John 10:16

This is the place to discuss anything to do with scriptural doctrine. It is the primary purpose of this site, and most discussions will be here.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
Get out of her
Posts: 919
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: John 10:16

#11 Post by Get out of her » 8 months ago

Bobcat: I'd like to think I known you long enough to realize that you don't want to send this kind of message to people who simply disagree with you on a particular point. Frankly I was rather shocked to find find your last response to me. It prompted me to take a second look at the post you reacted to and I have to say it was vastly more loving and respectful than yours. If it offended you than I certainly feel bad about that, but all it really amounted to was respectfully disagreeing on a particular position of yours and a follow up with some scriptural reasons why this was the case. This approach would only serve to stifle discussion from anyone who might be inclined to disagree with you on any given point, and what makes this all the more confusing to me is that you are supposedly trying to help me make progress on this very same issue with some challenges of my own like failing to keep things more simple and less wordy. In my case I am humbly endeavoring to take your advice or recommendations to heart and make some needed adjustments, and I refuse to take offense in this instance since I'm sure you will be doing the same.

Agape love;
Sol

Bobcat
Posts: 3229
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: John 10:16

#12 Post by Bobcat » 8 months ago

Frankly I was rather shocked to find find your last response to me
You were "shocked" were you? I was down right pissed off at you! I usually try to avoid discussions with you because, to me, your thinking process is, mind boggling or indecipherable. Like some totally foreign language. And, to me, you suckered me in to this thread. Posing it as some sort of thread about John 10:16.

but all it really amounted to was respectfully disagreeing on a particular position of yours and a follow up with some scriptural reasons why this was the case.
Wait, what??? I didn't take a "particular position." I only said that I wouldn't take your position.

You asked:
how would you go about scripturally establishing the identity of a SPIRITUAL Samaritan or gentile, and its distinction from a spiritual Jew or Christian? (Or even "Jewish Christian"?) Moreover are you suggesting that Samaritans and gentiles are the same thing? If you are suggesting Samaritans and gentiles are NOT the same thing, how would you endeavor to delineate the difference between the two?
And I responded:
Myself, I wouldn't (i.e. I wouldn't 'establish the identity of a SPIRITUAL Samaritan or gentile, and its distinction from a spiritual Jew or Christian,' that is, in connection with John 10.)
I kept my response within the subject of your thead title (John 10:16).

And your response:
The "Oholobah" entity had a prophetic/symbolic meaning or significance for "the good things to come," but the "Oholah" did not?
and . . .
Respectfully, it would seem to me that to take it upon ourselves to begin picking and choosing what portions of the Old Testament qualified as a prophetic picture or "shadow of the good things to come" with SPIRITUAL Israel would be to embark on a rather slippery slope. Once we start down this path, where exactly does it end?
(Me, now scratching my head.) What in the world are you talking about? I didn't say anything about the Old Testament or about Oholobah or Oholah. And I didn't start down "this path," rather, I said I wouldn't go down the path you were 'going down.'

This is why I try to avoid discussions with you. You seem, to me, to be from some alternate universe, where the rules of normal logic don't work.

I knew something was odd about how you started this thread. But I didn't let my judgment get the better of me and stay out of this thread. I thought, 'Well, it might be interesting to see what you have to say about John 10:16.'

Turns out, you didn't have anything to say about John 10:16. You were just baiting John S and myself to take a position on something so you could show how wrong we were.

That's what I was pissed off at you for. I try to politely stay out of your discussions so you can have your say. And you [drew] me in to it. And I'm also a bit mad at myself for going against my better judgment and letting it happen. But don't worry. I won't let it happen again.

Get out of her
Posts: 919
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: John 10:16

#13 Post by Get out of her » 8 months ago

Bobcat wrote:
Wait, what??? I didn't take a "particular position." I only said that I wouldn't take your position.
If you wish to be angry and break off all communication that is certainly your prerogative Bobcat. Nevertheless I'd be happy to answer your questions here and do my best to clear up what seems to be some misunderstandings and a rather large communication gap.


Bobcat wrote:
Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles were various groups of people that were distinguished from each other in the gospel accounts. I see no need to 'spiritualize' them, especially in the context of John chapter 10. Paul later 'spiritualizes' "a Jew." (Romans chapter 2) But if you try to apply that later 'spiritualization' to the peoples Jesus had in mind in John 10, in my opinion, you will only confuse yourself. (My opinion, of course.)
The position of yours I was referring to (which you did in fact take) was primarily that while you concede to the fact that the ancient fleshly Jews were used to prefigure the spirit anointed Christians that Paul refers to in Romans 2:28, 29 who had allowed this holy spirit to "circumcise their hearts," you at the same time seem to imagine or indicate that the ancient Samaritans and gentiles by contrast have no "spiritualized" application when it comes to Christianity or otherwise the shepherding and sheep folds mentioned in John 10:16. In fact you go so far as to suggest that to endeavor assigning them a corresponding place in spiritual Israel would only "confuse" people.


Bobcat wrote:
(Me, now scratching my head.) What in the world are you talking about? I didn't say anything about the Old Testament or about Oholobah or Oholah. And I didn't start down "this path," rather, I said I wouldn't go down the path you were 'going down.'
As we can see in the account there I cited in Ezekiel 23:4, the scriptural terms—Oholah and Oholibah are simply another way of referring to Jews and Samaritans which you obviously did speak of in the paragraph I cited above. One of the main reasons I brought up the account there in Ezekiel was because you openly agreed with the following statement made by John s:

Most certainly beyond any doubt John 10:16 applies to the Samaritans and the Gentiles being brought into the fold along with Jewish Christians.
The reason I started this thread is because I continue to observe an incredible amount of confusion among most people when it comes to words like Jews and Israelites. This is largely no fault of our own since I can assure you it is all by design. You see while the ancient southern two tribe kingdom was commonly referred to as Judah or Judea (from which we get the word—Jew), the northern ten tribe kingdom on the other hand was always identified as Israel. Do you see where these facts are already rather problematic to the statement here made by John S?



You see I'm simply trying to help my dear brothers and sisters truly begin thinking these things through and begin removing this "veil" of confusion that satan is always so effective at putting over priceless scriptural truths. ONE of the things the above facts should help us to begin pondering is the following question:



If the ancient Samaritans or even their modern day equivalent or counterparts ALREADY qualified/qualify as Israelites, then how exactly could they ever be (as John S words it) "brought into the fold…"?



Per your reminder or suggestion, I'm trying my best not to overwhelm everyone with too many answers or information all at once. I thought I might try taking just one or two issues at a time and endeavor to begin by simply getting everyone to start thinking more deeply on them. This would hopefully make them more open to the answers the scriptures in fact already do provide far ALL of the questions that such thinking soon leads to.

Agape love;
Sol

Bobcat
Posts: 3229
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: John 10:16

#14 Post by Bobcat » 8 months ago

Sol, you proceed with your thread however you see fit. But leave me out of it.

Stranger
Posts: 1787
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: John 10:16

#15 Post by Stranger » 8 months ago

Get out of her wrote:
8 months ago
Per your reminder or suggestion, I'm trying my best not to overwhelm everyone with too many answers or information all at once.

Sol, you sound like Bill Nye when he said " This book is about everything. It is about everything I know and about everything I think you should know too."



Stranger, (Ec 10:12 )

Get out of her
Posts: 919
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: John 10:16

#16 Post by Get out of her » 8 months ago

Stranger wrote:

Oholah is older than Oholibah, it could be and probably is symbolic references to the old great whore and the modern day great whore. If you notice in the scriptures everything said about and to Oholah (Ezk 23:5-21) is in the past tense sense. And everything said to Oholibah (Ezk 23:22-35) is in the coming to pass sense.

First of all I was hoping that the fact that Oholah (or Samaria/Israel) is older than Oholibah (or Judea) might prompt people to begin pondering the question of exactly how God's nation/kingdom or people was different before the division that occurred at some point between Judea and Samaria. In turn, if we can actually articulate this distinction, could this perhaps shed some light not only on exactly what created this division and distinction, but also on what Jesus is speaking of in John 10:16? I'd love to hear any thoughts of yours or anyone's on this and especially what scriptures you/they might point to in support of them.


The term Oholah literally means—my tent, which we also find in the scriptures being referred to with terms such as God's "house," "sanctuary," or even nation or kingdom. Oholibah on the other hand means—my tent is IN her. This along with the fact that Jehovah specifically identifies these two entities as Samaria and Jerusalem respectively actually confirms that this terminology IN OF ITSELF has no reference to spiritual adultery or "whoredom" as you word it. Nevertheless the CONTEXT or SETTING that we find here in Ezekiel 23 absolutely DOES point to these things. So in this sense you would be correct.

AMONG the things that these facts should help us to begin better grasping is not simply the real origins of "Babylon the Great," but more specifically this entity in a spiritually "fallen" condition. (Re 18:2)

You see it is actually ONLY when this "Oholah/Oholibah" entity begins to "prostitute" herself that she begins to qualify as a third part of a "three part great city" which is identified NOT simply as Babylon the Great, (or such at least in the setting of foreign captivity and exile), but more specifically such upon "BECOMING a prostitute." (Isa 1:21) (Re 13:16, 19) Before this act of harlotry she would obviously qualify as the "faithful town." Once this unfaithful act of spiritual adultery would occur however, she is now identified as part of "the Great Harlot" or even as "Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and the DISGUSTING THINGS of the earth." (Re 17:5) Compare (Mt 24:15, 16)


In other words, do you think that this spiritual whoredom might have something to do with things like the division that is represented at some point between Israel and Judea, and by extension the reuniting that is addressed in accounts like John 10:16? If so how might you or anyone go about establishing this more effectively with the scriptures? If NOT, how might a CONTRARY position be established scripturally?

Agape love;
Sol

Stranger
Posts: 1787
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: John 10:16

#17 Post by Stranger » 8 months ago

Get out of her wrote:
8 months ago
You see it is actually ONLY when this "Oholah/Oholibah" entity begins to "prostitute" herself that she begins to qualify as a third part of a "three part great city" which is identified NOT simply as Babylon the Great, (or such at least in the setting of foreign captivity and exile), but more specifically such upon "BECOMING a prostitute." (Isa 1:21) (Re 13:16, 19) Before this act of harlotry she would obviously qualify as the "faithful town." Once this unfaithful act of spiritual adultery would occur however, she is now identified as part of "the Great Harlot" or even as "Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and the DISGUSTING THINGS of the earth." (Re 17:5) Compare (Mt 24:15, 16)

HI Sol,

I'm not so sure, or not actually sure at all that these TWO sisters are one and the same entity. They may have came from the same entity, which was their mother. (Ezk 23:2) Just because these two are allegorically named doesn't mean there are not other daughters of this old great whore that are..., lets say within the city limits.

What kind of woman was the mother, and where did she come from? Greece perhaps. (Ezk 16:3)

The possessor of Samaria WAS considered de facto King of Israel but,


"Blessed is the Nation who's God is the LORD!" (Ps 33:12 KJV)

The word "yet" may have been left out of Jn 10:16 right at the end of the first sentence.


Stranger, (Ro 10:12)

Get out of her
Posts: 919
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: John 10:16

#18 Post by Get out of her » 7 months ago

Stranger wrote:



Sol I think you meant to put (Ezk 23:4) instead of (Ez 23:4) is that correct?


Yes you would be at least basically correct on this –Stranger. Normally the way Ezekiel is abbreviated is ---Eze or Ezek evidently, and I'm sure the additional letters are to avoid confusion with the book of Ezra. So this could be recognized as a mistake or at least a typo on my part as I'm honestly not sure exactly what form of the abbreviation I tried to type at the moment. Thanks for pointing that out.

Agape love;
Sol

Get out of her
Posts: 919
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: John 10:16

#19 Post by Get out of her » 7 months ago

Stranger wrote:
I'm not so sure, or not actually sure at all that these TWO sisters are one and the same entity. They may have came from the same entity, which was their mother. (Ezk 23:2) Just because these two are allegorically named doesn't mean there are not other daughters of this old great whore that are..., lets say within the city limits.

What kind of woman was the mother, and where did she come from? Greece perhaps. (Ezk 16:3)

The possessor of Samaria WAS considered de facto King of Israel but,


"Blessed is the Nation who's God is the LORD!" (Ps 33:12 KJV)
No they are not the same entity and if I gave the impression that I understood it that way it was by no means intentional. They are clearly distinguished also there in Ezekiel 23 as Oholibah representing Jerusalem and Oholah representing Samaria or otherwise what at that point qualified as the northern ten tribe kingdom of Israel. (Eze 23:4) Just as you suggest however they did in fact emerge from something that WAS indeed recognized as ONE in at least some sense. In fact we might recall that for several centuries before the division that occurred between Samaria and Judea, the entire land mass and kingdom of these twelve tribes was known simply as Israel. This is no doubt the reason that Oholah or Samaria/Israel is identified also there in Ezekiel 23 as the "OLDER sister."


The specific issue I was focusing on at the moment however was actually this "woman" you are speaking of, or otherwise what (in a figurative sense at least) gave BIRTH to the division that occurred in Israel somewhere around the year 932 BC. If we were to simply reflect on the events and circumstances that surrounded this separation that occurred around 932 BC, would this not pinpoint the "mother" of what are now suddenly identified NOT as the "SON" or even "SONS" that are ALWAYS associated with God's nation in an APPROVED AND CLEAN standing with him, but rather now as a "DAUGHTER" or even "DAUGHTERS" which in stark contrast are now associated with spiritual prostitution? (Isa 66:7, 8) (Da 7:13, 14) (Re 12:5) Compare (Eze 23:1-4) (Jer 8:11) (Isa 1:8, 21)


Do you happen to recall the situation and circumstances that gave birth to the division between the two and ten tribe kingdoms Stranger? Moreover would you or anyone perhaps be aware of a scriptural reference or two that would confirm the precise identity of this "mother" or even phenomenon that the scriptures associate with births of both figurative sons AND daughters? If we COULD establish these circumstances or even precise event, would it perhaps explain things like what exactly is being represented by the birth of "daughters" as opposed to "sons" in connection with God's kingdom?


It would seem to me that If we were able to scripturally establish the answers to these questions it would go a long way in attaining a correct understanding not only what is involved in the division we are considering here, but also the reunion mentioned in accounts like John 10:16.

Agape love;
Sol

Stranger
Posts: 1787
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: John 10:16

#20 Post by Stranger » 7 months ago

Get out of her wrote:
7 months ago
Do you happen to recall the situation and circumstances that gave birth to the division between the two and ten tribe kingdoms Stranger?
Hi Sol,

When Solomon died (931 BC?) Rehoboam became King but was soon kicked to the curb and was replaced with de facto king Jeroboam.
Get out of her wrote:
7 months ago
Moreover would you or anyone perhaps be aware of a scriptural reference or two that would confirm the precise identity of this "mother" or even phenomenon that the scriptures associate with births of both figurative sons AND daughters?

From what I understand is that Jeroboam's wife (Ano), was an Egyptian princess ( "intentionally not portrayed as a real individual in her own right", but that her characterization should be viewed as "the effective use of an anonymous character to fill an important literary function" ) {AB} (1Ki 12:27), (1Ki 11:26)

Like you Sol, I'm keeping it short for now, I don't want to give everything out all at once.



Stranger,

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests