Hot answers tagged

3

The question is actually great. It prompts us to see John 17:3 in light of exegetical analysis. John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3 is explicit that eternal life is knowing both the Father and the Son. Eternal Life is neither only the Father nor only the Son but ...


3

Textus Receptus aligns with commentaries of the Church Fathers. For example, the use of ὡσεὶ in this passage (instead of ὡς) suggests that the Holy Spirit was not a dove, but appeared AS IF a dove. That is, the Greek adverb ὡσεὶ suggest the more analogous rather than literal comparison. Several Church Fathers make this distinction. For example, St. Ambrose ...


2

Attempted Stoning Indicates More than a Claim to Unity of Purpose or Will In John 10:30, what did the Lord Jesus Christ mean when he said, "I and my Father are one"? Perhaps the Lord Jesus Christ meant "I and my Father are one in purpose" or "I and my Father are one in will," but then, how does one explain the Jews' reaction after they heard his statement?...


1

Elaine Pagels says, in Beyond Belief, page 70, that she sees a principal objective of John's Gospel was to refute the beliefs of the Thomas Christians. It was John who created Doubting Thomas, and only John presents a challenging and critical portrait of the disciple he calls “Thomas, the one called Didymus”. John is portraying Thomas critically, and ...


1

In John's Gospel, Jesus sometimes tricked those who opposed him, by using double meanings that left his opponents confused. John 3:1-13 is an example of this. The trick depends on two of the quite different meanings that ἄνωθεν (anóthen) can have in the Greek language: Strong's 509: from above, from the beginning, again Tom Thatcher says ('The Riddles ...


1

The author of the fourth canonical gospel (commonly referred to as "John") like all authors is wont to employ turns of phrases in a way that other authors are not inclined to do. This doesn't make the usage "wrong" but rather "stylistic". John's use of ἵνα as an explanatory infinitive (as in John 17:3) is example of his use of ἵνα that you would less likely ...


1

I agree with Susan that this is not an interpretative issue, but I do not agree with the statement that it is merely an orthographic (spelling) issue. Rather it is a grammatical (morphological) issue. The suppletive strong aorist of the verb “to say” occurs both as εἶπον (1st pers. sing. and 3rd pers. pl.), and εἶπα (3rd pers. pl. εἶπαν). The former is more ...


1

John 10:30 (ESV) I and the Father are one. The sentence itself is vague. It doesn't tell us what kind of union they have. John 10:30 (Westcott and Hort 1881) ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. 1 Corinthians 3:8a (Westcott and Hort 1881) ὁ φυτεύων δὲ καὶ ὁ ποτίζων ἕν εἰσιν 1 Corinthians 3:8 has a similar phrase which shows us that it ...


1

As David explains the “other” is of the same type and Jesus Himself is a paraclete. Also Jesus says: I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. (John 14:18 KJV) So just as Jesus and the Father are one; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one. They are both comforters. The Comforter is also the Spirit of Truth: But when the Comforter is come,...


1

This is a great question as it forces a closer look at a familiar text. The evidence is strong that there are two "hours" being described in that the first is said to already have come while the other has clearly not yet occurred: “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible