What is the Meaning of John 3:16?

Now...you ask where is the condemnation?

No, I asked WHAT was the condemnation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

so, basically, does it say "...so that whoever believes in [god]..." or "...[jesus] shall have everlasting life" ?

No, because the John 3:18 says,

He that believeth of him is not condemned; but he believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only begotton son of God

Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.

Jar, you have been taking the condemnation out of context.

KJV: John 3:19-21

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 into the light, least his deeb should be reporved. 21 But he that doeth truth commeth to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they are wraught in God.

As you can see, it is blatently obvious that Jesus is saying that because man's deeds were evil, they chose not to come into the light, least they be saved.

So, they are not damned because of their deeds. They are damned because they chose not to come into the light. The reason why they chose not to come into the light or be saved is because of their wickedness.

He who does truth choses to come into the light, so they chose to be saved. Now, this does not mean a once wicked sinner won't accept Christ.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. Jesus Christ is the light, or salvation through him is the light. That is the context of this passage. It says that Light came into the world. Jesus Christ is the light that came into the world. Men loved darkness (absence of the light, absence of Jesus Christ) rather than light, BECAUSE their deeds were evil.

So nowehere is it saying that the deeds condemn them to hell. It is saying that they chose not to be saved because of their wicked deeds.

[quote]

All it is saying is that if you do not act, do not behave, as Jesus taught then your behavior is condemned. It's not about profession of faith, or being a Christian, it's about behavior. It ain't what you say, it's what you do.

---

Wrong.

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.

The light is Jesus Christ. Man loved darkness rather than light BECAUSE his deeds were evil. Therefore man chose not to be saved because of his wicked deeds. He is not damned to hell because of his deeds. He is damned to hell because he chose not to come into the light.

Guido, please read it again. You've even quoted it. The key is behavior.

The idea that GOD would care whether you believed in him or not, or that Jesus would is simply silly. It's as silly as the idea that Jesus death was the sacrifice for our sins.

It says that if you do evil you hate light.

It says that men prefered darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.

Like the rest of the New Testament, John 3 is talking about behavior.

It ain't about what you believe, it's about what you do.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The idea that GOD would care whether you believed in him or not, or that Jesus would is simply silly. It's as silly as the idea that Jesus death was the sacrifice for our sins.

This is directly contradicted by John 3:16-18.

Even the prophecised say that his death was a sacrifice for our sins.

"He was wounded for our transgressions, BY HIS STRIPES WE WERE HEALED."

It says that if you do evil you hate light.

Correct, if you doeth evil, you hate Jesus Christ which is the light.

It says that men prefered darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.

Correct, because man's deeds were evil they chose not to come into the light which was Jesus Christ. So because man's deeds were evil they chose not to be saved. So it is not the deeds that condemn them, it is their refusal to come into their light.

They are afraid to come into the light because they don't want their deeds exposed.

Like the rest of the New Testament, John 3 is talking about behavior.

No, the New Testiamant talks about behaving because we are saved not the other way around. And every fiber of John 3 talks about salvation through fath is Jesus Christ.

It ain't about what you believe, it's about what you do.

We are justfied through Christ before God's eyes, provided that we accept him of course.

Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.

Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.

Jesus was for against the ideas of punishment. He who has not sinned cast the first stone etc.

Let's take it closer to home and see how it looks.
You have children and must decide if violence is a good teaching tool.
I would suggest that the use of violence or punishment of any kind shows a failure on the part of the parent to use his or her own intelligence to deal with whatever situation is at hand.
The punishment is a measure of your own shame from failure.
God has all in place so that He will never need to punish.

Regards
DL

I would suggest that the use of violence or punishment of any kind shows a failure on the part of the parent to use his or her own intelligence to deal with whatever situation is at hand.

No, Prov 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently)."

The punishment is a measure of your own shame from failure.

No, The punishment is a measure of the Fathers love to the child, for what Father does not discipline his sons.

Prov 29:15: "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame."

Hebrews 12:6-7: "...the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son. Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?"

"for what Father does not discipline his sons."
There is a big difference between discipline, chastisement and corporeal punishment.

I raised 4 boys.
The eldest was spanked twice.

I was shamed twice. I blamed it on my youth but the blame belongs to my ignorance.

Regards
DL

Charley writes: No, Prov 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently)."

I contend that you are not understanding the meaning of the word "rod" in this quote. I suggest that it takes on the same meaning as in the 23rd Psalm. "Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me", thy being the good shepherd. The rod is a stick used by a shepherd to guide the sheep in the way he wants them to go, not something that he beats them with.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

"for what Father does not discipline his sons." There is a big difference between discipline, chastisement and corporeal punishment.

The bible disagree's: Physical discipline trumps Mental Discipline. Its not about corporeal punishment, chastisement but that physical discipline effects mental discipline.

If you get a chance watch the Super Nanny show the time out corner is a physical discipline affects mental discipline. Its considered child abuse by mans knowledge to physically disciple ones child. I'm not a big fan of mental discipline and all parents have without spanking the child is the time out corner.

Mental discipline can end up being, if you be good I'll reward you and well that is whats wrong with mental discipline. Its rewarding the child for being good instead of being good for goodness sake. When you spank the child he learns to be good for goodness sake instead of some mental reward system, etc...

The worlds a hard taskmasker will the retrobates turn back to God and will the Father recieve them back? The prodical son parable.

Prov 23:14: "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel)."

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

I can only reiterate that corporeal punishment means that the parent has failed to rear up child with the proper mind set.
I child is born as a blank piece of paper on witch the parent tries to write all the proper phrases. When we fail we spank. Who then learns the lesson and what is the lesson.

This may be part of the law that Jesus wanted to change. It would be in character.

Parents who spank are copping out on their own responsibilities to grow with their child.

To return to the topic. How do we know that God has only one begotten sun. If He can make one why not more. The universe is large.

Regards
DL

When we fail we spank. Who then learns the lesson and what is the lesson.

The child learns that they are in charge not the parent. The child learns not to be good for goodness sake but to con the parent for the tip. The child learns the prosperity gospel of greed and not the gospel of the servants heart. The daughter learns not to please her husband because she learned more how to prostitute herself for the tip, etc...

To return to the topic. How do we know that God has only one begotten sun. If He can make one why not more.

kjv Isaiah 43:14 Thus saith the LORD, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships.

kjv Isaiah 43:15 I am the LORD, your Holy One the creator of Israel, your King.

kjv Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and ye may know and bellieve me, and understand that I am he; before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

kjv Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Not sure where you went with this but if the child gains control then what good is the parent.
The parents failure again.

Regards
DL

I thought I'd switched but to backpedal and clarify the role playing of the family from a biblical perspective. The man is the head of the house but the wife is to be the agressor. It starts with the wife that she submits to the husband, so the children too submit to his headship. Its not about the father being the childrens buddies but to nurture them in the ways of the LORD.

---------------------------------------

Who's supposed to start it? The wives! In Ephesians 6:1 we find,
Eph 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. and then in verse 4, Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
What does that mean? God gives the command first to the follower. He says, "I want the wife to do her job first". That means He wants the child to obey the first. That means He wants the child to obey even if the dad is never the right kind of dad. To obey regardless! Now lets look at another example from the Word of God,
Eph 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
and then in verse 9 the masters are exhorted to be good masters. God always puts on the follower the burden of having the initiative and the being aggressive. Wives, you do it first. Children, you do it first. Servants you do it first.

http://www.momof9splace.com/purpose.html