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.
Ask my sons if the manna has anything to do with Jesus, and they ask you "who is Jesus? Is he that dead Rabbi all those people with lights on their houses in December pray to?"
The bible has a lot of symbolism , and Mana symbolizes Jesus as " The Bread of Life." But thats another story in how to understand that symbolism, which is why I said Jesus is refered to, just not by name, but by these symbolisms. He is "The Kings Son" in Chronicles 20-23. But as I said, I am not Christian , and when people interpit what is mostly said about this subject, they tend to view it through how Christians interpit it; I interpit it as I understand it. And I do not celebrate christmas and put lights on trees and my house, I do not celebrate any of these days that christians are so fond of. I consider them unbiblical.
The bible has a lot of symbolism , and Mana symbolizes Jesus as " The Bread of Life." But thats another story in how to understand that symbolism, which is why I said Jesus is refered to, just not by name, but by these symbolisms.
Would you say that this is what the author of the bible meant when He gave it to the Jews at Mount Sinai 3300 year ago? Or is this something that has been "added' as a meaning at a later time?
Would you say that this is what the author of the bible meant when He gave it to the Jews at Mount Sinai 3300 year ago? Or is this something that has been "added' as a meaning at a later time?
Yes I would say that is the original symbolism intended from its conception, it was not added later, although the understanding of it may have spread more later. In fact, the symbolism behind Israel being " Chosen by God", is that God wanted to show the world that he would forgive a disobedient people and still save them; thus a disobedient world would still be forgiven and saved. And that symbolism is more important than the actual events of that time. The symbolism of " All people being chosen and forgiven" is more important than the original people chosen.
Jesus opening and shutting the understanding of men, reveals that really he controls men; which most men would deny and not believe. Thats a control issue at its heart. Because if Jesus really can do this, then he " Is doing it." Which now obviously makes it a " Predestined issue." It is now a matter of responsibility, because if we are being that heavily influenced, just how much are we responsible for?
I prefer this translation: The meaning here may be thus expressed: "I came to declare the condition of men; to show them their duty and danger. My coming will have this effect, that some will be reformed and saved, and some more deeply condemned."
[from Barnes Notes on the Bible]
Clarke's Commentary:
"In a word, salvation shall be taken away from the Jews, because they reject it; and the kingdom of God shall be given to the Gentiles."
I cannot agree with this assessment. This is more akin to people adhering to a "Christ-only" salvation theme. Not even Paul would accept this premise.
Gill's Exposition:
"Nor is the sense of the words that Christ came by the judgment of God, or the order of divine providence, or to administer justice in the government of the world, in a providential way, or to distinguish his own people from others, though all these are true; but either to fulfil the purpose and decree of God in revealing truth to some, and hiding it from others; or in a way of judgment to inflict judicial blindness on some, whilst in a way of mercy he illuminated others. So Nonnus interprets it of , a twofold "judgment", which is different the one from the other."
I cannot agree with this sentiment either. There is no "judgment" of God. First, the Christ came to reform the Judaic thinking, to get it back on track. It was not his intention to start a new church or religion. The priests had so convoluted the simple message of Judaism that the people were "lost."
"to distinguish his people from their own" again smacks of "we versus they," a concept that is an anathema to the writers and philosophers who contributed to the Bible. It is prejudicial against the Jews in the first place. I mean, when was this exposition written? In the 18th Century!
_____
If anyone is to be accused of not being able to see or not willing to see: this is not an act of God but an act of man. There were plenty of people around who "saw" and interpreted a situation contrary to what was really happening.
There were church leaders who saw Jesus as a threat and tore their beards out in trying to eradicate him and his followers.
There were zealots who hoped that this Jesus would be the new David and establish God's kingdom once and for all here on the Earth.
There were others who "saw" the wisdom of the Christ's philosophy: this Earthly existence is but a short trial before real life begins.
_____
The thought or idea that a God--or even Jesus, for that matter--would purposely close the minds of people is, again, an anathema to the Bible as a whole.
We have to separate the writer's frustration from his sense of justice, which was not forthcoming as expected from God, from the overwhelming embrace God gives to all of ITs creation and ITs sense of justice, which surpasses any human's sense of justice by a long shot.
I prefer this translation: The meaning here may be thus expressed: "I came to declare the condition of men; to show them their duty and danger. My coming will have this effect, that some will be reformed and saved, and some more deeply condemned."
.
Well I disagree with any translation that condemns any human, I do not believe that God or Jesus are going to condemn their own offspring, especially after purposely blinding them. Romans 11:32 shows this blindness being enacted by God; satan has blinded people in 2Corinth. 4:4 and Rev. 12:9, and God didnot stop that angle of blindness. Galations 3:22 again confirms this blindness, and many other places in scripture.
Again, really this blindness is a sort of garentee for humanitys salvation, God wouldnot condemn what he has purposely blinded.
Well, thanks to my computer, the 500-word essay I prepared went down the drain.
Here is a condenensed version:
I cannot fathom any God controlling people. To what purpose?
We are all brain-damaged, and that damage began, if not in the womb, but as the neurons began growing and expanding.
We are all unique creatures; not one of us is the same as the other.
Genetics will expand some brain capabilities and suppress others. We like to call the expansion "talent" and the suppression as retardation.
The environment shapes us. An incident can be experienced by ten people; however, each of them will perceive the event and be affected by the event differently. Not the same.
If we "pray" with the writer who wrote "God works all things to the good," then no matter how I interact with people (good or bad), there will be something spiritually happening. Whether I "turn people on or off," there is a stimulus and an impetus occurring.
I do not ascribe to a God "out there," or "above," or anything like we were taught in Sunday School as children. Rather, if God is a part of us, in us, and outside of us, then we, too, are God. IT is just a bit (ha-ha) larger than the total of humanity.
If this God is Us, then IT is working through Us, with Us, for Us, and sometimes against Us. But not controlling.
Alfred Edersheim, (19th Century), The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah.
Here is how he interpretated not only the verse but the whole event that surrounded the verse in question:
Just as our Lord initiated the restoration of sight to this blind man, so He now sought him out to grant him spiritual sight. The Savior did not hasten the spiritual birth process. His physical healing set the process in motion.
The opposition of the Pharisees, far from hindering his conversion, compelled him to it. The failure of Pharisaism was all too evident. If the Pharisees were wrong, then Jesus must be right.
When our Lord found the man He asked him, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” (verse 35).
He was willing to accept Jesus as a spokesman for God, but did not yet know who the Messiah was. And so it was that he asked who the Messiah was, that he might believe on Him. The One Whom he had beheld with his restored eyes, the One to Whom he had been driven by the obstinance of the Pharisees, the One to Whom he spoke; this One was the Messiah.
With this, the man fell at the feet of Jesus in acknowledgement and adoration of His person. And with this bending of the knees came the full sight of the blind man, both physical and spiritual.
But while the healed man bent his knees, the Pharisees stiffened their necks in rebellion and resistance. Our Lord’s coming resulted not only in the restoration of sight to the blind, but also in the blindness of those who professed to see: “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see; and that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39).
There is no contradiction in these words of our Lord with what He said elsewhere to the effect that He did not come to condemn men, but to save them (e.g. John 3:17; 12:47). Our Lord’s purpose in coming to the world was to accomplish salvation. But in the process of His coming as the ‘Light of the world’ (John 1:4; 8:12; 12:46), He exposed the sinfulness of men. Those who reject the light and refuse to turn from their sins and receive His pardon seal their own condemnation. I may go to my office late at night to get a much needed book, and in the process encounter a burglar who, because of my call to the police, is captured and convicted.
What was done for one primary purpose may result in something different.
Such is the case with the coming of Christ as the light of the world.
The Pharisees, who were now watching Jesus like a hawk, seeking any infraction of their meticulous rules, could not help but overhear this statement of Jesus and ask, “We are not blind too, are we?” (John 9:40).
They, no doubt, hoped for a simple “No,” while expecting a stinging ‘“Yes.” Jesus explained their guilt in more detail. They would not be blind if they were aware of the issues. But their problem was not a lack of evidence. Their sin was manifested in their refusal to admit that the evidence was true. They refused to let the evidence persuade them to come to the only logical conclusion. Because they claimed to perceive the issues, they were blind, and by their own admission (verse 41).
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.
