Apparently someone read about my fictional JesuSeat and decided to start producing prototypes. I'm wondering if I should sue them for copyright infringement.
I can only guess that the beloved disciple, John by tradition, was the inspiration behind this thing. In case you don't remember your Bible:
John 13:23 - There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.
As weird as that is to begin with, who'd have thought they'd carry it out in such a creepy way. Who would buy a chair in the likeness of the mythical European Jesus? Anthropomorphic chair collectors? Torture device aficionados?
What if the chair became possessed and decided to like grab you and hold you down while it walked off with you or something? I mean, it could do it! That chair has feet! Real feet like with toes and everything!
If you find it offensive to think that a chair that looks like Jesus could be possessed, then you have no right to be reading this blog.
Goodnight.
3 comments:
You wrote "the beloved disciple, John by tradition" but of course the reason that tradition has to be cited he is because the Bible itself can't be cited because it actually refutes this unbiblical tradition. While some find the facts troublesome because they want to cling to their unbiblical traditions, a love of the truth would no doubt welcome the correction that the word of God has to offer. If you are in the later category, you need to heed the Biblical admonition to "prove all things" because you clearly have not done so here.
The truth is there is not a single verse in scripture that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved" and yet most simply assume that this man-made tradition cannot be wrong and then interpret scripture to fit this idea. But if one will heed Ps. 118:8 then the NON-BIBLE sources on which this man-made error is based will give way to the facts in scripture which prove that WHOEVER this anonymous author was he most certainly was not John.
We're told, "[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man". Given this explicit statement (along with similar statements in scripture on this matter) it is clear that one should be leery of those who encourage people trust in NON-Bible sources and put their confidence in unbiblical man-made traditions. To show respect for the word of God we need to heed the Biblical admonition to "prove all things" - and not simply be repeating the ideas of men but rather looking to scripture and searching the scriptures to see if what we have read or have been told can stand up to Biblical scrutiny. The John idea cannot.
Since you will discover that you cannot cite a single verse of scripture that would justify promoting the idea that John was this unnamed “other disciple”, you may be led to take another look at what the Bible has to say on this matter. If so instead of looking to the writings of men try a Bible-only based strategy; examine the facts stated in scripture and compare what the Bible says about "the disciple whom Jesus loved" with what it says about John. The Bible evidence proves that whoever the one who "Jesus loved" was he could not have been John -- because the Bible cannot contradict itself as the John idea requires.
The Bible says what it says. So no matter how many men one can find parroting the ideas of men found in NON-Bible sources the fact is the Biblical evidence proves that John was not the "other disciple whom Jesus loved" (the anonymous author of the fourth gospel). The John idea comes from NON-Bible sources and the hand-me-down ideas of men but scripture says otherwise.
That's kind of why I included the phrase "by tradition" instead of simply saying John.
That said, you just spent five paragraphs ranting about the set-up rather than the punchline. I think you've missed the point, my friend.
Ah, a fellow Christian with a sense of humour!! :)
I presume you know http://www.ship-of-fools.com/ ? They have some great gadgets for Jesus.
Robert
mulledmadness.blogspot.com
mulledvine.blogspot.com
Post a Comment