Revelation of John

[Bad Grass]

I adhere to the words of this book. I will never add one word to it or take one word from it.
Having said that, can anyone on this planet state factually, without err, the events of this book?
Why do I ask this?
Let me throw an example out there:

Revelation 12:14
And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle…

Okay, let’s stop right there.
I’m just asking a question, not making a statement. Could this in fact be a woman who is flown away by an airplane?
If I were alive 2000 years ago and saw an airplane, I would liken it to a great eagle also. Because airplane is not in the vocabulary.
As I objectively try to understand this book, I find descriptions of missiles, army tanks, battleships and helicopters.

Do you ever try to find the modern day equivalent to this vision?

[Paulclem]

I adhere to the words of this book. I will never add one word to it or take one word from it.
Having said that, can anyone on this planet state factually, without err, the events of this book?
Why do I ask this?
Let me throw an example out there:

Revelation 12:14
And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle…

Okay, let’s stop right there.
I’m just asking a question, not making a statement. Could this in fact be a woman who is flown away by an airplane?
If I were alive 2000 years ago and saw an airplane, I would liken it to a great eagle also. Because airplane is not in the vocabulary.
As I objectively try to understand this book, I find descriptions of missiles, army tanks, battleships and helicopters.

Do you ever try to find the modern day equivalent to this vision?

I would be wary of putting such an interpretation upon it. That might just say more about the paranoia of the reader rather than the intent of the writer.

[Bad Grass]

Easy Paul. I love the good book. No paranoia required.

[YesNo]

I adhere to the words of this book. I will never add one word to it or take one word from it.

It sounds like you are taking heed of the warning in Revelations 22:18-19:


For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I see the book as a continuation of a Zoroastrian tradition where there was a belief in a universal bodily resurrection and a last judgement. A lake of fire would cover the evil doers, annihilating them. The saved would go to the house of song. At least the damned didn't have an eternal hell unless my memory of Mary Boyce's description of Zarathustra's original vision of what Revelation retells is faulty.

[Bad Grass]

Why is this place so dark on tone?
Am I in the wrong place?

[BienvenuJDC]

Why is this place so dark on tone?
Am I in the wrong place?

That depends on what you are looking for.

[Bad Grass]

No offense, Bienvenu, but I was looking for an answer. My original post asked the question.

[Darcy88]

"We can understand that the Fathers of the Church in the East wanted Apocalypse left out of the New Testament. But like Judas among the disciples, it was inevitable that it should be included. The Apocalypse is the feet of clay to the grand Christian image. And down crashes the image, on the weakness of these very feet. There is Jesus--but there is also John the Divine. There is Christian love--and there is Christian envy. The former would "save" the world--the latter will never be satisfied till it has destroyed the world. They are two sides of the same medal."

"It is very nice if you are poor and not humble ... to bring your enemies down to utter destruction, while you yourself rise up to grandeur. And nowhere does this happen so splendiferously than in Revelation."

- D.H. Lawrence

[BienvenuJDC]

Do you want an answer to the question, or do you want to hear a bunch of opinions?

[Darcy88]

If John meant an airplane he would have described an airplane. You are reaching to say that eagle's wings mean airplane. There are many ways to describe an airplane beyond "eagle's wings." No, I don't think he meant that at all.

[BienvenuJDC]

If John meant an airplane he would have described an airplane. You are reaching to say that eagle's wings mean airplane. There are many ways to describe an airplane beyond "eagle's wings." No, I don't think he meant that at all.

I agree, inasmuch as I don't think that Elijah was picked up by a space ship.

[Bad Grass]

@ Darcy88:Then, what is the modern day equivalent to this vision?
I'm just a simple Christian. I just want to understand the Revelation.

[BienvenuJDC]

Then, what is the modern day equivalent to this vision?
I'm just a simple Christian. I just want to understand the Revelation.

Most of the items in Revelation (and Ezekiel for that matter) represent concepts, not objects. For instance, a lion's head might represent (HEAD = authority, and Lion = King) being a top authority. A mountain often represents authority as well because Capitals (forts and castles), the place where authoritative bodies or individuals resided due to security of the high position and ability to overlook a region. In Isaiah, it is mentioned that the Mountain of the Lord's House is upon the mountains, which means that the Lord's House is a greater authority than all other authorities.

So you may want to be sure that you're asking the right question. If you want to understand Revelation, first start with seeking the right questions. Why would the meaning to the symbolism be different in modern times than it meant when it was written?

[Darcy88]

@ Darcy88:Then, what is the modern day equivalent to this vision?
I'm just a simple Christian. I just want to understand the Revelation.

Bien answers this question here:


Why would the meaning to the symbolism be different in modern times than it meant when it was written?

There is no reason to think the meaning of the text ought to change with time. John meant his revelation to reflect his vision and that vision contained eagle's wings, not any rudimentary description of what could reasonably be called an airplane. He was supposed to be seeing the future, actually seeing it, and that future he saw should correspond with his prophecy and not accommodate technological advances.

I won't get into it now, but I think the book of revelation is a text which should be ignored.

[Bad Grass]

Darcy88, I agree. It's not significant to being a Christian.
But I find the future fascinating.

[Darcy88]

Darcy88, I agree. It's not significant to being a Christian.
But I find the future fascinating.

I like hearing about the future from raving psychotic madmen too, only instead of being canonized these days they usually just stand on the sidewalk holding a messily scrawled half-coherent cardboard sign.

[Paulclem]

Easy Paul. I love the good book. No paranoia required.

It wasn't intended to be offensive, but haven't I heard different description of the Beast, for example, according to the time - wasn't it Hitler or Stalin who was called it? Anyway, what I meant was that it would be easy to interpret an image in modern terms, but is that the initial intention?

[gregwa]

I'm not sure that I would take the eagle's wings as an attempt to paint a picture of some literal event, such as an airplane. One of the things that makes Revelation a "hard" book is that it mixes metaphor with attempts at literal description, and the reader must attempt to discern which is which.

My suspicion is that the "eagle's wings" motif is used as metaphor, as others have suggested above. It is found frequently in Psalms, for example.

On the other hand, there are things that have traditionally been viewed as metaphor which I suspect are attempts at literal word pictures. For example, there is a bizarre description of locusts in Rev. 9 which seems to be an attempt to describe something literal, regardless how strange such a creature would be.

The difference in this example might lie in the fact that John sustains the "metaphor" of literal locusts, describing their sting and how long they would plague the earth, etc. It might be simply a metaphor of some future event, but the context seems to suggest that he is trying to describe the indescribable -- something literal.

These are just my own thoughts, nothing dogmatic. And of course, I have no idea what such a creature would be -- although modern trends in genetic engineering might one day produce such a disaster, who can say?

I hope this helps. I appreciate your original question, and think it's a very legitimate thing to ask regarding this book. My basic answer is, "We won't fully understand these things until they happen."

[gregwa]

I like hearing about the future from raving psychotic madmen too, only instead of being canonized these days they usually just stand on the sidewalk holding a messily scrawled half-coherent cardboard sign.

Darcy, I would ask that you remember that the Bible is a sacred book to Christians. Would you say that Mohammed was a raving psychotic madman if we were discussing the Qur'an? Such comments are unnecessarily provocative.

[Darcy88]

Darcy, I would ask that you remember that the Bible is a sacred book to Christians. Would you say that Mohammed was a raving psychotic madman if we were discussing the Qur'an? Such comments are unnecessarily provocative.

No, I wouldn`t say that about Mohammed. Nor would I say it about Jesus. But I would say it about John of Patmos because that is what he was. He wasn`t even a Christian in spirit. Have you read the book of revelations? What I said was the honest impression I got when I did.

[Bonsai Ent]

I'd be hesitant about trying to interpret it without a comprehensive knowledge of the original language, the time it was written, the likely meanings of certain symbols to the culture that Paul was a part of. I'd keep in mind that early Christians believed the second coming was imminent and Paul probably never imagined that people would be trying to apply his "vision" to the 21stC.

I've read that things like the number of the beast may be a coded reference to Nero.

Paul's writings were generally fairly lucid, so I'm not sure we can say revelations is just the gibberings of a mad-prophet. It was written in a time of persecution against Christians, and could easily have been intended as deeply coded symbolism that would have been apparent to readers at the time.

[Darcy88]

I'd be hesitant about trying to interpret it without a comprehensive knowledge of the original language, the time it was written, the likely meanings of certain symbols to the culture that Paul was a part of. I'd keep in mind that early Christians believed the second coming was imminent and Paul probably never imagined that people would be trying to apply his "vision" to the 21stC.

I've read that things like the number of the beast may be a coded reference to Nero.

Paul's writings were generally fairly lucid, so I'm not sure we can say revelations is just the gibberings of a mad-prophet. It was written in a time of persecution against Christians, and could easily have been intended as deeply coded symbolism that would have been apparent to readers at the time.

Paul? Revelations was written by John of Patmos. Its a work suffused through and through with not love but resentment. With sweet delectation John forsaw those he despised cast into a lake of burning fire. The four gospels shine like four brilliant suns in the sky of history. Its a shame they had to be clouded over by this dark filthy final addition.

[BienvenuJDC]

Paul? Revelations was written by John of Patmos. Its a work suffused through and through with not love but resentment. With sweet delectation John forsaw those he despised cast into a lake of burning fire. The four gospels shine like four brilliant suns in the sky of history. Its a shame they had to be clouded over by this dark filthy final addition.

I don't think that it had anything to do with his own personal feelings.

[Darcy88]

I don't think that it had anything to do with his own personal feelings.

Believing the word of Jesus and even that of Paul is one thing. Believing in this John of Patmos who wrote well over a hundred years after Christ and only made it into the bible at the behest of a council of men meeting some 400 years after Jesus' ministry, well that's entirely another.

[BienvenuJDC]

Believing the word of Jesus and even that of Paul is one thing. Believing in this John of Patmos who wrote well over a hundred years after Christ and only made it into the bible at the behest of a council of men meeting some 400 years after Jesus' ministry, well that's entirely another.

I believe that this is one of the sons of Zebedee, Christ's apostle, who wrote these things according to a vision that was given to him through Christ Himself. If you believe otherwise, that is okay, but there are different perspectives on his writings. If this came from Christ Himself, then what is offensive about it? Is it offensive that there is a consideration of punishment in store for those who have not been reunited with God through the redemption of Christ's blood?

[Darcy88]

I believe that this is one of the sons of Zebedee, Christ's apostle, who wrote these things according to a vision that was given to him through Christ Himself. If you believe otherwise, that is okay, but there are different perspectives on his writings. If this came from Christ Himself, then what is offensive about it? Is it offensive that there is a consideration of punishment in store for those who have not been reunited with God through the redemption of Christ's blood?

Yes, it is offensive. I have not read revelations in a long time but I remember that Christ comes back and puts all the unconverted Jews to the sword. Anyone with a developed sense of compassion and understanding knows that its not anyone's fault if they don't believe in a particular religion.Some people are born Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or whatever and taught from the cradle that their religion is the true religion. And that's how you know John was making stuff up. Christ was full of love. He's not going to come commit genocide upon entire peoples for failing to believe in him. It would be an act of supreme ignorance and supreme hate. Jesus was not ignorant and hateful. John of Patmos by all signs was.

[BienvenuJDC]

Yes, it is offensive. I have not read revelations in a long time but I remember that Christ comes back and puts all the unconverted Jews to the sword. Anyone with a developed sense of compassion and understanding knows that its not anyone's fault if they don't believe in a particular religion.Some people are born Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or whatever and taught from the cradle that their religion is the true religion. And that's how you know John was making stuff up. Christ was full of love. He's not going to come commit genocide upon entire peoples for failing to believe in him. It would be an act of supreme ignorance and supreme hate. Jesus was not ignorant and hateful. John of Patmos by all signs was.

Consider this perspective though...
It's not committing genocide because it's not a physical killing. It's a spiritual illustration.

1) Everyone who is created is in connection with God. That means they are in union and connection with their spiritual life force.
2) However, God has a certain moral character that not even He can change. Once someone has come to an understanding of right and wrong (but they choose the wrong anyway in spite of what they understand) this is sin. God can no longer stay in union with that deviation from His character.
3) Those who have sinned are no longer connected to their spiritual life force, therefore they will die.
4) Christ came to die for those sins. To make atonement (to reconcile) those sins, and He also came to guide one to continue to be in union with God's character.
5) For anyone who has rejected Christ and His redemption, they remain unconnected to the spiritual life force. Therefore the remain dead.

The images in Revelation is to paint a picture of what it will be like for those who have rejected the redemption of Christ. It's not that God or Christ will actively do anything to commit genocide, but if people refuse the redemption of Christ, they will be condemned to remain dead without God's life force.

Does that make sense?

[Darcy88]

Consider this perspective though...
It's not committing genocide because it's not a physical killing. It's a spiritual illustration.

1) Everyone who is created is in connection with God. That means they are in union and connection with their spiritual life force.
2) However, God has a certain moral character that not even He can change. Once someone has come to an understanding of right and wrong (but they choose the wrong anyway in spite of what they understand) this is sin. God can no longer stay in union with that deviation from His character.
3) Those who have sinned are no longer connected to their spiritual life force, therefore they will die.
4) Christ came to die for those sins. To make atonement (to reconcile) those sins, and He also came to guide one to continue to be in union with God's character.
5) For anyone who has rejected Christ and His redemption, they remain unconnected to the spiritual life force. Therefore the remain dead.

The images in Revelation is to paint a picture of what it will be like for those who have rejected the redemption of Christ. It's not that God or Christ will actively do anything to commit genocide, but if people refuse the redemption of Christ, they will be condemned to remain dead without God's life force.

Does that make sense?

I understand the argument, but it doesn't hold for me because a person is not a Jew or Muslim or Hindu by virtue of any moral failing but rather as a result of the circumstances into which they were born. The same sense of truth you draw from Christianity they draw from their respective religions. I understand why you argue as you do though, for if Christian and Jew and Muslim are all judged on the merits of their actions rather than the orthodoxy of their beliefs, then what benefit is there in being a Christian?

[gregwa]

I understand the argument, but it doesn't hold for me because a person is not a Jew or Muslim or Hindu by virtue of any moral failing but rather as a result of the circumstances into which they were born. The same sense of truth you draw from Christianity they draw from their respective religions. I understand why you argue as you do though, for if Christian and Jew and Muslim are all judged on the merits of their actions rather than the orthodoxy of their beliefs, then what benefit is there in being a Christian?

That's a ludicrous argument. Does a person who is born with no knowledge of gravity have the ability to float in the air?

There is such a thing as absolute truth which has no bearing on whether or not a person believes in it. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and NO MAN comes to the Father except by me." If that statement is true, then one's belief systems have no effect upon it. If it is not true, then Jesus was a liar.

No other option available.

[Darcy88]

That's a ludicrous argument. Does a person who is born with no knowledge of gravity have the ability to float in the air?

There is such a thing as absolute truth which has no bearing on whether or not a person believes in it. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and NO MAN comes to the Father except by me." If that statement is true, then one's belief systems have no effect upon it. If it is not true, then Jesus was a liar.

No other option available.

Then your God is unjust and lacks compassion, simple as that. You're telling me that Jews and Muslims and Hindus and other worshippers are somehow less moral than Christians? A person born into a Christian family or culture themselves become Christian by virtue of ACCIDENT, fate, circumstance, ect. They are not morally superior. Which means that God rewards not goodness but luck, and getting into heaven is like winning a cruise ticket in a super-market draw. That to me is ludicrous.

[Bonsai Ent]

Then your God is unjust and lacks compassion, simple as that. You're telling me that Jews and Muslims and Hindus and other worshippers are somehow less moral than Christians? A person born into a Christian family or culture themselves become Christian by virtue of ACCIDENT, fate, circumstance, ect. They are not morally superior. Which means that God rewards not goodness but luck, and getting into heaven is like winning a cruise ticket in a super-market draw. That to me is ludicrous.

My understanding is that the god of the bible doesn't reward some moral qualify objective to him, but *obedience*.

I don't have a horse in this race but your view seems to require the simultaneous reality and unreality of Christianity, since you're appealing to a moral standard external to it.

[Whifflingpin]

gregwa: "That's a ludicrous argument. Does a person who is born with no knowledge of gravity have the ability to float in the air?

There is such a thing as absolute truth which has no bearing on whether or not a person believes in it. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and NO MAN comes to the Father except by me." If that statement is true, then one's belief systems have no effect upon it. If it is not true, then Jesus was a liar.
No other option available."

Darcy88: "Then your God is unjust and lacks compassion, simple as that."

I have no axe to grind in this discussion but I think the gist of gregwa's argument is that Jesus' redemptive power operates, like gravity, irrespective of the belief of the the person it operates on. Paul says somewhere, "As in Adam all men died, so in Christ are all men made alive." All men (not just the deliberately evil) died in Adam: all men (not only good believers) are made alive by Christ. Some might not think that to be just, but it is compassionate.

[gregwa]

Then your God is unjust and lacks compassion, simple as that. You're telling me that Jews and Muslims and Hindus and other worshippers are somehow less moral than Christians? A person born into a Christian family or culture themselves become Christian by virtue of ACCIDENT, fate, circumstance, ect. They are not morally superior. Which means that God rewards not goodness but luck, and getting into heaven is like winning a cruise ticket in a super-market draw. That to me is ludicrous.

You don't seem to read very well. I stated quite clearly that God's eternal truth has NOTHING to do with a person's birth, belief system, skin color, weight, bank account, or favorite movie.

Truth is not affected in any way by anything you say or do or think. Truth exists outside of you, and remains truth whether or not you even know it exists.

Please note also that I have said nothing whatsoever about moral superiority or any of the other angry words that you keep trying to put into my mouth.

[cacian]

=Bad Grass;1110536]I adhere to the words of this book. I will never add one word to it or take one word from it.
Having said that, can anyone on this planet state factually, without err, the events of this book?
Why do I ask this?
Let me throw an example out there:

Revelation 12:14
And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle…

Okay, let’s stop right there.
I’m just asking a question, not making a statement. Could this in fact be a woman who is flown away by an airplane?
If I were alive 2000 years ago and saw an airplane, I would liken it to a great eagle also. Because airplane is not in the vocabulary.
As I objectively try to understand this book, I find descriptions of missiles, army tanks, battleships and helicopters.


Do you ever try to find the modern day equivalent to this vision?

Hey Grass it has never crossed mymind but I have to say this
what a brilliant idea you have given there.
It does make sense what you have just said and I actually much prefer your version of a woman being flown in an aeroplane.
It sounds better and logical and yes there is nothing to say they were not areoplane being flown around.
There were many egyptians artifact found of hand made little aeroplanes or others toys of significance of modern time.

And to answer your question this came to mind:
Jesus walking on water could have been snowing that day and were frozen lakes and yeah could have Jesus or anyone else for that matter walking on ice which was then interpreted as walking on water.
Turning water into wine must have been white wine.
Wine at the time of Jesus must have been white only. White wine resembling water was agian interpreted as turned into wine.
This is a possibility not be snared at.
:biggrin5:
Thank you for a great thread Grass:smile5:

[Darcy88]

You don't seem to read very well. I stated quite clearly that God's eternal truth has NOTHING to do with a person's birth, belief system, skin color, weight, bank account, or favorite movie.

Truth is not affected in any way by anything you say or do or think. Truth exists outside of you, and remains truth whether or not you even know it exists.

Please note also that I have said nothing whatsoever about moral superiority or any of the other angry words that you keep trying to put into my mouth.

I read this response three times to make sure I understood it despite my woefully inferior reading abilities. We agree. We both see that Christian redemption operates not according to goodness but to luck. Its not whether you are a good person or not, its whether you believe the right thing or not. God opens a door in Christ that is closed to many. Billions are born in non-Christian cultures and given no compelling reason to convert. To me that is unjust.


I stated quite clearly that God's eternal truth has NOTHING to do with a person's birth, belief system, skin color, weight, bank account, or favorite movie.

How can you say that when you argue that redemption is only to be had in accepting Christ? If you think belief has no bearing then what does?

[gregwa]

How can you say that when you argue that redemption is only to be had in accepting Christ? If you think belief has no bearing then what does?

I'm discussing Truth, not redemption. Jesus said, "I am the truth." You might not believe that, but your disbelief has no effect on whether or not it's true. A person might adamantly deny that gravity exists, but he's still subject to its laws -- the truth of gravity is unaffected by his disbelief.

[gregwa]

Jesus walking on water could have been snowing that day and were frozen lakes and yeah could have Jesus or anyone else for that matter walking on ice which was then interpreted as walking on water.

Would have been mighty tough for the disciples to be rowing a boat on a frozen lake. Oh wait... maybe it was an ice boat. In Palestine. Where lakes don't freeze.

And I think even Jesus' disciples were able to distinguish water from wine.

[Darcy88]

I'm discussing Truth, not redemption. Jesus said, "I am the truth." You might not believe that, but your disbelief has no effect on whether or not it's true. A person might adamantly deny that gravity exists, but he's still subject to its laws -- the truth of gravity is unaffected by his disbelief.

Well before you butted in I was discussing redemption with Bien. Way to dodge the point. Oh I'm sorry. Was that too angry?

[Bad Grass]

I have read everyone’s posts. Thank you.

But why would man convey God’s message with symbolism or metaphor?

I think it’s literally a man trying to describe his vision.

Again, he couldn’t have used words like army tanks or helicopters.

Can it just be, he was describing what he saw without our terminology?
Can it?

[MarkBastable]

I have read everyone’s posts. Thank you.

But why would man convey God’s message with symbolism or metaphor?

I think it’s literally a man trying to describe his vision.

Again, he couldn’t have used words like army tanks or helicopters.

Can it just be, he was describing what he saw without our terminology?
Can it?

No.

Next.

[Bad Grass]

Cacian, thanks for your support on my behalf.

But not everything is literal.

If Jesus walked on water, then he walked on water.

But a star from the sky, burning up a third of the earth sounds like nuclear weapons.
It’s a vision from 2000 years ago.

What is a light which glows in the night?

I’m trying to understand the prophecy.

[Bad Grass]

Why not Mark? You were very blunt.

[Darcy88]

http://troll.me/images/ancient-aliens-guy/i-dont-care-what-you-say-my-logic-is-flawless-thumb.jpg

Its a leap, pure speculation. No serious scholar would endorse it.

[MarkBastable]

Why not Mark? You were very blunt.

Because there's no evidence at all to support it. Just because you've thought of something it doesn't immediately become a possibility that requires serious consideration.

Though read Von Daniken. You'd like him.

[cacian]

Would have been mighty tough for the disciples to be rowing a boat on a frozen lake. Oh wait... maybe it was an ice boat. In Palestine. Where lakes don't freeze.

And I think even Jesus' disciples were able to distinguish water from wine.

LOL..are you saying lakes in Palestine don't freeze??!!

About wine
you can't tell just by looking at it.If there was white wine in a jug on a table you would not know wether it is wine or lemonade.
try is as an experiment;)

[cacian]

Cacian, thanks for your support on my behalf.

But not everything is literal.

If Jesus walked on water, then he walked on water.

But a star from the sky, burning up a third of the earth sounds like nuclear weapons.
It’s a vision from 2000 years ago.

What is a light which glows in the night?

I’m trying to understand the prophecy.


If Jesus walked on water, then he walked on water.
I don't agree.
No one can walk on water just as there is no woman with wings of an eagle.

What is a light which glows in the night?
northern lights?!

[ShadowsCool]

One must understand, to perceive the supernatural, you must not rely on your senses. Senses only work in the natural world. To understand God, you must be God. This is why Jesus can state with authority that he is "one with God". For it would be impossible otherwise. Explained another way: God, if you believe he exist, must know everything. Therefore, nothing Jesus does is without God. This is why he states, "I am one with the father". Again, these are only words to a non believer, (who can only see what he see's) but is trusted through faith by a believer. For only through faith can one open up to believe the unbelievable.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't agree.
No one can walk on water just as there is no woman with wings of an eagle.

northern lights?!

That was a miracle performed by Jesus Christ who was God. If He had the power to create all things, then He has the power to walk on water. That is why they call it a miracle.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I must admit I haven't read the walking on water part of the bible. Was there a reason JC walked on water, or was he just showing off like he did with the water and wine?

[BienvenuJDC]

I must admit I haven't read the walking on water part of the bible. Was there a reason JC walked on water, or was he just showing off like he did with the water and wine?

The others in the group headed out on the boat before Him, so I guess He was just catching up. Oh...and to further establish that He in fact was Someone special, and not just any other man.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I knew he was showing off.

[Darcy88]

I knew he was showing off.

I would too. I'd be as childish as Jim Carrey was in that movie he did where he was God. Breast augmentation for one's girlfriend at the flip of a switch. Nice.

[BienvenuJDC]

I knew he was showing off.

Establishing a truth is not quite the same thing as showing off. Since He came to earth for a mission which required Him to show that He was in fact God on earth, then He needed to reveal His deity. There were many places that He could have "showed off", but He didn't. One of those places was on the cross.