Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, I’m building upon the definition. Does one throw out the foundation when one adds a roof?
Nope. See below: you say “you simply need to know the definition.” That’s the letter, not the spirit.
Church authorities are relevant because it is we who provide authoritative judgments with regard to interpretation.
Not according to the CDC.
See above. And below. You’re talking out both sides of your mouth. You can’t address the spirit of the definition if you’re only considering the letter of the definition.
In the first place, you’re misapprehending what I meant by “emotional judgment.”
See what I said above. We have to contextualize the definition. But again, you’re talking out both sides of your mouth. See below.
Really? I could’ve sworn you just said above that you need context...
But one needs proper interpretation. That’s where you fall down.
Not according to the CDC. End of story.
This is exactly what makes all the usual meanings for words like suicide and sacrifice irrelevant in the context of The Legend of Christ.
Suicide, by definition, is the intended and purposeful act of killing oneself. The desired end result is death as one is intending and purposefully ending one's life.
So that doesn't address what I said. I'm not jumping to an unjustified conclusion just because you can't form a rebuttal. John never wrote the Gospel. The title, the Gospel according to John is a later addition. Second, we know it isn't a distinct testimony as it seemingly, and really logically, is using older sources in order to create a new story. We can be certain it's using older sources because of the composition of it, which makes this clear, but also because of the date in which it was written. It is too late to be first hand, so thus it logically has to be at least a second hand story.
One, you have to appeal to the wider context, as the entire passage matters here. It's written as one entire passage. Second, I address the interpretation, which has to reflect the Hebrew Scriptures which are being built on. The whole thing is talking about how Jesus is the ideal leader, the good shepherd. That a good shepherd will lay down their lives for their flocks, which is what Jesus says in the preceding verse.
If the end goal wasn't death, then it can't be suicide. You are trying to make up a new definition for suicide. I'm not dancing around anything. You're literally redefining what suicide means in almost every post.
Have you read the full passage? Just read the verses preceding it. He specifically likens himself to a shepherd of a flock (such as a flock of sheep). If you know anything about a shepherd, that is a very risky position. We see that continually throughout the Bible. As a shepherd, you would be armed in order to protect your flock from many dangers. It is a very risky position. And Jesus is placing himself there. He is literally saying, I'm the shepherd, the ideal leader. And he's saying, I will lay down my life to save my flock. He's not saying he will kill himself, but he will allow himself to be killed if that means saving his flock. That isn't suicide as it is not an intentional and purposeful taking of one's life. The desire, as we both agree, isn't death.
How did I try to make this about me? I'm a Trinitarian. You don't need John to show argue for the Trinity. A better argument would be to look at Paul's framework that is then built off of until we get the polished Trinitarian view later on. And Paul was just borrowing from a binitarian view that was present within Judaism.
So Martin Luther King Jr. committed suicide? So did Malcolm X? Both of them knew there was a threat on their lives. Malcolm X talked of this a number of times, and even narrowly escaped a few attempts. He could have ran away. He had people who tried to dissuade him. But he continued on, knowing full well what was going to happen.
That's not really how a debate works. You presented an idea, one that is against the consensus among experts. You have the burden of proof then to show why your interpretation is right. Not the other way around. You whole argument rests on a fuzzy idea of suicide, and the one line that Jesus says he has the power to lay down his life, that no one can take it. He never says, I'm the only one who can kill me. He doesn't say he is looking to die, or he is intentionally and purposefully looking for a way to take his own life. He never says his desire is to die. He says that he has the power to lay down his life.
Except they don't, as has been explained quite a bit.
But, according to Christianity, nobody ever dies.
So, you're redefining death to suit your religious beliefs.