Where is this scripture? And I don't mean from NT.

[Heber Book List]

​

____________________________________________________​

Anyhow here are a couple other possible "As it is written" scriptures added in bracketed parenthesis between the end of vs 38 and beginning of verse 39 in the ONMB (a Jewish Messianic heart translation). Perhaps, [staff edit] it is aptly relevant to verses 38 and 39 (Capitalization vs non-capitalizaton does make a difference). There isn't a translation that capitalizes *his in verse 38.

38. The one who believes in Me, just as the scriptures said, "rivers of living water
will flow out from *his inner being" (Proverbs 18:4, Isaiah 58:11).
39. And He said this about the Spirit, which those who believed in Him were about
to take: for the Spirit was not yet given, because Y'shua was not yet glorified.​

A question for you (40 years of theological expertise). Is there any reference in the Gospel of John or the other Gospels that reference Yeshua attended Shavuot? Have wondered why verse 37-39 wasn't during Shavuot instead of the Feast of Tabernacles. Is it also your understanding that Shavuot is one of the 3 appointed times (Moeds) when all Hebrew/Jewish males are to travel to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feasts of Passover, Shavuot and Tabernacles? Do you know if that was the command/law for all males to be in Jerusalem for these 3 Feasts (Moedim) since the time of Solomon and the First Temple?

[Staff edit].

I have already indicated that I am not running round and round in circles with the debate re vs 39. Neither did I write the Christian Testament - the text under debate is where it is in the book attributed to John. I am not interested in branching out into other areas of debate on this thread. Maybe you should start other threads in relation to those questions.

 

[Heber Book List]

.

 

[AbbaLove]

I have already indicated that I am not running round and round in circles with the debate re vs 39. Neither did I write the Christian Testament - the text under debate

Several of my posts including my recent post refers more to verse 38 NOT 39. So, as for those of us displaying a Messianic faith icon we don't all agree, having different interpretations ... so what else is new in this MJ forum? HOWEVER, for you to imply it's Messianic Judaism versus Christianity is prejudiced bias if implying that Judaism is more pleasing to Yeshua than Christianity. They both have their good points and failings.

There are some Messianic Jews (e.g. ONE FOR ISRAEL Jewish Messianic testimonies) that are not opposed to being called a Christian Jew or Messianic Christian. Some may agree or disagree as to whether or not Jeremiah 14:8 and Ezekiel 47:1-12 are the only correct interpretatlon of verse 38. We've both expressed our interpretation of verse 38 (and 39), so we can agree to disagree that "we [don't] all agree" on the interpretation of verse 38, my fellow Messianic Believer

That said it may be disconcerting to you that "we [don't] all agree" (as you previously posted) ... which is nothing knew in this MJ forum. Again, it is prejudiced bias on your part to think that all NT translations whether YLT, ONMB and others are full of Christianized prejudice. The following is from the One New Man Bible ...

38. The one who believes in Me, just as the scripture said, "rivers of living water
will flow out from his inner being" (Proverbs 18:4, Isaiah 58:11).​

The objective of the ONMB is to make "the Jewish Roots of Christianity come to life". The NT translation is the Power New Testament translation, which is a fresh translation of the Greek text as literal as possible. The editors used the scientific method known as "Textual Criticism" to determine which of the more than five thousand ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT were closest to what the authors wrote in the first century. The Hebrew Scriptures are in the traditional Jewish book order, and although different from the Christian book order, it is easy to learn the sequence.

Rabbi Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, Ph.D, grandson of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda (for whom Ben-Yehuda Street in Jerusalem is named) spent many hours bringing understanding and Jewishness to passages that are often glossed over or misunderstood. He revealed further insight into Hebrew idioms and Jewish customs in the NT, of which he has a thorough knowledge, making a considerable contribution. Two other noted Greek scholars as well as several others contributed by commenting on the Hebrew text and on the English.

There are more than 4,000 footnotes and a Glossary (101-170 pages depending on edition) describing various 1st Century Jewish customs and explains Hebrew Scriptures which have a much deeper meaning than its literal reading. The Glossary for "God Incarnate" alone fills 6+ pages of approximately 3,330 words

PS: You previously said you have 20 years of theological training/learning. Whereas, i only have 40+ years of Biblical study learned via a diversity of the religion of hard knocks and Spiritual insight. The older i get the more i realize how much i don't know. After my first 20 years i thought i knew it all ... big mistake. Before Moses died and was buried he must have reflected on those 40+ years and what he would have done differently if he had it to do all over again and why YHWH even chose him in the first place for such a monumental task.

 

[Heber Book List]

​

Several of my posts including my recent post refers more to verse 38 NOT 39. So, as for those of us displaying a Messianic faith icon we don't all agree, having different interpretations ... so what else is new in this MJ forum? HOWEVER, for you to imply it's Messianic Judaism versus Christianity is prejudiced bias if implying that Judaism is more pleasing to Yeshua than Christianity. They both have their good points and failings.

There are some Messianic Jews (e.g. ONE FOR ISRAEL Jewish Messianic testimonies) that are not opposed to being called a Christian Jew or Messianic Christian. Some may agree or disagree as to whether or not Jeremiah 14:8 and Ezekiel 47:1-12 are the only correct interpretatlon of verse 38. We've both expressed our interpretation of verse 38 (and 39), so we can agree to disagree that "we [don't] all agree" on the interpretation of verse 38, my fellow Messianic Believer

That said it may be disconcerting to you that "we [don't] all agree" (as you previously posted) ... which is nothing knew in this MJ forum. Again, it is prejudiced bias on your part to think that all NT translations whether YLT, ONMB and others are full of Christianized prejudice. The following is from the One New Man Bible ...

38. The one who believes in Me, just as the scripture said, "rivers of living water
will flow out from his inner being" (Proverbs 18:4, Isaiah 58:11).​

The objective of the ONMB is to make "the Jewish Roots of Christianity come to life". The NT translation is the Power New Testament translation, which is a fresh translation of the Greek text as literal as possible. The editors used the scientific method known as "Textual Criticism" to determine which of the more than five thousand ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT were closest to what the authors wrote in the first century. The Hebrew Scriptures are in the traditional Jewish book order, and although different from the Christian book order, it is easy to learn the sequence.

Rabbi Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, Ph.D, grandson of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda (for whom Ben-Yehuda Street in Jerusalem is named) spent many hours bringing understanding and Jewishness to passages that are often glossed over or misunderstood. He revealed further insight into Hebrew idioms and Jewish customs in the NT, of which he has a thorough knowledge, making a considerable contribution. Two other noted Greek scholars as well as several others contributed by commenting on the Hebrew text and on the English.

There are more than 4,000 footnotes and a Glossary (101-170 pages depending on edition) describing various 1st Century Jewish customs and explains Hebrew Scriptures which have a much deeper meaning than its literal reading. The Glossary for "God Incarnate" alone fills 6+ pages of approximately 3,330 words

PS: You previously said you have 20 years of theological training/learning. Whereas, i only have 40+ years of Biblical study learned via a diversity of the religion of hard knocks and Spiritual insight. The older i get the more i realize how much i don't know. After my first 20 years i thought i knew it all ... big mistake. Before Moses died and was buried he must have reflected on those 40+ years and what he would have done differently if he had it to do all over again and why YHWH even chose him in the first place for such a monumental task.

I do not understand several parts of your post, not least your first paragraph and your last. In the first you say that I have said that the forum is MJ vs Christianity. I haven't. In the last paragraph you say I have studied 20 years - it was 40 years. I do not know where the 20 comes from. Such confused posts are hard to follow and respond to.

 

[AbbaLove]

Translators were known to add interpretations... I wonder if you are on to something. Anyone? can we have an original text from both ..

Even if the original text written by John (verse 39) existed could it be proven even with carbon dating? Would John have had the foresight to add a footnote saying, "This is my original manscript ". Such speculation would be more hearsay than fact suspecting that a forger would have added a date with John's initialed signature .

Never-the-less verse 39 seems very plausible considering John's devoted love and first hand observation. John received the indwelling presence of Ruach HaKodesh at Shavuot with the Spirit abiding with him the remainder of his life. For one to assume that too many years had passed since John's first hand observation was recorded and that his recollection wasn't trustworthy seems a stretch.

The Jewish Apostles as well as their trustworthy assistants were steeped in the importance of word for word accuracy knowing the labor of love by Jewish scribes that precisely copied the Torah down to every jot and tittle. Would the Gospels deserve any less? Even if one decides to discount verse 39 the context of verse 38 is not confusing unless one believes that Jeremiah 14:8 is the only viable scripture. Even so, Jeremiah 14:8 has deeper Spiritual meaning than its literal context. Another scripture ('As it is written') to which Yeshua may be referring could very well be Numbers 20:7-8. Yeshua's words often had deeper Spiritual meaning and according to John 1:1-3, it was the physical manifestation of Incarnate YHWH that instructed Moses what to record in the Torah (i.e. Numbers 20:7-8). The following translation (37-39) is from the Berean Study Bible ...

37 On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and called out in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.
38 Whoever believes in Me, just as the Scripture has said: ‘Streams of living water will flow from within him.’”
39 He was speaking about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.​

There is a trend in mainline Christianity that the Bible is not the absolute word of God(Hell doesn't exist), and as such we are seeing the consequences how the world (including America) is becoming more and more corrupt. Pushing God out of our public schools and higher education and the millions of abortions are just two examples. To question Paul's writings and now John's words (verse 39) as being their own commentary and not God's is suggesting that God doesn't provide input to the words of His Apostles so as to perform His Word (Jeremiah 1:12). Liberal mainline Christianity calls into question Paul's writings such as Galatians 1:8-10, John's Gospel such as John 1:1-14 and many other scriptures in both the Tanakh and the Ketuvei HaShalichim.

 

[Lulav]

John 7:37-39 If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scriptures said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’

Pg 13 and onward of this document might shed some light on John's writing style and how this was constructed.

@SteveCaruso would the Peshitta shed any light on this?

 

[Heber Book List]

Pg 13 and onward of this document might shed some light on John's writing style and how this was constructed.

@SteveCaruso would the Peshitta shed any light on this?

It doesn't indicate who penned vs 39 - That remains an enigma. No one has answered my question: Who wrote the 4th gospel, and when?

Pages 378/9 says (emphasis mine):

This does not mark the extent of Jewish scripture and imagery in 7:38. With Jesus replacing the lost Temple cultus, John cannot miss the connection with the eschatological Temple of Ezekiel
47:1-11; and the story of the riven rock with its Sinai and exodus associations is hardly below the surface. Moreover, water had a wealth of associations (as well as those already cited, cf.
Is. 49:10; Ps. 42:3).Living, fresh, flowing water (ὕδωρ ζῶν;cf. Jn. 4:10, 14 96), is often used in the Old Testament (e.g.Pr. 10:11; 13:14; 16:22), 97 primarily as a general metaphor for God’s activity
in quickening his creatures to life (e.g. Ps. 36:10a; Jer. 2:13; Eze. 47:1ff., esp. v. 9), 98 and it seems likely that John is aware of all these passages. In rabbinic literature, while living water is not a frequent metaphor, water is, and becomes associated with Torah, less commonly with the Holy Spirit. In 1 Enoch (48:1; 49:1) it is associated with Wisdom.99

These metaphors,used in a similar fashion, are also found at Qumran: 1QH 8.16 speaks of a fountain of living water; CD 3.16-17, 6.4-11 states that ‘the well is the Law’, while the staff is the ‘Interpreter of the Law’;100 in CD 19.34 water is equated with Torah; and in 1QS 4.20ff. it refers to the Holy Spirit. It is unnecessary to presume any direct influence of Qumran on John or other similar early Christian writings (e.g.Rev. 95)

This vindicates our application: Jesus not so much provides the water, he is the water. 96 Holtzmann,
Evangelium,103, notes John’s re-eschatologising tendency, citing Revelation passages, esp. 7:17; 21:6; 22:19 97 Hanson, Prophetic, 61, speaks of an embarras de richesse. 98
Z.C. Hodges, ‘Rivers of Living Water–John 7:37-39’, Bsac 136 (1979) 239-48, suggests that ποταμοι in Jn. 7:38 may actually be a rendering of the dual text in the MT.99
See Strack & Billerbeck, Kommentar II, 433-36.100 Hanson,Prophetic, 110, is right: the Qumran connection together with John’s use of the Well Song in ch. 4 makes its use here, albeit secondary, 'difficult to exclude’. BALFOUR: John’s Use of the Scriptures 379 22:17). It is better to see the parallels as further evidence of the pervasiveness of the general Jewish imagery.101 John, like Qumran(and Philo), is well aware of this imagery and puts it to good effect. Jesus, the final expression of God’s Torah and Wisdom, is that (living) water.
By its own admission John 7:39 is a later redaction, part of John’s explanation of Jesus’ words, and has no immediate bearing on v. 38. Nonetheless, it cannot be ignored. At an early point in the Fourth Gospel’s development, it equated the Holy Spirit, standing in Jesus’ place, with the streams of living water. The theme is thoroughly Jewish;102 as with the more general theme that the Spirit imparts life (e.g. Gn. 2:7; 6:3; Eze. 37:1-14), perhaps most striking is Gn R.70:8 where the water-drawing of Tabernacles is interpreted as drawing the Holy Spirit. That John uses such imagery is difficult to deny, especially since Zechariah 12-14 was involved in current Jewish eschatological developments of it.103 Neither is he alone in this regard;1 Corinthians 12:13 shows the Christianizing of the same motif by another early Christian writer. Once again John’s interest and familiarity with both Jewish scripture and current Jewish exegetical methods are clear to see; the more one is aware of Tabernacles and its associated imagery, the more one can grasp the depth of John’s theological argument at this point

 

[Lulav]

I seem to remember that they mentioned that John wrote the parenthetical parts.

 

[daq]

John 7:37-39 If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scriptures said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’

Hi Visionary, "innermost being"?? Perhaps cavity is much better, (since it is κοιλια anyways), because the cavity which contains the heart is likened also to a cistern. Moreover what if the throne of Elohim and the Lamb is reckoned as the heart? and what would that mean for passages such as Rev 22:1? But then I suppose that would mean that most would need to change their understanding of the dating of the Apocalypse to understand how Yohanan could be referring to that passage, and at the same time, be speaking of the new Spirit of Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26, (in John 7:39). For indeed, the Spirit was not yet, just as it says, but that is, not yet complete until the Testimony of Meshiah was finished at Golgotha, when he himself said so, (John 19:30). The argument over John 7:39 seems mostly because people see it as problematic concerning their respective doctrines of the Holy Spirit. It does not have to be that way though because the Master plainly says that the words he speaks are Spirit. Testimony is Spirit, (whether for the good or for the evil). It does not need to be speaking of the Holy Spirit but can be speaking of the new Spirit of the new Covenant, (the Testimony of Meshiah which is the very Spirit of Grace, spoken of in Hebrews 10:29, which is tantamount to his blood because he paid for that Testimony with his blood). The new Spirit foretold in Ezekiel was not yet complete until Meshiah was glorified, that is also, exalted, even magnified, or lifted up, (as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness). Zec14+Rev22 is my answer, (Rev 22:1-3, Rev 22:17).

 

[Heber Book List]

I seem to remember that they mentioned that John wrote the parenthetical parts.

We do not know who wrote the 4th gospel. It was attributed by tradition to John in the 2nd century by Irenaeus. It is easier to use the traditional, attributed sense rather than using the words '4th Gospel' all the time. Vs 39, in particular, is clearly worded showing it was an additional comment and, in the paper you submitted, it says it contributes nothing to vs 38! One poster on here appears to claim that Jesus wrote it - 50 years after his death. It is not a matter of translation from the Greek or Aramaic, linguists will have no axe to grind about its basic wording, it is a question of understanding who added vs39, and when. It really is that simple, but it is also problematic as I have said throughout this thread and as the document you linked to affirms.

All the arguments about what 'John' would, or would not have said, are fruitless because we only assume John was the author. We have less certainty about 'John' being the author than we have about much of what Paul is reckoned to have authored. This is why gospels 1,2 & 3 are called synoptic gospels - they are interlinked in many places. John is separate from them.

The pages you contributed, from which I reproduced the vs 39 section, shows a majority view that vs 39 refers to the Word that is Jesus - he is Torah.

 

[Heber Book List]

Hi Visionary, "innermost being"?? Perhaps cavity is much better, (since it is κοιλια anyways), because the cavity which contains the heart is likened also to a cistern. Moreover what if the throne of Elohim and the Lamb is reckoned as the heart? and what would that mean for passages such as Rev 22:1? But then I suppose that would mean that most would need to change their understanding of the dating of the Apocalypse to understand how Yohanan could be referring to that passage, and at the same time, be speaking of the new Spirit of Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26, (in John 7:39). For indeed, the Spirit was not yet, just as it says, but that is, not yet complete until the Testimony of Meshiah was finished at Golgotha, when he himself said so, (John 19:30). The argument over John 7:39 seems mostly because people see it as problematic concerning their respective doctrines of the Holy Spirit. It does not have to be that way though because the Master plainly says that the words he speaks are Spirit. Testimony is Spirit, (whether for the good or for the evil). It does not need to be speaking of the Holy Spirit but can be speaking of the new Spirit of the new Covenant, (the Testimony of Meshiah which is the very Spirit of Grace, spoken of in Hebrews 10:29, which is tantamount to his blood because he paid for that Testimony with his blood). The new Spirit foretold in Ezekiel was not yet complete until Meshiah was glorified, that is also, exalted, even magnified, or lifted up, (as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness). Zec14+Rev22 is my answer, (Rev 22:1-3, Rev 22:17).

Are you saying that Yeshua added the comment that is vs 39? He died 50 years earlier.

 

[daq]

One poster on here appears to claim that Jesus wrote it - 50 years after his death.

Are you saying that Yeshua added the comment that is vs 39? He died 50 years earlier.

Not sure if we have ever talked before but seeing what you have said to Lulav about me, and seeing the question which you have asked me, and seeing that you have claimed to have forty years of schooling and studies under your belt: it is difficult for me to believe your forty year claim.

 

[Heber Book List]

Not sure if we have ever talked before but seeing what you have said to Lulav about me, and seeing the question which you have asked me, and seeing that you have claimed to have forty years of schooling and studies under your belt: it is difficult for me to believe your forty year claim.

So, are you saying that yes, Yeshua wrote it, as you APPEAR to have said or no, he didn't? The other bits are rather peripheral.

 

[daq]

So, are you saying that yes, Yeshua wrote it, as you APPEAR to have said or no, he didn't? The other bits are rather peripheral.

I have no clue where you got your mistaken appearances of what I said. I said no such thing: which is why I responded to you in the way that I did. If you got that out of what I wrote then no wonder you think John 7:39 does not belong in the scripture, (without any real evidence to support your hypothesis). It says what it says, and by nearly all accounts it was written by the same author who wrote the same Gospel account: and we do not need to be able to actually prove exactly who wrote the account just to believe that it belongs there. If that were the case then what is to stop the next person to come along after you who says that John 1:1 does not belong there either for the same reasoning? What would you say to them? "You can't do that"? after you yourself have already done the same thing in another portion? The only real reason some do not wish to believe John 7:39 belongs in the text is for the very same reason I already said: because they know what it says, and do not like what it says because it conflicts with a doctrine. That is no excuse, moreover, "lectio difficilior potior", (as the old saying goes in Latin, lol).

 

[Heber Book List]

I have no clue where you got your mistaken appearances of what I said. I said no such thing: which is why I responded to you in the way that I did. If you got that out of what I wrote then no wonder you think John 7:39 does not belong in the scripture, (without any real evidence to support your hypothesis). It says what it says, and by nearly all accounts it was written by the same author who wrote the same Gospel account: and we do not need to be able to actually prove exactly who wrote the account just to believe that it belongs there. If that were the case then what is to stop the next person to come along after you who says that John 1:1 does not belong there either for the same reasoning? What would you say to them? "You can't do that"? after you yourself have already done the same thing in another portion? The only real reason some do not wish to believe John 7:39 belongs in the text is for the very same reason I already said: because they know what it says, and do not like what it says because it conflicts with a doctrine. That is no excuse, moreover, "lectio difficilior potior", (as the old saying goes in Latin, lol).

The word 'appears' is in that which I said to Lulav - giving the benefit of doubt and not naming any one poster. The conclusion of the academic paper that Lulav posted is very clear that vs 39 has nothing to do with vs 38 - go read it, with all references intact; I've posted the relevant two pages of the document, above. Do remember to note that I did NOT source the document, Lulav did. I simply extracted the section that deals with vs 39 to save people reading the whole thing. Have you studied the pages? If so, with which academics do you disagree. or with which Quram text do you disagree? It is all well and good shouting from the sidelines, as it were, but unless you undertake the study you will never know for sure, and will continue to attack those who have done the study accusing them of doctrinal error to cover your own eisegesis.

I take it you are well aware that this is not the only verse / verses that are in the Christian Testament that were clearly added by a man, not G_d? If you have read Paul's letters you will have come across several, but I do not hear you arguing that this is not so? Why is that?

Verse 39 has long been known as a 'difficult' passage not because of any great linguistic problem, though the Greek has one or two 'oddities', but who added it and why, and when. The answer is we do not know who, because we do not know who wrote the 4th gospel, or when because it is clearly added in - it doesn't fit in the context of Ch. 7 & 8, and the why is open to conjecture, the majority of scholars have already agreed as I have said.

Edited: Here is what I said to Lulav - note the word 'appears' that you missed the first time round: One poster on here appears to claim that Jesus wrote it - 50 years after his death.



I would be grateful if you could answer the question I asked you - your answer is still awaited with interest.

 

[daq]

The word 'appears' is in that which I said to Lulav - giving the benefit of doubt and not naming any one poster. The conclusion of the academic paper that Lulav posted is very clear that vs 39 has nothing to do with vs 38 - go read it, with all references intact; I've posted the relevant two pages of the document, above. Do remember to note that I did NOT source the document, Lulav did. I simply extracted the section that deals with vs 39 to save people reading the whole thing. Have you studied the pages? If so, with which academics do you disagree. or with which Quram text do you disagree? It is all well and good shouting from the sidelines, as it were, but unless you undertake the study you will never know for sure, and will continue to attack those who have done the study accusing them of doctrinal error to cover your own eisegesis.

I take it you are well aware that this is not the only verse / verses that are in the Christian Testament that were clearly added by a man, not G_d? If you have read Paul's letters you will have come across several, but I do not hear you arguing that this is not so? Why is that?

Verse 39 has long been known as a 'difficult' passage not because of any great linguistic problem, though the Greek has one or two 'oddities', but who added it and why, and when. The answer is we do not know who, because we do not know who wrote the 4th gospel, or when because it is clearly added in - it doesn't fit in the context of Ch. 7 & 8, and the why is open to conjecture, the majority of scholars have already agreed as I have said.

Edited: Here is what I said to Lulav - note the word 'appears' that you missed the first time round: One poster on here appears to claim that Jesus wrote it - 50 years after his death.

I would be grateful if you could answer the question I asked you - your answer is still awaited with interest.

I seem to remember Lulav saying this to you:

I seem to remember that they mentioned that John wrote the parenthetical parts.

Your response to her was to go on about how we do not actually know who wrote the Gospel of John. So what? That does not make any difference. Moreover I initially responded to the OP here, that is, to Visionary, not to you. You then interjected yourself into what I said to the OP and made a wild insinuation concerning what I said in my initial comments to Visionary. I know who you meant when you said what you did to Lulav because you asked me if that was what I meant. Moreover I already answered your question to me in my previous reply to you: I have no clue where you came up with your wild insinuation because I neither said nor implied any such thing. How do you not see or understand that? If you cannot even read a simple online post in a forum board then, as I said, I have a difficult time believing your claims. Moreover your theory that John 7:39 has nothing to do with the previous verse is ludicrous and in direct opposition to what it plainly states. Why do I need to study your papers when I can see that simply by reading it and believing what it says?

John 7:37-39
37 Moreover in the last day, the great day of the feast, Yeshua stood and cried, saying, If anyone thirst, come unto me and drink!
38 The one faithfully-trusting into me, as the scripture-writing has said, from the cavity thereof shall flow rivers of living water.
39 But this he spoke concerning the Spirit, which those trusting in him were about to receive: for the Spirit was not yet, because Yeshua was not yet magnified.

Do you not see the phrase "But this he spoke"? That directly ties the statement to what was previously said no matter how much wrangling, wresting, twisting, and theorizing you think you can do to it in an attempt to avoid what it says. And of course he was magnified at Golgotha, when the Son of Man was lifted up just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, just as I already said and just as he himself said in John 3:14-16 and repeats again in John 8:28. And thus the all-important Testimony of Meshiah found in the Gospel accounts is the new Spirit of the new Covenant foretold in Ezekiel, in several places therein, as I also already stated and referenced in my post to Visionary. And therefore the Spirit was not yet, because Meshiah was not yet magnified or lifted up, just as John 7:39 states, and that being magnified and lifted up was at Golgotha, as I said, and again, his Testimony, which is SPIRIT, was not yet complete until he himself said so, just as I also said in my post to Visionary which you twisted: and therein I also referenced the passage where he says that, which is also in the Gospel of John, (again, John 19:30, "IT IS FINISHED!"). So where you got the idea that I was saying that the Master wrote anything himself 50 years after the crucifixion is beyond me, and frankly, buffoonery.

 

[Heber Book List]

I seem to remember Lulav saying this to you:



Your response to her was to go on about how we do not actually know who wrote the Gospel of John. So what? That does not make any difference. Moreover I initially responded to the OP here, that is, to Visionary, not to you. You then interjected yourself into what I said to the OP and made a wild insinuation concerning what I said in my initial comments to Visionary. I know who you meant when you said what you did to Lulav because you asked me if that was what I meant. Moreover I already answered your question to me in my previous reply to you: I have no clue where you came up with your wild insinuation because I neither said nor implied any such thing. How do you not see or understand that? If you cannot even read a simple online post in a forum board then, as I said, I have a difficult time believing your claims. Moreover your theory that John 7:39 has nothing to do with the previous verse is ludicrous and in direct opposition to what it plainly states. Why do I need to study your papers when I can see that simply by reading it and believing what it says?

John 7:37-39
37 Moreover in the last day, the great day of the feast, Yeshua stood and cried, saying, If anyone thirst, come unto me and drink!
38 The one faithfully-trusting into me, as the scripture-writing has said, from the cavity thereof shall flow rivers of living water.
39 But this he spoke concerning the Spirit, which those trusting in him were about to receive: for the Spirit was not yet, because Yeshua was not yet magnified.

Do you not see the phrase "But this he spoke"? That directly ties the statement to what was previously said no matter how much wrangling, wresting, twisting, and theorizing you think you can do to it in an attempt to avoid what it says. And of course he was magnified at Golgotha, when the Son of Man was lifted up just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, just as I already said and just as he himself said in John 3:14-16 and repeats again in John 8:28. And thus the all-important Testimony of Meshiah found in the Gospel accounts is the new Spirit of the new Covenant foretold in Ezekiel, in several places therein, as I also already stated and referenced in my post to Visionary. And therefore the Spirit was not yet, because Meshiah was not yet magnified or lifted up, just as John 7:39 states, and that being magnified and lifted up was at Golgotha, as I said, and again, his Testimony, which is SPIRIT, was not yet complete until he himself said so, just as I also said in my post to Visionary which you twisted: and therein I also referenced the passage where he says that, which is also in the Gospel of John, (again, John 19:30, "IT IS FINISHED!"). So where you got the idea that I was saying that the Master wrote anything himself 50 years after the crucifixion is beyond me, and frankly, buffoonery.

My goodness, bluster, repetition and accusations again. You have clearly failed to read the document that Lulav kindly posted for all to see - had you done so you would understand my post better than your response gives witness to, instead questioning my ability to read posts on these fora.

I could waste my time showing you that your bluster is in error, again, and that it consists of a less than helpful attempt at eisegesis of a text, taken out of context, but in your current mood it is far more profitable to both of us that I go to bed now, and leave you to consider your responses, re-read what you may already have read, and catch up with the debate by reading all that you have yet to understand, especially that in Lulav's attachment.

Good night

 

[daq]

My goodness, bluster, repetition and accusations again. You have clearly failed to read the document that Lulav kindly posted for all to see - had you done so you would understand my post better than your response gives witness to, instead questioning my ability to read posts on these fora.

I could waste my time showing you that your bluster is in error, again, and that it consists of a less than helpful attempt at eisegesis of a text, taken out of context, but in your current mood it is far more profitable to both of us that I go to bed now, and leave you to consider your responses, re-read what you may already have read, and catch up with the debate by reading all that you have yet to understand, especially that in Lulav's attachment.

Good night

Lol. Perhaps you should take your own advice and go back and reread your own posts to me.

 

[AbbaLove]

Pg 13 and onward of this document might shed some light on John's writing style and how this was constructed.

@SteveCaruso would the Peshitta shed any light on this?

​

"The Peshitta is the official Bible of the Church of the East. The name Peshitta in Aramaic means "Straight", in other words, the original and pure New Testament. The Peshitta is the only authentic and pure text which contains the books in the New Testament that were written in Aramaic, the Language of Mshikha (the Messiah) and His Disciples. ... Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament

In reference to the originality of the Peshitta, the words of His Holiness Mar Eshai Shimun, Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East, are summarized as follows:"

"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."​

You've likely already checked out this Peshitta site and read its Aramaic/English interlinear (literal) translation at: Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament of Yukhanan 7:36-39 which reads as follows ...

36 you are able not <you> am I and where you will find me of the feast the last which is great and now on the day
37 to come thirsts a man if and said and he cried out Yeshua was standing as in me who believes anyone
38 and drink to me let him come his belly from will flow living of water rivers the scriptures have said were that they about the Spirit concerning he said and this
39 given yet for not in him who believed those to receive Yeshua was glorified yet not because the Spirit was were saying his words who heard the crowds from and many (36-39 literal Peshitta translation)
​

The Aramaic Bible in Plain English (ABPE) reads as follows ...

37 But at the great day, which is the last of the feast, Yeshua stood and he proclaimed and said: "If a man is thirsty, let him come to me and drink."
38 "Everyone who trusts in me, just as the scriptures have said, rivers of living water shall flow from within him."
39 But this he spoke about The Spirit, Whom those who were trusting in him were being prepared to receive; for The Spirit had not yet been given, because Yeshua had not yet been glorified.
​

These verses in bold red (my doing) can be interpreted as Heber suggests as referring to Yeshua, with verse 39 being interpreted in light of John 14:12 ...

"Timeless truth, I tell you: 'whoever believes in me, those works which I have done he will also do, and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to the presence of my Father.' " (ABPE)

Yuhhanan 14:11-12 (Peshitta)
11 these works does say truly truly
12 believe the works because of even otherwise in me do that <I> these works in me believes that whoever to you I will do because <I> will do these then and more will do he also I will do in my name and ask and whatever​

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
Some disruptive posts have been removed from this thread.
However, this question was asked, and I thought it helpful to answer:
​

"Could you please clarify the Mod's warning with respect to whether or not this MJ forum: Is a Christian forum or Not a Christian forum ... תודה (Thanks!)"

From the point of view of CF, in order to have the faith identity "Messianic," you must be able to affirm the Statement of Faith (the Nicene Creed). That puts all Messianic members of CF within the ambit of Christian orthodoxy, whether you choose to identify primarily as Jewish or Christian.

All posts within this MJ forum are expected to be in line with that Statement of Faith.​

MOD HAT OFF​