Long Term Doubt vs Strong Belief - what is more honest?

Silmarien · Oct 16, 2019

Sanoy said:
The choice of "whoever" in that verse is more meant to reflect a simple reading, but the actual word in Greek would be "the one" (Article:nominative, masculine, singular). So the sentence is not addressing all believers as some sort of law, such as in "whoever", but is focused on the individual. If Jesus wanted to pin this as a normative rule for all believers, He would have chosen the plural rather than the singular. Further, since it is transliterated with the definite article "the" in that link it is referring to a particular consideration. So I think you are quite right in your rejection of this being a normative law.

(I'm a language dabbler, not an expert)

I wasn't going to get involved, but now that someone else has invoked the Greek...

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει, καὶ μείζονα τούτων ποιήσει, ὅτι ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα πορεύομαι·

Technically this is a participle, not just an article: "the believing one," or in proper English, "the one who believes." I can't say that I've mastered the Greek participle, but in the absence of an antecedent, my instinct would definitely be to treat it as a sort of generic "whoever" rather than as a particular. If you look at something like John 11:25, you will find the exact same construction used:

εἶπεν αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή· ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ κἂν ἀποθάνῃ ζήσεται.

All of Christian soteriology kind of collapses if we want to treat that line as particular rather than generic. The only thing I can see in John 14:12 that might even imply that he's talking only to the disciples is the use of λέγω ὑμῖν (I say to you [pl]) immediately beforehand, which could conceivably serve as an antecedent of sorts, though I think it's a bit flimsy.

That said, let's not forget that even the Greek text involves translation from the original Aramaic context, and the authors weren't native Greek speakers.

Sanoy · Oct 17, 2019

Silmarien said:
I wasn't going to get involved, but now that someone else has invoked the Greek...

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει, καὶ μείζονα τούτων ποιήσει, ὅτι ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα πορεύομαι·

Technically this is a participle, not just an article: "the believing one," or in proper English, "the one who believes." I can't say that I've mastered the Greek participle, but in the absence of an antecedent, my instinct would definitely be to treat it as a sort of generic "whoever" rather than as a particular. If you look at something like John 11:25, you will find the exact same construction used:

εἶπεν αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή· ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ κἂν ἀποθάνῃ ζήσεται.

All of Christian soteriology kind of collapses if we want to treat that line as particular rather than generic. The only thing I can see in John 14:12 that might even imply that he's talking only to the disciples is the use of λέγω ὑμῖν (I say to you [pl]) immediately beforehand, which could conceivably serve as an antecedent of sorts, though I think it's a bit flimsy.

That said, let's not forget that even the Greek text involves translation from the original Aramaic context, and the authors weren't native Greek speakers.

I am specifically concerned with ὁ. The ὁ is still singular and sets the scope of the statement. I don't see how John 11:25 needs be translated as whoever, and so I don't see what weight it carries on John 14:12. It is still translated here "the one", and singular in YLT. If the sentence was intended to establish a normative law rather than pertaining to individuals we should see Whosoever instead. But we don't get that, that isn't used here, instead we get a sentence focused on singular individuals. Using "whoever" is fine for simplification, but to make a precise theological point the actual grammar is what we should start with. We cannot derive a normative law based on a simplified translation of whoever, especially when we know it is focused on singular individuals.

(Philo brought up a good point later on, that Jesus spoke figuratively. That is not to say that Jesus meant that figuratively, but rather that the language he uses was not plain but takes some consideration rather than being for immediate normative harvest.)

BigV · Oct 17, 2019

Sanoy said:
I am specifically concerned with ὁ. The ὁ is still singular and sets the scope of the statement. I don't see how John 11:25 needs be translated as whoever, and so I don't see what weight it carries on John 14:12. It is still translated here "the one", and singular in YLT. If the sentence was intended to establish a normative law rather than pertaining to individuals we should see Whosoever instead. But we don't get that, that isn't used here, instead we get a sentence focused on singular individuals. Using whoever is fine for simplification, but to make a theological point the actual grammar is what we should concern ourselves with. We cannot derive a normative law based on a simplified translation of whoever, especially when we know it is focused on singular individuals.

I think this is nitpicking to the Nth degree.

Jesus clearly says, that 'he who believes' (btw, we are not talking women here, I agree that the Gospels are men centric so very few promises applied to the women). But Jesus doesn't limit the promise in any way. "He who believes" applies to "he" that is believing, or everyone who believes. Otherwise, words are meaningless. I know of at least a few dozen men who are believers. Taken individually they are "he who believes".

I know what you want the text to say... You really need the text to say... "YOU, standing here, who believe...". That would carry the meaning you are after. But the text says.. "HE who believes", meaning everyone that is a HE and who also believes.

Now, while we are on the subject, what's your Greek on John 3:18?

YLT John 3:17 For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him;

18 he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I know of countless Christians who apply John 3:18 to themselves today, in the 21st Century. But this is totally wrong, because it only applies to the "he who believes", very limited number of people. Right?

Sanoy · Oct 17, 2019

BigV said:
I think this is nitpicking to the Nth degree.

Jesus clearly says, that 'he who believes' (btw, we are not talking women here, I agree that the Gospels are men centric so very few promises applied to the women). But Jesus doesn't limit the promise in any way. "He who believes" applies to "he" that is believing, or everyone who believes. Otherwise, words are meaningless. I know of at least a few dozen men who are believers. Taken individually they are "he who believes".

I know what you want the text to say... You really need the text to say... "YOU, standing here, who believe...". That would carry the meaning you are after. But the text says.. "HE who believes", meaning everyone that is a HE and who also believes.

Now, while we are on the subject, what's your Greek on John 3:18?

YLT John 3:17 For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him;

18 he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I know of countless Christians who apply John 3:18 to themselves today, in the 21st Century. But this is totally wrong, because it only applies to the "he who believes", very limited number of people. Right?

You complain when Context is brought up, and now you call looking into the source text rather than the translation nitpicking? So much for honest inquiry, truth seeking, and sincerity. So when Jesus says "he", He actually means all people? Is that {gasp} context you are using?

There is a difference between expressing an example via an individual focus, and establishing a normative rule. You know what that difference is? Singular vs plural possession. Someone vs Whosoever or All who. I don't have to make it say anything, you do, because you claim it is a normative rule. You should begin substantiating that claim.

John 3:18 uses the same "the one" here, a singular focus. I don't know what you're asking or the point you are making from this.

BigV · Oct 17, 2019

Sanoy said:
If the sentence was intended to establish a normative law rather than pertaining to individuals we should see Whosoever instead.

Sanoy said:
John 3:18 uses the same "the one" here. I don't know what you're asking or the point you are making from this.

So, in your view, John 3:18 does not apply who "whoever" believes? I'm asking, whether you are consistent in interpreting "he who believes" in John 14:12 vs John 3:18.

Sanoy · Oct 17, 2019

BigV said:
So, in your view, John 3:18 does not apply who "whoever" believes? I'm asking, whether you are consistent in interpreting "he who believes" in John 14:12 vs John 3:18.

It's not my opinion. It says "the one" same as the other. There is no plural possession which is what you need for your claim of a normative rule in John 14:12.

BigV · Oct 17, 2019

Sanoy said:
It's not my opinion. It says "the one" same as the other. There is no plural possession which is what you need for your claim of a normative rule in John 14:12.

I know of literally NO Christian, theologian or otherwise, who doesn't believe that John 3:18 applies to them also. But I give you props for being consistent.

I do suspect, however, that you are in a very fringe minority when it comes to your 'interpretation'. And, ultimately, you have to discard the Bible, because the Old Testament was for the Jews before Jesus (and why the heck do Christians today want 10 Commandments in the US Court Houses?), and Jesus only spoke to the people of Palestine. Apostles wrote to specific congregations. Bible is pretty useless for the modern people.

Btw, are you a closet Atheist by chance?

Sanoy · Oct 17, 2019

BigV said:
I know of literally NO Christian, theologian or otherwise, who doesn't believe that John 3:18 applies to them also. But I give you props for being consistent.

I think you mistakingly identified the point I am making. I am saying the raw statement is singularly possessive, not plural possessive. The one who - will VS all who - will. The later is a normative law statement, the former may or may not be deduced or inferred to establish a normative law. IE context sensitive. This isn't all I would say about the subject, it was merely a confirmation to what another poster was thinking/remembering.

BigV · Oct 17, 2019

Sanoy said:
I think you mistakingly identified the point I am making. I am saying the raw statement is singularly possessive, not plural possessive. The one who - will VS all who - will. The later is a normative law statement, the former may or may not be deduced or inferred to establish a normative law. IE context sensitive. This isn't all I would say about the subject, it was merely a confirmation to what another poster was thinking/remembering.

And I'm saying you are creating an exception out of thin air. Singularly possessive with condition A, does not exempt plural possession, as long as condition A is maintained (belief in Jesus in this case).

You are clearly adding new meaning to the text. But I have learned that it's all right for Christians to twist Scripture as long as Jesus and/or God look good.

In your 'interpretation', "he who believes WILL" becomes "he who believes WILL or WILL NOT". This is not what the text says, but it's what you say based on your 'interpretation'.

I will grant, due to Bible containing false promises, that your interpretation actually works. Actually, what you could do, is interpret the text as "he who believes will NOT..." and it will work the same way.

YLT Mark 9:27... all things are possible to the one that is believing;'
Correctly interpreted, it means... "All things are not necessarily possible to the one that is believing".

Man, I feel like a theologian already.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 17, 2019

BigV said:
And I'm saying you are creating an exception out of thin air. Singularly possessive with condition A, does not exempt plural possession, as long as condition A is maintained (belief in Jesus in this case).

You are clearly adding new meaning to the text. But I have learned that it's all right for Christians to twist Scripture as long as Jesus and/or God look good.

Well, if that's true, then I guess Hermeneutics of any kind (and there is more than one kind) doesn't help us, and can't help us even one iota. :dontcare:

Ok. Everyone! Listen Up! You're all invited to my house for a large bonfire (a.k.a. a book burning), during which time there will be plenty of hotdogs and marshmallows for everyone to roast.

In the meantime, can you and @Sanoy maybe take a look at John 16:23-33, and maybe put an emphasis upon verses 25 and 29 in relation to the outcome of the passage in question?

Sanoy · Oct 17, 2019

BigV said:
And I'm saying you are creating an exception out of thin air. Singularly possessive with condition A, does not exempt plural possession, as long as condition A is maintained (belief in Jesus in this case).

You are clearly adding new meaning to the text. But I have learned that it's all right for Christians to twist Scripture as long as Jesus and/or God look good.

In your 'interpretation', "he who believes WILL" becomes "he who believes WILL or WILL NOT". This is not what the text says, but it's what you say based on your 'interpretation'.

I will grant, due to Bible containing false promises, that your interpretation actually works. Actually, what you could do, is interpret the text as "he who believes will NOT..." and it will work the same way.

YLT Mark 9:27... all things are possible to the one that is believing;'
Correctly interpreted, it means... "All things are not necessarily possible to the one that is believing".

Man, I feel like a theologian already.

I am not creating anything, I am telling you what the source says. If you want to go further than that, by all means, but you will need to provide for those claims. I just told you that you can deduce, or infer normativity from singular possession, so the only one making stuff up out of thin air is your claim that I said it's exempt. If you would like to make that deduction or inference then begin.

Consider this.
He who throws a dart at the bullseye will get a free meal on me.
All who throw a dart at this bullseye will get a free meal on me.
All who throw a dart at this bullseye will get a free meal on me.

Are all three statements logically equivalent in regards to the consequence?

Sanoy · Oct 17, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Well, if that's true, then I guess Hermeneutics of any kind (and there is more than one kind) doesn't help us, and can't help us even one iota.

Ok. Everyone! Listen Up! You're all invited to my house for a large bonfire (a.k.a. a book burning), during which time there will be plenty of hotdogs and marshmallows for everyone to roast.

In the meantime, can you and @Sanoy maybe take a look at John 16:23-33, and maybe put an emphasis upon verses 25 and 29 in relation to the outcome of the passage in question?

You mean is there figurative usage? Given what precedes, that is a certainty. But we aren't allowed to appeal to context

2PhiloVoid · Oct 17, 2019

Sanoy said:
You mean is there figurative usage? Given what precedes that is a certainty. But we aren't allowed to appeal to context.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 17, 2019

Sanoy said:
You mean is there figurative usage? Given what precedes, that is a certainty. But we aren't allowed to appeal to context

If that's the case, and a forced march against context is imposed upon both of us, let me ask you what condiments you would like for your hotdogs at the bonfire I'll be hosting?

I'm just asking because I want to be a good host and make sure everyone gets "what they want" as we ignore hermeneteucs, however much I don't "relish" the thought of it all! ^_^

BigV · Oct 17, 2019

Sanoy said:
Consider this.
He who throws a dart at the bullseye will get a free meal on me.
All who throw a dart at this bullseye will get a free meal on me.
All who throw a dart at this bullseye will get a free meal on me.

Are all three statements logically equivalent in regards to the consequence?

Yes, they are all equivalent. Although I think the first one excludes all women and people who do not identify as a "he". If you want to limit it to the first one, you should say so. Again, I think you are splitting hairs. I bet even the Pharisees would be blushing had they seen your acrobatics.

Sanoy · Oct 17, 2019

BigV said:
Yes, they are all equivalent. Although I think the first one excludes all women and people who do not identify as a "he". If you want to limit it to the first one, you should say so. Again, I think you are splitting hairs. I bet even the Pharisees would be blushing had they seen your acrobatics.

And that is where you run into the problem.
I said the first one to 12 of my friends at the dart board.
I yelled the second one to all 20 people at the bar on Wednesday.
I yelled the third one to all 25 people at the bar on Thursday.

In one case I purchased 12 meals, in one case I purchased 20 meals, and in one case I purchased 25 meals. But who cares about context until you're broke right? Considering context is not acrobatics, avoiding it is.

BigV · Oct 17, 2019

Sanoy said:
And that is where you run into the problem.
I said the first one to 12 of my friends at the dart board.
I yelled the second one to all 20 people at the bar on Wednesday.
I yelled the third one to all 25 people at the bar on Thursday.

In one case I purchased 12 meals, in one case I purchased 20 meals, and in one case I purchased 25 meals. But who cares about context until your broke right? Considering context is not acrobatics, avoiding it is.

Well, you are obviously making up context. John's Gospel records this for posterity, so your example of 12, 20 and 25 circle of people goes out the window.

But it's a good lesson on how Christians who value their Scripture react when it's convenient for them.

A text that says.. "He who believes will...." becomes.. "He who believes or doesn't believe, may or may not..."

By your logic, even John 3:16 is not all inclusive when it says... "whoever believes". Because it was addressed to the Nicodemus and otherwise a limited number of people.

As I said previously, "context" is a word Christians use, whereby they make the Bible say what they want it say. And lets face it. Gymnastics is all you have, because whether you believe or not, you live in an atheistic universe, where pray to Jesus or Buddha, nothing happens that doesn't happen to those who don't pray.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 17, 2019

BigV said:
Well, you are obviously making up context. John's Gospel records this for posterity, so your example of 12, 20 and 25 circle of people goes out the window.

But it's a good lesson on how Christians who value their Scripture react when it's convenient for them.

A text that says.. "He who believes will...." becomes.. "He who believes or doesn't believe, may or may not..."

By your logic, even John 3:16 is not all inclusive when it says... "whoever believes". Because it was addressed to the Nicodemus and otherwise a limited number of people.

As I said previously, "context" is a word Christians use, whereby they make the Bible say what they want it say. And lets face it. Gymnastics is all you have, because whether you believe or not, you live in an atheistic universe, where pray to Jesus or Buddha, nothing happens that doesn't happen to those who don't pray.

BigV, I'd rather say that the concept of "context," like any tool or aspect of reality, can be over-hyped, overused or misused, just like a hammer can be used to EITHER constructively drive a nail into a board on the frame of a house OR it can be used to bonk someone over the head in a bid to conquer that other individual.

So, yes and no to your assertion here, and I think you need to have the integrity to admit this point of mine.

Sanoy · Oct 17, 2019

BigV said:
Well, you are obviously making up context. John's Gospel records this for posterity, so your example of 12, 20 and 25 circle of people goes out the window.

But it's a good lesson on how Christians who value their Scripture react when it's convenient for them.

A text that says.. "He who believes will...." becomes.. "He who believes or doesn't believe, may or may not..."

As I said, "context" is a word Christians use, whereby they make the Bible say what they want it say.

Yes, I made up the context for this scenario, and your choice to ignore context made you run face first into a wall at a full sprint. What you should learn from this exercise is that context actually matters, and should not be ignored even in present circumstances.

BigV · Oct 17, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
BigV, I'd rather say that the concept of "context," like any tool or aspect of reality, can be over-hyped, overused or misused, just like a hammer can be used to EITHER constructively drive a nail into a board on the frame of a house OR it can be used to bonk someone over the head in a bid to conquer that other individual.

So, yes and no to your assertion here, and I think you need to have the integrity to admit this point of mine.

The problem is, that you can never know then what Jesus means. If you can wiggle out of John 14:12, how can you be sure you are understanding John 3:16 and John 3:18 correctly?

You (and @Sanoy) are using 'context' as a magic wand to twist the text into what benefits you at the moment. This is never done with texts promising eternal life, because they are not testable like the promise of John 14:12 or any other promise that applies to this life and fails.

Long Term Doubt vs Strong Belief - what is more honest?

Existentialist

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Similar threads