John the Obfuscator?

[Athetotheist]

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. (Malachi 4:5)

And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come. (Matthew 11:14)

He will also go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah...(Luke 1:17)

And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?"
He said, "I am not." (John 1:21)

When John the Baptizer's questioners ask him if he is Elijah, he must know that they are referring to Elijah the prophet whose coming is prophesied in Malachi. If that's who he is, why does he tell them it isn't? If Luke's "spirit and power" explanation is the answer, why doesn't John himself explain it that way for clarification? By stating flat-out that he isn't Elijah, he merely places himself among everyone else who isn't Elijah. And since his questioners know from their scripture that Elijah is supposed to come before the Messiah, when John tells them that he isn't Elijah he's telling them, in effect, that the one coming after him (Jesus) won't be the Messiah.

John claims to be a voice crying, "Make straight the way of the Lord!", but how does he "make straight the way of the Lord" by being Elijah and bluntly denying it when he's asked? Why would Elijah play such an ambiguous game?

[JehovahsWitness]

...Jesus was either mistaken or speaking metaphorically.

And which if the above do you believe was the case? And why?

[Elijah John]

...Jesus was either mistaken or speaking metaphorically.

And which if the above do you believe was the case? And why?

It could be either. Mathew 16.28 is strong evidence that Jesus (or Matthew) could be wrong. And Jesus frequently uses symbolic language in his preaching, such as hyperbole. Or should we take his admonition to hate our parents and hate ourselves, literally?

[JehovahsWitness]

...Jesus was either mistaken or speaking metaphorically.

And which if the above do you believe was the case? And why?

It could be either. Mathew 16.28 is strong evidence that Jesus (or Matthew) could be wrong. And Jesus frequently uses symbolic language in his preaching, such as hyperbole. Or should we take his admonition to hate our parents and hate ourselves, literally?

...Jesus was either mistaken or speaking metaphorically.

So would it be fair to say that you personaly haven't been able to come to a conclusion as to what to believe on the question one way or the other?

[Elijah John]

...Jesus was either mistaken or speaking metaphorically.

And which if the above do you believe was the case? And why?

It could be either. Mathew 16.28 is strong evidence that Jesus (or Matthew) could be wrong. And Jesus frequently uses symbolic language in his preaching, such as hyperbole. Or should we take his admonition to hate our parents and hate ourselves, literally?

...Jesus was either mistaken or speaking metaphorically.

So would it be fair to say that you personaly haven't been able to come to a conclusion as to what to believe on the question one way or the other?

That is correct. But I do not believe for one minute that John the Baptist was Elijah, reincarnated or otherwise.

You tell me..."in the spirit of Elijah" is that a poetic statement? Or a literal one.

[JehovahsWitness]

So would it be fair to say that you personaly haven't been able to come to a conclusion as to what to believe on the question one way or the other?

That is correct. But I do not believe for one minute that John the Baptist was Elijah, reincarnated or otherwise.

So if you can see that Jesus may have been speaking metaphorically (not literally) , arent there three choices ...

Jesus was speaking literally and he was right
Jesus was speaking literally and he was wrong
Jesus was not speaking literally and he was right

It is curious to me that you believe John wasnt literally Elijah, reincarnated or otherwise but still cannot come to a conclusion as to which of the above to believe regarding Jesus.



JW

[Athetotheist]

So would it be fair to say that you personaly haven't been able to come to a conclusion as to what to believe on the question one way or the other?

That is correct. But I do not believe for one minute that John the Baptist was Elijah, reincarnated or otherwise.

So if you can see that Jesus may have been speaking metaphorically (not literally) , arent there three choices ...

Jesus was speaking literally and he was right
Jesus was speaking literally and he was wrong
Jesus was not speaking literally and he was right

It is curious to me that you believe John wasnt literally Elijah, reincarnated or otherwise but still cannot come to a conclusion as to which of the above to believe regarding Jesus.



JW

If Jesus was not speaking literally, there's another possibility: the author of Malachi was writing literally and Jesus was wrong.

Is there any indication that the author of Malachi wasn't writing literally?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 26 by Athetotheist]

Hmmm ... okay

#4 .Jesus was not speaking literally and he was wrong

Anyway aren't you the poster that insisted there could only be two options?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to post 26 by Athetotheist]

Hmmm ... okay

#4 .Jesus was not speaking literally and he was wrong

Anyway aren't you the poster that insisted there could only be two options?

If the two options are that the author of Malachi was writing either literally or metaphorically, is there any indication that he wasn't writing literally?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 28 by Athetotheist]

Oh so are we now accepting the posssibility of a non literal meaning?

Malachi says that Elijah the prophet is to come.

John says that he is not Elijah the prophet.

Therefore,

John says that he is not the one who is to come.

Since a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same respect, how can that dichotomy be false?

I ask because I saw no mention of this possibility in your post , but you just suggested a fourth

You tell me, how many possible options would that make if we introduce both Jesus and John?

JW

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to post 28 by Athetotheist]

Oh so are we now accepting the posssibility of a non literal meaning?

I'm asking if anything substantiates the suggestion of a nonliteral meaning.