This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

A realization I made reading through 1-2 Peter and 1-3 John today.

#1DarkContractorPosted 4/15/2013 2:01:13 PM
So there is not a single testimony of a single miracle in any of these letters. It's all the "Holy Spirit" yet not matter how times I ask the question, I've yet to be told what we can do to distinct it from intuition and placebo. The Resurrection is made in passing, but what happens we look at what they actually testify about? (So I am not looking just for say "we are saved because God raised Jesus" but confessions on how they know God raised Jesus)

When Peter actually mentions his testimony, never once do we find anything supernatural (except for the bit on the mountain with Moses and Elijah, which I will get to)

1 Peter 5:1 "And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ. And I, too, will share in his glory when he is revealed to the world world.

But not a witness to the resurrection or the ascension?

2 Peter 1:3 "By his divine power, God has given us everything we need for living a godly life. We have received all of this by coming to know, the one who called us to himself by means of his marvelous glory and excellence"

Not a specific testimony, but one must wonder if that calling was intuition or empirical.

2 Peter 1:16-18 "For we were not making up clever stories when we told you about the powerful coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We saw his majestic splendor with our own eyes when he received honor and glory from God the Father. The voice from the majestic glory of God said to him, "This is my dearly loved Son, who brings me great joy." We ourselves heard that voice from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain.

But over and over doesn't he say he knows God through the Holy Spirit? Doesn't the Bible talk about the Holy Spirit speaking to your heart? Couldn't that just be hearing God?

Onward to John's letters (and remember, these are supposed to be the same Peter and John who witnessed the bread that fed 5000, the resurrection, ascension, EVERYTHING, yet how do they testify what they know?)

1 John 1:3 "We proclaim to you what we ourselves have actually seen and heard so that you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We are writing these things so that you may fully share our joy"

So now let's look for empirically known miracles and/or verses that have anything to do with testifying.

1:5 "This is the message we heard from Jesus and now declare to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all."

2:3 "And we can be sure that we know him if we obey his commandments." This is vague, but yeah, since talks about knowing him, it was worth putting it. John still doesnt say anything about knowing from what he saw happen.

4:12 "No one has ever seen God. But if we love each other, God lives in us" (going back to my point about Peter on the mountain)
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#2DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 4/15/2013 2:01:21 PM
4:13-14 "And God has given us his Spirit as proof that we live in him and he in us. Furthermore, we have seen with our own eyes and now testify that the Father Sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."

But John, if you saw all that stuff you did in the Gospel of John, wouldn't you be testifying about the Son with all that empirical data?

And here's where we get the killer for 1 John.

5:6-9 "And Jesus Christ was revealed as God's Son by his baptism in water and shedding his blood on the cross-not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with his testimony. So, we have these three witnesses-the Spirit, the water, and the blood-and all three agree. Since we believer human testimony, surely we can believe the greater testimony that comes from God. And God has testified about his Son."

John! What about you being able to testify that Jesus is God's Son? Hello? No mention whatsoever? And notice how he includes himself in the audience, "we" "us" etc. This IS his proof, this IS how he knows who God is.

2 John contains zero testimony about how we know that Jesus is the Son. Same with 3 John. Now, looking more through 1-3 John is even more obscure about the Gospel; Peter made reference to the Resurrection/Ascension but never claimed once to actually bare witness to it (It's no different than a Christian on this board mentioning the Resurrection/Ascension). Now John is especially interesting, because not even in passing, not once, does he mention the Resurrection or the Ascension even in passing? Instead, he continously points out that Jesus was sacrificed, his blood makes us new, etc. but all these point to the Crucifxition, none of these implies the Resurrection or the Ascension. The theme here is that John says Jesus is sacrificed so that through him we have eternal life. But what about with him?


Now of course, there is debate amongst critics whether or not John the Apostle authored all the Johannine literature. Some people contend there's John the Apostle and John the Evangelist was the author, and sometimes even a 3rd John, or someone else entirely not named John. It can all be pretty confusing to research (especially with all the various people who will disagree with each other) but I believe there John the Baptist who was killed because Herod's wife wanted his head on a silver platter, and then there is another John, who wrote all of the Johannine literature. Regardless of which John it is, it is however a fact that 1 John 1 claims witness to a man named Jesus Christ but never once does he claim witness to a single miracle of Jesus whatsoever nor does he mention the Resurrection or the Ascension or say that we'll live forever with Jesus (he only says that about God).
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#3OrangeWizardPosted 4/15/2013 2:27:26 PM
What were you doing reading the bible?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#4DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 4/15/2013 2:48:14 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #003
What were you doing reading the bible?


learning more about what it says. One thing I also noticed was that 1 John 5:17 seemed to contradict Romans 6:23, but it's not clear and I'm still looking more into that. Feel free to nip that in the bud.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#5OrangeWizardPosted 4/15/2013 3:05:46 PM
From: DarkContractor | #004
learning more about what it says.


Why? For what insidious purpose would you do such a thing?

One thing I also noticed was that 1 John 5:17 seemed to contradict Romans 6:23, but it's not clear and I'm still looking more into that. Feel free to nip that in the bud.


A "sin that does not incur death" is a sin that is not willful, that is accidental.

But "the wages sin pays is death", meaning, we die because of inherited sin anyway

I don't see a contradiction.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#6DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 4/15/2013 3:09:56 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #005
From: DarkContractor | #004
learning more about what it says.


Why? For what insidious purpose would you do such a thing?


Intellectual honesty.

A "sin that does not incur death" is a sin that is not willful, that is accidental.


Where's it say that?

But "the wages sin pays is death", meaning, we die because of inherited sin anyway


I don't see an 'inherited' between wages and sin.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#7OrangeWizardPosted 4/15/2013 3:17:03 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
#8DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 4/15/2013 3:23:33 PM
You lie. An atheist does not study the bible just to learn anymore so than a terrorist creates a bomb "just for fun".


Prove it

There are two different kinds of sins. Sins that incur death, and sins that do not. The verse makes that clear.
The type of sin that does incur death, is also called the unforgivable sin, a sin against the holy spirit. A willful sin.

Therefore, a sin that does not incur death, must not be willful.


Where's it say that?

It's just logic.


No it's not. You're defining certain things, I just want a source is all.

We're not discussing these verses in a vacuum. We die because of inherited sin and imperfection. This is basic bible 101 stuff.
Maybe you'd know that if you actually were "intellectually honest", and not just scanning the bible, looking for contradictions.


Wait we're not discussing these verses in context? Why? Source on the second sentence.

And I was having a lovely chat with JonWood on Steam as I read. I saw that, and I asked him "Hey, is that a contradiction to Rom. 6:23? Doesn't seem clear" He wasn't sure either, so here we are pondering.

And now we asked you and you're treating us like crap for asking. You're a noisy gong, share the love!
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#9TheRealJiraiyaPosted 4/15/2013 3:41:05 PM
Its worth noting that the Jews were pretty skeptical of "miracles" by themselves because of stories like the one in which the Pharaoh's magicians could replicate God's miracles up to a point, and Samuel being raised from the dead.

Perhaps they viewed the Holy Spirit as distinguishing those real miracles from witchcraft or something. But it is odd.
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#10Moorish_IdolPosted 4/15/2013 4:27:08 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
From: DarkContractor | #006
Intellectual honesty.


You lie. An atheist does not study the bible just to learn anymore so than a terrorist creates a bomb "just for fun".

That's a horrible analogy, especially considering the events of today. What an unpleasant person you are.

I'm not a Christian but I study the Bible. I also have read the Book of Mormon, most of the Quran, Buddhist scriptures, etc. Believe it or not, some people study religion because they have an academic interest in it, not because they believe in it.