[Rade]

With attention this time of year to American football player Tim Tebow, I would like to discuss his use of John 3:16 from New Testament. A few ground rules for this thread. First we assume the Bible verse is a correct interpretation of what God was trying to say about life and death for humans. Next we use the following Kings James translation of John 3:16:

"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".

There are so many topics to discuss, let's start with these:

1. Did God really give his Son away, I mean, is not his Son now sitting near his right hand ? Was it not only a short time until his Son would have died from old age anyway since God allowed his Son to undergo natural aging process ? The average life span of men 2000+ years ago in that area of the world was not much more than 40 years, his Son was close to that age. So, would not the lesson God is trying to teach in John 3:16 be much stronger if God had perhaps given his Son away to Lucifer after he died on the cross, to be the servant of Lucifer for all time ? Would not this type of giving away what God loves, his Son, be a much more powerful lesson to convince all humans to believe in his Son, knowing that the Son died in such a way that he forever remains a servant of Lucifer, suffering for humans each and every day for all time ?

2. Clearly God loves the world, but does God love the world the same as God loves his only begotten Son, or more, or less ?

3. Concerning everlasting life as an opportunity first offered to humans in John 3:16, did not humans first have this opportunity in the Garden at Eden, when both Adam and Eve were presented the option to eat fruit from the Tree of Life (which was also placed in the midst of the Garden, same location as the Tree of Knowledge). If by a chance event either Adam or Eve had eaten from the Tree of Life they would had been given everlasting life by God. So, how lucky for God this chance event did not happen. Consider the mess if Eve had first eaten fruit from the Tree of Live and been given everlasting life on earth by God, then the next day to eat fruit from Tree of Knowledge, an act of sin. Thus, is not an important message from John 3:16 that even the actions and wishes of God are constrained by chance events...that is, it would not have been necessary for God to give his Son to die if only Adam or Eve had by pure chance eaten fruit from the Tree of Live prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Poor humans, damned for all time by statistical probability.

[pamela]

Rade, on 10 January 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

With attention this time of year to American football player Tim Tebow, I would like to discuss his use of John 3:16 from New Testament. A few ground rules for this thread. First we assume the Bible verse is a correct interpretation of what God was trying to say about life and death for humans. Next we use the following Kings James translation of John 3:16:

"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".

There are so many topics to discuss, let's start with these:

1. Did God really give his Son away, I mean, is not his Son now sitting near his right hand ?

the giving refers to use of sacrifice- he gave his son for sacrifice if that makes more sense

Quote

Was it not only a short time until his Son would have died from old age anyway since God allowed his Son to undergo natural aging process ? The average life span of men 2000+ years ago in that area of the world was not much more than 40 years, his Son was close to that age. So, would not the lesson God is trying to teach in John 3:16 be much stronger if God had perhaps given his Son away to Lucifer after he died on the cross, to be the servant of Lucifer for all time ?
Would not this type of giving away what God loves, his Son, be a much more powerful lesson to convince all humans to believe in his Son, knowing that the Son died in such a way that he forever remains a servant of Lucifer, suffering for humans each and every day for all time ?

that would remove all hope for an everlasting life. Why would any one trust God if they knew they had the potential to suffer for an eternity?

Quote

2. Clearly God loves the world, but does God love the world the same as God loves his only begotten Son, or more, or less ?

You cannot give something away unless you have it. Jesus is a part of God- God must love himself in order to impart love to others. How can we measure love?

Quote

3. Concerning everlasting life as an opportunity first offered to humans in John 3:16, did not humans first have this opportunity in the Garden at Eden, when both Adam and Eve were presented the option to eat fruit from the Tree of Life (which was also placed in the midst of the Garden, same location as the Tree of Knowledge). If by a chance event either Adam or Eve had eaten from the Tree of Life they would had been given everlasting life by God. So, how lucky for God this chance event did not happen. Consider the mess if Eve had first eaten fruit from the Tree of Live and been given everlasting life on earth by God, then the next day to eat fruit from Tree of Knowledge, an act of sin. Thus, is not an important message from John 3:16 that even the actions and wishes of God are constrained by chance events...that is, it would not have been necessary for God to give his Son to die if only Adam or Eve had by pure chance eaten fruit from the Tree of Live prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Poor humans, damned for all time by statistical probability.

God would have known prior to the choice- He simply allows the freedom there of
Interesting take on all of this Rade- can't wait to see your response

[Rade]

pamela, on 10 January 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

the giving refers to use of sacrifice- he gave his son for sacrifice if that makes more sense

Hello. Throughout human history parents give away their sons for sacrifice to fight wars, but, unlike God, they never know if they will return home safely. God always knew his Son would return to him, he knew his Son would die as he did. A true sacrifice requires a giving of something (a Son in this example) for something of greater value (humans to have every lasting life). However, if we allow that that God loves his Son as a part of self, then the giving up of his Son cannot result in an end game (humans with every lasting life)that has greater value for God than his Son (a part of God). Thus, the giving that God decided to use is no true sacrifice, the end was not of higher value to God than the means.

Quote

That would remove all hope for an everlasting life. Why would any one trust God if they knew they had the potential to suffer for an eternity?

Under the option presented, it would only be the Son that would suffer for an eternity with Luficer, not humans. Are you saying God does not have the option to send his Son to Lucifer as a sign of a true sacrifice, a sign that God places higher value on his love for humans than his love for his Son ?

Quote

You cannot give something away unless you have it. Jesus is a part of God- God must love himself in order to impart love to others.

OK, I can accept the possibility that God is pure selfishness and loves self first, with love for his Son (as a part) and humans (as a creation) secondary. If true, God likely enjoys reading Ayn Rand before bedtime, love of self and all that follows.

Quote

How can we measure love?

Following the selfishness example of God, by the extent that we love oneself.

Quote

God would have known prior to the choice- He simply allows the freedom there of

But, there was no "choice" by either Adam or Eve to eat or not eat from the Tree of Life in the garden, God never told either of them about this tree. That neither of them ate from the Tree of Life was a chance event, God allowed for the possibility, it never occurred, and humans have suffered ever since. Consider that the results of this chance event in the Garden resulted in God killing 99.99% of all humans during the flood, then forced him to send his Son, then write John 3:16 in a book. None of this would have been necessary if Eve had first, by chance, eaten fruit from the Tree of Life. The actions of both God and humans are constrained by chance events.

[dduckwessel]

Rade, on 10 January 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

1. Did God really give his Son away, I mean, is not his Son now sitting near his right hand ?

It was more like "God giving away himself" as Jesus was "God in the flesh". The sacrifice had to be perfect the idea being that only God is perfect, so only he could be the sacrifice.

The 'right' hand is always associated with 'spiritual knowledge (God's law)' (Deut. 33:2):
"...from his right hand went a fiery law for them"

"A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left." (Eccl. 10:2, the idea of the heart as being 'wise' because it has 'wisdom (God's fiery law)'.

Therefore, the right (hand, side, cheek, eye) is symbolic of 'God and his knowledge' (the law of confirming), while the left with Satan and fools.

Quote

Was it not only a short time until his Son would have died from old age anyway since God allowed his Son to undergo natural aging process ? The average life span of men 2000+ years ago in that area of the world was not much more than 40 years, his Son was close to that age. So, would not the lesson God is trying to teach in John 3:16 be much stronger if God had perhaps given his Son away to Lucifer after he died on the cross, to be the servant of Lucifer for all time ?

God's sacrifice was to 'free' people from Lucifer's (Satan's) deceit.

Quote

Would not this type of giving away what God loves, his Son, be a much more powerful lesson to convince all humans to believe in his Son, knowing that the Son died in such a way that he forever remains a servant of Lucifer, suffering for humans each and every day for all time ?

The suffering occured 'once' and 'for all'. Jesus' death was a one-time deal and apparently fulfilled the heavenly requirements:
"And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it." (Col. 2:15)

Quote

2. Clearly God loves the world, but does God love the world the same as God loves his only begotten Son, or more, or less ?

God loves justice but hates injustice, so wherever you find justice, you find God.

Quote

3. Concerning everlasting life as an opportunity first offered to humans in John 3:16, did not humans first have this opportunity in the Garden at Eden, when both Adam and Eve were presented the option to eat fruit from the Tree of Life (which was also placed in the midst of the Garden, same location as the Tree of Knowledge).

The tree of 'knowledge of good and evil (wisdom)' and tree of life (wisdom/olive tree) are 'the same tree'. There is only one tree in the midst (focal point) of the garden. It appears as two trees because its on either side (idea of 1 being split into 2) of the river:
"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." (Rev. 22:2)

Quote

If by a chance event either Adam or Eve had eaten from the Tree of Life they would had been given everlasting life by God. So, how lucky for God this chance event did not happen.

had they eaten from the tree of life in their present mortal state it would have been disastrous for them and their progeny and God wanted to prevent that.

Quote

Consider the mess if Eve had first eaten fruit from the Tree of Live and been given everlasting life on earth by God, then the next day to eat fruit from Tree of Knowledge, an act of sin.

To be 'clothed' in Paradise is to 'have linen (Enoch was so clothed in Ezekiel 9:11 and 10:2). In the OT the priests were clothed with 'linen': the idea is symbolic as linen represents righteousness (God's fiery law/wisdom):
"And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." (REv. 19:8)

Adam and Eve were 'naked' in Paradise (Gen. 2:25), which means they did not have linen (righteousness/wisdom). Lucifer could only tempt Eve with 'wisdom' (Gen. 3:6) because she did not have it:
“Happy is the man that finds wisdom, and the man that gets understanding…She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is everyone that retains her.” (Proverbs 3:13-17)

Quote

Thus, is not an important message from John 3:16 that even the actions and wishes of God are constrained by chance events...that is, it would not have been necessary for God to give his Son to die if only Adam or Eve had by pure chance eaten fruit from the Tree of Live prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Poor humans, damned for all time by statistical probability.

The message of John 3:16 is that God loved the world enough to sacrifice himself and those that believe rightly can be clothed with linen and so enter God's realm.

[sigurdV]

Hi All!

I feel You should take the chance to point out an Obvious and Relevant Scientific Fact:

EITHER JESUS IS AN ADOPTED SON OR GOD HAS A Y-CHROMOSOME!

A final refutation of John 3:16 isnt it?

[dduckwessel]

sigurdV, on 11 January 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

Hi All!

I feel You should take the chance to point out an Obvious and Relevant Scientific Fact:

EITHER JESUS IS AN ADOPTED SON OR GOD HAS A Y-CHROMOSOME!

A final refutation of John 3:16 isnt it?

A really good point. However, there are some species of frogs that can change their sex; chromosomes are not the determining factor but environment propels biological evolution:
http://www.newton.de...99/bio99128.htm

[sigurdV]

So God and Jesus might be frogs?!

Nah! Jesus was human so since God is his father then GOD HAS AN Y-CHROMOSOME. I see no legal or scientific way around it... The world should immediately be told of this wonderful religious and scientific discovery!

[Qfwfq]

sigurdV, on 12 January 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

Jesus was human...

Nah! He just temporarily took on a carcass.

[SaxonViolence]

Why wouldn't God have a "Y" Chromosome? He's Male.....

Incoherent raving of Feminists and Gaens notwithstanding.

However--Assume that a very Powerful--but not necessarily Omnipotent God; and a very Knowledgeable God--though not necessarily Omniscient God wanted to impregnate a Virgin.

How many atoms in the Male half of a fertilized XY Egg?

Don't know. Beaucoup.

God reaches down with Exactly Beaucoup little "Fingers". He Grabs the exact number of Atoms he needs, and in the blink of an eye, he's wound them into Chromosomes and knitted them together with the Female Haploid Nucleous--and Viola'!

Fact is, God could make the whole Nucleus if he wanted to, and clone his son.

Saxon Violence

[sigurdV]

I dont think Christians will accept a created Jesus, its equivalent to adoption.
They claim that Jesus is the son of God and must accept the consequences.

[SaxonViolence]

Well, that would be the body--the vessel, as it were--to hold the essence of Jesus while he walked around on Earth.

Obviously, his human body wasn't hanging with God in the Beginning.....

But Jesus Was.

I see no real significance to whether God managed to Scare up a Sperm cell from somewhere, that was capable of Carrying his essence.....

Or whether he Poulted the Atoms together.....

Or whether he Simply commanded the Ovum to grow.....


"I don't need no stinking Chromosomes....."

Saxon Violence

[sigurdV]

Well I agree that it doesnt matter what the bible says, theres nothing but fraud in it.

[Rade]

dduckwessel, on 11 January 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

God's sacrifice was to 'free' people from Lucifer's (Satan's) deceit.

But, there was no deceit by Lucifer, Lucifer told Eve the truth, that she would not die if she touched the fruit. The deceit in the story was conducted by whoever told Eve she would die if she touched the fruit [Genesis 3:2,3 ...And the women said unto the serpent...GOD HATH SAID...NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH IT, least ye die). Now, there are only two possibilities, Adam or God, that told Eve this false commandment. Given that God is perfect, the deceit was by Adam (or more likely plain stupidity by Adam in that he forgot what God had told him about the fruit, being so busy thinking of names for all the animals and all). Not the last time a human female has been subject to deceit by a human male. Of course Eve ate the fruit after she saw she did not die after she touched it. And, of course Adam ate the fruit after he saw that Eve did not die after she ate it.

Quote

The suffering occurred 'once' and 'for all'. Jesus' death was a one-time deal

Yes, exactly my point, and the reason why there was no true sacrifice. For there to be a true sacrifice the suffering of Jesus would need to be for all eternity, not a one-time deal, for all of three days. God had the option to send Jesus to Lucifer so that he could suffer for all eternity so that humans would know that God loves them and come to accept Jesus as their savior, but God refused because he loves his Son more than he loves humans. The approach God took 2000+ years ago to convince humans that he loves them was a near complete failure. We only need look to the history of human evil actions against other humans for the past 2000+ years, mans inhumanity to man. The vast majority of humans do not believe that there was any true sacrifice by God, his Son remains by his side. But, thank God, it is easy for God to correct the situation. God can send a message to earth that Jesus has been sent to suffer with Lucifer for all eternity as a sign of Gods love for ALL humans on the earth, and that all humans that believe this message to be true will have every lasting life in heaven. There is a possibility that this will be the message God will send at the end time event that will occur December 21, 2012...we can only hope and pray it is true so that ALL humans on earth will be born again by next birthday of Jesus.

Quote

The tree of 'knowledge of good and evil (wisdom)' and tree of life (wisdom/olive tree) are 'the same tree'. There is only one tree in the midst (focal point) of the garden.

Completely a false statement from the mouth of God directly, thus we read....Genesis 3:23...."And the Lord God said, behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...lest he...take ALSO FROM THE TREE OF LIFE, and eat, and live for ever...3:25...so he drove out the man"

Quote

The message of John 3:16 is that God loved the world enough to sacrifice himself and those that believe rightly can be clothed with linen and so enter God's realm.

False. John 3:16 clearly states that God sacrificed his SON, not himself. You have accepted a false interpretation, you cannot change the text of John 3:16, written by God who guided the hand holding a pen of a man named John, to meet your false personal philosophy.

[pamela]

sigurdV, on 11 January 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

Hi All!

I feel You should take the chance to point out an Obvious and Relevant Scientific Fact:

EITHER JESUS IS AN ADOPTED SON OR GOD HAS A Y-CHROMOSOME!

A final refutation of John 3:16 isnt it?

This thread isn't about proselytising nor is it about fact-a simple discussion on quotes from a religious text and it's possible interpretations.

[pamela]

hey rade, sorry so late in responding

Rade, on 10 January 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

Hello. Throughout human history parents give away their sons for sacrifice to fight wars, but, unlike God, they never know if they will return home safely. God always knew his Son would return to him, he knew his Son would die as he did. A true sacrifice requires a giving of something (a Son in this example) for something of greater value (humans to have every lasting life). However, if we allow that that God loves his Son as a part of self, then the giving up of his Son cannot result in an end game (humans with every lasting life)that has greater value for God than his Son (a part of God). Thus, the giving that God decided to use is no true sacrifice, the end was not of higher value to God than the means.

Under the option presented, it would only be the Son that would suffer for an eternity with Luficer, not humans. Are you saying God does not have the option to send his Son to Lucifer as a sign of a true sacrifice, a sign that God places higher value on his love for humans than his love for his Son ?

Jesus and God are one-Jesus sacrificed himself bearing sin upon him in the form of being beaten and crucified- essentially God gave of Himself.

Quote

OK, I can accept the possibility that God is pure selfishness and loves self first, with love for his Son (as a part) and humans (as a creation) secondary. If true, God likely enjoys reading Ayn Rand before bedtime, love of self and all that follows.

Love of one's self doesn't equate with selfishness
To love is to care for and to be selfish would be vanity

Quote

Following the selfishness example of God, by the extent that we love oneself.

But, there was no "choice" by either Adam or Eve to eat or not eat from the Tree of Life in the garden, God never told either of them about this tree. That neither of them ate from the Tree of Life was a chance event, God allowed for the possibility, it never occurred, and humans have suffered ever since. Consider that the results of this chance event in the Garden resulted in God killing 99.99% of all humans during the flood, then forced him to send his Son, then write John 3:16 in a book. None of this would have been necessary if Eve had first, by chance, eaten fruit from the Tree of Life. The actions of both God and humans are constrained by chance events.

Why would He need to tell them anything about the Tree of Life- they were immortal at that point. It was only in eating of the Tree of Knowledge that would produce death.

Quote

And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”