Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
36 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,416 Year: 20,452/19,786 Month: 849/2,023 Week: 357/392 Day: 47/41 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the Meaning of John 3:16?
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13162
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 46 of 156 (191870)
03-16-2005 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by purpledawn
03-15-2005 5:41 PM


Re: John 3:15
PD writes:

it seems pretty clear that John 3:16 is NOT Jesus speaking but editorial comment.

Oh? And how clear can this be? The problem with literalists, as you probably see them, is that they ignorantly lift the Bible up to be as God. The problem that they may see with you, however, is that you have reduced all scripture to fall under the auspices of human wisdom. The entire point is this: Human wisdom is tainted by original sin, and humans can not even be righteous, much less right, without the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

Again, as I said to Jar, to allow such to occur reduces the theology of Christianity and the proper homage to the Holy Spirit to be reduced to humanist philosophy and do-good mentality that tells man that if he acts good, he will get to Heaven.

It is not a matter of trying. It is a matter of trusting. If we cannot trust the scriptures, we still need to place our intellects at the foot of the cross and allow the Spirit to raise us up rather than privately interpreting scripture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by purpledawn, posted 03-15-2005 5:41 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by purpledawn, posted 03-16-2005 7:56 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1771 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 47 of 156 (191878)
03-16-2005 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Thugpreacha
03-16-2005 4:52 AM


Re: John 3:15
PD writes:

it seems pretty clear that John 3:16 is NOT Jesus speaking but editorial comment.

Actually that was jar's statement I quoted, I merely agreed with him.

quote:
The problem that they may see with you, however, is that you have reduced all scripture to fall under the auspices of human wisdom.
Exactly, human wisdom and creativity, which is what also created the doctrines and traditions throughout history.

quote:
Human wisdom is tainted by original sin
Jesus did not teach this. This teaching was created by man.

quote:
humans can not even be righteous, much less right, without the guidence of the Holy Spirit.
Another teaching created by man and not taught by Jesus.

quote:
Again, as I said to Jar, to allow such to occur reduces the theology of Christianity
Theology is nothing more than the study of God and religious doctrines, which is exactly what we are doing. I just look for the reality of what the human authors were trying to teach to see if they truly support current manmade doctrines.

quote:
and the proper homage to the Holy Spirit
Are you assuming that the Holy Spirit does not guide us to understand the reality of the Bible or show us the possibility that an author is being misused?

quote:
that tells man that if he acts good, he will get to Heaven
How to get to Heaven is another manmade game.

Actually, IMO, understanding the reality of the Bible allows people to realize that courteous and benevolent behavior is good for society, the family, and the individual. Mankind continually strives to embrace this behavior.

quote:
It is not a matter of trying. It is a matter of trusting. If we cannot trust the scriptures
If I am are going to trust the scriptures, then I must trust the unknown author and what he wrote. If I am going to trust what he wrote, then I need to understand what the author truly wrote and the culture that inspired his writings unfettered by today's traditions and dogma.


"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-16-2005 4:52 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31616
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 48 of 156 (191881)
03-16-2005 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Thugpreacha
03-16-2005 4:43 AM


Re: John 3:15
Again, I remind you that critique of the Gospels leads to the reduction of Christianity to humanist philosophy vs absolute truth.

The old bit of Absolute Truth rears its head again. So far no one has been able to show any absolute truths but I'm always willing to consider one if you can produce it.

I say, rather, that there is a spiritual impartation that most of the educated Jews...and intellectuals of this day and age...missed.

Oh, I agree. We're going over a chapter right now where I believe that's the case. And as we preceed further through the chapter I believe we will find that John 3:16 does not mean what most folk believe anyway.

Scripture is not for private interpretation.

Come on Phat. What else did Jesus do during his short span of teaching except encourage folk to do their own interpretation? That was all he did, day after day, person after person, group after group. He challenged the people to think for themselves.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-16-2005 4:43 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by trent13, posted 03-16-2005 4:02 PM jar has responded
 Message 67 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-17-2005 2:29 AM jar has responded

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 2238 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 49 of 156 (191926)
03-16-2005 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
03-15-2005 5:26 PM


Editorial Comments?
jar writes:

Regardless of exactly where it occurs, it seems pretty clear that John 3:16 is NOT Jesus speaking but editorial comment.

Do you see any other way to interpret it?

As I posted up thread, I don't know if verses 16-21 are a direct communication between Jesus and Nicodemus or the author’s comments on Jesus’ words. I’m sure we will get to arguments that support your assertion, Jar, and I assume those assertions are more substantive than noting that the narrative has changed from first to third person.

So then where is the discussion? The way I see it we have discussed John 3:13-15 and concluded that it could be and most likely is, part of the dialog between Jesus and Nicodemus despite the switch from first to third person. Please feel free to dispute this if it is not settled.

Now on to 3:16 which I have already noted is a transition from the previous dialog between Jesus and Nicodemus. I call it a transition not because of the change from first to third person. That had already begun at verse 13.

No, I note a transition because I find the words of 16-21 to be majestic and sweeping in its summation of Christianity which is quite different than the preceding verses. Does that mean that a different author redacted the passage at a later date far removed from the original author? I don’t think so. I say it is the author, carried by the Spirit, which allows the passage to flow with such grace and eloquence.

On the other hand, I also see no reason why these words could not have come from Jesus himself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 03-15-2005 5:26 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 03-16-2005 1:06 PM Monk has responded

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 2238 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 50 of 156 (191929)
03-16-2005 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Thugpreacha
03-16-2005 4:43 AM


Private interpretation
Phatboy writes:

Scripture is not for private interpretation.

This I would disagree with. I know there are Christian denominations that discourage private biblical interpretations by the clergy. Roman Catholics are an example. Your church may hold this doctrine as well.

But there are many other Christian denominations who not only allow it but encourage it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-16-2005 4:43 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NosyNed, posted 03-16-2005 1:28 PM Monk has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31616
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 51 of 156 (191934)
03-16-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Monk
03-16-2005 12:32 PM


Re: Editorial Comments?
So then where is the discussion? The way I see it we have discussed John 3:13-15 and concluded that it could be and most likely is, part of the dialog between Jesus and Nicodemus despite the switch from first to third person. Please feel free to dispute this if it is not settled.

Somewhere in there, it changes IMHO from Jesus speaking to the redactor. I would think that John 14-16 are most definitely NOT Jesus speaking and that it's likely that the change is as early as John 3:13.

I base this on several things. One is the major change in narative style. Second, there is a major change in content and emphasis. Third, the section between John 3:13 and John 3:16 simply does not fit within the context of what came before. Fourth, as we proceed through the next few lines we find the redactor backpedaling to try to make stuff fit.

All of John is Reactionary as opposed to Revolutionary. Of all the Gospels, it is the only one that pushes for an exclusionary Christianity. And this verse is, IMHO, where Reaction begins. Here is where Christianity is changed from being inclusionary to exclusionary, even though, as we will see, they had to work hard to make it fit.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Monk, posted 03-16-2005 12:32 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Monk, posted 03-16-2005 2:43 PM jar has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8866
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 52 of 156 (191940)
03-16-2005 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Monk
03-16-2005 12:41 PM


Re: Private interpretation
I am aware of a few. I suspect that most of our literalists posters would not be allowed anything but the church's interpretation. I wonder what the stats would be? I suspect that they are unavailable and that if one wandered to far in many church's you might not be welcome.

In Canada the United church is about as open (is that wishy washy?) as you can get but there are whole congregations not allowing the interpretation to go to far "off course".

Globally, isn't it the Anglicans who are about to split up over same-sex marriage?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Monk, posted 03-16-2005 12:41 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Monk, posted 03-16-2005 4:54 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 2238 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 53 of 156 (191952)
03-16-2005 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by jar
03-16-2005 1:06 PM


Re: Editorial Comments?
jar writes:

I base this on several things. One is the major change in narrative style. Second, there is a major change in content and emphasis. Third, the section between John 3:13 and John 3:16 simply does not fit within the context of what came before. Fourth, as we proceed...

While I look forward to your fourth reason, I would like to comment on the first three. You use several phrases; “change in narrative style”, “change in content and emphasis”, “does not fit”, and you use them as 3 different reasons to support your thesis. But to me, they are all basically the same.

Verses 13-15 are different from the preceding verses, which I have noted. The chief difference being the switch from first to third person. I could also acknowledge some minor incongruity with the preceding passages. But I don’t see how that in itself is significant. I don’t see the connection to redaction.

If this were the only place in John where this occurs, perhaps we would be in agreement. But you could use all of these adjective phrases to compare John 1:1-18 to the balance of chapter 1 and the succeeding chapter 2. Would these verses be a redaction as well?

Maybe we shouldn’t get bogged down in this, rather, agree to disagree, and move on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 03-16-2005 1:06 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 03-16-2005 2:50 PM Monk has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31616
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 54 of 156 (191953)
03-16-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Monk
03-16-2005 2:43 PM


Just an aside on John
If this were the only place in John where this occurs, perhaps we would be in agreement. But you could use all of these adjective phrases to compare John 1:1-18 to the balance of chapter 1 and the succeeding chapter 2. Would these verses be a redaction as well?

Just to try to make my position clear, I absolutely see John (the whole Gospel) as a Reactionary book that was intended to "Correct" and "Redirect" was seen as major shortcomings in the other three Gospels.

John itself is IMHO a complete redaction of Christianity as a whole. I personally have a very low opinion of John as inspired Christian Scripture.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Monk, posted 03-16-2005 2:43 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Monk, posted 03-16-2005 3:38 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-17-2012 5:14 PM jar has responded
 Message 134 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-22-2017 1:13 AM jar has responded

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 2238 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 55 of 156 (191956)
03-16-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
03-16-2005 2:50 PM


Re: Just an aside on John
jar writes:

Just to try to make my position clear, I absolutely see John (the whole Gospel) as a Reactionary book that was intended to "Correct" and "Redirect" was seen as major shortcomings in the other three Gospels.

John itself is IMHO a complete redaction of Christianity as a whole. I personally have a very low opinion of John as inspired Christian Scripture.

Ah, now that makes sense to me. I'm not saying I agree, but I can certainly understand your position.

Many people have the same view. It is clear that most of the book of John stands in stark contrast to the other three Gospels.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 03-16-2005 2:50 PM jar has not yet responded

  
trent13
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 156 (191957)
03-16-2005 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by purpledawn
03-14-2005 7:59 PM


Re: Scapegoat
I never said that the bible called Our Lord a scapegoat for humanity, I simply said that He was a scapegoat for humanity - I prefer calling a spade, a spade - a scapegoat takes on another's punishment, which Our Lord did - and as regarding the other person who commented on my "incorrect" use of the word scapegoat simply because it wasn't in the Bible, Christ IS the sacrifice for sin, we don't sacrifice to Him; we take part in His voluntary sacrifice of Himself on our behalf - that's why He calles Himself the "Lamb of God," using the example of the most perfect lamb that was offered in the old testament as a sacrifice to God the Father to make up for the offences of man. Obviously, an infinite offence cannot be made up for by finite man, thus the necessity of a sacrifice that has infinite merit, Our Lord - the old testament laws simply prepared the Jewish race for the Messiah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by purpledawn, posted 03-14-2005 7:59 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by purpledawn, posted 03-16-2005 4:12 PM trent13 has responded

  
trent13
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 156 (191959)
03-16-2005 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
03-16-2005 8:23 AM


Re: John 3:15
"The old bit of Absolute Truth rears its head again. So far no one has been able to show any absolute truths but I'm always willing to consider one if you can produce it."

I suggest that you read St. Thomas Aquinas if you haven't already. His arguments are based on the first principles, which if you deny, you basically deny all of known reality (i.e. The Principle of Non-Contradiction: that which is cannot not be - this is an absolute truth, you can't subjectivize it and say that in some circumstance this is not known to be true, something either is, or it isn't - this is more or less the groundwork of Christianity).

"Come on Phat. What else did Jesus do during his short span of teaching except encourage folk to do their own interpretation? That was all he did, day after day, person after person, group after group. He challenged the people to think for themselves."

And yet Our Lord claimed that nobody knows the Father except through Him - that can't be left up to private interpretation, that's saying either you do it my way, the way I command you, or you go to hell. And again He states, "you are either for me, or you are against me...one cannot serve both God and Mammon." There is no room there for private interpretation. His questions to the Jews weren't intended to get them to think for themselves - it was their deadly serious theological game - if one couldn't answer a question put to them, or at least respond with another question, they lost the argument and all credibility, which happened to them time and time again - which is why all the Pharisees and Sadducees hated Our Lord. He was the one to answer the questions, He certainly did not promote subjectivism or private interpretation - that would be tantamount to ruining, from the onset, the Church He started considering that the first rule of subjectivism is that anyone can believe anything they want to. For any ogranization to be cohesive there has to be a unity - especially in the Church there has to be a unity of doctrine and prayer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 03-16-2005 8:23 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 03-16-2005 5:02 PM trent13 has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1771 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 58 of 156 (191960)
03-16-2005 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by trent13
03-16-2005 3:47 PM


Re: Scapegoat
quote:
I never said that the bible called Our Lord a scapegoat for humanity
I didn't say that you did. I'm asking how you get scapegoat and what it implies (taking on the sins of another) from the verse in John 3:16 or any of that conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus.

How does any of what you posted deal with John 3:16 or that specific conversation?


"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by trent13, posted 03-16-2005 3:47 PM trent13 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by trent13, posted 03-16-2005 4:38 PM purpledawn has responded

  
trent13
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 156 (191964)
03-16-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by purpledawn
03-16-2005 4:12 PM


Re: Scapegoat
Phatboy stated:
"To me, this basically means that God-understood as the monotheistic Creator of the Universe, loved all of humanity so much that He allowed His Son(Same Spirit, made flesh) to take on all of our faults, hangups, and shortcomings so that
whosoever believes in Him will not spiritually whither and die."

I agreed with him on this and shortened his phrase that God allowing His Son "to take on all of our faults, hangups, and shortcomings so that whosoever believes in Him will not spiritually whither and die," to "scapegoat."

In my post:
"This is an interesting thread to start, I like it. I know that there are many translations of the bible, the one most in line with the original translation is the Douay-Rheims version (which I don't have on hand right here)"

I stated this because phatboy posted several different translations - I didn't think of it as a crime to comment on types of translations.

"but, I agree with what you say, Christ acts as the scapegoat for man's sin, but only if we avail ourselves of His offering, by recognizing it and living our lives accordingly."

I said this because I agreed with phatboy on his conclusions as to what the message of the text is.

"God loves Himself most of all; since Our Lord is as the same time the Father, it is by Christ's image in us that the Father loves us despite our infinte offences to Him - thus St. Paul says that it is not me who speaks, but Christ in me."

This is my comment on how God expects man to use the sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son. What does "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" mean? How is that to take place? How is humanity saved through Our Lord? I don't understand what you think is not appropriate to the subject matter. Perhaps you are thinking that by taking into account other parts of Catholic doctrine, i.e. the "how" of the scriptural quote, I am not keeping to the thread? I suppose I didn't realize how regimented the threads were with regards to the subject matter. Mea culpa.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by purpledawn, posted 03-16-2005 4:12 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by purpledawn, posted 03-16-2005 4:54 PM trent13 has responded

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 2238 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 60 of 156 (191966)
03-16-2005 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by NosyNed
03-16-2005 1:28 PM


Re: Private interpretation
NosyNed writes:

I am aware of a few. I suspect that most of our literalists posters would not be allowed anything but the church's interpretation. I wonder what the stats would be? I suspect that they are unavailable and that if one wandered to far in many church's you might not be welcome.

"...posters would not be allowed..." might be a strong phrase. But that brings to mind an interesting topic. "What is your Church's doctrine on Bible interpretations. How strict is it?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by NosyNed, posted 03-16-2005 1:28 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019