I’ve never heard of that whole “Lazarus was disabled” thing. I am not a Bible scholar, so I accept humility on this point and the fact that I need to learn.
I’m even more confused by the idea that Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene are the same person, which you seem to be saying in your parallels between John 11 and John 20. They’re always referred to differently by the evangelists, at least half of whom knew them, so why does this idea exist?
Yes, I think I spoke a bit clumsily there. There has been a lot of debate over the centuries about the identities of the various Mary’s, and the pouring of oil on Jesus. It certainly may not be the same Mary, but the point I wanted to make was that John wants you to see the parallels between this scene and the scene on Easter Sunday morning.
If the whole crux of the woman caught in adultery was that the Pharisees were afraid of being called out by the Romans for executing her, why were they not afraid to do so later to Stephen?
Are there actually people who haven't ever picked up from context that talents are money? Or was that little aside more directed at preachers and teachers who move too easily to speaking of the talents as symbolizing human "talents" as if the translation choice into English was itself divinely inspired?
(Not that there aren't folks who believe that last point, of course...and heck, as risible as I find the KJV-only line of argument overall, I am myself quite open to there being a providential aspect to many of the peculiarities of how Sacred Scripture has come down to us.)
"Or was that little aside more directed at preachers and teachers who move too easily to speaking of the talents as symbolizing human "talents" as if the translation choice into English was itself divinely inspired?"
What about the interpretation that Jesus is troubled and weeps for the lack of faith of the people?
I’ve never heard of that whole “Lazarus was disabled” thing. I am not a Bible scholar, so I accept humility on this point and the fact that I need to learn.
I’m even more confused by the idea that Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene are the same person, which you seem to be saying in your parallels between John 11 and John 20. They’re always referred to differently by the evangelists, at least half of whom knew them, so why does this idea exist?
Yes, I think I spoke a bit clumsily there. There has been a lot of debate over the centuries about the identities of the various Mary’s, and the pouring of oil on Jesus. It certainly may not be the same Mary, but the point I wanted to make was that John wants you to see the parallels between this scene and the scene on Easter Sunday morning.
If the whole crux of the woman caught in adultery was that the Pharisees were afraid of being called out by the Romans for executing her, why were they not afraid to do so later to Stephen?
I’m starting a Sunday School drinking game tomorrow. Take a drink when:
1. Scott says “you guys”.
2. J.D. quotes a movie.
3. Katie says “YEAH”.
I can't afford that much Malört.
(Oh, wait...wrong Pillar podcast.)
Are there actually people who haven't ever picked up from context that talents are money? Or was that little aside more directed at preachers and teachers who move too easily to speaking of the talents as symbolizing human "talents" as if the translation choice into English was itself divinely inspired?
(Not that there aren't folks who believe that last point, of course...and heck, as risible as I find the KJV-only line of argument overall, I am myself quite open to there being a providential aspect to many of the peculiarities of how Sacred Scripture has come down to us.)
"Or was that little aside more directed at preachers and teachers who move too easily to speaking of the talents as symbolizing human "talents" as if the translation choice into English was itself divinely inspired?"
this.