John 10:16 - interpretations?

[Thomas]

In him we live and breathe and have our being....

Exactly Wil —

The point is you always present Christ as relative to you, you placing yourself prior to Christ, with all that that implies.

Scripture places ourselves after Him, in Him, we the body, He the head ... it's a subtle distinction, but an absolute one ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Ben Masada]

Then followed Christ's resurrection-corner stone of the earth.
". . . laid the foundations of the earth ?. . . Who laid the corner stone thereof ;when the morning stars sang together ,and all the sons of God shouted for joy ?" Job 38 :4 ,6,7

Regarding Jesus' resurrection, IMHO, he didn't. Bodily resurrection is not only against the Scriptures but also the natural laws. The idea was fabricated by Paul about 30 years after Jesus had been gone, as he, Paul himself revealed his secret to his friend Timothy, that it was all according to his peculiar gospel that Jesus had resurrected. (II Tim. 2:8) It means that there was another gospel being preached at the time, in whose agenda, the Pauline claim that Jesus had resurrected was not an item of. And this gospel was the one Paul would refer to in a pejorative manner as "the other gospel." (Gal. 1:8)

Now, with regards to the corner stone, God Himself was the One Who laid it as a prophecy when He said, "Let there be light, and there was light." Keep on reading for the details:

Let There Be Light and There Was Light

It has been an a "tohu vavohu" among many questioners, especially Christians, even many Jews, to come up with an explanation for that kind of light in Genesis 1:3 wen the sun, which gives light by day was created only on the 4th day of creation. The embarrassment is that at both, Atheists laugh. And not because they know any better in terms of an adequate answer, but for two other reasons: First, because they look for an answer only in Science; and of course it is not there but in Theology. And in Theology, they laugh at us for they think that we are all speaking about an anthropomorphic god, which, as I don't blame them: It indeed never existed.

But what light is indeed the Torah writer referring to when he reports of God as declaring, "Let there be light?"

Since before the creation of the universe, it was already in the designs of God to provide for salvation of Mankind, a People whom salvation would come from, in the words of Jesus himself in John 4:22. Hence, the first prophecy pronounced by God Himself about the rise of Israel from the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the future.

When for good, the Assyrians removed Israel from existence by replacing the Northern Kingdom of the Galilee with Gentiles, and after the Jews or Southern Kingdom was taken for an temporary exile of 70 years in Babylon, and the time had arrived for their return to the Land of Israel, Prophet Isaiah said that the people who walked in darkness, he meant the Gentiles in Galilee, had seen a great light as the Jewish People was returning to the Land of Israel. (Isa. 9:2)

Then, later, he confirms that light of Genesis 1:3 when he explained that Israel had been assigned as light to the nations. (Isa. 42:6) But the light was to remain divided from the darkness, so that both should exist in the same world; although, in the language of the Essenes, there would always be a conflict between the children of Light and the children of darkness. That is, between Jews and Gentiles.

Jesus was aware of this Light as he delivered his famous Sermon of the Mount to a crowd of Jews, when he said to them: "You are the Light of the world." (Mat. 5:14) The reason why he said "you are" and not "you have" is that what one has, it can be taken away, but what one is he is no matter what. Individually, we have the light the world needs, to know God. But as a People, we are the light of Genesis 1:3, which the world needs for salvation.

Ben

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"...it is absolutely the only way to "heaven", and any other religion is inferior..."

--> This is one of the biggest reasons I'm not a Christian any more.

 

[Ben Masada]

"...it is absolutely the only way to "heaven", and any other religion is inferior..."

--> This is one of the biggest reasons I'm not a Christian any more.

What happened Nick? Would you like to share with us another detail or two about your decision to leave the Church of Paul? Where are you now, perhaps over the rainbow, I mean, nowhere specifically? Not that you have to be somewhere. Just curious.
Ben

 

[Dan of Louisiana]

John 10:16 - "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, and one shepherd."


How do some of you interpret this verse?

He is talking of the gentiles(non-Jews) that have yet to hear His message of salvation. If they believe in Jesus, they will become part of the flock because He is the only way to heaven.

This verse in no way implies non-believers will be in heaven. It is saying they will have a choice also.

 

[IowaGuy]

He is talking of the gentiles(non-Jews) that have yet to hear His message of salvation. If they believe in Jesus, they will become part of the flock because He is the only way to heaven.

This verse in no way implies non-believers will be in heaven. It is saying they will have a choice also.

What about the gentiles that never had a chance to hear his message, either because they lived and died in the 197,000 years before Jesus came, or they lived and died in the 1,500 years on another continent (let's say, North America), after Jesus was on earth but where Jesus' word didn't reach until a few hundred years ago (0-1500AD). Are they in heaven even though they are de facto non-believers? i.e. is there an "exemption" for non-believers that never heard Jesus' word?

 

[Dan of Louisiana]

What about the gentiles that never had a chance to hear his message, either because they lived and died in the 197,000 years before Jesus came, or they lived and died in the 1,500 years on another continent (let's say, North America), after Jesus was on earth but where Jesus' word didn't reach until a few hundred years ago (0-1500AD). Are they in heaven even though they are de facto non-believers? i.e. is there an "exemption" for non-believers that never heard Jesus' word?

I was just translating the verse you asked about.

I have no idea about these people. First, I don't believe there have been 197,000 years on earth for anyone. Secondly, how do you know if God hasn't appeared through dreams or other medium to those people. I have no idea.

 

[IowaGuy]

I was just translating the verse you asked about.

I have no idea about these people. First, I don't believe there have been 197,000 years on earth for anyone. Secondly, how do you know if God hasn't appeared through dreams or other medium to those people. I have no idea.

Hi Dan, I asked that particular question because I have heard some Christians say that the phrase sheep "not of this flock" could refer to those that never heard Jesus' message, yet would be in heaven with all the "believers" someday. The bible otherwise doesn't adress, to my knowledge, what is the fate of those on other continents that never heard about Jesus.

How many years of humans do you think have been on this planet and why?

The Native Americans for the most part believed in the Great Spirit or Wanka-Tanka. Do you believe this was the result of the Abrahamic God appearing in dreams or other medium to the North Americans? Or was the Great Spirit/Wanka-Tanka a form of paganism?

 

[Dan of Louisiana]

How many years of humans do you think have been on this planet and why?

Somewhere between 6000-7000 years. The reason is because of things I have heard during my life regarding The Bible's timeline from too many places to name them all. There are flaws in radio-carbon dating things as well. I believe the earth was created in the literal 7 days.

The Native Americans for the most part believed in the Great Spirit or Wanka-Tanka. Do you believe this was the result of the Abrahamic God appearing in dreams or other medium to the North Americans? Or was the Great Spirit/Wanka-Tanka a form of paganism?

Pagan.

 

[Dream]

Sorry, 'Nokee' that I haven't had time to respond. What you are saying could also be applied to 'Paul the apostle'. How does one go about getting to know the historical Paul? You can't. I will mostly agree with Masada on his response to you, though I don't subscribe wholesale to his opinions about Saul->Paul. It is important that Jews, who have kept separate from Christianity down through history, not get saddled with its debts. I agree that would be unfair, but Paul is immaterial when it comes to that.

As Ben argues it is arguable that to Christians salvation is of the Jews, though not necessarily in the sense that I think he's saying it. Jesus himself once said "God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham."(Luke 3:8) As for salvation coming from the Jews, they are supposed to strive to be salvation but there is no guarantee that they will be. They can default. Someone else could fill in whenever they're in default. I don't see a limitation against other people being salvation.

I'm not sure what I think about the wholesale denouncement of Christianity. Its hard to assess 2000 years. Jews are pretty good, but I wouldn't put all my money on just one horse. They have their issues. Besides what if God created multiple religions? It would then not matter who denounced it. Obviously Christianity is being called on the carpet for various terrible violations of Jesus trust both by Christians and now by Jews and by Muslims. Many are questioning whether Christianity was ever/is now valid, but believing Christians and the faithful believe that Jesus continues to work to perfect his church.

 

[seattlegal]

Somewhere between 6000-7000 years. The reason is because of things I have heard during my life regarding The Bible's timeline from too many places to name them all. There are flaws in radio-carbon dating things as well. I believe the earth was created in the literal 7 days.

What do you say about this?

Pando (tree) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pando (or The Trembling Giant)[1] is a clonal colony of a single male Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) located in the U.S. state of Utah, all determined to be part of a single living organism by identical genetic markers[2] and one massive underground root system, although whether it is a single tree is disputed. The plant is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000,000 kg (6,600 short tons),[3] making it the heaviest known organism.[4] The root system of Pando is estimated to be among the oldest known living organisms in existence at 80,000 years of age.[5]
Pando is located in the Fishlake National Forest, near Fish Lake on the Fish Lake Plateau located at the western edge of the Colorado Plateau in South-central Utah. The name "Pando" was chosen because it is Latin for "I spread."[1][6]
Continued at link​

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Somewhere between 6000-7000 years. The reason is because of things I have heard during my life regarding The Bible's timeline from too many places to name them all. There are flaws in radio-carbon dating things as well. I believe the earth was created in the literal 7 days.

It is important for me to remember the facts I base my beliefs on so that I always can re-evaluate them when I'm faced with new facts. By doing this I think I can come to a closer understanding of how the world turns.

This is of course not for everyone, a lot of people don't lay any importance to the age of the world. But I guess I'm still surprised each time I hear beliefs without their roots.

 

[arthra]

Someone should adopt the name "Pando" as an avatar...

I just got my national geographic geno project reading back from the DNA I submitted and guess what my distant ancestors survived the last ice age..sixty thousand years ago. I was "out of Africa".Oh the speed of light... travels 186,000 miles a second and takes ohh 16,000 light years to the nearest star.

But anyway the name for day..Look up the Hebrew word "Yawm"

יוֹם

and it's translation into Englishche:

day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period)
1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2) as a division of time
a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)

A loong time ago in a galaxy far away my Baptist Sunday School Teacher who was a Biologist suggested the days of Genesis were indefinite periods of time..ergo ages.

 

[bob x]

Bodily resurrection is not only against the Scriptures but also the natural laws.

It is seriously against the odds that someone could undergo all those tortures, and yet stand up again (I'm sure I would respond by lying down dead), but there is nothing about impossible about it. Faith healing is not understood, but people of strong will do often survive conditions which the doctors pronounce fatal. People back then did not know much about the border between "alive" and "dead": of course there was no EEG to tell us whether the brain stopped; we are told that Jesus gave out the classic "last breath" or "death rattle" but cessation of breathing is not always death; they did not check the pulse because nobody knew to do that in those days, but the fact that blood still flowed when he was spear-stuck suggests that his heart was still beating.

The idea was fabricated by Paul about 30 years after Jesus had been gone

This is the reverse of the truth. In 1st Corinthians, Paul argues against the notion that Jesus resurrected in a body of "flesh", maintaining instead that the risen Jesus was some kind of "glorified" body made of some kind of spirit-stuff. Paul had "received" from the disciples at Jerusalem the story of Jesus rising from the dead, but wants his own purely visionary experience of the risen Christ to be the same as what the disciples experienced, so that he has equal authority to them; it was the people who had actually met Jesus who insisted that he rose in a purely corporeal fashion.

as he, Paul himself revealed his secret to his friend Timothy

The epistles to Timothy and Titus, called the "Pastorals", are rejected by non-fundamentalist scholars. They appear late (not mentioned by any early authors, or found in Marcion's collection of Pauline epistles), are different in style and dialect from Paul's genuine epistles, and seem to refer to a more structured church than is likely to have existed that early. There have been counter-arguments: that private letters were not at first generally known, unlike those addressed to churches; and that "Paul after dark" may have had a less formal style than the polished writing in letters intended for publication. A compromise suggested by Meyer, which I somewhat like, is that there were such letters, which were saved as precious relics, but had fallen to pieces by the time they were published; so some sentences here and there are from Paul, but the bulk of the text has been filled in by someone writing "what Paul ought to have said" (a parallel case is the correspondence between Paul and Seneca in Rome: the family of Seneca came out with these saved letters hundreds of years later, but only small sections of the text are thought to be genuine). But we cannot lean too hard on anything in the Pastorals with any confidence that Paul actually wrote it. What is most likely to be genuine are the trivial bits like "I left my cloak behind at Troas, can you retrieve it?" that nobody would have had a motive to make up (ancient forgers did not have much sense of creating this kind of detail for verisimilitude); if we had the whole letters intact, it might be that it was all "Joanna's uncle recently died so why don't you pay her a condolence call? And Trophimus has his bunions again, can you get some of that lotion from Alexandria for him?" and so on and so on.

 

[Dan of Louisiana]

What do you say about this?

Pando (or The Trembling Giant)]

There are flaws with radiocarbon dating, and it's well-known. I tried to post a link to support this but I have to wait until my 10th post here to post that link.

Why is it important to you how old I think the world is?

 

[Dan of Louisiana]

It is important for me to remember the facts I base my beliefs on so that I always can re-evaluate them when I'm faced with new facts. By doing this I think I can come to a closer understanding of how the world turns.

This is of course not for everyone, a lot of people don't lay any importance to the age of the world. But I guess I'm still surprised each time I hear beliefs without their roots.

You say your mind is open, but then when I say that the world isn't as old as you think it is, you blow off my opinion like it isn't founded. I am 39 and my opinion on this isssue has been changed before. Google "radiocarbon dating flaws" and tell me if you believe anyone knowsh

 

[bob x]

Radiocarbon is hardly the only technique for determining ages. We "blow off" your opinion because, frankly, it is nothing but a stubborn ignorance:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. -- De Genesi ad litteram libri ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis") chapter XII, by Saint Augustine of Hippo

My favorite example of an age measurement is supernova 1987A, which blew out a rapidly expanding sphere of matter, whose speed can be measured in two ways-- and those two measurements, together, give precisely a measurement of how long ago it was. The material moving at right angles to our line of sight forms a circular ring, which was originally growing at a rate of about one arc-second per decade. The pace is now slowing, as this material runs into resistance, but if it kept to its original speed, after 60 decades it would be one arc-minute in radius, after 60x60 decades one degree, after 60x60x57 decades (about two millions years) one radian-- where a "radian" is the arc that is equivalent to the distance from here to there. That is, we do not get an absolute speed; this "angular" or "arc" measurement gives the speed in terms of however far it is from us: whatever that distance, the material was moving fast enough to get here in two million years.

For the material that is coming directly toward us or directly away from us, we get a "Doppler shift" measurement of the speed, as a fraction of the speed of light. Emissions from the material coming toward us are of higher frequency than they should be ("blue-shifted") because each pulse was emitted from a little closer to us than the previous pulse, and took less time to get here; emissions from material moving away are lowered in frequency ("red-shifted") because each pulse was coming from further back than the previous. The matter was originally moving at about 10% of light-speed: some creationists like theories in which light has not always had constant speed, but this does not make any difference here; the material was moving at 10% of whatever was the average speed for THAT light coming from THERE to HERE. So, if the matter would have taken two million years to get here, the light took 200,000 years. The numbers I gave "one arc-second per decade" and "10%" of light-speed were round-offs to make the concept easier to see: the calculation actually comes out about 175,000 years. It just so happens that the distance to that group of stars (the "Lesser Magellanic Cloud" mini-galaxy) had already been determined to be about 175,000 light-years by completely independent methods; this very direct confirmation was an example of what is called "consilience of evidence": we are particularly confident about results which can be determined through different methods that are unrelated to each other.

 

[Dan of Louisiana]

We "blow off" your opinion because, frankly, it is nothing but a stubborn ignorance.

Wow, insulting me off the bat. Good for you. My opinion has been formed through living on this earth educating myself with what I believe to be the truth. Why should you care what my opinion is anyway?

 

[Ben Masada]

... but the fact that blood still flowed when he was spear-stuck suggests that his heart was still beating.

.

Bob, there was no spear-piercing of Jesus' body on the cross, because of the following reasons:

No Piercing At Jesus' Side

Here are three reasons why Jesus was never pierced at his side on the cross:

1- The custom to rush the death of all the Jews crucified by the Romans was Jewish and not Roman; and the practice was done only on Fridays, so that the bodies would not be left hanging during the hours of the Sabbath. And the method was leg-breaking and not spear-piercing. The Romans wouldn't care less if the Jewish Sabbath got desecrated by the bodies on the crosses.

2 - There is a tradition that the Centurion was richly bribed by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a very rich man in Israel, to just let him - Joseph - take Jesus off the cross and report back to Pilate that Jesus was indeed already dead.

3 - That Centurion and his men could never by their own accord pierce Jesus after their recognition that Jesus was indeed the son of God. This is for lack of any other option, a confession that they had converted themselves to the Cause of Jesus. That's in Matthew 27:54.

The first and third reasons dispense with any other evidence that the piercing of Jesus' side by a Roman spear was an interpolation by
either the writer of the Gospel or by the Fathers of the Church in 327 CE, when they selected the books into the Canon of the NT.

Ben

 

[bob x]

My opinion has been formed through living on this earth educating myself with what I believe to be the truth.

And blowing off the findings of everyone who has devoted their lives to figuring these things out; this is the opposite of "educating" yourself.

Why should you care what my opinion is anyway?

Because unfortunately you are only one of a large number of fundamentalist American Christians who aggressively promote ignorance, to the severe damage of this country.

The Romans wouldn't care less if the Jewish Sabbath got desecrated by the bodies on the crosses.

You are presuming a level of hostility between Romans and Jews which did not yet exist. Yes, the Romans were foreign occupiers and often resented for it (as in other places besides Judea!) but they bent over backwards to be respectful of the religious traditions of all their subject peoples, donating generously to every shrine (including the Temple in Jerusalem). I find nothing implausible about the Roman conduct reported in the gospels, of releasing a prisoner as a good-will gesture for the holiday, making sure that bodies weren't left hanging on their special day, etc. If you do find it implausible, consider this: these texts were, of course, circulated IN the Roman Empire so, obviously, people who actually lived at that time and knew first hand how Romans behaved didn't find anything implausible about it.

There is a tradition that the Centurion was richly bribed by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a very rich man in Israel, to just let him - Joseph - take Jesus off the cross and report back to Pilate that Jesus was indeed already dead.

That tradition may or may not have any truth to it. We are talking about what it actually says in the text. The "Passion" narrative in John is a very good source (I have my doubts about the rest of "John", but the Passion narrative reflects good data about the layout of the city prior to the sack of 70 AD, information which a later forger would have had great difficulty in obtaining).

That Centurion and his men could never by their own accord pierce Jesus after their recognition that Jesus was indeed the son of God.

Only one of the soldiers is said to have exclaimed "he must be the son of God!" and only in Matthew, so we don't really know if that story is even true rather than just propaganda; but even if it is, there is no good reason to think the soldier who stuck a spear into him was the same soldier, or had the same opinion.

the Fathers of the Church in 327 CE, when they selected the books into the Canon of the NT.

We have lists of "canonical" books from much earlier than that (Muratori c. 170 has the same four gospels, for example; though the question of which epistles to accept remained open for longer).