The Aesthetical Jesus - Part IV

I think it might be beneficial as well if I define a phrase that I have used repeatedly, even though the context of its usage should have made the defintion clear:

Religion politician: a person who seeks to manipulate people for the purpose of enriching himself, often claiming to have some sort of authority, citing scriptures and revelations from God, or instilling fear of eternal punishment — all as a tactical means of fulfilling his strategy.

Jesus called them “snakes” and “hypocrites”, and said this about them:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

[…snip…]

You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Matthew 23:13-15 & 27-28

(Note to Frylock: I had just noticed the same thing myself!)

Fenris, Lib does not define “morality” as “conscience”, but only correlated with “conscience”. Earlier in the thread I had raised similar questions, and Lib re-worded some definitions to (satisfactorily) address my requests for clarification - you might want to check out the discussion. Also, there is no word for “the ability to tell whether other people’s actions are right or wrong” (Well, technically I suppose, except maybe the word “Jesus”). Lib has been demonstrably and consistently speaking of internalized views of right and wrong, which are inaccessible to other people.

I do, for one. I find the fact that we only have the ability to discern and respond to people’s behavior, and can never discern their intent or values with certainty; fascinating, useful… and sobering.

I’ve known at least two people who are villains in their own mind, and relish in that fact (at least, they claim to be villains in their own mind; obviously, I can never know that with certainty).

“Interpretive paraphrase”? Nice. But no, this “interpretive paraphrase” (which really is neither) doesn’t highlight a metaphysical statement Jesus is making, but rather a statement you are making.

No, he would need to do that to demonstrate your claims. See, Jesus (as written) has not made any of these claims because he’s not sitting here using your definitions. This is the problem with merely re-writing the text rather than interpreting it.

He has demonstrated no such things. Even if we accept that he means what you mean, he’s merely stated these things, and, just as if I stood on the street corner loudly proclaiming that I am the reincarnation of Julius Caesar, making a claim is not the same as demonstrating its veracity.

Now it’s not just an “interpretive” paraphrase but a meaningful one? How can it be meaningful when made in this manner?

John 8, The Final Claim

For my personal witness, and from my own experience, nothing has been more meaningful than what follows. It is my sincere hope that I can express myself with clarity so you can understand where I’m coming from.

A crowd, led by the Pharisees, is arguing with Jesus:

They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants [or seed] and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.”

“Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

John 8:33-41

The passage is long, and it builds up in intensity as it progresses. The Greek, especially, conveys a sense of tension building. Words and phrases become terse. It’s almost like a ping-pong match sort of cadence. (Incidentally, as a matter of curiosity, the reason I added “seed” to “descendants” above is that the word used was σπέρμα, pronounced “sperma”.)

There is a lot of back and forth about who are children of whom. Recall from the previous post that Jesus is telling them that if they do not believe, they will die in their sins — or as we would put it, they will cease to be real (or already are not real) as they pursue the obstruction of goodness.

Here is where it becomes heated. Those who do not believe what He says, which are chiefly the Pharisees and experts in the law, along with people they incite, ramp it up quite a notch. And Jesus enjoins them. It begins with the tone of a classic Greek debate — a philosopher in an open area, debating the people around him. But it quckly escalates. They protest Jesus telling them that they would know the truth, and the truth would set them free, by declaring that, as children of Abraham, they have never been slaves to anyone. (And therefore, did not need to be freed.)

But Jesus isn’t talking about them being owned by another person; He is talking about them being owned by their obstruction of goodness, and by implication, death. They are slaves to what they do: namely, doing all they can to obstruct and hinder the work of God (which is, as we will recall, the facilitation and conveyance of goodness.) A modern expression might say that they are addicted (to sin), rather than slaves. But in any case, Jesus is telling them plainly that anyone who obstructs the flow of goodness among free moral agents cannot claim to be a son of God.

He explains that freedom from sin is a state of belief in Him. He reasons that a slave has no place in the family (a metaphorical reference to the totality of spirit — His Father, Himself, and all believers), but that a son does. And so, if the son sets a slave free, then if he speaks on behalf of the family, the slave is truly free. And Jesus has already said that He speaks the words God gave Him to speak, which is a claim we covered earlier, and a claim that He makes again right here. And so therefore, He can (as in has the capability and authority) to free slaves — or to put it another way, to forgive sin.

The crowd is sensing that He is claiming a spiritual status which they lack. And they cite the fact that they are descended from Abraham, and as such, have a claim to a special relationship with God. But he rebukes them, saying that if they were children of Abraham, they would do as Abraham would do (help to facilitate goodness), but they do not; therefore, they are not children of Abraham (a modus tolens). He tells them they are children of THEIR father (πατήρ, pronounced patēr).

They begin to become almost enraged. How DARE He invalidate their status by declaring that they are not children of Abraham. But as we know, from our epistemological studies, Jesus is referring to a spiritual father, while they are referring to a physical man. They are, in effect, talking past one another. The mind of Jesus is steadfastly on the spirit, while their minds are on earthly relations.

They break. They’ve had enough. They blurt out that the only Father they have is God. The Greek here is helpful in capturing the mood. (At least it was to me). And so here is what is written:

ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν. εἶπαν [οὖν] αὐτῷ, Ἡμεῖς ἐκ πορνείας οὐ γεγεννήμεθα: ἕνα πατέρα ἔχομεν τὸν θεόν.

John 8:41

It translates as, “Y’all (plural you) do the deeds of your father. Then they said to Him, we be (subjunctive mood) not born of fornication. We have one Father — [even] God.” — θεόν, the root of which is θεός (theos). We get words like “theology” from it.

It is, at the very least, a tactical mistake in the argument. For one thing, it opens the door for Jesus to make His final claim. (Recall from the previous post on John 8 that Jesus needs to make three distinct claims that identify Him as God. He must be eternal, essential, and necessary. Recall further that He has already claimed the last two.) But secondly, it allows for there to be a son (or sons) of God. After all, they cannot otherwise make the claim themselves, as they clearly did, that their Father is God.

Jesus did not waste time capitalizing on the mistake:

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.

"Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

“Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

John 8:42-47

Wow. He actually tells them that their father is the devil. He reasons flawlessly that if God were their Father, they would love Him, because He came from God and now is right in front of them. Why would they love God but not love His gift?

He then goes further and says that the reason they cannot understand what He is saying, is because they belong to the “devil” (διάβολος “diabolos” is the root.) It may be assumed that whatever else the devil might be, he is principally concerned with obstructing as much goodness as he possibly can. It is, again, a spiritual reference. One cannot help but wonder why people would think a spiritual teacher might not be talking about spiritual things.

He called them sons of the father of lies, and that there is no truth in him. By our definition, He is saying that nothing has been revealed to their father that is of any aesthetic value. (See post 77 of this thread, where truth is defined.) He has basically dressed them down about as low as they can go. Their father lies because he cannot not lie. It is his natural language. It is a modal claim. In other words, there is no possibility whatsoever that their father could ever tell the truth under any circumstance or in any world.

Jesus then closes with a final line of reasoning. He challenges any of them to find in Him any sin. And since they cannot, they should know that He is telling the truth. And if they should know that He is telling the truth, then why don’t they believe Him? He says that people who belong to God (as they had claimed they did) hear God’s voice (through Jesus). But since they do not hear God’s voice (through Him), they do not belong to God.

And now they are exasperated. They feel insulted and angry. Although He merely told them the simple truth, they bristled, and blasted him with accusations that they mistakenly felt were in kind (or like His):

The Jews [specifically the Pharisees and their cohorts] answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”

“I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.”

At this the [Pharisees] exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

John 8:48-53

Well. Here we go. What can a person who has just been called a child of the father of lies say in return that has just as much punch? Why, that He is possessed by demons, of course. Now, there was a class system in the culture, and at the top were the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees were the de facto top rung of the ladder as interpreters of the Talmud, and the Sadducees were elitist (in the classical sense) and fancied themselves to be the keepers of the law, obsessed mainly with Temple rituals. They died out around 70 AD. At the very bottom rung were people who were lepers and demon possessed. And of course, the Samaritans. The lowest of the low. This is the level they assigned to Him.

The great irony of this whole encounter is that the very people who are supposed to be spiritual leaders completely miss the message of Jesus because they take it as a personal insult, rather than as a simple fact. It is hard for us to imagine the level of their anger, but consider that they held the highest positions in the Temple, and it was unlawful even to question them. And now here is a man Who tells them basically that they come from the bowels of hell.

Jesus knows that they are in reality religion politicians. (See definition just above.)

Naturally, He denies being demon possessed. He says that He honors God, but that they dishonor Him (the gift of God). He says that He is not seeking glory for Himself, but that His Father, who has perfect aesthetical judgment, seeks glory for His son. He then goes on to tell them (yet again, but in different terms and context) that those who believe in Him will never die.

One can almost hear them laughing out loud as they balk at this declaration. The great prophets have all died. Moses. Abraham. And all the others, and yet this man claims that whoever believes in Him (as we have defined belief) will live forever. They asked Him whether He thought He was greater than their father, Abraham. (Apparently, they cannot decide whether their father is Abraham or God. See the Greek passage above and its translation.)

Who the hell does He think He is! And boy, He was ready to tell them. Almost.

Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

John 8:54-56

He lays it out quite plainly. His Father is the one Whom they call their God, and it is He who glorifies Jesus. He says that they do not know Him (God), but that He (Jesus) does know God. And perhaps with a dry wit, but certainly speaking truthfully, He tells them that if He denied knowing God, He would be a liar like them. But He does indeed know God and keeps His word.

That alone was enough to infuriate these Temple snobs, these religion politicians. But He went further. He said something that left them almost tongue-tied. Certainly, it fulfilled their daily balking quota. He told them that Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing His day, and — here’s the part that put them over the edge — Abraham DID see His day and was glad about it.

By now they were beyond anger, and were dismissive of Him:

“You are not yet fifty years old,” the [Pharisees] said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

John 8:57

The setup is complete. It is time for Jesus to make his third claim. Recall from our previous study of John 8 that He had already made two claims: essence and necessity. His essence is spiritual (from heaven); and His necessity is borne out by the fact that without Him we would all be dead already. But He must now claim timelessness (or eternity) in order to be real, or in order to be life. (Recall that life and reality are synonyms).

Some of you may know that the next verse was the key to my conversion. It was upon seeing it that everything came together for me. I wouldn’t expect the same reaction necessarily from anyone else because we all have our subjective moral journeys.

And this is it:

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

John 8:58

He has now declared His eternity. His present existence precedes Abraham’s prior existence. He is timeless. Eternal. Always present. And the implication even beyond that, as surprising and spectacular as it is in and of itself, is that He is declaring that the God Abraham worshiped was Him. Jesus. It is quite much to contemplate.

And it was just too much for the High Holy religion politicians. The final verse of John 8 (verse 59) tells us that the Pharisees picked up stones to throw at Him, but that He slipped away and disappeared into the crowd.

I think John 8:58 should be examined in the Greek as well:

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

John 8:58

It translates simply as “Jesus said to them, ‘In all truth I say to you, before Abraham was, I am’.” That construction of the verse helps to convey the parallel that we already discussed in the Metaphysics and Ontology thread (Part III), wherein God tells Moses that when the people asked who sent him, for him to tell them “I am sent you. I am that I am.” And now Jesus claims the same I-am-ness. The same eternity. The same status as God Himself.

And so there we have it: He has claimed to be essential, necessary, and eternal. It is a remarkable set of claims, and for me personally, came together in an epiphany. I knew then that Jesus is God.

This concludes our study of John 8. The rest will go much faster (except for John 14, which will require some extensive examination, but not this much.) Thanks to all for your great patience, and for your interest in how my faith was formulated and nurtured.

I think we can let this digression go. The insult was saying I’m failing to understand a basic grammatical concept. That statement was gratuitous, and untrue. All you needed to do was clarify your position and move on. In any event, apology accepted.

Also, it’s no longer significant, as I’ve dropped out of the discussion. But, since you ask, as I said above, what I meant was that love is used in John as both a noun and a verb. I think that’s obviously true. As Frylock observes, in the commandment, we agree it’s a verb.

Incidentally, since I’ve gone to the trouble of posting, I will mention one thing which has occurred to me in thinking about this. Your definition of love covers the noun usage reasonably well (although I don’t think it’s what John intended), but not the verb usage. I submit that the commandment, using your terms, should be interpreted as that we are to edify one another. Not an argument. It’s your witness. Just a suggestion.

Liberal, maybe I’ll regret this, maybe not. Although I bowed out of the discussion, I’ve been following the thread out of curiosity. When I posted about the digression, I hadn’t yet read today’s posts. Now I have. In particular, I notice the development of John 8:58. The verse has been mentioned before, of course, but here we get the full flavor of your witness.

In reading the development, I can’t help but notice that you’re overlooking a very important issue. Ironically, it’s an epistemological question, in a thread that’s really an exegesis. Stated simply, what reason do we have to believe that Jesus actually made the claim reported at John 8:58?

The importance of this question can hardly be overstated. Bear in mind that all of us participating in the threads, as far as I can tell, especially you, subscribe to the mainstream view of Bible scholarship that the Gospels were written by ordinary men and are not the literal divinely inspired word of God. For what it’s worth, I don’t think this is a per se an indictment of Christianity. Indeed, it was my view for the many years I was a Christian. After all, the Revolutionary War really happened, even though all the accounts of it we have were written by ordinary men.

Yet, what follows from this is that it’s entirely possible, even likely, that particular passages were included because they suited the theological views of the community which compiled each Gospel. Thus, if the Johannine community considered Jesus’ eternal existence important on theological grounds (e.g., an eternal god is bigger than a non-eternal one), one should consider whether John 8:58 was cribbed from Exodus. In this scenario, the closeness of the parallel is suspicious, not confirmatory of epistemelogical truth.

So, my question, again, is what reason do we have to believe that Jesus actually made the claim reported at John 8:58?

PBear

Thanks for your gracious acceptance of my apology. Based on your further explanation, it was obviously just a misunderstanding between us. And I should have been more aware of your point of view, and of how you might have felt you were being “schooled”. I would have felt exactly the same way you did: insulted.

Regarding the verb-noun thing as fitting in with my definition of love (“the facilitation or conveyance of goodness”), you are right that the definition as stated is a definition of the noun form. It is easy, however, to accomodate a verb form as well (and in fact, we’ve used that form here many times without formally defining it.) And so I will give both definitions here so that such ambiguity (which you rightly raise as an issue) may be cleared up:

Love (n): “The means by which goodness is conveyed (or facilitated)”

Love (v): “To convey (or facilitate) goodness”

This is analogous to any other verb/noun sort of word in English, like “move”. As a noun, it might mean “a means of relocation from one physical coordinate to another”, but as a verb, it might mean “to relocate from ony physical coordinate to another.” Like a chess move, for example. The move (that’s the noun) is accomplished with your fingers (they are the means), yet when the piece is relocated, it has been moved (and that’s the verb).

Finally, regarding your question about the Beloved as my epistemic source:

None. As I said early on, I could have chosen any number of epistemic sources, from the writings of Jerry Falwell to the writings of autistic children (which are often inspirational beyond expectations). It has been stated before (and repeated many times) — but I will grant you that the length of the witness, spanning four threads already, with some posts containing considerable noise, might have made the statement less… obvious. But I chose John because it is meaningful to me personally. It is why all the threads to this point have been clearly identified as witnessing threads. And as I have said, it is of no concern to me — even if it is of some concern to someone else — whether John has faithfully rendered the words of Jesus. It is the words themselves, regardless of authorship, that ring true to me. Personally. Repeat for emphasis: the words themselves are meaningful to me in se.

Following this thread on epistemology, I will open a debate. And by the way, let me digress just a moment about something that comes across to me as being a bit mildly irritating to you. I keep calling this an exercise in epistemology, and you keep referring to it as an exegeses. You certainly are right that it is an exegeses, but at the same time, as was noted before (I think in Part III), that what is contained in this thread (and by extension, the prior three) is to be the source of knowledge from which I draw my premises for the debate to follow. It is a sort of list (which I will consolidate) of what we know (or more precisely, what I know), and where that knowledge comes from. That is a classic case of epistemological discovery. It is therefore both, because I am calling up these scriptures as sources of knowledge and at the same time am commenting on them what my personal interpretations are.

But since it will bear upon the debate, the more pertinent aspect, in my mind at least, is that it is epistemic in nature. That’s because I will lay out my belief system in a sort of informal proof form, starting with definitions, and then using the sources here as the basis for the inductions I make — specifically, the inductions that form my premises. (All premises are induced, as I said elsewhere; otherwise, if they were deduced, they would not be premises. Instead, they would be inferences.)

Now, the exegeses part is for the purpose of helping you (and others) to understand my interpretations of the epistemological revelations. That is, again, so that when we get to the debate, we aren’t talking past one another. If I were to make reference in my proof, for example, that Jesus claimed people who do not trust in, rely on, and cling to Him are neither essential, necessary, nor eternal, no one can go, “Huh? Wha…? What the hell are you talking about!”

By that time, all pertinent terms will be defined. All premises will be drawn from the knowledge gathered through the resource of the previous four threads (but in particular, from this one). And people who have followed will understand exactly what I mean by what I say. Like I’ve expressed before, I think that sort of understanding is extremely important to a healthy and honest debate, as opposed to a veritable fuck-cluster of non sequiturs, drive-bys, and irrelevant tangents.

It was my hope to open a debate in which all participants share the same understandings of the same terms, who understand where the premises I make come from, and who are prepared to argue, not about whether I’m right or wrong in my interpretations, nor whether my sources are legitimate, but about whether my argument as it is made is logically valid (i.e., all inferences follow according to the ordinary rules of logic.) It won’t be a debate about John, or even a debate about Jesus. It will be a debate about whether the formulation of my faith can be deduced from certain foundational premises.

I sure hope that helps you to understand, and that further repetition of these statements won’t be required for anyone else down the road.

I’ve been following this series of threads with some interest, but there is something I really haven’t understood yet.

I get that you would want all the relevent terms explicitly defined, and the basis of you premises understood by everyone. If everyone isn’t on the same page huge amounts of time can be wasted with people talking past oneanother.

The last sentence in your post “It will be a debate about whether the formulation of my faith can be deduced from certain foundational premises” seems like it would be a very quick and uninteresting debate; for if one can define all the terms and pick all the premises, cannot one trivially prove anything at all? It seems like if everyone follows your wishes in part V and doesn’t address the validity of your premises the entire thread will be your original post followed by a list of people voting ‘yay’ or ‘nay’.

There has been far too much buildup for that to be the goal. So what am I missing?

And this deserves a special comment:

You are exactly right. Since goodness is the edification of two (or more) free moral agents, it follows that to love one another means that we are to edify one another. Thanks for that. It’s a great suggestion.

Great question (thank you!), and a simple answer: the complexity. The argument I make will be extremly complex, and there will be much to debate.

Am I, for example, using my own definitions wrongly or differently. (You would point out equivocation.) Have I left out premises that were necessary for the argument that follows. (You would point out audiatur et altera pars.) Have I made an assumption — a premise — that cannot reasonably be induced from what has been presented as the epistemic source(s). (You would deny the premise.) Have I drawn an inference that does not follow as noted — say, a modus ponens of inferences (82) and (93). (You would cite a non sequitur.) Have I made contradictions? Reifications? Rhetorical appeals? A bifurcation? Have I begged the question? Is one of my premises the same as my conclusion?

And it isn’t only those sorts of things, but whether certain implications are made that I ignore, or misinterpret beyond all reason. It will be the layout of a belief system, but drawn deductively. You are right that ordinarily, it is a trivial matter to prove something if definitions and premises are accepted by all. I mean, “John wears a red shirt on and only on Tuesdays. Today is Tuesday. Therefore, John is wearing a red shirt.” But this argument (just the argument itself) will span multiple posts. In fact, I am concerned about the one minute time limit between posts because of the possibility of even an inadvertent intervening post, that goes up before the argument is complete. But I do have an idea for dealing with that.

And so, for those who participate, the debate can actually be fun. For people who oppose me in general, it will be an opportunity to comb my argument for mistakes, which they will relish finding. For people who believe some other interpretation of scripture (but accept mine for the sake of argument), it will be an opportunity (like PBear took advantage of above) to point out that my definitions, premises, or inferences could be put another way — using my own prior statements. And for people who simply have a curiosity about my faith system, it will be an opportuntity for them to see a single source, rather than the comments I’ve thrown out here and there in various threads in the past. (Other-wise comes to mind.)

I hope you will participate, Lurker Above, and find some aspect of the debate that captures your imagination.

But this is utter crap. It is not the words that have wrung true to you, or you would be arguing from what they mean, not shoehorning your own words into those of the author. The only reason for doing this the way you have is to lend your ideas an artificial sense of credibility, unfortunately for you, this is destroyed by the manner in which you have proceeded to do so.

But you aren’t using these scriptures as sources of knowledge if you are ignoring completely what they mean and the context in which they were written.

Which is to say, you want make all the claims here – under some supposed protection of a claim of “witnessing” – that are completely and entirely unsupported. That way, you get to control all the terms of “debate” without having to defend any assumptions you make. My, that sounds like a truly open and illuminating debate structure!

Nor, apparently, can they say, “Huh? How did you come up with that interpretation?” or they get ignored and their posts unanswered.

Except, of course, when those definitions and expressions are the actual substance of the debate, being the only material that would be in question, and in so structuring your threads you seek to avoid having to substantiate your claims. There is nothing healthy or honest about that. Nothing.

[quote]
It was my hope to open a debate in which all participants…understand where the premises I make come from…**

And yet you won’t even discuss and defend this. That seems rather telling to me with respect to your claims to want an honest debate.

I realize you consider this is a digression, and I wrestled for an hour over whether to raise the question. In the end, I did for three reasons. First, I honestly believe it’s a crucial point. Second, it seemed better to broach the question while John 8:58 was under discussion. Third, you have several times (most recently in Post #92) described this passage as your “ah ha” moment. What I don’t get, and perhaps never will, is why.

At the time of your epiphany, you have explained, you were an anti-Christian (your phrase). Presumably, then, John had no inherent credibility as a source. Yet, you read this passage and found it meaningful. Why? (And I ask the question in the sense of your witness, not in the sense of asking for a proof.) For purposes of discussion, let’s assume (as I believe to be true) that the Johannine community cribbed John 8:58 by analogy to Exodus.

Consider another scenario. Suppose I set out to describe the Gospel According to PBear42. I take as my source the Book of Mormon, explaining at the outset that I realize the whole business about gold tablets, reformed hieroglyphics and seeing stones is hokum. One would reasonably ask, what’s the point? Or, stated a little differently, if the source has no credibility, how does a gospel (interpretation) based on it have any significance?

Interrupting yet again:

Almost all of the poetry that has ever bee written has presuppositions that are, factually, severely false. Yet a lot of that poetry is quite valid as poetry, and is properly inspirational, and can lead modern readers to real insights.

[/interruption]

PBear

That really IS an excellent question, PBear. And the honest answer is that I just don’t know. Perhaps it is because, even though I was anti-Christian, I had always believed that if there was a God, He would have to be eternal, essential, and necessary.

I almost have to retell the whole story to give you the context you need, but I think I can crunch it down to the most salient parts. Basically, I was having on-going arguments with a roommate of mine, whom we called “The Reverend Doctor Doctor”. We called him that because he had two doctorates, one in English from the University of Chicago, and one in Divinity from Harvard, and he was an ordained minister. He had been a participant in the translation of the New International Version of the Bible.

Needless to say, he was a tough debator, and I could seldom get the better of him. Okay, more like never than seldom. And he was a constant frustration, but only in those terms. He was in ideal roommate, always paying his rent on time, quietly staying in his room to read, or else out of the apartment altogether for days at a time.

One day, during an argument, he handed me a book — almost a pamphlet really, and said simply, “Read this.” I balked as I took it from him, thinking, 'Oh yeah, like I’m going to be impressed by some Watchtower-type magazine." But when I opened it, it was all in Greek.

“I can’t read this!” I exclaimed. “This is fucking Greek, man.”

“You CAN read it,” he insisted. “It all depends on whether you are willing to.”

I understood what he meant. In off-religion-topic discussions with him, I had told him many times of my interest in linguistics. His familiarity with Greek and Hebrew were topics of interesting discussions, particularly regarding etymology and culture. He knew that I would take time to learn Italian if it suited me, and that I could take time to learn Greek if I wanted to.

So, basically, I took it as a challenge. I didn’t even know what it was he had given me. But I bought three books: (1) a primer on Greek, covering the alphabet and simple vocabulary; (2) an intermediate book on Greek grammar; and (3) an interlinear New Testament, which consisted of the NIV and the Greek sort of interlaced. My thought was that the third book would help me to sharpen my translation skills because of the extensive vocabulary, all of which was indexed.

The way I worked, after learning what I could from the first two books, was to set the booklet he had given me to one side, and a piece of paper on the other. I would read one by one the Greek words, and write down their translations. Then, I would put the sentences together to form meaningful statements. (Greek, like so many other languages is highly inflected and does not follow English word order necessarily.) And so, at some point, I hit upon a word that wasn’t in the first two books I had bought, so I dug out the interlinear book, hoping to find the word in there. It was heavily indexed, luckily, (and it was a huge book). I found the word I was looking for, turned to the text, and realized I had been given the book of John.

By this time, incidentally, I had moved away. Back home actually. Reading the little book wasn’t something that I did immediately. I started the project when I felt like I had nothing else to do, and it took me several months reading the first two books, just to get myself prepared to start my translations.

I was in the middle of John 8 when I got a phone call. It was a friend asking if I’d like to go to the annual Fiddlers Convention in the North Carolina mountains. I told him I’d love to but that I had some books I was reading, and he said, “Well, hell. Just bring 'em with you. You can read them in the bus.” (A Volkswagen microbus — what today is called a van.) So I said sure, and I grabbed up my materials and waited to be picked up.

It was a long ride, and we were playing Blue Grass and Old Rock in the van. Most of the people were chatting and giggling as we passed around doobies. But I was sitting there with my books at my feet, my booklet on my left knee, and my notebook on my right. It was at some point that it dawned on me that Jesus had claimed essence and necessity. Would He, at some point, claim eternity as well?

Then I hit John 8:58. At first, it had no effect on me, other then that I must have mistranslated as I rearranged the words to, “Before Abraham was, I am.” That was the “Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί” part of the verse. So I checked again, presuming that I fucked up the tenses, and that it should have read “Before Abraham was, I was.” But it didn’t. “ἐγὼ εἰμί”, or “ego emi”. I am.

And then suddenly, it hit me like a brick in the face. This was a claim of eternity. There was essence, necessity, and eternity. It was at that instant that my brain changed. I had an epiphany. I looked up from my work and exclaimed over the chatter, “My God, He’s God!”

“Who?” someone asked, pulling a toke.

“Jesus!” I said, ebulliently.

“Cool,” was his only reply as he passed to me.

Everything about how I looked at he world changed in that moment. The people in the microbus. I loved them all, in ways that brought enormous joy. I looked out the window at the scenery of the foothills, and marveled at their beauty. I wish I could explain all this better to you in such a way that you could empathise with what I experienced, but alas I’m not that good of a writer.

So that’s all I can tell you, PBear. It was just the words. Not the author. Not the Reverend Doctor Doctor. Not any authority or authorship or questions of that sort. Just the plain words. Does that help at all with your understanding? I hope so, because I know how hard this must be to understand for you. In your shoes, I would have the same sorts of questions. It’s not because you’re dense or anything. It’s just because it is so hard to explain, and you and I have no similar life experience that can serve as a frame of reference. (At least, not that I know of.) So, this is the best I can do. Here’s hoping…

Okay, so in John 8, we learned that Jesus is essential, necessary, and eternal.

John 9 is a very different kind of chapter, and is more like the other Gospels really. It is entirely about a blind man who is healed by Jesus and then is brought before the Pharisees for questioning. They, of course, put him through the wringer, hurling insults at him when he refuses to change his story about Jesus healing him. I’ll post some of that drama here, but I’m going to try to cut it as short as possible because we all understand by now that the Pharisees (the top Jewish class in Judea, a class which Rome allowed them to maintain so long as they maintained order) call the shots.

They then summoned his parents in, and drilled them as well. Was he indeed born blind? That sort of thing. And the parents, fearful of the Pharisees, said simply, “He is of age. Ask him.”

So here’s a portion, after the healing.

A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. “Give glory to God,” they said. “We know this man [Jesus] is a sinner.”

He replied, “Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!”

Then they asked him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?”

He answered, “I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?”

Then they hurled insults at him and said, “You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses! We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from.”

The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will. Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”

To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.

John 9:24-34

All we really learn from all of that is that the Pharisees are growing more and more impatient with Jesus, and possibly more fearful that He is gaining followers. We also learn of their tremendous powers — the authority to summon people in and out, to question them, to tag them as “steeped in sin at birth”. And we learned that people were afraid of them.

That’s all well and good, but the stuff that happened outside the scope of the Pharisees was more interesting. The beginning of the chapter, for instance, when Jesus first encounters the blind man and before He heals him.

As [Jesus] went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

John 9:1-5

Jesus teaches us that misfortune and suffering are not punishments from God caused by sin. They are opportunities for free moral agents to do good; i.e., edify one another. We can help one another. Maybe we can’t heal a blind man, but we can offer him help, and even befriend him so that he can have happines despite his misfortune.

But we must do these things while and when we can. “Night is coming”, as Jesus said. The people we need to help are getting older, and closer to death. Don’t wait until it’s too late. In fact, it may have nothing to do with age. The person who means the most to you might get hit by a bus or something. And if you have failed to say, “I love you” when you had the opportunity, you might be haunted by the event for years afterward. Don’t wait to convey goodness (to love). Do it now.

Also of interest are the final verses:

Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

John 9:39-41

We know from prior studies that the judgment He brings is aesthetical in nature. It is, after all, the only kind of judgment that really counts. A person, as we learned, judges himself by what he values. In fact, we can say that what a person values most and what his jugment is are one in the same. Let me say that once again in a different way, just so there is no misunderstanding about what I mean:

“what person A values most”= “the judgment of person A”

He explains that the reason he brings judgment into the world is so that those who are in the most need can be edified, while those who fancy themselves to be above everyone else can be cut down to size.

But then the Pharisees (whom we know are religion politicians) ask him whether they are blind, and He teaches us that people who are truly “blind” (I will define this word) are not guilty of opposing love, while people who claim they can see are. That’s because they’ve made the claim that they know what they are doing. They are not stumbling about to get from here to there as best they can. They know very well what they are doing. Or so they claim.

There are similar references to this sort of thing as well elsewhere: the idea that God lifts up the humble, and strikes down the conceited; or that those who come to God with humble hearts are heard by Him, while those who come blustering and bullying are simply cast aside. Nullified. Rendered aesthetically empty, which is a phrase from early on in the series. Recall the sinner who prayed that he was unworthy of God’s blessings standing near a Pharisee who was praying that he was glad he was not like that sinner over there. Jesus told us then that God heard only the sinner’s prayer.

And as we’ve discussed before, the same thing happens in everyday life. There are exceptions, to be sure. Snarly, hateful, bigotted, and people otherwise lacking in empathy often return a kindness with anything from snark to violence. But for the most part, if we approach one another with humility and respect, the response we receive is usually in kind or even uplifting. But when we barge in to someone’s space, blasting out declarations about this and that, people tend to recoil or build their defensive walls to protect themselves from our boldness and rudeness.

It is a fine line between confidence and conceit, and between humility and obsequity as well.

New definition:

aesthetically blind: unable (but not necessarily unwilling) to assess the aesthetic value of goodness

It is also of note that the Pharisees assessed the man oppositely from Jesus. Jesus said that neither the man nor his parents had sinned. But the Pharisees said that the man was born a sinner, ostensibly because he was born blind.

Liberal, thank you for indulging the digression. And I meant in all sincerity that all I wanted at this point was to understand your witness, which you have kindly explained. I have thoughts on what you said, objections, even. But, as I understand the ground rules, those are appropriately raised, if at all, in the debate. If I’m mistaken, let me know and I’ll raise them now.

Really? Care to point out where? You are just reiterating your your assertions (or, at best the assertions made by the author of John, if we allow inserting your definitions into those words as “interpretation”). Nothing of the like has been shown.

Your sincerity was obvious to me. And though I’ve told the story several times, you had not been aware of it. I didn’t mind posting a brief, condensed version of it.

Well, no. It seems I’m having a hard time explaining that as well. This is the time to raise objections about my interpretations. The only thing I didn’t want (at any time) was any sort of declaration what I was not free to interpret how I wanted to. Argument with my interpretations doesn’t bother me. Saying that I have no foundation for making them, or that I cannot interpret the words on a personal level is simply out of line, because indeed I can (and do) interpret the words on a personal level.

I hope you can see the difference. It might be analogous to telling someone that what they say is stupid versus telling them that they are not free to say it.

So like I’ve said before, fire away. But fire at my interpretations themselves, and not at things like authorship of other things that really have no bearing on my personal interpretations.

Yes, do fire away. Just don’t expect an answer. Apparently that’s too much to ask for in this “healthy and honest debate.”