for wisdom. I started having a few dreams like I've never had before. Started having many questions resurfacing which had been quieted in my younger years by the church. To begin with, why does the word “Private” conversation appear so bold in Matthew 24:3 ? Why is it that in Matthew 23, Jesus is telling the Pharisees what they are going to do to his messengers and in C. 24 he tells Peter, James John and Andrew in a “private” conversation that these things are going to be done to them.
In a “PRIVATE” conversation Jesus tells THESE four that YOU are going to see and YOU will have these things happen to YOU, and “THIS" generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled?
It seemed that every time I watched the history channel there was stories about the things that happens to that Hebrew Nation between 30 AD and 138 AD. Looked like the story of the seven seals being opened. I found myself reading prophesy and seeing a totally different version than the one I thought I had read before. One false interpretation (which I had been taught) after another began falling.
I would come to another verse which seemed to prove that my “NEW” understanding was false. But after close scrutiny I would find that it was a false interpretation concerning that verse NOT what that verse actually said which seemed to contradict my NEW understanding.
You might be surprised how often when we are reading anything that we don’t see the words which we are reading but a preconceived idea of what those words are supposed to be saying..
After a decade I began reading that which is actually reading without projecting any preconceived ideas upon them. Trust me! This is very difficult to do.
I too am a preterist universalist. You cannot imagine (maybe you can) how many times Christians have cursed me as a son of satan, and I am going to hell. One of the greatist secrets I have discovered is the judgment of the adulterous who was saved from being stoned and Heb 1. Try it and privately tell me what you think.
What I got from the story about the adulterous, is that Jesus told her that he wasn't going to judge her ... and don't let them catch you doing it again (he might not be there to save her next time they do!)
Well not really but kinda sorta ... Maybe?
As far as the Heb1 thing I'm not sure what you mean exactly. I'm with EmileR about not taking those things TOooo seriously that the students supposed that Jesus meant such and such when he said; this or that. Especially when I take into consideration that 300 years later a council which was presided over by the Emperor of the Roman Empire who greatly influenced the decisions as to which letters were to be included OR NOT into the book that was the foundation of "HIS" new universal religion.
But seeing as how the council was made up of religious leaders that held a variety of beliefs, Constantine was able to influence their decisions only up to a point. We have no way of knowing to what extent some of those letters were compromised. I do know that the books of Daniel and Revelation barely made it into the canon. I think this is because they are the most revealing as to what was at that time being established. It was a necessity that these two books be misinterpreted to the fullest extent possible or the plan would not have been successful for as long as it is written that it would be.
The completion of the 42 prophetic months is near at hand. I wound say within a decade or so.
- Emile Rposted 11 years ago
0Looking at the verses in question, and the ones before and after; I think you have to take those two out of context in order to arrive at that conclusion.
Who says you have to take scripoture in its context to understand its meaning? Rules about how to read scripture is one of the many reasons why I left the church.
I didn't say there were rules. I suppose it makes sense to pull whole sentences out of context to create a new meaning. I mean, Christians already do that even with individual words.
Ok, then please tell me what the parable of the rich man and Lazerus means in its context written in Luke 16.
I've read that several times and still have no idea what that has to do with the question asked by the OP, or my opinion of that question.
Emily, he is trying to make the case that a typical interpretation of the parable, when taken at face value, in context, results in a belief of a literal Hell which he is opposed to ... If I am not mistaken.
My purpose here is not making a case, but to help those who seek see. Christ said if they have an ear, let them hear. That is the purpose of my question, but once I have established that there is no ear that can hear. I dont waste time talking to them. If you take the parable liteally, you end up with a literal hell. The message that Christ was giving the pharisees and the scribes was something else and has nothing to do with a hell, therefore debunking the belief that you have to take all scripture in its context.
I'm all ears. Please elaborate a little more
You already know my position here Deeps, and yes friend. You ARE all ears.
No one here is interested in your purpose here, you need not worry about that.
That is the reason why your purpose has nothing to do with anyone but yourself, it is an entirely selfish purpose that only you believe will benefit, while everyone else is simply annoyed. You have no interest whatsoever with anyone but yourself.
You believe that we should read the bible in its context, so what is your understanding of the parable in its context?
First, it is a parable. Second, it is supposedly the words of Jesus. There is a big difference between what a prophet teaches and what a pupil writes about the nature of the teacher after the class has been completed. John was giving his interpretation of who Jesus was; so, no, I think taking any portion of that out and determining it to be contrary to what the whole thought implied is probably not a good idea. Can you do it? You can do anything you want.
But, to the parable. Even if it does appear to say that hell exists; and even if it was a firm statement that this guy ended up there it does not follow (in my opinion) that such a place would still exist. I feel confident somewhere Jesus said he hadn't come to abolish the law; but to fulfill it. So, at the moment the parable was shared it could feasibly be argued that such a place existed. Not after the resurrection. I, personally, think the point was simply to be kind to the less fortunate. That somewhere within eternity you will regret your selfish actions. But, since I don't believe in hell maybe I'm being too charitable about the teachings of Jesus. Maybe he was a fire and brimstone preacher.If you take the parable into the context of who it was spoken to and when it was spoken, you get a better understanding of its symbolic meaning. In a nut shell, Christ was telling His disciples that the blessings given to Judea from God will end and be given to the gentiles, further, He also told them that the age of the old covenant will end with the beginning of the new covenant. He also added that those who are Jews will face persecution for many centuries as long as they do not except Christ as the messiah. I did not take the parable in its context, because there is no context, yet I have come to understand its symbolic meaning spiritually. I believe this also applies to most of Christ's ministry to the Jews.
So, it is your argument that a parable has no context then nothing written within the book has context? I'm confused, because you took the parable, in its entirety, to come to a conclusion. Yet you are arguing that doesn't apply to the verses brought up by the OP. Why?
I fail to see any context in any parable, and I fail to see any context in the verses brought up by the OP. keep in mind that I do understand the meaning of the parable of the rich man and Lazerus, yet I am still working on getting the spiritual understandings of others.
??? I get what you are saying about the parable. About John's words...not really.
If I said, "Bob is Bill's son. Jerry came to let us know that Bob was coming for a visit, because he knows the family and wanted us to feel somewhat familiar with Bob when he got here since he is a distant cousin. But, when Bob got here, no one believed he was Bill's son because he didn't look much like Bill. I believed he was Bill's son, for which I'm grateful. He said when I come out to his hometown next summer we'll have some fun."
From that chain of sentences, would it make sense to pull out the third sentence and claim it wasn't talking about what happened directly after Jerry gave us a head's up that Bob was coming?There is a difference in the meaning of a parable from Christ then your bill, bob, dick, jane and harry story. if you cannot understand the meaning that I have given you about the rich man and Lazerus, There is nothing more I can tell you. A parable is not meant to be understood in a context because there is no context. As for John, it may seem to have a context to understand it, but I dont see it, nor have I claimed to say I understand it. I did say that I found Erics approach interesting. Ok?
Let's recap. I said it didn't seem logical to pull it out of context. You said you shouldn't have to take things in context. I agreed, no law made you do it. You bounced to another passage, asking what I thought it meant, in context. I explained a parable spoken by a prophet isn't the same as words from a pupil. I think we appear top be in agreement that a parable doesn't necessarily mean what it appears, at first glance.
John was not speaking in parables. Make it mean whatever you want it to mean. That is your right. But, everyone else does have the right to an opinion and your opinion is not the final authority. Nor is mine. Unfortunately, I appear to be the only one of us that understands this.
I have totally misunderstood you, With that said, I still believe we should try to read the white between the print when it comes to scripture. It works for me and no one can tell me to take scripture in its context.
Sword, please clarify..."If you take the parable into the context of who it was spoken to and when it was spoken" and "I did not take the parable in its context, because there is no context, yet I have come to understand its symbolic meaning spiritually."...it would seem that your attempt to somehow evade context is going to take a bit more work. With all due respect, never-mind the fact that we will have to agree to disagree on the reality of Hell...the fact of the matter is that you are fooling yourself by these gymnastic approaches to the Scripture. You can't be "okay" with a contextual understanding and then when the clear conclusion is one that betrays your sensitivities simply dismiss it through suggesting a symbolic or "Spiritual" conclusion. I really do not mean to come across mean spirited but quite frankly, I think you should give some honest evaluation to the manner in which you are approaching the Scripture. Do you not find it problematic that you spend so much energy trying to explain Hell away that in the process you are having to sacrifice the integrity of the Scripture and viability of your own logic? I say this not as a cheap shot towards you...you strike me as someone who has experienced deep struggles with the traditional "church" which I can appreciate. However, one of the things we all must be an guard of, including myself, is allowing the misrepresentation of Christianity that we find ourselves subjected to on so many occasion, to drive us towards equally dangerous misrepresentations. For instance, if your experience in the Pentecostal church left you frustrated, angry, disillusioned, fed-up, confused, etc...perhaps the answer is not in isolating yourself from the institution which Christ Himself died for and perhaps the answer is not in developing an understanding of Scripture which is driven more by for-drawn conclusions rather than an honest desire to understand. I do not pretend to have all the answers; however, I can assure you of this, if there is a real Hell and I believe there is and if God is truly righteous, loving and Holy, and I believe He is, then it is not our job to somehow explain His ways away so as to satisfy our lack of understanding and be more appealing to the masses...we do God a great injustice with such an approach and in the end, one may find him or herself in a seat of tremendous responsibility for having led many astray. Lastly, some suggest that those who believe in a literal Hell are equally those who incessantly focus on it and are characterized as "Fire and Brimstone" types. This is really an insufficient understanding of people like myself. On the contrary, because of the reality of hell, I spend the majority of my time proclaiming the Good News that God has made a way for all who embrace the sacrifice of His Son to never have to face that horrible place. Though it is true that Jesus spent considerable time talking about the punishment of the wicked, it is also true that He came to seek and save the lost... That's all for now.
We are done friend. You are only interested in argument.
Just a friendly discussion Sword; nevertheless, feel free to set it out; I take no offense.
Ok, where is the context in the parable?
Let me revisit this question a little later today Sword... I'll be in touch.
Context: {The parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning} Everything we say and read has a context...the question is not whether or not a passage or statement has one nor should it be difficult to find it. Understanding it and actually acknowledging however is a different matter all together.
Luke 16 has a context. Luke 16:1 informs us that Jesus was speaking to his disciples until verse 14. Verse 14 through verse 31 Jesus is addressing the Pharisees who were lovers of money and were scoffing at His teaching.
Believe it or not, this is significant. Notice what Jesus was saying immediately before addressing the Pharisees; "Luke 16:13 (NASB95) — 13 “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” Upon hearing this the pharisees evidently moved from being mere spectators to actually voicing their disdain through scoffing. It's then that Jesus begins addressing the pharisees, "Luke 16:14–15 (NASB95) — 14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. 15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God." According to this passage, in context, Jesus was now addressing those who were lovers of money...the very thing which Jesus had just warned the disciples of. It should not surprise us if we are reading this in context since the very beginning of the chapter introduces us to the overall theme of chapter 16; namely, the need to have a Kingdom perspective of wealth and possessions. This can fairly easily be observed, It begins with the parable of the unjust steward (16:1–8) to which several statements regarding riches are made (16:9–13, esp. 16:9, 11, 13) then we come to the emphasis of the Pharisaic love of money (16:14–15) and finally we come to the parable in question of the rich man and Lazarus (16:19–31).
The issue at hand was that these religious rulers were consistently seeking to justify themselves...something which is contrary to the teaching of the kingdom. In fact, rather than justifying themselves, the pharisees failed miserably as Jesus points out by reminding them of an area which the pharisees were consistently debating and failing to understand; namely, divorce. (See Vs 16-18) In fact, the pharisees were blind guides, white washed tombs, hypocrites....those who thought they were the key holders of the Kingdom but who were in fact far from it. Their love of money was an indicator that their hearts were far from the heart of God. to illustrate the danger of this Jesus tells a parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Interestingly, this is one of few times when we find Jesus offer a parable with the type of literal detail He does...i.e. the actual name Lazarus.Parallel to the rich landowner in verse 1, the central character of this parable is a rich man enjoying the most luxurious life possible. His dress and his food set him apart from Jesus’ disciples and from the ordinary Jewish citizen. Here was the man the Pharisees wanted to be.
This is the context. It is not a passage on which one should base the entirety of his or her belief of Hell on; however, interestingly, Jesus remains consistent. The image of Hell portrayed here is strikingly similar to the other more didactic and explicit teachings on the subject. In short, Jesus used this parable to inform the pharisees that an awful end awaited those who had plenty of love for money but no love for God or their fellow man...that "awful end" is described as "Hell" or "Hades" in the English translation but is actually the Greek word "Hades". In the OT it can mean the place of the dead or the place where the unrighteous dead go. It is contrasted with “heaven” in Ps 139:8 and Amos 9:2. In the present context it refers to the place of the unrighteous dead in contrast to “Abraham’s side,” or the place of the righteous dead.
I get it, you believe in hell. So explain to me how such a place can glorify God. Afterall, He knows the numbers of hair on each and every arm on every person who ever lived. He knows according to you who wil be eternally dammed and who will be in heaven. With that said, God knowing in advance who will be eternally dammed before the dawn of time, I cannot in good faith call such a deity merciful. Can you?
Sword, I maintain that you do need to take or read Scripture in context to understand its meaning...not just me, but a world of people who approach any form of literature with integrity and honesty. Whether you wish to call it rules or religiosity or any other demeaning term, the fact of the matter is that you read instructions, letters, blogs, novels, the newspaper and all other forms of literature "In Context" if you wish to come away with a reasonable and accurate understanding. It's unfortunate that you left the "church" over this and many other reasons but your negative experience with those who may have displayed unloving and fleshly attitudes does not negate the fact that if one seeks to rightly understand the word it should at least be read with as much carefulness and integrity as we read the comic strip of a Sunday morning paper. This is not me being unloving by the way...simply stating that your position of "No need for context" is quite honestly unrealistic and tremendously dangerous in my perspective. In fact, perhaps the reason there is so much hypocrisy and division within the "Believing Community" is in part due to the fact that we fail to fully embrace passages such as 2 Timothy 2:15 (NASB95) — 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
By the way...I encourage all those reading this reply to read the above passage in context...lolIt is not at all incredible, that a book which has been so long in the possession of mankind should contain many truths as yet undiscovered. -- Bishop Butler
I put Butler's opinion above yours thank you, and that most Christians take everything in scripture in its context may be the reason why Christianity has lost most of its glory.Sword, I suspect you read that Butler comment in context...or maybe not. I have no issue with you valuing Butler's opinion over my own... I admittedly have much to learn. Nevertheless, I should point out that Butler's most famous work, "Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel" is a collection of 15 sermons on various topics...all of which I might add were based upon verses or passages which he placed and explained in context. I have no bone to pick with you Sword but statements such as "Who says you have to take scripoture in its context to understand its meaning? Rules about how to read scripture is one of the many reasons why I left the church" strike me as being very foolish and self-defeating since neither you, me, nor Bishop Butler operate within that framework unless we are driven by a self seeking motive.
It would of been more follish of me to have stayed. Many books are to be taken in its context and that I have no problem with, but it has been said by many Christians that Christ spoke more about hell than He did heaven is a perfect example why we should not take His teachings in its context. Christ taught us that His words are both spirit and life, yet if you take His word literally, you end of believing what you and most of all Christianity believe in. Hell! I asked some one what their understanding of the parable of the rich man and Lazerus means in its context. Yet no one has yet given me an answer to their understanding of it. All I am trying to say is that there is more to scripture than meets the eye.
Btw, I am not self-defeated, I am willingly defeated.Sword, the issue here is that the scripture is not a buffet line for you and I to pick and choose from... Though attractive that idea might be. The fact if the matter is that Jesus did have much to say about Hell and though it may not be very palatable, it is there. We cannot allegories or spiritualize it and maintain a position of integrity. I imagine you believe in a real Heaven... set the record straight if I am incorrect, if this is the case, you are committing intellectual suicide and religious hypocrisy by interpreting the "happy scriptures" literally and "unhappy passages" spiritually, figuratively, metaphorically or in any other manner. I do not expect to be popular with such a position but I am okay with that. Simply said, God is love and loving but also just and Holy...two characteristics he is simply not willing to sacrifice in order to satisfy our sensitivities. Yet again, what do I know... I'm just a guy who believes the B.I.B.L.E... By the way , I am not at all surprised that you found 600 verses supporting Universalism...I would have expected nothing less. Until next time my friend.
Related Discussions
- 119
Why does it seem most Christians are immature.
by charlie 7 years ago
Why does it seem most Christians are immature.It seems most people professing to be Christian do not have a proper grounding in the scriptures. They drink the milk but do not seem to be able ( or maybe no desire?) to eat the real meat- understand the deeper things of God, in spite of the fact...
- 18
How do we know if we understand the correct context when we study the Holy Bible
by graceinus 9 years ago
How do we know if we understand the correct context when we study the Holy Bible?I have often wonder why we sometimes if not often misunderstand the context of chapters and/or verses when we study God's word. One can read a verse or chapter a number of times believing they understand it's meaning ,...
- 45
If your views conflict with the teachings of the church, how can you still pract
by Cortney McCarty 11 years ago
If your views conflict with the teachings of the church, how can you still practice Christianity?If your views conflict with the teachings of the Bible or church, how can you balance those things to practice Christianity or any other religion you choose?
- 23
How is it possible that Protestants think Catholics aren't Christians?
by Mikel G Roberts 8 years ago
How is it possible that Protestants think Catholics aren't Christians?The earliest Protestant church was the Lutheran Church, named after the Catholic monk Martin Luther. The man that broke away from the only christian church in existence, the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church was...
- 62
Mark 9: 41----what do you think Jesus means here?
by Brenda Durham 11 years ago
"For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward."Taking the surrounding verses into account, please give your interpretation of the passage. And what is the "reward" He...
- 17
Why has the study of Christianity become so Old Testament-based in recent years?
by Billie Kelpin 9 years ago
Why has the study of Christianity become so Old Testament-based in recent years?Growing up Catholic, I always felt the emphasis was on the philosophy and spirit of Christ. Old Testament study and emphasis by modern day Christians often seems to me , despite the obvious historical connection, the...