Prove it, ....without conjecture, speculation, theory, or vain imagination?
You can't!
The Women at The Well
- Thread starter quietthinker
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You can't!
Because the whole thing is a damn lie, QT! That's what I find objectionable! What you like me to fabricate a different scenario than that of Beverley, ...I can do so in ten minutes, in 50 different ways, ...or to any other historical narrative in the Bible.
I'm surprised that you're taking this rubbish as historical fact, again, you sound frivolous and reckless.
There are reasons that details are scant and selective in the Bible, it is because the inspired authors are focusing only on the pertinent facts, and solely on the point at hand. Adding anything else to the storyline is misguided and haphazard - irrelevant and distracting to the intended message.
If Beverley is merely trying to dispel the superstitions about the lady at the well, and show how other explanations are viable, then, that's fine. But, she needs to state her thesis as such - that her views are merely her own opinion, entirely speculative, theorized and fabricated, and are not to be taken as truth, but simply as an optionable way of regarding the women at the well. Of which, absolutely no one on earth knows anything about her more than the narrative has allowed.
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
So what your saying is that nothing should be changed.. facts is fact.. no substituting or allagorizing scripture.
Like here:
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
?
Hugs
Paul is explaining the significance of the two wives of Abraham, and how they are to be interpreted with advent of Christ. Paul did not add or detract any details, whatsoever. He left them exactly as to how the inspired writer depicted them. Which is to my point, again, often the reason that only certain details are divulged within a narrative, is because that is all that is necessary to make the point. And, especially, because the author does not want the reader to over analyze the text, and then jump to unfounded claims as to what is trying to be conveyed. This is how heresy starts - misreading the verse in all its various forms.
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
Well, I liked it
It made me think of Hagar and Ishmael.. gentiles/samaritans.. which were/are the intermingled jew/gentile races, that the Angel/Jesus. met at the well. Hagar was an Egyptian and Abraham is the Father of Israel and the promise.. and God promised Abraham that Ishmael would be a nation too or many nations.. and these are the nations that Jesus met represented by the samaritan woman at the well. The descendents of Abraham which enter in by faith.
Gen 21:19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.
Gen 21:20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.
So I liked it..
an archer... hmm
where's that shovel..
HUGS
Well, of course you like it, Ziggy. For arguments sake, it was a nice evaluation of the situation, ...but it wasn't factual, it was from her frivolous imagination. Anyone can create pretty stories as additions to all the Biblical narratives.Well, I liked it
It made me think of Hagar and Ishmael.. gentiles/samaritans.. which were/are the intermingled jew/gentile races, that the Angel/Jesus. met at the well. Hagar was an Egyptian and Abraham is the Father of Israel and the promise.. and God promised Abraham that Ishmael would be a nation too or many nations.. and these are the nations that Jesus met represented by the samaritan woman at the well. The descendents of Abraham which enter in by faith.
Gen 21:19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.
Gen 21:20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.
So I liked it..
an archer... hmm
where's that shovel..
HUGS
What do you want me to do, take the story of Jesus and the fig tree and start applying fabricated details behind it?
For example, the reason that Jesus cursed the tree is because he knew that prior, many people had gotten sick for eating from its fruit. And, even though it wasn't the season for fruit to be produced, he knew how many might get hurt, therefore he cursed the tree. You see, Jesus wasn't being mean.
Do you like my story also, it had lots of meaning, no - some harmful things are hidden that we are unaware of, therefore we must trust God when he destroys something even though it may seem unjust, like the Canaanites, Uzzah, Ananias and Saphira.
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that particular tree wasn't ever going to bear any fruit ever again.
So it was cursed.. dead, done over... like sin.
HUGS
So it was cursed.. dead, done over... like sin.
HUGS
MattMooradian
Well-Known Member
Facts are one thing, relationship is another and it is relationship that the God of the scriptures desires. Without relationship one can have all the facts and one is still sterile....like a computer.....it has all the facts but it's not something I would want to cuddle up with.
Now DNB, tell us your story of meeting Jesus, please.
Someone came to me and preached the Gospel, it made perfect sense to me as far as corresponding to what I knew of humans, and a righteous and merciful God was concerned. And thus, I believed it.
No fairy tales, mysticism, analogies, or superfluous and dubious additions.
DancesWithGnostics
Well-Known Member
So you were impressed with the facts.....hmmmmm, well, the devil knows the facts.....he probably knows them better than we do.....we can be pretty sure about that......even all the details, seeing he was around when they transpired......but, what is the nature of his relationship with God? ....is it one that others are attracted to?......if so, what's the nature of it?
These are questions we can all ask ourselves if we have the courage......if we have the self honesty.
The purpose of 'the facts' in scripture is to establish a meaningful relationship with our Creator.....that means a growing emotional bond.
I think of the Jews in Jesus time. They considered themselves as having the facts. I think of all the political movements the world has seen......today even with the current US election, both parties consider themselves as having 'the facts'. Yes, the theory of evolution talks in terms of 'facts' and the best they come up with is we are animals. The world wants the facts.....the stock market rises and falls on 'the facts'.....in fact, we kill each other because we think we have 'the facts'.
Yes, 'the facts' can be as clinical and sterile as a surgeons knife.
Some years ago both my hips failed for reasons I won't go into....and needed replacing. Having an interest in anatomy I ask the surgical team if they wouldn't mind not putting me out but rather just deadening my lower half because I would like to be conscious and watch as they operated. They agreed but I suspect the monitoring attendant anaesthetist put a stronger sedative into the drip than I had anticipated and probably figured whatever transpired would be forgotten by me. Anyway, as it turns out, I clearly recall having a conversation with her about my interest in sailing and was so bold as to ask her to come out on a sail with me....to my surprise she agreed. All this was going on while the operation was in progress.
A week or so later I tried to chase her up through the reception and they wanted to know why.....I told them; they were alarmed to say the least. I never did see her again. You see, 'the facts' were not conducive to a connection of anything meaningful....they were just facts with no relational content....or power.
The woman at the well got the facts alright but they had purpose she didn't anticipate....they kindled something in her. She was sufficiently touched and motivated to bring the whole city of Sycar back to the well to meet Jesus. That would have been some undertaking. Think about it.......It's recorded for the very purpose of us doing just that.....why? ...so we too can be touched and motivated.....we too can can leave our 'water jars' behind and bring others to living water.
Last edited:
Sorry to hear about your hips, I hope that all is well, ...but, what does any of what you just said have to do with Beverley's adaptation?
If you are justifying facts as a means to truth and conviction, or relationship, then we can't afford to be loose with the facts, can we?
Will you just admit that Beverley may very well be 100% incorrect? And, if so, it is incumbent upon everyone to dismiss her fairytale entirely, as I am doing.
Like I said, Biblical details were given on a need to know basis, and that is all that we need to know, leave it at that.
If you can't get the meaning of the pericope with the allotted amount of details decided by the inspired writer, then no amount of embellishments will help your case, would you agree?
thanks DNB, the hips are as good as new ones. They were put in fifteen years ago and I can't fault them apart from the odd squeak. Oil changes weren't spoken about and thats a fact and squeaking wasn't either which they have done much to my surprise..... and thats a fact also
....all in all I nearly get around like a twenty year old and I'm 86.....oops, I musta got some facts wrong.....let me correct that....now let me see....68, now that's better.....nothing like getting the numbers back to front It's like this DNB; Beverly's account is a story......a story to make a point, nay, several points.....her point being to give a perspective on The Woman other than the traditional. It is to highlight Jesus's attitude to this traditional view (he dismissed it) whether it be the cultural setting of the day or the current. She highlights the current in her observation about the content of our bible commentaries on this matter.....of the cultural attitudes of the day this is no mystery; the record on the silence of the disciples in context speaks volumes.
Another point is to shown how human, how close and how approachable Jesus is for all peoples which is particularly sweet for the marginalised and downtrodden.
Now while we are talking about stories, Jesus told plenty of them.....often drawn from life around him. He did this to help people relate to the point he was making. Whether the story was true (factual) or not was beside the point. For instance when he told the story of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus he was using a the story of a well known myth to make his point, he was not giving a dissertation on the state of the dead as some suppose. He even tells his audience what his point is at the end of the story and people understood this.
An illustration....."There were three men, an American, a Canadian and a Jew......." Straight away you know I'm about to tell story and you listen intently because you know the story has a punch line (a point) and you're waiting for it. The story is no more factual (true) than if during a heavy downpour I said, 'it's raining cats and dogs'.....you understand what I mean without question.
And so it was when Jesus told stories, some factual some not. The objective was the point.
I would like to say something about inspiration. The Spirit moved on the apostles to write. They wrote about what they saw and heard and experienced..... in their own words. God did not dictate to them word for word what was to be written.
God's Spirit works with people today through their own experience and through their intellect. He rarely bypasses the natural processes of understanding. If you have been privileged by being raised in an immediate Christian environment your understanding of biblical concepts, of ideas, of metaphors come a lot easier than if you were raised in a culture foreign to Christian values. It is very helpful for many folk to have points explained in words other than actual scripture. Isn't that what sermons are meant to be about?.....otherwise what's the point of hearing a sermon if you can get it by reading yourself?
Yes, it is also God given that Men of God explain things to us in words we can relate to.....just as Phillip did with the Ethiopian Eunuch.
To summarise, Beverly Beem tells her story to this end.....to draw us closer to each other and to Jesus.
ok, so you admit that there is no veracity to her elaboration, it is just meant to inspire a different option to the context, and thus, Jesus' regard for the multi-married Samaritan women?thanks DNB, the hips are as good as new ones. They were put in fifteen years ago and I can't fault them apart from the odd squeak. Oil changes weren't spoken about and thats a fact and squeaking wasn't either which they have done much to my surprise..... and thats a fact also
It's like this DNB; Beverly's account is a story......a story to make a point, nay, several points.....her point being to give a perspective on The Woman other than the traditional. It is to highlight Jesus's attitude to this traditional view (he dismissed it) whether it be the cultural setting of the day or the current. She highlights the current in her observation about the content of our bible commentaries on this matter.....of the cultural attitudes of the day this is no mystery; the record on the silence of the disciples in context speaks volumes.
Another point is to shown how human, how close and how approachable Jesus is for all peoples which is particularly sweet for the marginalised and downtrodden.
Now while we are talking about stories, Jesus told plenty of them.....often drawn from life around him. He did this to help people relate to the point he was making. Whether the story was true (factual) or not was beside the point. For instance when he told the story of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus he was using a the story of a well known myth to make his point, he was not giving a dissertation on the state of the dead as some suppose. He even tells his audience what his point is at the end of the story and people understood this.
An illustration....."There were three men, an American, a Canadian and a Jew......." Straight away you know I'm about to tell story and you listen intently because you know the story has a punch line (a point) and you're waiting for it. The story is no more factual (true) than if during a heavy downpour I said, 'it's raining cats and dogs'.....you understand what I mean without question.
And so it was when Jesus told stories, some factual some not. The objective was the point.
I would like to say something about inspiration. The Spirit moved on the apostles to write. They wrote about what they saw and heard and experienced..... in their own words. God did not dictate to them word for word what was to be written.
God's Spirit works with people today through their own experience and through their intellect. He rarely bypasses the natural processes of understanding. If you have been privileged by being raised in an immediate Christian environment your understanding of biblical concepts, of ideas, of metaphors come a lot easier than if you were raised in a culture foreign to Christian values. It is very helpful for many folk to have points explained in words other than actual scripture. Isn't that what sermons are meant to be about?.....otherwise what's the point of hearing a sermon if you can get it by reading yourself?
Yes, it is also God given that Men of God explain things to us in words we can relate to.....just as Phillip did with the Ethiopian Eunuch.
To summarise, Beverly Beem tells her story to this end.....to draw us closer to each other and to Jesus.
That is sort-of ok? For again, we can write chapters on the circumstances of the woman with a bleeding issue, and as to why she was so discreet. Or about the centurion's servant or son, or about Jarius' daughter, etc...
I still think if no details are given, it is because they are irrelevant. I am so staunch about this, because this type of hermeneutic is so prevalent and destructive in exegesis. Bible students correlating passages that don't belong together, where there's no affinity outside of the same words used in both passages. This is like that, extrapolating images and scenarios that just don't viably exist, and then trying to build a theology around it.
The verses on their own are sufficient.
Replacement hips need oiling, wow, who would've thought - shocked that you weren't informed prior?
Outside of that, they sound amazing if you're feeling that good, at such an age.
Glad to hear, good luck!
Who knows what other exchanges took place....probably more than the mere words recorded in scripture. We could ask the question, who else was there to witness what was said anyway. My guess it was either The Woman from which the available information was gotten or Jesus filled the disciples in later. I don't think it dropped out of the cloud 'magically'.
We could.
The 'flavour' will soon tell a discerning reader/listener of whatever is expanded on, whether the emphasis is one of an alien barrow being pushed or in line with the gospel objective.
There is no fool proof method of regulating this; deception is unfortunately a reality we are all required to do battle with.....to our disadvantage if we are indifferent, lazy or proud.
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
Mar 5:25 And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,
Mar 5:26 And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,
Mar 5:33 But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.
Mar 5:34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.
Mar 5:22 And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw him, he fell at his feet,
Mar 5:23 And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.
Mar 5:41 And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.
Mar 5:42 And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment.
Mar 5:43 And he charged them straitly that no man should know it; and commanded that something should be given her to eat.
know what?
Mar 5:33 But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.
Mar 5:26 And had suffered many things of many physicians,
You know what happened... that's why it needed to be discreet.
Not only for the woman who's faith made it all better..
come and lay thy hands on her.. because mine didn't work.
Jairus = "whom God enlightens"
1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Co 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
1Co 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
Faith...
HUGS
Mar 5:26 And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,
Mar 5:33 But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.
Mar 5:34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.
Mar 5:22 And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw him, he fell at his feet,
Mar 5:23 And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.
Mar 5:41 And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.
Mar 5:42 And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment.
Mar 5:43 And he charged them straitly that no man should know it; and commanded that something should be given her to eat.
know what?
Mar 5:33 But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.
Mar 5:26 And had suffered many things of many physicians,
You know what happened... that's why it needed to be discreet.
Not only for the woman who's faith made it all better..
come and lay thy hands on her.. because mine didn't work.
Jairus = "whom God enlightens"
1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Co 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
1Co 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
Faith...
HUGS
But again, where do we draw the line, and you have a 99.999% of getting it wrong? You are absolutely, and unequivocally playing with fire.
Obviously, yes. On the same grounds that Beverley did it.
I'm sorry QT, you have not justified your adding to Scripture, which, as you know, is anethamized.
You cannot with any amount of certitude, verify whether Beverley is correct.
And again, you are absolutely, and unequivocally playing with fire.
Can I just say you are being extremely legalistic here. It was quite obvious, to me anyway, that the author was using her imagination in portraying what may have taken place with the woman when she went back to the village.
Now here is a question I always have had....who was recording this event? I mean was there a journalist there writing down what transpired? And was he following Jesus everywhere he went in order to capture everything Jesus did or said?
Did he follow the woman to the village to write everything she said?
How did all of what took place come to be recorded in scripture as it did?
Obviously there were many insignificant details left out.
I appreciate what the author presented...I have a different idea of what transpired back at the village but that doesn't change the lesson to be gained here. It just fills in the gaps...is my idea correct? We will never know.
But again H2S, we can do this with every narrative in the Bible - add details to where none were offered. Who, in the world, would have the audacity to do so, and on what grounds?
Again, if the details offered by the inspired writers were not enough for the reader to extrapolate the divine message that was intended to be conveyed, then what purpose will it achieve by simply adding more extraneous information? ...two follies, unwarrantedly and unauthorized adding to Scripture, and two, entirely missing the point of the passage.
Why play with fire, ....even the justification behind it is missing the point.
Similar threads
