Let us thank because a death meant a long weekend.

[Keyser_Soze]

49 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

He sacrificed himself like I sacrificed myself in COD. Respawns are where it’s at.

 

That's why it would be 2% more tempting if he was playing Warzone instead!

[Kal-El814]

On 4/10/2023 at 9:21 AM, crispy4000 said:

 

lol, that's some pretty bunk tiktok theology

 

Those "outside assumptions of the text" he mentions in the first video are sourced within other passages of the same gospel.  Such as Jesus claiming 'I am' who existed before Abraham (John 8:58), before the world (John 17:5), or that those who have seen him have seen God (John 14:9).  Selective reading of a single verse is the worst kind of cherry picking.

 

Second video is him reading into another verse the same idea that Jesus is not a divine person.  Mark 2 does nothing to illustrate this either.  Its this guy's own "outside assumption of the text" that relies on the rest of scripture adhering to his view.  (it doesn't)

 

I have no idea why this connective tissue came up both on my feed and in my head today, but he elaborated on this again.

 

#maklelan1584 Responding to @The George Janko Show (Do not harass or r... | George Janko | TikTok

WWW.TIKTOK.COM

---

#maklelan1584 Responding to @The George Janko Show (Do not harass or report this creator or comment on their appearance or speech)

 

 

 

[crispy4000]

@Kal-El814

 

It's telling how quickly he jumps from saying there should be multiple interpretations, to insisting on there being a better interpretation, to 'I am' meaning something totally different in Jesus' words than is commonly accepted.

 

He doesn't address the particular grammatical context that Jesus uses it in John 8:58, leaving the 'I am" to answer itself.  Instead, he asserts Jesus would have surely been more specific if he wanted to speak as a divine person, as in Exodus 3:6 ("I am the God of Jacob," etc).  Nevermind that it is stated circularly and self-defining a few verses later in Exodus 3:14, which is where the Jewish understanding of God as Yahweh originates.

 

All this in effort to argue that Jesus only claims himself as an "authorized possessor" of God's name, thereby not actually implying he existed before Abraham as stated.  Huge reach.  And impossible to reasonably reconcile with John 17:5, I'd say.

 

I won't bother with the rest.  But generally speaking, there is a much greater burden to argue that Jesus never claimed his divinity in the NT, given the sheer amount of re-framing work that would be required, even beyond the 'I am' verses.  And it has to be air tight, not leaky.

[TUFKAK]

My Patronus is a rabbit therefore I win.