Holy Spirit's teaching in John 14:16

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

The article you cited pointed out some conceptual parallels and points of contact between William James and Mormonism, but did not defend the idea that Mormon epistemology is or should be a form of pragmatism. But hey, if you want to say that LDS epistemology is pragmatic, be my guest.

And again, this is a diversion from the issue at hand, namely the exegesis of John 14-16.

You persistently refuse to answer me on how it is you think you know that the Bible is the "Word of God". And that speaks directly to the OP.

[mfbukowski]

Bowman must have worked for Chrysler.

All he does is try to sell Dodges.

[mfbukowski]

I think I can go out on a limb and assume what Mormons and evangelical Christians agree is true. We both agree that John existed. We both agree that John wrote the words discussed in my post. If you DON'T agree that John wrote them, of course, please let us know. If you don't think he wrote them, then you would have to agree that Mormons should not quote them to support their position. So this is a diversionary tactic if I ever saw one.

The question is not who wrote the words- though one could legitimately ask that one as well-- but why should we listen to someone named "John" who lived 2000 years ago IF indeed he did write those words.

Why should we care that someone wrote the "New Testament" at all? Why are we not all atheists?

Because we have all had personal revelations, that's why. You know in your heart of hearts that it's "true".

[Glenn101]

Bowman must have worked for Chrysler.

All he does is try to sell Dodges.

[Darth J]

You persistently refuse to answer me on how it is you think you know that the Bible is the "Word of God". And that speaks directly to the OP.

The reason he doesn't want to answer it is because he's either going to say he believes in it the same way that a tribe in Africa believes in their local witchdoctor, or that he believes in it because of personal religious experience, which he doesn't want to say because he knows Mormons are going to say that this is the same reason they believe in their own religion.

And the reason this directly speaks to the OP is, how many message boards do you see around debating how the exact meaning of Odysseus outwitting the cyclops pertains to our salvation?

[zerinus]

You persistently refuse to answer me on how it is you think you know that the Bible is the "Word of God". And that speaks directly to the OP.

Join the club. You are not the only one. He does not reply to anybody to whom he does not have a reply to give! LOL!

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

You persistently refuse to answer me on how it is you think you know that the Bible is the "Word of God". And that speaks directly to the OP.

Your question has nothing to do with the topic of my thread, which is not "How do we know the Bible is the word of God?" but rather "Does the Gospel of John teach that the Holy Spirit provides direct revelations to each believer as to what he or she is to believe?" I can reword your complaint this way: I persistently refuse to allow you to derail the thread.

[Rob Bowman]

Darth,

Let's say you concede the point and Mormons are wrong about the meaning of the texts in John that this thread discusses. Then we can move on to another discussion in another thread. But first things first: Am I not correct in saying that these texts in the Gospel of John are referring to a special revelatory work of the Spirit through the apostles?

They may both be wrong, and I am open to that possibility. I have never seen anything from evangelical Christians that was not circular reasoning, because even if you are right about what the Bible means and Mormons are wrong, that doesn't prove that (1) the Bible is true, (2) this particular part of the Bible is true, (3) your version of Christianity is true.

Let's say I concede the point and Mormons are wrong. Why should I now believe in what you have to say over, let's say, the Urantia Book? Or stories about Greek gods and titans?

Or, to be more succinct: how do you know that the Bible is "true" based on anything but faith?

[Rob Bowman]

I don't understand why several members here have criticized my post for being too long. I never see such complaints against LDS posts, not even with happy faces to soften the blow. What's the problem?

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

You wrote:

Secondly, you overlook the fact that what Jesus said to his disciples on that occasion was intended for all of his disciples, not just those who were with Him at that time:

John 17

:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for

them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us:

that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Sharing their "unity" necessitated that they should share all the other blessings that He had promised them, including the promises relating to the Holy Ghost.

That's an assertion, not an exegetical argument. Jesus tells us what it was he wanted both his apostles and us to have, namely, unity. I agree that we need the Spirit to have that unity, but I do not agree that we need the Holy Spirit to do everything in us that he did in the apostles. You don't think the Holy Spirit inspires you to produce prophesies or Scripture, do you? No, I'm sure you don't. Well then, there are some things the Holy Spirit did in their case that he doesn't do in yours (or mine).

You wrote:

:Thirdly, your insistence that the discussion should be confined exclusively to the passages in the Gospel of John is disingenuous, knowing as an evangelical theologian the importance all Bible plays in interpreting any portion of it. Thus attempting to exclude passages such as these:

1 John 2

:

20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

----

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

from the discussion seems a bit dishonest.

Come now, Zerinus. I have addressed this objection several times already. If other texts teach the idea you want to defend, fine. My point is that John 14:26 and 16:13 do not teach it. By running to another book of the Bible, instead of showing from the context of John 14 and 16 that those texts do teach the idea, you are implicitly conceding the point.

I do not appreciate your accusing me of being disingenuous or dishonest. There is no call for it.

I would be willing to discuss 1 John 2 if we can agree that what I have said about John 14:26 and 16:13 is accurate in those contexts.

You wrote:

And lastly, Mormonism relies not just on the Bible as a source of its theology, but on additional scriptures pertaining to the new dispensation, which you are free to disbelieve, but we cannot deny.

I know this. My point still stands. If you believe your doctrine based on these additional scriptures, then just say so. Don't quote verses from the Bible in support of a doctrine they do not actually teach. Isn't that reasonable?

[Darth J]

Darth,

Let's say you concede the point and Mormons are wrong about the meaning of the texts in John that this thread discusses. Then we can move on to another discussion in another thread. But first things first: Am I not correct in saying that these texts in the Gospel of John are referring to a special revelatory work of the Spirit through the apostles?

You still don't understand. I don't care.

All you're doing is chasing unicorns. I don't care about debating about something Jesus is purported to have said 2,000 years ago in Aramaic, that is then purported to have been written down several decades later in Greek, then passed through any number of handlers, editors, and translators to be turned into one of the dozens of versions of the Bible that exists today. I care about me--today, right now.

Your website is trying to show why you are right and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses' are wrong by discussing your interpretation of the Bible. The Bible does not belong to you. Neither you nor your organization wrote it or compiled it. You have no more claim to the Bible than someone who understands the correct Latin meaning of Julius Caesar's writings has a claim to being the Roman emperor.

You don't know that the god you believe in exists any more than followers of Zeus, Odin, Ra, Shiva, Allah, or the volcano god believe that their gods exist. You are on the exact same footing as these people.

Your website's criticism of Mormons, and your point on this thread, amounts to nothing more than Mormons don't derive meaning from the Bible and then imitate what they think it means in the same way that you do. But you are not in a superior position to Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Anglicans, or people who worship the sun, because you have absolutely no proof at all that the god you believe the Bible describes exists, or that the Bible is "true" (whatever that means) beyond your religious faith.

The point isn't whether you're right, the point is why I should care in the first place, because you have given me no reason at all that listening to your religion has any more validity than sacrificing chickens to Thor before you go on a long journey.

Whether you believe it or not, at least Mormons claim that their leaders got authority from God. At least Muslims claim that Mohammad got authority from God. At least Roman Catholics claim they have authority from papal succession from Peter.

You don't even claim this. You just say you read this book that someone else wrote and now you're going to pantomime what it says. Until you have something beyond religious faith--the exact same basis that all of the other religions talked about here have to support their respective beliefs--you are not in a superior position to anyone. And until you give me some reason to think otherwise, the entire debate is moot.

Do you get it? Am I not being blunt enough? You're chasing unicorns. If you want me to be impressed about the way you are doing it, prove to me that unicorns exist.

[Darth J]

You still don't understand. I don't care.

All you're doing is chasing unicorns. I don't care about debating about something Jesus is purported to have said 2,000 years ago in Aramaic, that is then purported to have been written down several decades later in Greek, then passed through any number of handlers, editors, and translators to be turned into one of the dozens of versions of the Bible that exists today. I care about me--today, right now.

Your website is trying to show why you are right and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses' are wrong by discussing your interpretation of the Bible. The Bible does not belong to you. Neither you nor your organization wrote it or compiled it. You have no more claim to the Bible than someone who understands the correct Latin meaning of Julius Caesar's writings has a claim to being the Roman emperor.

You don't know that the god you believe in exists any more than followers of Zeus, Odin, Ra, Shiva, Allah, or the volcano god believe that their gods exist. You are on the exact same footing as these people.

Your website's criticism of Mormons, and your point on this thread, amounts to nothing more than Mormons don't derive meaning from the Bible and then imitate what they think it means in the same way that you do. But you are not in a superior position to Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Anglicans, or people who worship the sun, because you have absolutely no proof at all that the god you believe the Bible describes exists, or that the Bible is "true" (whatever that means) beyond your religious faith.

The point isn't whether you're right, the point is why I should care in the first place, because you have given me no reason at all that listening to your religion has any more validity than sacrificing chickens to Thor before you go on a long journey.

Whether you believe it or not, at least Mormons claim that their leaders got authority from God. At least Muslims claim that Mohammad got authority from God. At least Roman Catholics claim they have authority from papal succession from Peter.

You don't even claim this. You just say you read this book that someone else wrote and now you're going to pantomime what it says. Until you have something beyond religious faith--the exact same basis that all of the other religions talked about here have to support their respective beliefs--you are not in a superior position to anyone. And until you give me some reason to think otherwise, the entire debate is moot.

Do you get it? Am I not being blunt enough? You're chasing unicorns. If you want me to be impressed about the way you are doing it, prove to me that unicorns exist.

Or to put it another way, since you're so keen on the Bible, you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

[Smith]

If you can't refute what someone says, refute something else. Apparently, that is the approach you have chosen.

Really? Did I not quote your summation of your post? Did I not address that directly?

You must know full well that I am not suggesting that we don't need the Old Testament.

Your point was unclear to me and thats what it sounded like but if I was wrong then fine, in this case I am glad to be.

I am also not suggesting that all we need is the Bible. We need the Bible, the indwelling Holy Spirit, the redeeming work of the Lord Jesus Christ, the fellowship of other believers, mature believers discipling new believers, etc., etc.

Ok.

I'm still waiting for someone to try to refute my exegesis.

So why ring fence John 14 - 16? Why not view those chapters in the light of what other scripture has to say on the same subject? I think this is the point that other LDS posters are trying to make here. It would be like taking the verse that says "God is love", ring fencing that then trying to use that alone to describe the nature of God. One is going to get a very limited view at best. And so I find this exegesis of yours somewhat pointless.

[mfbukowski]

Your question has nothing to do with the topic of my thread, which is not "How do we know the Bible is the word of God?" but rather "Does the Gospel of John teach that the Holy Spirit provides direct revelations to each believer as to what he or she is to believe?" I can reword your complaint this way: I persistently refuse to allow you to derail the thread.

This is obviously ridiculous and everyone sees through it.

The prime example of the Holy Spirit providing direct revelations to a believer as to what he or she is to believe is believing in the bible itself.

If we cannot receive revelation about what to believe, no one would believe in the bible or have any reason for believing in what is revealed therein.

That you refuse to acknowledge this obvious fact just shows how far you will go to avoid the question.

It is truly unbelievable that you expect anyone to give you any credibility after this.

[mfbukowski]

Darth,

Let's say you concede the point and Mormons are wrong about the meaning of the texts in John that this thread discusses. Then we can move on to another discussion in another thread. But first things first: Am I not correct in saying that these texts in the Gospel of John are referring to a special revelatory work of the Spirit through the apostles?

No.

[mfbukowski]

You still don't understand. I don't care.

All you're doing is chasing unicorns. I don't care about debating about something Jesus is purported to have said 2,000 years ago in Aramaic, that is then purported to have been written down several decades later in Greek, then passed through any number of handlers, editors, and translators to be turned into one of the dozens of versions of the Bible that exists today. I care about me--today, right now.

Your website is trying to show why you are right and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses' are wrong by discussing your interpretation of the Bible. The Bible does not belong to you. Neither you nor your organization wrote it or compiled it. You have no more claim to the Bible than someone who understands the correct Latin meaning of Julius Caesar's writings has a claim to being the Roman emperor.

You don't know that the god you believe in exists any more than followers of Zeus, Odin, Ra, Shiva, Allah, or the volcano god believe that their gods exist. You are on the exact same footing as these people.

Your website's criticism of Mormons, and your point on this thread, amounts to nothing more than Mormons don't derive meaning from the Bible and then imitate what they think it means in the same way that you do. But you are not in a superior position to Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Anglicans, or people who worship the sun, because you have absolutely no proof at all that the god you believe the Bible describes exists, or that the Bible is "true" (whatever that means) beyond your religious faith.

The point isn't whether you're right, the point is why I should care in the first place, because you have given me no reason at all that listening to your religion has any more validity than sacrificing chickens to Thor before you go on a long journey.

Whether you believe it or not, at least Mormons claim that their leaders got authority from God. At least Muslims claim that Mohammad got authority from God. At least Roman Catholics claim they have authority from papal succession from Peter.

You don't even claim this. You just say you read this book that someone else wrote and now you're going to pantomime what it says. Until you have something beyond religious faith--the exact same basis that all of the other religions talked about here have to support their respective beliefs--you are not in a superior position to anyone. And until you give me some reason to think otherwise, the entire debate is moot.

Do you get it? Am I not being blunt enough? You're chasing unicorns. If you want me to be impressed about the way you are doing it, prove to me that unicorns exist.

Wow!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

After readiung this thread, this seems to be a similar critisism that our friend Hoops would bring up. THat is that we are takin it all out of context and that Jesus was either talking to the Jews or to the apostles. If that is indeed the case, why do we even have the NT? Of course I might have just mis-understood Rob's position. But as I understood it, your beef is that Jesus was specifically talking to his apostles? And because of that context it does not apply to us.

[Rob Bowman]

Darth,

I am replying to the following comment:

You still don't understand. I don't care.

All you're doing is chasing unicorns. I don't care about debating about something Jesus is purported to have said 2,000 years ago in Aramaic, that is then purported to have been written down several decades later in Greek, then passed through any number of handlers, editors, and translators to be turned into one of the dozens of versions of the Bible that exists today. I care about me--today, right now.

I'm sorry, but I don't care to debate anything that appears on this forum under the name "Darth J." Clearly, this is a pseudonym, and so I have no idea who the author of these posts might be. In fact, I don't even know if "Darth J" is one person or a group of persons. Perhaps there's five frat boys at UCLA gathered around a computer laughing as they come up with these posts in between watching re-runs of Baywatch. I have no information about where this "Darth J" might live, what his true religious background is, or really anything else about him (or them). For all I know, these posts were originally written by an Israeli atheist in Tel Aviv and translated into Pig Latin by a Chinese exchange student in Paris before being re-translated into English and redacted to sound Mormon by some BYU dropout in Pocatello. And who knows how many servers these posts pass through before they show up on this forum? Besides, who cares about the opinions of some unknown individual or group that hails from no one knows knows where? I only care about what I think. No one else's opinion matters to me.

[Darth J]

Darth,

For all I know, these posts were originally written by an Israeli atheist in Tel Aviv and translated into Pig Latin by a Chinese exchange student in Paris before being re-translated into English and redacted to sound Mormon by some BYU dropout in Pocatello. And who knows how many servers these posts pass through before they show up on this forum?

Which is a strong analogy between my posts and the Bible.

Besides, who cares about the opinions of some unknown individual or group that hails from no one knows knows where? I only care about what I think. No one else's opinion matters to me.

Ditto.

[Darth J]

I'm sorry, but I don't care to debate anything that appears on this forum under the name "Darth J." Clearly, this is a pseudonym, and so I have no idea who the author of these posts might be. In fact, I don't even know if "Darth J" is one person or a group of persons. Perhaps there's five frat boys at UCLA gathered around a computer laughing as they come up with these posts in between watching re-runs of Baywatch. I have no information about where this "Darth J" might live, what his true religious background is, or really anything else about him (or them).

This is irrelevant to the question I asked. You have said nothing that is not true of pretty much everyone on this board, with a very few limited exceptions (like Dan Peterson). You were perfectly willing to engage in mental [can't type the word I want to, but I bet you can guess!] with other people posting under pseudonyms as long as you thought you had an answer.

Don't worry, Rob. When you die, you will find Kali Ma to be much more merciful than suggested by Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Because the cult of Thugee has as much claim to being the one true religion as you do.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Don't worry, Rob. When you die, you will find Kali Ma to be much more merciful than suggested by Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Because the cult of Thugee has as much claim to being the one true religion as you do.

Don't get me involved in this

[Darth J]

Don't get me involved in this

You will become a true believer!

[Rob Bowman]

Darth,

As I rather expected, my parody went straight over your head. Perhaps you thought that Monty Python and the Holy Grail was a documentary about King Arthur and that Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator was a biopic about an actual totalitarian dictator named Adenoid Hynkel.

This is irrelevant to the question I asked. You have said nothing that is not true of pretty much everyone on this board, with a very few limited exceptions (like Dan Peterson). You were perfectly willing to engage in mental [can't type the word I want to, but I bet you can guess!] with other people posting under pseudonyms as long as you thought you had an answer.

Don't worry, Rob. When you die, you will find Kali Ma to be much more merciful than suggested by Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Because the cult of Thugee has as much claim to being the one true religion as you do.

[volgadon]

I don't understand why several members here have criticized my post for being too long. I never see such complaints against LDS posts, not even with happy faces to soften the blow. What's the problem?

And I get criticised on occasion for being too laconic. One can't win.

[Darth J]

Darth,

As I rather expected, my parody went straight over your head. Perhaps you thought that Monty Python and the Holy Grail was a documentary about King Arthur and that Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator was a biopic about an actual totalitarian dictator named Adenoid Hynkel.

And as long as you're talking about movies, perhaps you thought that the "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" scene from The Wizard of Oz was good advice.

As soon as you have a substantive response to what I said in posts #23 and 36, in this or any other thread, let us all know.