Note: I read the Bible to consider whether a specific passage comports to my weak-comprehension of the perhaps 5,000-year-old Sumerian philosophy expressed by Hebrew scholars 3,000 years ago in Genesis 1:28: Female& male-human-being can& may, independent of other entities, constrain political chaos on earth. I think the next Bible canon should include the law codes of Sumer.
I perceive that the 10,000-year-old Sumer civilization ought to be considered, in order to increase civic-integrity while appreciating private spiritual pursuits in 2022 and beyond.
Election and antinomianism: John 13, NIV
Reading to discover St. John’s possible 1) conformity-to Genesis 1:28’s
suggestion that no power can usurp responsible-human-independence (RHI); that is, each
human-being is in authority-facing-death and, therefore, can& may choose
integrity-to the-ineluctable-truth, and 2) his appreciative-humility-to
whatever-controls-the-consequences-of-each-human-choice [and responding as best-PRB can]. Some scholars think "John of Patmos" is the elder St. John the apostle. I contend
with much in this passage and take great comfort in my reference to John in
6:38’s “whoever
comes to me I will never drive away”, below.
13 1 It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the
hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. [Honored as the saints may be,
no human-being can witness for Jesus. Furthermore, no scholar can limit human choice, such as Judas's choice to betray Jesus. That is, under the entity that controls the consequences of human choice, Judas could have chosen not to betray Jesus.] Having loved his own who
were in the world, he loved them to the end. [A psychological quid pro quo seems un-hidden by John’s phrase
“his own”;, the elect; the antinomians. See John 6:39.
Having acquired high
regard for both civic-integrity and civil-order, I decided during my second
quarter-century that I am neither elect nor antinomian. However, I reject many
of St. John’s opinions about the non-elect (me), especially John 15:18-23.]
2 The
evening meal was in progress, and the devil [like “soul”, “devil” seems a human-construct. I perceive
no obligation to disprove mystery] had already prompted Judas, the son
of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. 3 Jesus knew
that the Father had put all things under his power [I assert that the-metaphysical-Jesus advocates
Genesis 1:28, and St. John missed it; each human-being can& may
independently constrain chaos in their life choices. That is, Jesus cannot
usurp their opportunity to choose the-good.], and that he had come
from God [Cynthia admits
neither knowing the-ineluctable-truth nor opining better than St. John yet
confidently states that God and Jesus are the same. When pressed, she says, “The
mystery of oneness gives me comfort, and I don’t have to explain mysteries”.
This illustrates my meaning when I say Cynthia has serene-confidence.] and
was returning to God; 4 so he got up from the meal,
took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After
that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’
feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.
6 He
came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”
7 Jesus
replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will
understand.”
8 “No,”
said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”
Jesus
answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” [In 2022 vernacular, unless you
don your COVID mask you cannot enter my space.]
9 “Then,
Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as
well!”
10 Jesus
answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their
whole body is clean. [A
bath does not prevent your breath or a cough from spreading germs and viruses
you may be carrying.] And you are clean, though not every one of
you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray
him, and that was why he said not every one was clean. [St. John employed a straw-man
fallacy -- bath for betrayal -- that lessens my interest in the remainder of
the story. That is to say, a story that offers an agendum is interesting only to the extent of the reader's purpose.]
12 When
he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his
place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked
them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and
‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now
that I, your Lord [Using
“Lord” may seem competitive with Jewish beliefs, but to me, it creates
competition between Jesus and the Father. That’s not possible for Cynthia, who
believes they are the same. I would not change her opinion for anything nor
would I change my opinion. I reserve the right to be wrong on both counts.]
and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s
feet. [Civic citizens "wash each other's feet" each time they facilitate responsible-human-independence.]15 I have set you an example that you should
do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell
you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater
than the one who sent him. [I
perceive 1) that I am a messenger for myself and any-citizen with appreciation-for&
humility-to whatever-controls-the-consequences-of-each-human-choice and 2) that
some if not all Nomads seem part of that culture.] 17 Now
that you know these things, you will be blessed [Ceremonial washing of feet to recall the 12 who included
one betrayer is not a practice I desire.] if you do them. [Most important is Genesis 1:28,
especially since the author of the 5,500 year-old version may have responded to
Jesus, metaphysical or not.]
Jesus Predicts His Betrayal
18 “I
am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. [Here again appears the
psychological quid pro quo I perceive
in V. 1: the unsuspecting individual desires to be confident-in& loyal-to
someone who chose them. That’s the sentiment that enslaved me to Christianity’s
formula until 1994. With so much St.-John-confusion to contend with, it is
difficult for someone who is convinced they are not elect to accept their
destiny, perhaps to pursue the-metaphysical-Jesus; the practical Jesus to be acquired by
ignoring Bible-nonsense. I am not a Christian, because I pursue Jesus’s
message, not John’s “witness”.] But this is to fulfill this
passage of Scripture: ‘He who shared my bread has turned against me.’ [In 2022, we know better than to fall for scholar's predictions. Communion is a form of
modern inquisition. In 15 years of “Christian” worship in the Catholic Church
with my family, I never took communion, even though I was not then aware that I do not
accept transubstantiation. After 1994, I do not take “The Lord’s Supper”,
because I am neither Baptist nor Christian. That does not make me better, it’s
simply that I accept not being elect. Neither does it imply that I do not
appreciate other individual’s faiths for them. On the contrary, it is an act of
appreciation for their opportunity to choose: Transubstantiation, Remembrance,
or acceptance.]
19 “I
am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will
believe that I am who I am. [Jesus is the “I am” before Abraham was born, which I take as
advocate-for if not author-of Genesis 1:28.] 20 Very
truly I tell you, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts
me accepts the one who sent me.” [See John 6:36-37, especially “. . . whoever comes to me I will never drive away”. That is my
strength and comfort for me. I support other civic-people’s private-comforts
for them.]
21 After
he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “Very
truly I tell you, one of you is going to betray me.” [Even at this moment, Judas had the RHI to reject
the 30 pieces of sliver, to comply with Genesis 1:28.]
22 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved [I understand this expresses John, the author of this bemusement. Regardless, “the disciple” puts into question the meaning of “love” in John 13 and elsewhere in the Bible.], was reclining next to him. 24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple [John] and said, “Ask him which one he means.” [For the first time, I notice St. John's competitive attitude toward St. Peter. Not only does John claim he is Jesus's favorite of the 12, he chooses to lessen Peter by claiming he asked Peter to ask Jesus rather than speak to Jesus directly. It's duplicitous on both accounts.]
25 Leaning
back against Jesus, he [John]
asked him, “Lord, who is it?”
26 Jesus
answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I
have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it
to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 As
soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. [My friend Chris Nalepa told me this week that he,
at age 65, wants to warn fellow-citizens that there is evil in the world. I
like Chris’s concern. I prefer “evil” to “Satan”. Either way, John, is
expressing his fiction. John cannot judge the motive behind another
human-being’s intentions before the action.]
So
Jesus told him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” 28 But
no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29 Since
Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what
was needed for the festival, or to give something to the poor. 30 As
soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.
Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denial
31 When
he was gone, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified and
God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in
him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at
once.
33 “My
children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and
just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come. [
34 “A
new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you
must love one another. 35 By this everyone will
know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” [It seems more civic to
appreciate one another. “Love” seem overblown, worn out, too vague, and mere
slogan. Too often love is unwanted. “I’m in love with you” can seem like abuse
of the other party’s preference. In the Christian community, when someone says,
“Phil, I love you”, it reminds me of the coercion my E.
Tennessee-Southern-Baptist birth-family suffered as Mom (Eastern Star) competed
with Dad (32nd Degree Mason); I guess derived from Paul’s bad words,
“Wives submit yourself to your own husbands”. It also invokes the notion that
the speaker judges me lost and is praying for my salvation (as though Jesus is
not reliable). If someone says “I’m praying for you (to be saved)”, I respond,
“I’m praying for you, too.” If someone says, “I love you” I respond “I
appreciate you”. I will not submit to psychological quid pro quo. I do not think I am alone in these thoughts, but do
think few would study deeply enough to articulate them. I so study.]
36 Simon
Peter asked him, “Lord, where are you going?”
Jesus
replied, “Where I am going, you cannot follow now, but you will
follow later.” [How much
later?]
37 Peter
asked, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.”
38 Then
Jesus answered, “Will you really lay down your life for me? Very truly I
tell you, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times! [Is John negatively competing? Where’s
Peter’s guilt-acceptance: under attack by sword, I disowned Jesus? We do have
John’s report of Peter’s assignment, “Feed my sheep”; John 21:15-17. I don't trust competitive apostles, especially when they purport to speak for Jesus. No one can witness for Jesus.]
No comments:
Post a Comment