Jesus Preached the Gospel of Election !

[beloved57]

Jesus Preached the Gospel of Election ! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All that the Father giveth Me shall come unto me..

Jn 6:

37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Amen, Jesus Himself taught election and special redemption in these very words..

It is very evident from this portion of the Word of God, that the Love Gift of the Father is not all humanity..This is corroborated in Jn 17..

We find throughout the whole chapter of Jn 17 who these special people people are who the Father gave unto the Son..They are those given to Jesus Christ out of the world per jn 17:6

I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

In another place Jesus is saying I will declare thy name to my brethren per heb 2:12

Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

Those that have been singled out of the world, not because of their own freewill, repenting and believing, or doing and working, or anything that man does or think. They have been set apart by the Sovereign, electing, and discriminating eternal purpose of God, from everlasting..

They have been under Gods everlasting purpose of mercy from everlasting to everlasting ps 103:

17 But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children;

Notice, this mercy is not for all mankind, but for those who Fear Him..

And fearing Him is not a condition of this mercy, but as a result of it..for none feared God from everlasting of themselves..

So this speaks to eternal election in their Head, the Lord Jesus Christ whom is from everlasting..

[McCulloch]

So John was not a Jew by the No true Scotsman fallacy?

By John, you mean the anonymous writer of what has become known as the Gospel of John. There is an early Christian tradition that attributes this gospel to John one of Jesus' disciples. Bart Ehrman argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest redaction, so that even if John, Jesus' disciple wrote it, he probably did not write it all. Most scholars agree that it was written somewhere between 90 CE and 100 CE. Of the Gospels, only John reflects what could be called a modern Christian viewpoint. Portraying Jesus Christ as a manifestation of the eternal Word, the creator God. John makes the Jews a symbol of unbelief and aggressive hostility to Jesus. This gospel was certainly not written by a believing and practicing Jew.

[cholland]

By John, you mean the anonymous writer of what has become known as the Gospel of John. There is an early Christian tradition that attributes this gospel to John one of Jesus' disciples. Bart Ehrman argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest redaction, so that even if John, Jesus' disciple wrote it, he probably did not write it all. Most scholars agree that it was written somewhere between 90 CE and 100 CE. Of the Gospels, only John reflects what could be called a modern Christian viewpoint. Portraying Jesus Christ as a manifestation of the eternal Word, the creator God. John makes the Jews a symbol of unbelief and aggressive hostility to Jesus. This gospel was certainly not written by a believing and practicing Jew.

So the writer of John was not a Jew by the No true Scotsman fallacy?

[McCulloch]

So the writer of John was not a Jew by the No true Scotsman fallacy?

No, the writer of John was not a Jew, although he might have been formerly a Jew, by the definition of what is Jewish. The idea that God could become a human is completely not something that is compatible with being Jewish. Or maybe not. Apparently God is one is the Jewish mantra, yet it is claimed that those who believe that God is none are allowed to be called Jews. But those who claim that God is three are not?

I withdraw my claim and any pretense that I may have about understanding what it is to be Jewish.

[Jonah]

Behind all the gospels stands other previous documents and oral history out of the communities from which they emerged. The notion that there is a single author who created a single document called the gospel of John is fairy tale grist. There were editor(s), compiler(s), fabricator(s) from disparate previous resources. And the same is true of all ancient religious texts. There's no fun in the business unless you edit, edit, edit. Why do you think there was a Deuteronomy? lol.

So. In reality, there was no "John" who wrote the gospel of John. It was common practice that anonymous gospel writers...there were many...would just tack on a well known name in the tradition.

But, if we were to consider the faux John of the gospel, we would simply be talking about another apostate Jew, is is no longer a Jew proper. And why are you so hung up on this Christian gentile racist idea that somehow, bloodline controls everything? It's rather like the neo-nazi websites that comb Hollywood actors' genealogies for any Jewish names in their family history so they can go, "Ahah. See...a Jew!" Eh, not so much.

Or you could go with some basic sociological research. You go look. If you find any Jews today that are subscribing to John's gospel, please update us. (Messianic Jews don't count.) If you're not finding much, you then have a reason to ask why that may be.

[cholland]

No Jew has ever entertained the idea of a human being as God.

Jesus (a Jew) became human and is divine.

if a Jew takes a position that they believe in a god-man, by Judaism's most central definition, that person is no longer espousing Judaism.

So Jesus was not a Jew by the No true Scotsman fallacy?

Jesus was a Jew who NEVER claimed to be God.

So John was not a Jew by the No true Scotsman fallacy?

By John, you mean the anonymous writer of what has become known as the Gospel of John.

So the writer of John was not a Jew by the No true Scotsman fallacy?

Behind all the gospels stands other previous documents and oral history out of the communities from which they emerged. The notion that there is a single author who created a single document called the gospel of John is fairy tale grist. There were editor(s), compiler(s), fabricator(s) from disparate previous resources. And the same is true of all ancient religious texts. There's no fun in the business unless you edit, edit, edit. Why do you think there was a Deuteronomy? lol.

So. In reality, there was no "John" who wrote the gospel of John. It was common practice that anonymous gospel writers...there were many...would just tack on a well known name in the tradition.

Do you have verifiable evidence that the gospel of John was written by multiple sources or came from previous documents and oral history (I assume you mean other than Jewish history which nobody contests).

But, if we were to consider the faux John of the gospel, we would simply be talking about another apostate Jew, is is no longer a Jew proper. And why are you so hung up on this Christian gentile racist idea that somehow, bloodline controls everything? It's rather like the neo-nazi websites that comb Hollywood actors' genealogies for any Jewish names in their family history so they can go, "Ahah. See...a Jew!" Eh, not so much.

What is your obsession with anti-Semitics? You pull this card in every thread. I'm trying to understand why you think everyone's argument is racist.

Messianic Jews don't count.

Why not? Oh wait, I forgot. The whole No true Scotsman thing.

[Jonah]

cholland,

There is long tradition now of the scholarship I have summarized. I have directed to the large scholar list at the Jesus Seminar. I have alluded to the previous generation's scholarship under Bultmann. If you know nothing of this body of work, all that can be done for you is to encourage you to read books. The fact that you choose to limit yourself to no other resource than your own particular interpretation of the New Testament is just another reality that lays alongside of the scholarship I allude to. Many points could be discussed based on knowledge of texts, culture, language, archaeology, and they would not be proof for you because they are outside of your particular interpretation of the New Testament.

Two examples.

The rediculous scene in John where a crowd shouts to the Roman governor that they have no king but caesar. This is the common tactic of the Hellenized Church which has already cut itself off from Jews marketing itself to Hellenists by playing down Pilate's (Rome's) guilt and making the Jews take the brunt. No. Jews would not be making nice-nice with Rome. You may have heard of Masada and the Bar Cochba revolt.

Then there is the embarassing thang that "John" is supremely more erudite than Jesus. There's a lot of splainin' to do as to why Hellenistic logos language doesn't show up in the Sayings of Jesus documents (primary resource material) behind the gospels or even in Paul. Or to put it another way, why would Jesus not be using John's logos language in the Sermon on the Mount, especially when all the peeps understood Hellenistic ideas (and hated them...reason why the Pharisees had street cred).

In short, Bultmann wrote the book on separating Hellenistic Jesus and Historical Jesus. If it's any comfort, he kind of sided with you in preferring the Hellenistic Jesus....because he was German...and the theory goes among biographers that Bultmann mixed anti-nazi and anti-Jewish feelings together on the idea that ELECTION...be it in the hands of the nazis or the Jews, was just a bad idea all way around...and Bultmann thought he could sort of solve that problem with a Hellenistic Jesus that centered on personal adoption of the Christ myth (in the technical sense) rather than any corporate sense. In short, I think Bultmann was trying to de-elect everyone.

You could read books. Books are fun.

[Jonah]

forgive me cholland,

I did not respond to your question regarding anti-semitism.

Point blank. The New Testament is anti-Jewish in many parts. This goes to my earlier posts concerning Dr. Beck's book. So. The plain simple problem is that your religion, Hellenistic Christianity (Pauline) is, at its base structure, anti-Jewish. And this is what has murdered millions of Jews down through the centuries. And. We just ain't gonna put up with that. And the "We" in that is Jews, Christians, and whoever else who have endeavored to correct the history with accurate history to the point of rendering your claim to election not only historically laughable, but morally reprehensible. And ontologically nonsensical. For if your religion is about a Jesus as a personal lord and savior, the thought of an elect Church is an oppositional concept to a personal lord and savior. (You should remember you folks don't believe in socialism.)

[cholland]

cholland,

There is long tradition now of the scholarship I have summarized. I have directed to the large scholar list at the Jesus Seminar. I have alluded to the previous generation's scholarship under Bultmann. If you know nothing of this body of work, all that can be done for you is to encourage you to read books. The fact that you choose to limit yourself to no other resource than your own particular interpretation of the New Testament is just another reality that lays alongside of the scholarship I allude to. Many points could be discussed based on knowledge of texts, culture, language, archaeology, and they would not be proof for you because they are outside of your particular interpretation of the New Testament.

Two examples.

The rediculous scene in John where a crowd shouts to the Roman governor that they have no king but caesar. This is the common tactic of the Hellenized Church which has already cut itself off from Jews marketing itself to Hellenists by playing down Pilate's (Rome's) guilt and making the Jews take the brunt. No. Jews would not be making nice-nice with Rome. You may have heard of Masada and the Bar Cochba revolt.

Then there is the embarassing thang that "John" is supremely more erudite than Jesus. There's a lot of splainin' to do as to why Hellenistic logos language doesn't show up in the Sayings of Jesus documents (primary resource material) behind the gospels or even in Paul. Or to put it another way, why would Jesus not be using John's logos language in the Sermon on the Mount, especially when all the peeps understood Hellenistic ideas (and hated them...reason why the Pharisees had street cred).

In short, Bultmann wrote the book on separating Hellenistic Jesus and Historical Jesus. If it's any comfort, he kind of sided with you in preferring the Hellenistic Jesus....because he was German...and the theory goes among biographers that Bultmann mixed anti-nazi and anti-Jewish feelings together on the idea that ELECTION...be it in the hands of the nazis or the Jews, was just a bad idea all way around...and Bultmann thought he could sort of solve that problem with a Hellenistic Jesus that centered on personal adoption of the Christ myth (in the technical sense) rather than any corporate sense. In short, I think Bultmann was trying to de-elect everyone.

You could read books. Books are fun.

I think we can agree on that - books are fun. Thanks for the encouragement to read them, you should too. However, there are quite a few out there and so I try to limit the ones I read. Please don't take offense or think I am a neo-nazi Jew hater when I say that I respectfully decline to read every book suggested on this forum. But I can respond to the citation you made.

I got lost in the whole Hellenist, Jew, Rome conspiracy. Please break it down further. As far as 'logos' language, why do you think it was purely a Hellenistic language?

How could you possibly know my interpretation of the New Testament? I think all we discussed here was the status of Jesus/John/writer of John's Judaism.

[Jonah]

cholland,

No. I don't think you are a neo-nazi Jew hater. lol. The sport here is in comparing patterns of thought, that perhaps a lot don't see.

On Hellenism. This is not scholarship I made up. I was taught this, as standard stuff, in seminary....then lol, the seminary with a wink let's us know that we are on our own out in the parish if we try to talk about it...even though it's an open secret that all this is present in the seminaries. It's quite a sport for a conservative church to hire what they know is always going to be a pastor trained in historical-critical scholarship, but pretend they don't know...and then jack him or her up. What they get out of it is just plain cultural war jollies.

This is what happened to me. After seminary graduation, after waiting 6 months for a first interview (has to be set up by the bishop's office), I finally get an interview. It's a dinky church in a rural small town. The church had just split with the departing bunch defecting to a new ultra conservative Lutheran denomination. Part of that new denomination's strategy was to leave some of their people in the old church...so that they can bleed off more people over time...and hopefully take their building and assets. Anyway, I go to my first interview. And the very first question from a lady on the call committee was:

"Was Jonah REALLY swallowed by a big fish, or was that a story told to get a point across?" I thought "Oh, crap." And I was just honest: "It was a story told to get a point across". I was told "Wrong Answer"....and then I got quite a little sermon, and about how "troubled" they were about my answer. And the interview went down hill from that. So. I drove home in failure thinking about how I would tell my wife that I had just utterly failed. And that wasn't good, because we were hurtin for income. Well.....they called me that night and gave me the job. lol.

So. There's no conspiracy. The Bultmann schools goes this way. Paul and the rest of the Hellenistic Christians knew there was only one open market for their religion and that was outside of Israel under the Roman Empire. So. The religion took on the trappings and familiar themes and language of Greek/Roman religion...and muted criticism of Rome, at least directly. This is why it was handy to blame Jews. Rome fought a nasty, nasty war with the Jews. It was their Vietnam. The early Church figured in order to get along, they would have to not look so belligerent, even though they were in their essence anti-thetical to Rome...you just don't have to shove that in their faces in broad daylight. So. Paul uses his Roman citizenship...dissassociates himself from Jews and Torah...gives sermons that tie into the dominant religion...the unknown Roman god becomes the God he's there to tell them about.

So. Logos. A greek word and concept. The gospel of John is using a specific genre of metaphysical language because it is trying to compete with the Gnostics...fighting fire with fire. Gnosticism was a movement that straddled both Judaism and Christianity. The Essenes were a Jewish version of it. You will find some of this gnosticism put into Jesus' mouth in some texts, but then you have the texts where it's absolutely absent. And then you do the math. You have a Hellenized Jesus and a Jewish Jesus.

Think about the Eucharist. Eating body and drinking blood? Jews, by law, don't consume blood...if they're kosher. Such liturgical notions go back to Greek mystery religions.

Enough for now.

[CalvinismIsHeresy]

Jonah,

Why do you think God found it necessary to iterate a point like Him being "One God." Wouldn't it be obvious to the nation of Israel? Not necessarily. Because Israel new that God was Father but He was also Holy Spirit, and some would come to know that He was also the man Christ Jesus. This is also why God said let "US" make man in "OUR" image. God is one. Absolutely. But Elohim is a word often used in the Old Testament to refer to God and is in fact a word of plurality to communicate that even though God is absolutely one and is undivided, He is also more than one person. The triune Godhead is something that is CLEARLY taught in the Old Testament. It blows my mind that anybody, especially Gods people, don't see it. Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is One God is a decree to Israel to remind them He is undivided, not one to crush the notion of the Godhead, but rather to lend credit to it. Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is One God, in three persons. Father Son and Holy Ghost.