It matters several 'whits' to me that Jesus spoke of Judas. I do not believe that his (Jesus') meaning and the two of you (David (?) and Izzie) are the same meaning. Get my meaning? It's possible therefore, that you've miscontrued Jesus' meaning, eh?
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: December 15, 2004 13:58 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Intentional sin -- the Judas factor > Jonathan wrote: > > My main objection was that Izzy characterized yet again > > that Lance does not give a whit about scripture just because > > what she believed about the answer to whether Judas is > > saved or not is made clear in the English version of her > > text. > > Please consider the possibility that you MISUNDERSTOOD Izzy. She did not > say that Lance did not give a whit about Scripture. She ASKED about why > Lance seemed to ignore that Jesus said Judas was lost. Following is the > post: > > -------------- > John 17:12 > “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that > thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of > perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.” > > Lance, Jesus said Judas was lost. Why doesn’t that matter one whit to you? > ------------- > > So her comment was not a slam against Lance, saying that he did not care > about Scripture, but asking why this statement by Jesus SEEMS to be ignored > by him. > > I wonder the same thing, not only about Lance, but also about you. You > shared some terribly poor Greek analysis by Jimmy Humphrey that changed none > of our minds about this passage. I'm still left with the same question that > Izzy posed to Lance. Why does it not matter one whit to you and Lance that > Jesus said that Judas was lost? Whenever I bring up this word "lost," you > want to talk about the Greek word for "kept." > > Let me give you an example of one thing wrong with that article by Humphrey. > Following is a paragraph from it: > > ----------------- > The second instance of the word ‘keep’ is a different Greek word. This one > is ‘phulasso’ (Strong’s #5442: pronounced foo-las’-so). It literally means > “to guard from outside influence” (i.e., to ‘isolate’). In this case the > context is that Christ ‘isolated’ the apostles from Satan’s direct > influ-ence [i.e. Mk.8:33; Jn.18:9]. All that is except Judas. Judas was not > ‘isolated’ from Satan. Posi-tionally speaking, there is no reason to believe > that Judas was not still saved, but practically speak-ing it is obvious that > he was left unprotected from Satan’s onslaught—the results of which we are > already familiar with. > ----------------- > > His first mistake is relying too heavily upon the etymology of the word. > This is a classic mistake made by those just learning Greek. While the > etymology of the word might give us some nuance of understanding, it does > not always work that way. Words often take on slightly different > connotations as they are used. A survey of the 30 places where this word is > used in Scripture yields very little support to Humphrey's claim concerning > its connotation. > > Now the second mistake Humphrey makes is the leap of logic to claim that > Christ was isolating the apostles from Satan's influence. He then quotes > two passages that don't even use this Greek word that he is so focused upon. > > Mark 8:33 > (33) But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked > Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things > that be of God, but the things that be of men. > > John 18:9 > (9) That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou > gavest me have I lost none. > > Humphrey's third mistake is referencing these passages. They actually work > counter to his point. The first one (Mark 8:33) speaks of Peter being under > Satan's influence, and the second one (John 18:9) speaks of how those who > were given to Jesus were not lost. This John 18:9 passage, incidentally, > does NOT include Judas as Judas was not even there, and the passage under > discussion (John 17:12) says that Judas WAS LOST, the opposite of the ones > spoken about in John 18:9. Furthermore, we know from other passages that > Satan sifted guys like Peter (Luke 22:31), so his entire argument about > Christ isolating the apostles from Satan's direct influence rings very > hollow. This is especially true when the Bible says that Judas was a devil > (John 6:70) and that Satan entered into Judas (John 13:27). It also is > disconcerting that Jesus refers to him as the son of perdition, the same > terminology used of the AntiChrist (2 Thess. 2:3). > > Jonathan wrote: > > Izzy has a bee in her bonnet against anyone that > > she labels a liberal. She thinks that all liberals > > must view scripture in a way that is far lower > > than her own exalted view. > > So what. Practice a little tolerance toward alternative viewpoints. If you > think she is errant in the viewpoint that liberals distort Scripture or > ignore Scripture, try and articulate why she would be wrong. You have an > entire audience here who would like to hear both you and her. > > Jonathan wrote: > > I called it a scripture bomb. > > And a very effective bomb it was. I say, good job, Izzy. > > Jonathan wrote: > > She felt that by throwing out a verse the > > discussion was over. > > Try not to infer motives upon her. Maybe she was just arguing persuasively > as she saw it and had an interest in seeing if anybody would be able to > correct what she thought was an open and shut case. She may, in fact, be > very humble and interested in how you guys get around verses that seem to > contradict your viewpoint. > > Jonathan wrote: > > In reality her misunderstanding of the verse caused her > > to come to the wrong conclusion. > > This juror, for one, does not agree with you. If you leave the discussion > to stand as it is, I think Izzy has the better understanding of this verse > than this guy Jimmy Humphrey that you let make your case for you. > > Jonathan wrote: > > Izzy (and I believe Judy) have made the claim that > > they do not need to understand Greek or Hebrew > > because 'the Spirit will lead us into all truth'. > > This of course is a complete misunderstanding of > > this verse. > > I don't think this is a misunderstanding of this verse at all. If everyone > needs to study Greek and Hebrew to understand truth, that eliminates a whole > lot of people from being able to pursue truth. > > Jonathan wrote: > > All truth does not equal all information. > > I don't know what this sentence means. > > Jonathan wrote: > > It equals the breaking in upon ourselves by God > > a revelation of His Son Jesus Christ - the Truth. > > And I suspect that you do not really think that one must learn Greek and > Hebrew in order to experience this Truth. Am I wrong? > > Jonathan wrote: > > Because Izzy was reading it in English she was unable > > to see that Jesus was not using the word 'keep' in a > > salvation sense. > > I have read the passage in the Greek, and I understand the passage the same > way that Izzy does when she reads it in English. > > Jonathan wrote: > > Think of Jesus' words to Peter, 'Do you love me?' > > in John 21. Reading in English one would think > > Jesus uses the same word for love that Peter replies > > with. But Peter uses phileo while Jesus uses agapao. > > Without knowing Greek one could easily come > > to the wrong conclusion about this passage. Knowing > > the Greek one can exegete it with far more confidence. > > Actually, Jesus does use the word "phileo" as well as "agapao" in John 21, > but I get your point. I agree that reading the Greek can enhance our > understanding of the interaction between Jesus and Peter in this passage. > > Do you recognize that sometimes a teacher who goes to the Greek actually > mangles the meaning of texts for those who do not have a good understanding > of Greek? > > Do you recognize that sometimes teachers go to the Greek and Hebrew to force > their errant reading upon the text rather than for enhancing their > understanding of the text? I think Humphrey might be a good example of > someone doing this. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
