|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9123 total) |
| |
GenomeOfEden | |
Total: 909,519 Year: 6,400/14,231 Month: 315/1,294 Week: 1/97 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the Meaning of John 3:16? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The author of that passage has the Jesus character say those things.
That tells us nothing about whether the author was inspired or who or what might have inspired the author. "Inspiration is 99% perspiration" is an old, old saying. But inspiration is irrelevant to the topic. The issue is "What does John 3 say when viewed in context?" People tend to stop reading it seems when it gets to the part about beliefs, but if they should continue reading they would see that the condemnation is not hell, but rather behavior, doing.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jesus says to Nick, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." So we have a source of birth. A spiritual birth. Note that Jesus doesnt just say spirit as in "we've got spirit yes we do, we've got spirit how bout you?" It's okay to only read what you want to read, but don't expect to ever have a clue in hell what the text is saying if you do. If we read on, we see exactly what it means to be 'born of water and of the Spirit' (emphasis added):
quote: Does this mean that in order to get inspiration I need to work at it? What does the text say?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 847 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
Jon writes: .. What the hell for? ... actually makes sense to you ? - Friend, what's it that afflicts you ? There are clues and evidences that belief is of the dragon, the father of the lies--beliefs and specialist on camouflages. For all animals know by instinct that believing is the purpose of every camouflage. When dogs know that their gate is closed they try to make others believe that it isn't. That's why a ferocious dog would run until he either breaks the chain or his neck just to make the other dogs believe that there's no chain nor fence holding him. For a chained dog has the instinct that the only defense plan left is the believing plan, that is to act as if there was no chain nor gate. -
Laconic field — Having a fides quae creditur — a belief that is credited by the man and potentates from down — a believed merit to salvation for becoming creditor of spiritual credit — not willing to see that after a great debt was pardoned the accounts became cleared up to have no debt nor credit any longer - Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3407 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
CD7 writes:
And this is why I use GoogleTranslate and not BabelFish. There are clues and evidences that belief is of the dragon, the father of the lies--beliefs and specialist on camouflages. For all animals know by instict that believing is the purpose of every camouflage. ...snip... And if you do not give ears to the writings of Mosheh about the fact that man was made not to experiment death, how will you stay alive to hear My words?BabelFish may have been first, but GoogleTranslate seriously kicks it's butt. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 847 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
Jon, What if the explanation for the question in the OPis in the Reversed Writings, quote: - Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : No reason given. Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 17610 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Jon writes: What does the text say? *looks*.... it says quote: Perhaps good works allow us to be drawn towards the light.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3514 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
If Christ is synonymous with the ideal we call Truth, then the passage is simple and actually, correct whether one accepts this as the writers intend meaning. Assuming for those billions of people who want to believe that every verse is rational and valid, then, this is the ONLY meaning possible for since it is undeniable that Truth has unfolded in the wake of the ever changing next frame of Reality, and that Truth is the savior for mankind which can use it in order to Adapt to the Environment of Reality as it unfolds and hence avoid Extinction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3514 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.'
Test me on transposing the word Truth for the Christ in every passage and you will see that Word is the one message from Jesus that sums the NT and is the "key" to every passage: Those who believe in "him," (The Truth), are not condemned (ultimately to an extinct species); but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in (The Truth), the name of the only Son of God, (the Force behind the ever unfolding next frame of Reality). And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, (The Truth), and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil, (as was exemplified by the Truth found personified in Rev Martin Luther King, 2000 years later, when White southern Americans insisted that separate was Equal). For all who do evil hate the light (of The Truth), and do not come to the light (of The Truth), so that their deeds may not be exposed.
But those who do what is true come to the light (of The Truth), so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God, (the future unfolding which responds to their actions).'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 847 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined:
|
quote: That's what Versio Vulgata is saying. However, those gates of hell are demoniac because belief has nothing to do with knowledge of the truth. What if the explanation is in the following reversed writings,
quote: Reversed Writings Paraphrased,
quote: Final Conclusion, The word ‘trust’ shouldn't be used for the Most High because there is no possibility that the Most High is lying or will betray us. We often say, I trust you, to someone and mean that we acknowledge there is a possibility that the person is lying or will betray us but we believe they won't. There is no possibility that the Eternal will lie or cheat, so ‘trust’ has no place in it. There is no difference in that, if one says ‘do you believe in the Word’ or ‘Is the Word to be believed and credited as true?’, because in both cases the credibility is being questioned since the word ‘believe’ is proper to use for the things that may or may not be truth. - Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : updateBrief Summarized Signature Real life vs too pessimistic archeological-surrealism As certain as my pet kangoroo rat has always an ace in the sleeve, [ whether 'Die Hard', the kangoroo rat, bluffs or not ], it's only with a timeline that equates to 4,750 years without multiplying, per every 5,000 years interval, that it would be possible for Humanity to have taken 49,000 years to reach 1 million people. If the number of children would always be the same from the beginning to the end of every 4,750 years interval within the rows of 5,000 years from 55,000 years ago then there's still the option of stop thinking by the head of an archeo-surrealist, which equates to stop drifting on numbers as if man is a beast and as if everything that happened in life was a disgrace. — That kind of chronological basis surpasses far beyond Hardy Har Har, a depressed, gloomy pessimistic hyena, always saying, 'Oh dear, oh my, I just know it's all going to go wrong'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 847 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
The text says that those who do not see the light are still lost. However, Versio Vulgata states its judgemental speech which is proper for believers and those that have chosen to be in darkness.
Because the presence of the light totally dispenses with the need of believe. To the Law of the Testimony — if they do not speak according to that word then the glittering white light [ as lightning through the clouds of heavens] shall be not for them. To the law and the testimony — Speaking like a witness — Yes, yes or No, no — ‘Yes I heard’ or ‘No I didn’t’ rather than ‘I believe that I heard — I believe that I saw' — to take the word as something unclear is taking the word as something that requires a strong belief being worked up by who ever has a need to give credit so that he might say that he is saved in exchange for his belief — a word that is not seen nor read would be depending on being credited by spirits of men so that it could shine and be light — like a word in the gloom that is not able to shine in darkness. To trust or believe is giving credit in or to something which may or may not be truth. One shouldn't be using for the Most High a word that is proper to use for the things that may or may not be truth. Often when we say we trust someone, it often means that we always know there's a possibility that we'll be cheated or lied to but we trust this person not to do so anyway.
quote: Having a fides quae creditur — a belief that is credited by the man and potentates from down — whoever believes and garantees that one is having merit to salvation for becoming creditor of spiritual credit — not seeing that the accounts can be cleared up to have no debts nor credits any longer. The type of assureness one gets from believing is a salt without the intensity of what the real salt is, and sooner or later will be casted out. — Certainty [ from the word ] is like salt, if it is not already complete in it, [ or; if it still requires belief ] of what use is it? It is no good for the land nor for the place of waste; no one has a use for it. All things that do not pertain to the to the books of the Prophets as originally written such as the word ‘baptism’ originated from the Roman terms Vattsimus ( battesimu; augury ) and Vaticynius ( consecration made by a vates through augury or prediction ); and images of doctrines of faiths and things that belong to the mixed translation and terminology that was left in the bible for the exclusive use of the State of Vatican and the Roman ordinations.
quote: -
Brief Summarized Signature — This Laconic unusual inscription might change the ritualistical monotonous way that the signatures have been summarized in these days. As the official master of non—ceremonious solemnity I’d like to thank you, beforehand, for your possible acceptance of the highly recommended anti-religion procedures of not taking as true what so ever it is believed that the truth is supposed to be, — since the term ‘take as (alike; as if it was)’ means that a comparison is made to a truth that is not known by believing —, as well as renouncing the fides quae creditur ( faiths that are credited by spirits of men, believers and potentates from down ). Also I would like to thank for your patience and perseverance on reading and I hope these explanations will not sound too ceremonious to you. Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
English, of course, is the preferred language of this forum, and the language you will have to use if you expect a response from me.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 847 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
You know that every language is constantly mutating. - Express more using less words, that is the laconic (summarized) editing system. Even the 'ye holy buybull' translation you use is in constant mutation. Eg:
quote: Another sample of mutation and mistranslation that was initiated for the Version Vulgata (latin) translation,
quote: - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 847 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
(as it was brought up to Jon), Versio Vulgata says, Except a man be born of water [ flesh ] and of the Spirit [ Light ], he cannot enter into the kingdom - Reversed Writings clears up, How can anyone be born again when he is old? Will he reincarnate going into his mother's womb a second time? ? That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That is why it’s necessary for one to be born of the light. A person becomes born again when living beyond the time expected for one to live; when retaining the word of immortality hidden from the book of Mosheh: For ???? formed man to be [ physically ] imperishable. - Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 17610 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I have tried before to get this topic back on track and will try yet again...one more time. You were starting to explain a lot of things about John 3 and I will summerize it here:
jar writes: OK, I followed the discussion up to this point. Back then, I was offended that you were questioning the gospel of John, but I now see that it was a logical conversation and wish to continue where we left off.
Here all we're trying to do is figure out what John 3 (and some other day we'll try get to the possible relevance of John itself). We're starting with John 3:16 since I believe it is so totally and consistently misunderstood, misused and misapplied. I gave one hint in Message 7 that may help explain what I believe is one of the biggest problems.(...)First, John 3:16 always gets quoted out of context. I hope to work towards looking at the line in context but first it might be worthwhile to try to decide exactly what the line itself says.John sent Bill to buy beer for everyone that liked him. John sent Bill to buy beer for everyone that liked John. John sent Bill to buy beer for everyone that liked Bill. ...remember this is only the first step, bringing up the question. I don't believe it can be resolved until we move on to look at John 3:16 within context. And I also believe that must be done in an orderly, step my step method or we will end up running in circles. For those reasons, I'm not looking to resolve the question right now, only to establish that there are at least two ways the single line can be interpreted when seen isolated, out of context. Unless we can get that established I see little hope of progress. John 3 is pretty short and we'll be returning again and again to it so here it is in its entirety.
1: There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4: Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6: That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7: Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8: The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9: Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10: Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12: If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? 13: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. 14: And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17: For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19: And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20: For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21: But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. 22: After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. 23: And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. 24: For John was not yet cast into prison. 25: Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. 26: And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. 27: John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. 28: Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. 29: He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. 30: He must increase, but I must decrease. 31: He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. 32: And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. 33: He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. 34: For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. 35: The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. 36: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. I would like to ask all of you to look closely at John 3:15-18in relation to what comes before. Are there any difference in construction between those four lines and what leads up to them? It seems to me that John 3:1-14 is a pretty straightforward recitation of Jesus teachings. He's speaking to Nicodemus, one of the Pharisees. Nic had some questions and as Jesus often did, he answers Nic's questions with a series of examples. In the conversation, Jesus is clearly talking about man's relationship with GOD. The passage ends logically at the end of line 14. Then the whole construction changes, the speaker changes, and we move from a discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus to an outside commentator.jar writes: So, if John 3:15 is a continuation of line 14 and Jesus is speaking in the first person, does the word "him" in John 3:15 refer to Jesus or someone else? If it is still in first person, why wouldn't Jesus say "... believe in me ..." instead of "... believe in him ...? If we are suddenly switching modes, then is John 3:15 actually a continuation, or is it, as I believe I can show, a later inserted redaction?(...) It could well be that verse 12 is the last example of Jesus speaking. But it seems to me that somewhere in there we move from Jesus speaking to the redactor. 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? And you then went on to say the following:
jar writes: 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.(...)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. I have a question or two. What does it mean when you say that John is/was Reactionary as opposed to Revolutionary? Who were the redactors and what "side" were they on? Finally, does this have any similar motive that Saul of Tarsus had when he decided to switch sides? I'm still confused as to why there was an alleged battle over the meaning of the message of Jesusand why there were at least two competing religions involved?(Judaism and Pauls new marketing as well as the redactors motives) Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: What does it mean when you say that John is/was Reactionary as opposed to Revolutionary? The two concepts, reactionary and revolutionary are almost exact opposites. The latter is a new idea and change while the former stands in opposition to the revolution. John was written a long long time after Jesus died. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are identified as a similar set in that they all contain the same basic information and the same basic point of view. The Gospel of John though stands in direct contrast in style and content to the other three accepted Gospels. Remember, the four Gospels were not the only existing gospels at the time, there were more both known and inferred that were common at the time.
Phat writes: Who were the redactors and what "side" were they on? We have as little idea of who the redactors were as we do of who the authors were. We can conclude there were redactors though based on the evidence. The example of John 3:16 explained above is one example, the fact that the two flood myths are included just mushed together is another and the "Long ending" of the Gospel of Mark perhaps the best example. The redactors were later people who added something to the Bible stories and there are many, many, many examples going all the way back to the Books of Moses where there are descriptions of what happened after Moses died. What side they were on just makes no sense. There were many, many sides just as there were many, many redactors. For example consider the two flood myths. They actual stories differ in details as well as in grammar and tone. They use different terms to reference God. Since it's likely the flood myths were developed concurrently with the two City/States of Judah and Israel and those two differed in their versions of Judaism it's very likely that the differences reflect the dogma of Judah and of Israel and that for political reasons each sides story got included during the redaction.
Phat writes: Finally, does this have any similar motive that Saul of Tarsus had when he decided to switch sides? Huh? Motive? If you mean are the author and redactor of the Gospel of John trying to create something to show how they think the "Jesus followers movement" (remember they are all still Jews and not a separate religion) should be formed, organized and chartered then "Yes" the motives were the same.
Phat writes: I'm still confused as to why there was an alleged battle over the meaning of the message of Jesusand why there were at least two competing religions involved?(Judaism and Pauls new marketing as well as the redactors motives) Then good. Confusion is probably the correct position. We don't know why the things that happened happened but the common causes are most likely the real causes; power and control. That continues right down to today with different chapters of Club Christian trying to define the meaning of the message of Jesus. Have you ever noticed posters here claiming that someone is "Not a real Christian"?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023