Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with Thrillobyte -- the disciples were saying to each other that Jesus had said that John would not die and it was being pointed out that John would only remain until Jesus came.....
Joh 21:22 Jesus is saying to him, "If I should be wanting him to be remaining till I am coming, what is it to you? You be following Me!"
Joh 21:23 This word, then, came out to the brethren, that that disciple is not dying. Now Jesus did not say to him that he is not dying, but, "If I should be wanting him to be remaining till I am coming, what is it to you?
Yes, I've got that part, but isn't the emphasis on this part of the verse?:
Joh 21:23 yet Jesus did not say to him, that he doth not die, but, `If him I will to remain till I come, what--to thee?'
IOW, where does it say (for or against) that John would not die prior to Jesus' return? I don't see it saying one way or the other. Am I missing something here?
Thank you, meerkat. I think Jesus' words are pretty plain and unambiguous. Put another way, Jesus was saying, "John, you will still be alive when I return to earth."
As to the argument that Alabama is making, I think it doesn't hold water. (s)he is trying to use the if to cast doubt on an otherwise pretty direct, affirmative statement. Remember, this is John giving his view as to what Jesus meant. But it doesn't detract from the meaning of Jesus' own words.
Example:
A: "I'm going to spend my check in Las Vegas.
B. "You're bad."
A. "Well, if I want to spend my check in Las Vegas, what's that to you?"
Does A cast any doubt he intends to go to Las Vegas and spend his check merely because he says to B, "If I want to do that why should you care?"
Last edited by thrillobyte; 06-23-2010 at 10:50 PM..
Yes, I've got that part, but isn't the emphasis on this part of the verse?:
Joh 21:23 yet Jesus did not say to him, that he doth not die, but, `If him I will to remain till I come, what--to thee?'
IOW, where does it say (for or against) that John would not die prior to Jesus' return? I don't see it saying one way or the other. Am I missing something here?
So where was John to remain? in a city? and where was Peter going to follow Jesus that John was not going to go too? What do you believe Jesus was telling Peter and John?
Yes, I've got that part, but isn't the emphasis on this part of the verse?:
Joh 21:23 yet Jesus did not say to him, that he doth not die, but, `If him I will to remain till I come, what--to thee?'
IOW, where does it say (for or against) that John would not die prior to Jesus' return? I don't see it saying one way or the other. Am I missing something here?
I feel that the emphasis is on all of it, otherwise it does not make sense -- he did not say you are not going to die but he said that John will remain until he returned ----- and Peter was going to follow him (Jesus) and not be remaining at his return .........
Jesus is basically saying to Peter, "I am going to return while John is still alive but after you are dead."
True to His word, Peter died in Rome circa 64-67 AD, roughly five years before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the year Preterists believe Jesus fulfilled His Word and returned. John was still alive.
I feel that the emphasis is on all of it, otherwise it does not make sense -- he did not say you are not going to die but he said that John will remain until he returned ----- and Peter was going to follow him (Jesus) and not be remaining at his return .........
I don't read it saying that John will remain, but rather:
Joh 21:23 yet Jesus did not say to him, that he doth not die, but, `If him I will to remain till I come, what--to thee?'
I read the word "if" as perhaps, or perhaps not; maybe or maybe not, to remain. Actually, Jesus does not really answer Peter's question directly other than it was not any concern of Peter's as to what would happen to John, right?
I'm not really arguing for or against the text if John would see Christ's return. I guess I'm arguing for the text being ambiguous and not necessarily saying what the OP implies. But hey, you ladies (I think?) go for it. Never tell a woman no .
Thank you, meerkat. I think Jesus' words are pretty plain and unambiguous. Put another way, Jesus was saying, "John, you will still be alive when I return to earth."
As to the argument that Alabama is making, I think it doesn't hold water. (s)he is trying to use the if to cast doubt on an otherwise pretty direct, affirmative statement. Remember, this is John giving his view as to what Jesus meant.
That's true (regarding John's view), but if we read the text using our forensic Psychologist's glasses, we would need to ask why John (the author) entertains the question in the first place, right?
(A) Why question what Jesus said if John knows he'll remain to see Christ's return, as the other disciples had thought?;
(B) If John knows that he'll not remain, isn't this a good time to dispel the idea that had circulated amongst the disciples? Or,
(C) If John really does not know if he'll live or remain to see Christ's return, leave the text as being ambiguous.
Right? So I think the answer is either (B) or (C) but not (A).
PS: I'm a he
Last edited by AlabamaStorm; 06-23-2010 at 11:53 PM..
I believe there is some evidence (Jesus' own words here, for example) to give credence that He has already returned, or else His words have been badly mangled by translators (not that uncommon). Yet other texts in the Bible suggest He hasn't.
I definitely refute the idea of the rapture. It's as phony as a three-dollar bill. But I'm really undecided about Jesus' return. I guess that makes me a "partial-preterist-in-waiting."
Jesus is basically saying to Peter, "I am going to return while John is still alive but after you are dead."
True to His word, Peter died in Rome circa 64-67 AD, roughly five years before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the year Preterists believe Jesus fulfilled His Word and returned. John was still alive.
Very interesting. I am inspired by your post to go back and read all of that for context. It makes sense to me that Jesus has come, is come, and continues to come to those who look for him (not with physical eyes). I can see how his return in 70 AD could be true and yet a Great Tribulation could still be in the future. I don't think those two things cancel each other out, necessarily.
I believe there is some evidence (Jesus' own words here, for example) to give credence that He has already returned, or else His words have been badly mangled by translators (not that uncommon). Yet other texts in the Bible suggest He hasn't.
I definitely refute the idea of the rapture. It's as phony as a three-dollar bill. But I'm really undecided about Jesus' return. I guess that makes me a "partial-preterist-in-waiting."
Me too Thrill -- I believe physically judgment has been given in 70AD but I do believe there is spiritual application to Revelation as well
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
