ARCHIVE: Romans 8 and the Open View

[Arminian]

geoff,

The passage refers to the cleansing of the Temple DURING passover week... thats the point..

In fact, it doesn't. You tried to make the connection by jumping over the verses in beteen and adding "during." But in between we find the Jews asking for a sign as though they've never seen one. Then, later, they have seen signS (plural) and many DO believe.

Prior to the Passover, Jesus cleansed the temple. The Jews demanded a sign. After they see the signS Jesus did during the Passover, many believe in his name.

 

[geoff]

Arminian,

Jesus cleansed the temple around the time of the passover. During that same period he probably did many signs.. John ONLY focuses on ONE sign...

The jews in their ignorance asked for a sign, inspite of the fact that the very thing they asked for a sign of, was a sign.

Some consider the temple cleansing the sign that may have convinced Nicodemus of who Jesus was.

BTW, I didnt 'add' during... its there in my translation.. which I cut and pasted.

And the point is... Nicodemus *DID* recognise it as a sign... and that is the reason John mentions that particular sign... AND THEN has Nicodemus come to him about it..

 

[Arminian]

geoff,

Jesus cleansed the temple around the time of the passover. During that same period he probably did many signs.. John ONLY focuses on ONE sign...

No, he uses the plural. Nic comes to Jesus because of the signS. The temple cleansing is no longer in view.

The jews in their ignorance asked for a sign, inspite of the fact that the very thing they asked for a sign of, was a sign.

So they agree with me that it wasn't a sign. So their believing wasn't related to the temple cleansning, but rather some signS during the Passover.

Some consider the temple cleansing the sign that may have convinced Nicodemus of who Jesus was.

And I've shown why that is a bad argument.

BTW, I didnt 'add' during... its there in my translation.. which I cut and pasted.

In your translation it is in verse 23, not verse 13. You have been reading and arguing as though it is in verse 13. However, they believed because of the signS. Pior to that they did not believe and were asking for a SIGN.

And the point is... Nicodemus *DID* recognise it as a sign... and that is the reason John mentions that particular sign... AND THEN has Nicodemus come to him about it..

Sorry, but he only mentions the signS, not the sign. And he isn't being sneaky and asking about the temple cleansing, either. He speaks of the "signS you ARE doing" -- not "the sign you did."

 

[geoff]

Arminian:

No, he uses the plural. Nic comes to Jesus because of the signS. The temple cleansing is no longer in view.

Dude, I think you might have yourself off the track a little here...

Nicodemus comes to Jesus and says the signS reveal he is from God... he doesnt say he came BECAUSE of the signs... you are reading FAR too much into it.

So they agree with me that it wasn't a sign. So their believing wasn't related to the temple cleansning, but rather some signS during the Passover.

Perhaps it wasnt... even if it wasnt, Nicodemus approaches Jesus because of it... Why else is it there? Just an unconnected random paragraph? not likely. It is not connected to the wedding story before it, obviously, so what other conclusion can there be? There is NO good evidence that Nicodemus approached Jesus for any other reason... there is no definitive reason given, only the temple cleansing before it.

And I've shown why that is a bad argument.

I am not sure I know *what* you have have argued against, or how you have proven it.... sorry.

In your translation it is in verse 23, not verse 13. You have been reading and arguing as though it is in verse 13. However, they believed because of the signS. Pior to that they did not believe and were asking for a SIGN.

Perhaps you think I have,... but I have not.

Sorry, but he only mentions the signS, not the sign. And he isn't being sneaky and asking about the temple cleansing, either. He speaks of the "signS you ARE doing" -- not the sign you did.

As I said, Nicodemus didnt say he came BECAUSE of the signs.. he does say that the signs show Jesus came from God.

 

[Arminian]

geoff,

Dude, I think you might have yourself off the track a little here...

Nicodemus comes to Jesus and says the signS reveal he is from God... he doesnt say he came BECAUSE of the signs... you are reading FAR too much into it.

What's your point? He said that the signS indicate that Jesus is from God. The only data that we have to draw from is what is present in the text. You want me to ignore the fact that the signs are the only thing mentioned when Nic came to Jesus and believe that he addressed him as a teacher for other reasons. Sorry, but the text does not support your theory.


quote of Arminian:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So they agree with me that it wasn't a sign. So their believing wasn't related to the temple cleansning, but rather some signS during the Passover.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps it wasnt... even if it wasnt, Nicodemus approaches Jesus because of it... Why else is it there?

Asserting your conclusion is not an argument. I already told you why it was there. That's the order of events.

Just an unconnected random paragraph?

It's not necessary to swing from one extreme to the other. Just because it's mentioned it JUST HAS TO dominate all the following text, regarldess of what is said? Not at all! We have the words and the context that indicate that Nic was speaking of the signs that took place after the temple cleansing. John is recording the order of events. Nic has seen the signS and now he wants to be taught.

not likely. It is not connected to the wedding story before it, obviously, so what other conclusion can there be?

Mine. The one that draws from the information in the text.

There is NO good evidence that Nicodemus approached Jesus for any other reason... there is no definitive reason given, only the temple cleansing before it.

The evidence is what Nic said about the signS! How absurd to say that the very words he used are not there to tell us why he came. THE S I G N S!

Prior to the signS, Jesus was just a guy who kicked over a few tables. Heck, even you could qualify. No WONDER they asked for a SIGN! Then, during the Passover, Jesus did those signS.


quote of Arminian:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In your translation it is in verse 23, not verse 13. You have been reading and arguing as though it is in verse 13. However, they believed because of the signS. Pior to that they did not believe and were asking for a SIGN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps you think I have,... but I have not.

You have.


quote of Arminian:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but he only mentions the signS, not the sign. And he isn't being sneaky and asking about the temple cleansing, either. He speaks of the "signS you ARE doing" -- not the sign you did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said, Nicodemus didnt say he came BECAUSE of the signs.. he does say that the signs show Jesus came from God.

We only have his words (the topic he selected) to draw a conclusion from, and proir to the signS, they would not believe in his name. So what changed? Now that Nic believes that Christ is from God, he came to be taught.

 

[geoff]

Arminian:

Sorry, but the text does not support your theory.

The text does NOT state Nicodemus comes to Jesus 'because' of signS. The text DOES have one event following another with no good reason for them to be considered apart.

The signS are not the reason Nicodemus came to Jesus. He also did not come to have being born again explained to him.

So, according to arminian, Nicodemus came to visit Jesus, at the time when teaching generally took place, after discussion amongst themselves ('we' ...) for 'no apparent reason' - except to get some random teaching on Spirituality which He was supposed to have already known the answer too (and being somewhat of a NP boffin, you would already know that the born from above thing wasnt an alien concept to them).

Seeing as you dont really have a theory, and mine at least follows literary convention and common sense.. I'll go with that.

Asserting your conclusion is not an argument. I already told you why it was there. That's the order of events.

I forgot, what was the order of events again?
1. Its almost passover and Jesus leaves for Jerusalem.
2. Its passover week and Jesus cleanses the Temple (and perhaps does some other signs and wonders of a non specific nature)
3. Jesus is asked for a sign to show His authority for cleansing the temple (strange as he has supposedly done signS)
4. During this time some believe
5. As a result the TEMPLE authorities come to Jesus ..

Note, that Jesus refers to Zech 14:21 in cleansing the Temple, which is an obvious allusion to 'the day of the Lord' and thus His Messiahship.

Hard to believe that Nicodemus and the Temple Authorities DIDNT recognise Jesus words, also his biblical mandate (Ps 69:9) for the cleansing, which was, in John's mind to conform the Temple to its eschatalogical form, or at least prepare it. There is the idea that Jesus body is the new replacement for the Temple System, although this was an afterthought added by John (hindsight).

Jesus made a powerful statement and an OBVIOUS (to a Hebrew Scholar) claim to Messiahship. There is no other conclusion that I could make for the Temple representatives to come to Jesus. The other 'signS' merely confirm the claim Jesus made by His actions at the temple.

Can I make it any clearer for you?

 

[Big Finn]

If you are going to keep on with the argument that you are making, well, lets look at the last few verses of chapter 2 and see what they are about.

Joh 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
Joh 2:24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
Joh 2:25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

What is the context here? Many believed on Jesus when the saw the miracles He did. (No mention is made specifically of the temple cleansing by John himself.) But Jesus didn't reveal Himself to them because He knows what is in men. Interestingly John is speaking about how Jesus could read the hearts of men. Now after these comments John tells the story of Nicodemus. So, John was really showing how Jesus was exposing the real motive and question in the heart of Nicodemus. The question of heart conversion. Nicodemus must have known that something in his heart wasn't right.

Now this is truly in the context of the preceeding verses in chapter 2. John changed the subject from focusing on the cleansing of the temple to Jesus knowing the hearts of men. This is the true context of Jesus remarks in chapter 3.

 

[geoff]

Its because of the hearts of men that the Temple needs cleansing

 

[Jaltus]

Its because of the hearts of men that the Temple needs cleansing

Frankly, that is irrelevant.

 

[geoff]

the hearts of men are irrelevant?

I agree, although Finn probably doesnt

 

[Arminian]

Geoff,

The text does NOT state Nicodemus comes to Jesus 'because' of signS. The text DOES have one event following another with no good reason for them to be considered apart.

Yeah, it mentions the signS PRIOR to Nic coming to Jesus. It took nearly a week for you to admit that. Now it may take a few days for you to see the order of what happened. Nic did not come to him before the signS and he did not mention anything else when he came.

The signS are not the reason Nicodemus came to Jesus.

The reason is what Nic mentioned. Did he mention the temple cleansing or signS? He mentioned signS, so you claim he came because of something that he did not mention??? The reasons for my conclusion are now obvious.,

He also did not come to have being born again explained to him.

No, he came to be taught by the One who did the signS that indicated he was sent from God. He was asking to be taught by the Teacher.

So, according to arminian,...for 'no apparent reason' - except to get some random teaching on Spirituality which He was supposed to have already known the answer too (and being somewhat of a NP boffin, you would already know that the born from above thing wasnt an alien concept to them).

Geoff, you're cornered so you're lashing out. I didn't say anything like that. Anyone sent from God, geoff, is a teacher. This man, Jesus, showed his authority through signs. Nic didn't ask for information regarding being born again, and your way of dealing with your predicament is to put silly words in my mouth.

Geoff, look how silly you sound.

Seeing as you dont really have a theory, and mine at least follows literary convention and common sense.. I'll go with that.

HAHAHA! It took you a week to actually understand the words in the text. Now you say the words aren't an indication of what Nic was thinking or doing.


quote of Arminian:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asserting your conclusion is not an argument. I already told you why it was there. That's the order of events.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I forgot, what was the order of events again?
1. Its almost passover and Jesus leaves for Jerusalem.
2. Its passover week and Jesus cleanses the Temple (and perhaps does some other signs and wonders of a non specific nature)
3. Jesus is asked for a sign to show His authority for cleansing the temple (strange as he has supposedly done signS)
4. During this time some believe
5. As a result the TEMPLE authorities come to Jesus ..

Yes, you forgot, again. You left out the signS during the Passover. But we saw that coming.....LOL!!

Note, that Jesus refers to Zech 14:21 in cleansing the Temple, which is an obvious allusion to 'the day of the Lord' and thus His Messiahship.

Of course it is.

Hard to believe that Nicodemus and the Temple Authorities DIDNT recognise Jesus words, also his biblical mandate (Ps 69:9) for the cleansing,

John mentions only 12 people who recognized that. Didn't John know how to say "all the Jews" in Greek?

which was, in John's mind to conform the Temple to its eschatalogical form, or at least prepare it. There is the idea that Jesus body is the new replacement for the Temple System, although this was an afterthought added by John (hindsight).

Of course.

Jesus made a powerful statement and an OBVIOUS (to a Hebrew Scholar) claim to Messiahship. There is no other conclusion that I could make for the Temple representatives to come to Jesus.

Nic is the only one mentioned. The plural pronouns used are a reference to the Jews.

The other 'signS' merely confirm the claim Jesus made by His actions at the temple.

The other signS confirm that he is a teacher sent from God. They confirm everything he does. They show that he has something to teach. No one would come to him for teaching otherwise. Now that he performed the signS, "many" (even those who were not at the temple) now believed in his name. Seeing that Jesus is sent from God, Nic, a teacher himself, comes to be taught. Is Nic telling the One sent from God what He should teach? Certainly not.

 

[Arminian]

geoff,

Can I make it any clearer for you?

It's clear for me. It needs to be clear for you!

 

[Big Finn]

Geoff,

So, according to arminian, Nicodemus came to visit Jesus, at the time when teaching generally took place, after discussion amongst themselves ('we' ...) for 'no apparent reason' - except to get some random teaching on Spirituality which He was supposed to have already known the answer too (and being somewhat of a NP boffin, you would already know that the born from above thing wasnt an alien concept to them).

Do you really think Jesus taught the things He did at random? Do you think it was by accident that He chose the subject He did? He reads the hearts of men, and knows the answers to our deepest needs. He knew exactly why Nicodemus came, even if we don't, and He taught Nicodemus what Nicodemus needed to know for his own spiritual good, and for our instruction too.

As to your statement in answer to Jaltus' statement to you about the temple needing cleansing because of the hearts of men, well, as far as the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus goes I find it irrelevant. No one mentions the temple in that entire conversation.

I do find a correlation between the temple needing cleansing and the condition of mens hearts though. What I find very interesting is that you find this very relevant to the context of the entire incident. The only reason it could possibly be relevant is if the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are based upon the same principles and upon being born again. Something that you have been arguing against.

If heart condition was the reason for the temple needing to be cleansed, then heart condition was the basis for the OC. Only the condition of men's hearts could have defiled it. If the OC was based upon law and ritual alone, then heart condition is completely irrelevant to the temple. Thus you find that the OC has at it's basis far more than ceremony and legalism. You must see that the OC was based upon heart condition, heart obedience, love for God, and trust in a personal Savior, just like the NC.

 

[Arminian]

Big,

Do you really think Jesus taught the things He did at random?

No, geoff dosn't believe that. He wanted me to believe that, but I don't.

I believe that if someone was sent from God we'd all want to hear what he or she had to say.

 

[Big Finn]

Arminian,

I believe that if someone was sent from God we'd all want to hear what he or she had to say.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if that was true the Pharisee's would never have crucified Jesus. Neither would the following text be true.

John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
John 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Since Jesus had the words of eternal life why did many of His disciples "go back" and walk with Him no more? He was definitely sent from God and yet most of the people who heard Him preach didn't accept Him then, and still don't today.

Also look at the history written in the Bible. How many of the prophets sent by God were killed, persecuted, or simply just had their message from God rejected by their contemporaries? That number is a majority, not a minority. Even those who weren't completely rejected still had many detractors among their contemporaries. They were sent of God with a message for their time and most people rejected them.

 

[Arminian]

Big,

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if that was true the Pharisee's would never have crucified Jesus. Neither would the following text be true.

That's a good point. I mean what I said in more general terms.

Since Jesus had the words of eternal life why did many of His disciples "go back" and walk with Him no more? He was definitely sent from God and yet most of the people who heard Him preach didn't accept Him then, and still don't today.

To listen to him is one thing, and to agree is yet another. He was, however, being followed by them up to that point. My point is that anyone believed to be sent from God would draw the interest of anyone who believed they were sent from God. That doesn't mean that everyone will continue to believe that he was sent from God or that God should be obeyed.

 

[Big Finn]

Arminian,

That's a good point. I mean what I said in more general terms.

Ok. I understand you then. My usage of the words hear, and listen, are much more in line with the Biblical usage of the words. In the Bible when someone "hears" there is an action that takes place too. When I "listen" to God, I obey Him too. If I'm not "listening" I'm not heeding what is told to me either.

 

[Arminian]

Big,

In the Bible when someone "hears" there is an action that takes place too. When I "listen" to God, I obey Him too. If I'm not "listening" I'm not heeding what is told to me either.

Correct. The Jewish use of the word is also applied in the NT.

 

[geoff]

Arminian,

Yeah, it mentions the signS PRIOR to Nic coming to Jesus. It took nearly a week for you to admit that. Now it may take a few days for you to see the order of what happened. Nic did not come to him before the signS and he did not mention anything else when he came.

NO, I said the signs were NOT the reason Nicodemus came to Jesus. You still havent given us a reason... I have. And as I say... You can not prove otherwise, because there is no contrary evidence. There HAS to be a reason Nicodemus came to Jesus, and generally when you are telling a story, unless specified its connected to some previous even (which we all know is not signS now).

The reason is what Nic mentioned. Did he mention the temple cleansing or signS? He mentioned signS, so you claim he came because of something that he did not mention??? The reasons for my conclusion are now obvious.,

He did NOT say he came because OF the signS, he says thatthe signS show He is from God.. nowhere does He mention signS as a reason.. you are imagining things.

No, he came to be taught by the One who did the signS that indicated he was sent from God. He was asking to be taught by the Teacher.

YES, that is what I have said all along... and what prompted this? THE TEMPLE CLEANSING.... All He said was 'we know you are a teacher come from God' - John is assuming we can figure out we Nicodemus is there.. and there is only ONE logical reason... because of the EVENT CONNECTED WITH NICODEMUS 9the temple cleansing) which has gone before.

YOu are asking me to abandon literary sense, reason and plain old common sense to think Nicodemus just turned up for no real reason... just for a good old chinwag..

Strangly enough, the rest of the chapter in regards to judgement etc, and Jesus escatalogical purpose is connected to the Temple cleansing also... but No, Arminian wants us to believe its some random event unconnected to anything.

HAHAHA! It took you a week to actually understand the words in the text. Now you say the words aren't an indication of what Nic was thinking or doing.

Ah, no, I say you can not prove the Temple Cleansing wasnt Nicodemus' purpose for approaching Jesus, and I know you can not give any better reason...

 

[Arminian]

Geoff,

NO, I said the signs were NOT the reason Nicodemus came to Jesus. You still havent given us a reason...

You said that the reason he came to Jesus involved words he did not use. I said the reason he came to Jesus involved words he did use. My evidence comes from the text and context and yours come from your question-begging.

I have. And as I say... You can not prove otherwise, because there is no contrary evidence.

Yeah, if we throw out the WORDS Nic used, we have no evidence. Let's pretend "signS" means "sign" and that verse 23 is connected to verse 13 and then we'll have the argument you were making a few days ago. That'll be GREAT "evidence"!! Then we'll predend that "disciples" means "all the Jews."

There HAS to be a reason Nicodemus came to Jesus,

Yeah, the signs Nic MENTIONED with his W O R D S!

and generally when you are telling a story, unless specified its connected to some previous even (which we all know is not signS now).

Nic mentioned the S I G N S. LOL!!! You won't even list them in your list of events. Poor Nic has no say in the narrative, according to you. LOL!!

Perhaps we should copy you and look everywhere but the words in the text to figure out what the characters were thinking. Then, if anyone wants us to look at the words in the text, we'll say, "Are you nuts? You're asking me to abandon common sense! You must think that the Bible is a series of random events!!" LOL!!!

He did NOT say he came because OF the signS, he says thatthe signS show He is from God.. nowhere does He mention signS as a reason.. you are imagining things.

Nic mentions the only thing on his mind. The thing you want him to mention is not there. The evidence is on my side.

All He said was 'we know you are a teacher come from God' - John is assuming we can figure out we Nicodemus is there.. and there is only ONE logical reason... because of the EVENT CONNECTED WITH NICODEMUS 9the temple cleansing) which has gone before.

LOL!! Nic said why he made the connection... "For (gar) no one could perform the s i g n S you are DOING if God were not with him."!!!!!!! Here's the connection Nic did not make: "Fur U cicked ofer a bunche uv tabels and verz 13 iz konneckted 2 verz 23. And eanyone whoe dizagreez with me iz abandoning kommon senze."

Again, you continually confuse the intent of John with the motivation of Nic. If you would separate the two, you'd find that I would agree with more of what you are saying. But you won't, so you are blind to the fact that Nic's motivation is mentioned by Nic HIMSELF. As I mentioned days ago, you are confusing the role of the writer and the role of the characters! LOL!!

YOu are asking me to abandon literary sense, reason and plain old common sense

No, you did that voluntarily.

to think Nicodemus just turned up for no real reason... just for a good old chinwag..

geoff, come out with your hands in the air. The truth police have you surrounded!!! I've told you time and again why Nic came, you silly boy. A man sent by GOD has come. Who wouldn't want to ask him some questions?!?!?

No, Arminian wants us to believe its some random event unconnected to anything.

I have nothing but contempt for your dishonesty, geoff. I've said nothing like that. You've been trying to put words in my mouth instead of addressing and acknowledging what I've said. I feel sorry for you.

A man is sent from God, so Nic wants to talk to him (as would we all).

Ah, no, I say you can not prove the Temple Cleansing wasnt Nicodemus' purpose for approaching Jesus, and I know you can not give any better reason...

Take a class on logic and read the paragraph in your textbook concerning proving a negative.

Nic said why he was there: "FOR no one could perform the signS you are doing..." Contained in the following brackets are all the words Nic used that support your case: []