How-to Know

[Woldeyesus]

QUESTION OF THE DAY

How can "being lifted up" or dying on the cross (BY ITSELF), repeated in the gospel at least 3 times (John 3: 14; 8:28; 12:32), conclusively define the divine identity and authority of Jesus Christ?

 

[cubinity]

QUESTION OF THE DAY

How can "being lifted up" or dying on the cross (BY ITSELF), repeated in the gospel at least 3 times (John 3: 14; 8:28; 12:32), conclusively define the divine identity and authority of Jesus Christ?

Thank you for asking this question. I would, however, like to address an assumption built into the question that I think causes it to miss its mark.

We are not looking to the Gospels for a conclusive definition for the divine identity and authority of Jesus Christ.

To me, that is like asking: How can any line from the Constitution conclusively define the United States as having an ideal government?

The authors thought it was ideal, or they'd have written it up some other way. However, they weren't trying to define an ideal government, they were trying to practically initiate one. They were aware of their limitations and failures. They were aware that needs would change over time. They were aware of a good many things, but in the end it was their desire to provide the people with something that would shape and sustain their lives in what they believed to be an ideal way.

Likewise, the authors of the Gospels are trying to introduce us to a person for the sake of ongoing relationship with the Holy Spirit of that person. The intended result of the Gospel is not a strengthened vocabulary, or even a greater arsenal for philosophical debate. The relationship, whether perfectly described or defined in the Gospel, is the ultimate goal. Miss out on that, and all the conclusive definitions in the world will still fall short of that goal.

Maybe Jesus Christ has a divine identity and authority, and maybe he doesn't. Neither condition matters if you don't have a relationship with him. The testimony of his life, death and resurrection are only meant to introduce you to him, not to conclusively define him.

So, I think this assumption imbedded in the question causes it to miss its mark.

I am glad you started the thread, though.

 

[razeontherock]

QUESTION OF THE DAY

How can "being lifted up" or dying on the cross (BY ITSELF), repeated in the gospel at least 3 times (John 3: 14; 8:28; 12:32), conclusively define the divine identity and authority of Jesus Christ?

It can't. You've got to put it in context of Prophecy, a Holy life born of a virgin, and then look at Jesus, made both Lord and Christ.

 

[Woldeyesus]

Thank you for asking this question. I would, however, like to address an assumption built into the question that I think causes it to miss its mark.

We are not looking to the Gospels for a conclusive definition for the divine identity and authority of Jesus Christ.

To me, that is like asking: How can any line from the Constitution conclusively define the United States as having an ideal government?

The authors thought it was ideal, or they'd have written it up some other way. However, they weren't trying to define an ideal government, they were trying to practically initiate one. They were aware of their limitations and failures. They were aware that needs would change over time. They were aware of a good many things, but in the end it was their desire to provide the people with something that would shape and sustain their lives in what they believed to be an ideal way.

Likewise, the authors of the Gospels are trying to introduce us to a person for the sake of ongoing relationship with the Holy Spirit of that person. The intended result of the Gospel is not a strengthened vocabulary, or even a greater arsenal for philosophical debate. The relationship, whether perfectly described or defined in the Gospel, is the ultimate goal. Miss out on that, and all the conclusive definitions in the world will still fall short of that goal.

Maybe Jesus Christ has a divine identity and authority, and maybe he doesn't. Neither condition matters if you don't have a relationship with him. The testimony of his life, death and resurrection are only meant to introduce you to him, not to conclusively define him.

So, I think this assumption imbedded in the question causes it to miss its mark.

I am glad you started the thread, though.

Thank you for the answer.

May I remind you that the question is based on an over-repeated promise beginning on Day 1 of screening of disciples (John 1:51 usually misinterpreted), continuing to the eve of the crucifixion (Matt. 26:64) and consummated at the words, "It is finished" (John 19:30). The question is How?

Otherwise, no constitution of of any government is worthy of any comparison! Is it?

 

[OzSpen]

Woldeyesus,

QUESTION OF THE DAY
How can "being lifted up" or dying on the cross (BY ITSELF), repeated in the gospel at least 3 times (John 3: 14; 8:28; 12:32), conclusively define the divine identity and authority of Jesus Christ?

From where do you get the idea that dying on the cross conclusively defined the divine identity and authority of Jesus?
The divine identity of Jesus Christ is affirmed by God in both the Old and New Testament Scriptures. Here are some examples from the NT:

• The Greek, theos (God), in the NT is essentially reserved for the designation of God, the Father. But there are several passages where theos is used to refer to Jesus Christ. See: John 1:1; 1:18; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8 (which is quoting Psalm 45:6); and 2 Peter 1:1.

• The Greek, kurios, has a number of meanings, but at the time of Christ, it was used in the Septuagint (the Greek OT translation) for the Hebrew, yhwh (Yahweh God). There are a number of instances in the NT where kurios (Lord) is used in the sense of Yahweh God. We see this in passages like Luke 2:11 and its reference to Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem: “For to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord”.

• There are other examples where there is Jesus’ strong claim to deity revealed. Take a passage like John 8:58 where it is not stated, “Before Abraham was, I was”, but “before Abraham was, I am”. The Jesus leaders recognised immediately what Jesus was saying when He said, “I am”. He was repeating the very words that God used when God identified himself to Moses as, “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14).

• Jesus possessed the attributes of deity such as omnipotence (see Matt. 8:26-27 when He stilled the storm at sea with a word); omniscience (when he knew people’s thoughts as in Mark 2:8), etc.

There are many affirmations in the New Testament revelation from God that Jesus is God.

I’m unsure if I am answering your question about the divine identity of Jesus. Why are you insisting that his dying on the cross conclusively defines the divine identity and authority of Jesus when there is other evidence that I have presented above?

Sincerely, Spencer

 

[Woldeyesus]

Woldeyesus,

From where do you get the idea that dying on the cross conclusively defined the divine identity and authority of Jesus?
The divine identity of Jesus Christ is affirmed by God in both the Old and New Testament Scriptures. Here are some examples from the NT:

• The Greek, theos (God), in the NT is essentially reserved for the designation of God, the Father. But there are several passages where theos is used to refer to Jesus Christ. See: John 1:1; 1:18; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8 (which is quoting Psalm 45:6); and 2 Peter 1:1.

• The Greek, kurios, has a number of meanings, but at the time of Christ, it was used in the Septuagint (the Greek OT translation) for the Hebrew, yhwh (Yahweh God). There are a number of instances in the NT where kurios (Lord) is used in the sense of Yahweh God. We see this in passages like Luke 2:11 and its reference to Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem: “For to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord”.

• There are other examples where there is Jesus’ strong claim to deity revealed. Take a passage like John 8:58 where it is not stated, “Before Abraham was, I was”, but “before Abraham was, I am”. The Jesus leaders recognised immediately what Jesus was saying when He said, “I am”. He was repeating the very words that God used when God identified himself to Moses as, “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14).

• Jesus possessed the attributes of deity such as omnipotence (see Matt. 8:26-27 when He stilled the storm at sea with a word); omniscience (when he knew people’s thoughts as in Mark 2:8), etc.

There are many affirmations in the New Testament revelation from God that Jesus is God.

I’m unsure if I am answering your question about the divine identity of Jesus. Why are you insisting that his dying on the cross conclusively defines the divine identity and authority of Jesus when there is other evidence that I have presented above?

Sincerely, Spencer

I submit for testing the following two reasons, viz.: the "blood and water", that continue to pour out from the pierced side of Jesus, signifying the manner of his death (supernatural) and baptism in the Holy Spirit, respectively (John 19: 30-37; 1 John 5: 6-12).

Together, the two "Spirit-active works" make up the critical mass for

1) Firsthand knowledge of Christ's divine identity and absolute authority over death and life, a.k.a., self-sufficient source of life (John 1: 4; 5:26; 8: 21-32 as in Ex. 3: 1-15; and according to the terms and seal in the "new covenant" Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29, respectively);

2) Authoring of sustainable and personal faith (Ibid, 1:51; 19: 34-35); and

3) Giving eternal life here and now! (Ibid, 3: 14-15; 11: 25-26; 14: 18-21)

 

[OzSpen]

Woldeyesus,

I submit for testing the following two reasons, viz.: the "blood and water", that continue to pour out from the pierced side of Jesus, signifying the manner of his death (supernatural) and baptism in the Holy Spirit, respectively (John 19: 30-37; 1 John 5: 6-12).

Together, the two "Spirit-active works" make up the critical mass for

1) Firsthand knowledge of Christ's divine identity and absolute authority over death and life, a.k.a., self-sufficient source of life (John 1: 4; 5:26; 8: 21-32 as in Ex. 3: 1-15; and according to the terms and seal in the "new covenant" Jer. 31: 31-34; Matt. 26: 26-29, respectively);

2) Authoring of sustainable and personal faith (Ibid, 1:51; 19: 34-35); and

3) Giving eternal life here and now! (Ibid, 3: 14-15; 11: 25-26; 14: 18-21)

There are no blood and water continuing to be poured out from Jesus' side. When Jesus cried, "it is finished" (John 19:30), the work of redemption was finished. It is available to all to receive salvation, but the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, bringing us salvation, is a one time sacrifice. It is finished.

Sincerely, Spencer

 

[Harry3142]

Worldeyesus-

Jesus' suffering and death on the cross wasn't a defeat; it was a victory.

The Passion and death of Jesus Christ was 'a happening within a happening'. Jesus himself told his disciples what was about to happen as part of his teaching:

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me - just as the Father knows me and I know the Father - and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life - only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." (The Gospel of St. John 10:14-18,NIV)

He's crucified. And it's there that many people get confused. They think the high priests and the romans killed him. But if the crucifixion went according to plan, why were the centurion and Pilate himself surprised at its outcome?

We have this concerning the centurion who actually witnessed Christ's death:

The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man." (The Gospel of St. Luke 23:47,NIV)

Why did he say that? The answer's easy. Christ didn't die the way a crucified man would have normally died, and the centurion, experienced as he was, recognized the difference. Jesus had quite literally 'left'. His job was completed; our salvation had been earned. So he went home. The centurion hadn't witnessed a death; he'd witnessed another of Jesus' miracles.

Pilate also realized that things had not gone according to plan:

It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. (The Gospel of St. Mark 15:42-45,NIV)

Something had happened, but it was not the 'silencing' of an upstart preacher that his enemies had conspired to do. Instead, it was the fulfillment of God's own plan for our salvation, a salvation that required that same cross, but with his own Son on it.

 

[Woldeyesus]

Woldeyesus,

There are no blood and water continuing to be poured out from Jesus' side. When Jesus cried, "it is finished" (John 19:30), the work of redemption was finished. It is available to all to receive salvation, but the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, bringing us salvation, is a one time sacrifice. It is finished.

Sincerely, Spencer

The "blood" signifies the manner of Christ's death; and the "water" his baptism work in the Holy Spirit revealing, once and for all, Christ's divine nature and absolute authority over death and life and producing sustainable faith (John 19: 34-37; 1 John 5: 6-9).

Fraught with the risk of oversimplification,"It is finished" (John 19:30) is actually the seal of the terms in the "new covenant" initiating firsthand knowledge of God and associated forgiveness from death in one's sins just as promised and taught (Jer. 31: 31-34; John 8: 21-28).

 

[cubinity]

Whatever makes you comfortable is fine with me, as long as Jesus is getting the credit for saving your soul, I don't mind that you twist things a little. We all do it, at least a little.

I hope you get what you're looking for out of this thread.

 

[Woldeyesus]

Whatever makes you comfortable is fine with me, as long as Jesus is getting the credit for saving your soul, I don't mind that you twist things a little. We all do it, at least a little.

I hope you get what you're looking for out of this thread.

May God bless you more!

Thanks for your acceptance. What I am looking for in this thread is testing and sharing the ideas defining my faith.

 

[Woldeyesus]

Worldeyesus-

Jesus' suffering and death on the cross wasn't a defeat; it was a victory.

The Passion and death of Jesus Christ was 'a happening within a happening'. Jesus himself told his disciples what was about to happen as part of his teaching:

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me - just as the Father knows me and I know the Father - and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life - only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." (The Gospel of St. John 10:14-18,NIV)

He's crucified. And it's there that many people get confused. They think the high priests and the romans killed him. But if the crucifixion went according to plan, why were the centurion and Pilate himself surprised at its outcome?

We have this concerning the centurion who actually witnessed Christ's death:

The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man." (The Gospel of St. Luke 23:47,NIV)

Why did he say that? The answer's easy. Christ didn't die the way a crucified man would have normally died, and the centurion, experienced as he was, recognized the difference. Jesus had quite literally 'left'. His job was completed; our salvation had been earned. So he went home. The centurion hadn't witnessed a death; he'd witnessed another of Jesus' miracles.

Pilate also realized that things had not gone according to plan:

It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. (The Gospel of St. Mark 15:42-45,NIV)

Something had happened, but it was not the 'silencing' of an upstart preacher that his enemies had conspired to do. Instead, it was the fulfillment of God's own plan for our salvation, a salvation that required that same cross, but with his own Son on it.

Harry 3142, 'A happening within a happening', applied to the PASSION OF CHRST, is a perfect description to which I beg you to add the new order of worship, viz.: the divine Temple of Christ's body as defined in his death on the cross in terms of "a new and living way" right into the Most Holy Place (John 2: 13-22; Ibid, 4: 21-26; Heb. 10: 19-25).

By the way, isn't this identical to the "church" Christ said he was going to build? (Matt. 16: 13-28)

 

[cubinity]

Thank you for the answer.

May I remind you that the question is based on an over-repeated promise beginning on Day 1 of screening of disciples (John 1:51 usually misinterpreted), continuing to the eve of the crucifixion (Matt. 26:64) and consummated at the words, "It is finished" (John 19:30). The question is How?

Otherwise, no constitution of of any government is worthy of any comparison! Is it?

What I am looking for in this thread is testing and sharing the ideas defining my faith.

Okay, then. Here goes. I promise you that I'll test your beliefs and share my own. My acceptance of you will remain static.

Since it's your faith we're discussing, I'm going to need a little more info.

You've quoted three verses above:
John 1:51 - a verse about angels ascending and descending.
Matt. 26:64 - a verse about where Jesus' audience is going to see Him sit.
John 19:30 - A comment about his work being done.

You've quoted these at me for reasons I didn't entirely grasp considering what we were talking about.

As far as I understood, we were talking about the crucifixion, or even the testimony of the crucifixion, being a conclusive definition that Jesus is divine and/or has divine authority.

I said it didn't, and that it was not written to serve that purpose.

To this, you quoted the above three verses.
Why?
What do these verses mean to you that they speak to the idea you are trying to communicate?
Do you see these verses as somehow supporting your theory for the crucifixion as a conclusive definition?
What promise do you hear being repeated in these passages?

If it is your faithful theory that the testimony of the crucifixion is meant to be a conclusive definition of Christ's divinity, then my questions are:
Why is the event acting as a conclusive definition so important to you?
Do you intend to present it as a conclusive definition in order to be persuasive?
Does the event have any other value than being a conclusive definition?
If so, is that other value more or less important than the event's value as a conclusive definition?
If that other value is more important, then what motivates you to focus on this value rather than that one?
Do you evangelize by presenting this testimony of the crucifixion as if it is a conclusive definition?
Is that persuasive?
If so, what do you do when you meet someone that understands enough about conclusiveness and definitions to perceive this testimony does not live up to that description?
Do you then appeal to that other value of the crucifixion?

My problem with the "conclusive definition" argument is that it creates a philosophical value for the crucifixion that, when debunked, leads to doubt about both the Bible's stated value of the crucifixion and Jesus' stated identity and authority. Therefore, I would just rather avoid creating extra meanings and accept the testimony given.

However, I respect that you don't believe you have created this meaning, but you see it somehow stated in the testimony itself. So, now's your chance to defend that belief. Where and how is it stated? How exactly do you understand those statements? I ask that second question because we may both agree that the statement in the text exists, but we may not be hearing it say the same meaning, if you catch my drift.

I genuinely look forward to your reply.

 

[jax5434]

QUESTION OF THE DAY

How can "being lifted up" or dying on the cross (BY ITSELF), repeated in the gospel at least 3 times (John 3: 14; 8:28; 12:32), conclusively define the divine identity and authority of Jesus Christ?

It doesn't. What happened on the cross did not conclusively define anything. It is what happened after the cross that proved his identity and authority.

God Bless
Jax

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The image of Jesus on the cross is the most recognized image of him throughout the world. He is the 'ensign' that God lifts up to the nations. To this ensign God will gather all people; some to worship him, some to war against him.

 

[Woldeyesus]

Okay, then. Here goes. I promise you that I'll test your beliefs and share my own. My acceptance of you will remain static.

Since it's your faith we're discussing, I'm going to need a little more info.

You've quoted three verses above:
John 1:51 - a verse about angels ascending and descending.
Matt. 26:64 - a verse about where Jesus' audience is going to see Him sit.
John 19:30 - A comment about his work being done.

You've quoted these at me for reasons I didn't entirely grasp considering what we were talking about.

As far as I understood, we were talking about the crucifixion, or even the testimony of the crucifixion, being a conclusive definition that Jesus is divine and/or has divine authority.

I said it didn't, and that it was not written to serve that purpose.

To this, you quoted the above three verses.
Why?
What do these verses mean to you that they speak to the idea you are trying to communicate?
Do you see these verses as somehow supporting your theory for the crucifixion as a conclusive definition?
What promise do you hear being repeated in these passages?

If it is your faithful theory that the testimony of the crucifixion is meant to be a conclusive definition of Christ's divinity, then my questions are:
Why is the event acting as a conclusive definition so important to you?
Do you intend to present it as a conclusive definition in order to be persuasive?
Does the event have any other value than being a conclusive definition?
If so, is that other value more or less important than the event's value as a conclusive definition?
If that other value is more important, then what motivates you to focus on this value rather than that one?
Do you evangelize by presenting this testimony of the crucifixion as if it is a conclusive definition?
Is that persuasive?
If so, what do you do when you meet someone that understands enough about conclusiveness and definitions to perceive this testimony does not live up to that description?
Do you then appeal to that other value of the crucifixion?

My problem with the "conclusive definition" argument is that it creates a philosophical value for the crucifixion that, when debunked, leads to doubt about both the Bible's stated value of the crucifixion and Jesus' stated identity and authority. Therefore, I would just rather avoid creating extra meanings and accept the testimony given.

However, I respect that you don't believe you have created this meaning, but you see it somehow stated in the testimony itself. So, now's your chance to defend that belief. Where and how is it stated? How exactly do you understand those statements? I ask that second question because we may both agree that the statement in the text exists, but we may not be hearing it say the same meaning, if you catch my drift.

I genuinely look forward to your reply.

The cumulative answer lies in the operational definition of the gospel as a mysterious, powerful and personally life-transforming experience of the Prophetic words (Zech. 12:10) rephrased by Jesus (John 1:51), applied by the Disciple/Apostle (Ibid,19:37), referred to by another as "God's powerful weapons" (2 Cor. 10: 4-6), and spelled out in terms of a Lamb appearing to have been killed and simultaneously standing in the centre of the throne with full honor, wisdom and glory (Rev. 5).

What a perfect fulfillment of the last promise on firsthand knowledge of God (Matt. 26:64) and of all preceding ones in the gospel, the writings of the prophets, the Psalms and the books of Moses: all in one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Harry3142]

Woldeyesus-

Thank you for your kind words.

Matthew 16:13-28, is indeed one of the passages in which Jesus Christ revealed who he is, as well as his purpose for being among us. The leaders would seize him, and their mindset would have them believe that their own agendas had been served.

But in actuality they, like the Assyrians and the Babylonians of the Old Testament, had served God's purpose. And it's interesting to note that those leaders were out of office long before that same decade had ended.

 

[Woldeyesus]

Further to my summary reply, here is a brief personal appreciation of my experience of Christ’s deeply mysterious, perfect and diacritical death on the cross, complete with a critical mass, because of which I have grown in his grace and knowledge for more than 30 years. Praise the Lord!
The rationale in all the Scriptures for God’s power to be present and active, for example, in the first man’s “beginning to live”; in the flame coming from the middle of a bush on fire but not burning up, the bronze snake lifted on a pole in the desert, and Christ’s death on the cross, is based in all instances on the translation into practice (“seeing the Son of Man go back up to the place where he was before&#8221 of the following spiritual principle, viz.: “What gives life is God’s Spirit; man’s power is of no use at all” (John 6: 62-63) in fulfillment of the great Messianic Psalms and powerful apostolic testimony (Psalms 68:18; Eph. 4: 1-16).
The declaration on the cross, “It is finished”, refers to fulfillment of the promise of powerful vision of Christ’s divine identity and authority as basis for his identification, firsthand knowledge of God and our faith (Ibid, 1: 47-51; 8: 21-28; Matt.16: 13-28; 26:64; 27: 50-56), immediately preceding imminent death verifiably by his by own will and power (the “blood&#8221 and outpouring of the Spirit (the “water&#8221 as sufficient reason for “People will look at him whom they pierced” (John 19:37 quoting Zech. 12:10).
Finally, it is highly noteworthy that the cause and effects of Christ’s death on the cross were the exclusive basis for the 40-day rehearsal and rehabilitation of the disciples (Acts 1: 1-5) and the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Ibid, 2).
God bless you.