John 3:16 Is a Fraudulent Lie

Lets look at this famous Gospel tract evangelical verse cited in the late Gospel of John in light of the older Bible traditions themselves.

First the verse:
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.


Deception 1: For God so loved the world, (1 John plainly states: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” So, on the one hand we are told God loves the world only to be again told for Christians not to love the world. Since, in both cases the Greek word here is κόσμον, one is feed a flat out contradiction especially in light of the statement of Jesus “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Perfection is not contradiction!
Secondly, if God really loves the world, he would not have destroyed it in the flood of Noah. Love and destruction are totally antonyms.)

Deception 2:that He gave His only begotten Son, (In Genesis 6:2 we are clearly told: “that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.” Just as the Hebrew states: בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים וַיִּרְאוּ God already had “sons” plural! So one must wondered, even if the Hellenistic Greek writer of John did not understand the Hebrew text, he surly had the LXX which clearly states “οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ”. While Christians get all choked up about God giving his only son, Jesus, they need to read and believe their Bibles more!)

Deception 3:that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, (The problem posed here is the fact that orthodox Christian dogma states ( as based on Jesus and the New Testament) that the soul of the non-believer will suffer for eternity in the fires of torment. The Greek word here is “ἀπόληται” clearly means “to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively -- destroy, die, lose, mar, perish”. So which is it? The dead according to both atheists and Jehovah Witnesses are simply fully destroy meaning no eternal soul / nothingness. So, we could say that John 3:16 supports the ahteist view of life too!)

Deception 4:but have eternal life. (The propaganda sold in this verse is to an ancient world where the average person making it to the age of 30 was considered old where a simple abscessed tooth could mean certain death, to work miracles and not die was to be like the gods themselves (to argue that “ζωὴν αἰώνιον” means that the dead believer lives forever in Heaven is not only a contradiction of terms, but really begs the question all over again as to what not being destroyed and living forever plainly means). When one considers the older Hebrew stories of Enoch, Moses and Elijah along with the Greek story of the miracle worker Apollinus of Tyana who is claimed also to have never died. The false claim in eternal life in John 3:16 is given even more credence as it was preached to the superstitious and mostly literate masses of the Greco-Roman empire to gain fast converts in a ancient world that swam in a sea of religions and promises of hope. End the end, it was Christianity which out sold its fellow religions with verses like John 3:16 which gave more hope to its superstitious world.

Finally, we must understand that hope need not be true; it only needs to be hope; thus John 3:16!

56 comments:

Anonymous said...

How old is the oldest scripture fragment that has this verse?

Harry H. McCall said...

Interesting! When one can not deal with the topic, change the subject.

One small section (part of a verse) from the late first century is not what scholars call the Gospel of John any more than a verse of the Torah proves Moses wrote the Pentateuch or it existed in 17oo BCE.

Please, torcant, address the post’s topic. I don’t want to chase rabbits.

Harry H. McCall said...

Another interesting point about this first comment: If I claimed John 3:16 is a fraudulent lie, then what better way than to either prove I really don’t know what I’m talking about (a standard Christian apologetic stance) or to claim I posting a fraudulent lie in that John was really an old Gospel (a minor point of this post and a position held by the late liberal scholar J.A.T. Robinson in his “Re-dating John”; a book long rejected by most all scholars as discussed in the Journal of Biblical Literature and other object scholarly periodicals.

Again, my post is the truthfulness of John 3:16 and not lower textual criticism. For this I recommend Bruce Metzger’s “The Text of the New Testament: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration” 3 ed., Oxford University Press.

Anonymous said...

Sorry,

I didn't want to derail your topic.

This verse just sounds to me like something that was put in there much later. It just sounds like, the Christian doctrine was first decided by some people and then this verse was inserted in order to support it.

It was just a naive question.

Anonymous said...

I'm an atheist. You don't have to look for an agenda behind my words.

kiwi said...

"Interesting! When one can not deal with the topic, change the subject."

No offense, but I get an aggressive vibe from you. (And from your blog entry as well).

I'm not sure to understand any of your 4 points as well... It just seems like childish nit-picking to me. Even if I was a Christian fundamentalist, I would not take the Bible that literally.

Anonymous said...

kiwi said...It just seems like childish nit-picking to me. Even if I was a Christian fundamentalist, I would not take the Bible that literally.

In a sense I agree with you. That's why I continually try to do my best to speak to the central issues of that which a Christian believes.

Although, sometimes these type of "nit-picking" issues can have their toll on the Christian who believes the Bible is inerrant, pushing him to the center, and then farther left.

In any case, whether these kinds of issues debunk the heart of the Christian faith, they are still interesting and educational. As such I like them.

kiwi said...

But even inerrantists recognize the human aspect of the Bible. That is to say, each writer has his own writing style and each writer is going to express his point of view in a different manner. That one writer talks about the sons of God in a certain context and another one about God's only son in another context is irrelevant.

david said...

1. kosmos (κόσμον) has a broad semantic domain; the same word does not imply the same meaning, even when used by the same author.

2. the begettal of the Son is not equivalent to the OT notion of sonship.

Harry H. McCall said...

Sorry torcant, we had a Christian name Jason who used to comment here who was great at getting post topics off tack.

I mistook you for one of these types.

Regards,
Harry

Harry H. McCall said...

Kiwi,

I agree in the same vine that all unsaved people go to hell and Jesus is the literate only way to Heaven.

John 3:16 in an over beat meaningless dead horse.

I’ve had this verse run into the ground a Baptist churches with me. I simply sick of hearing this sticky love coated verse.

Regards,
Harry

Harry H. McCall said...

David stated: 1. kosmos (κόσμον) has a broad semantic domain; the same word does not imply the same meaning, even when used by the same author.

2. the begettal of the Son is not equivalent to the OT notion of sonship.

Re: David, I’m not sure where your facts are coming from in comment 1.

As for as you fact about the son in comment 2, I highly suggest you check out the major problem this verse has created in within early Christian and Jewish debates.

The major LXX scholar John W. Wevers states that this term (Sons of God): “…has literally evoked a great deal of controversy both Jewish and Christian.”
(See: Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis: Septuagint and Cognate Studies 35, by J.W. Wevers, pp. 75 -76)

If you feel Professor Wevers is wrong, please let me know how and where.

Regards,
Harry

david said...

Harry,

In #1, I'm talking about a specific exegetical fallacy called illegitimate totality transfer.

Consider John's usage of kosmos here:

John 17:9
I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

In #2, I agree there have been puzzled reactions to Ge 6:2. I remember some folks used to say that maybe the "sons of God" were demons and their offspring were half-breeds, perhaps accounting for Goliath's stature. But at any rate as you say, surely John was aware of the LXX rendition, so probably the meaning he intends wouldn't intentionally contradict it.

All that stuff aside, the only begotten son is what distinguishes Jesus in Sonship.

Jason said...

Don't worry Harry, I'm still here. I'll respond to your post shortly.

Jason said...

Deception 1: For God so loved the world, (1 John plainly states: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” So, on the one hand we are told God loves the world only to be again told for Christians not to love the love. Since, in both cases the Greek word here is κόσμον, one is feed a flat out contradiction especially in light of the statement of Jesus “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Perfection is not contradiction!

It’s not a contradiction since the two statements aren’t applied to the same party.

Secondly, if God really loves the world, he would not have destroyed it in the flood of Noah. Love and destruction are totally antonyms)

God did love the world which is why He didn’t wipe mankind off the face of the planet. He saved a remnant of righteous individuals, the same as He’ll do again when Christ returns.

Deception 2: …that He gave His only begotten Son, (In Genesis 6:2 we are clearly told: “that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.” Just as the Hebrew states: בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים וַיִּרְאוּ God already had “sons” plural! So one must wondered, even if the Hellenistic Greek writer of John did not understand the Hebrew text, he surly had the LXX which clearly states “οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ”. While Christians get all choked up about God giving his only son, Jesus, they need to read and believe their Bibles more!)

The “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 weren’t begotten by Him. Only Jesus was. In most instances, “sons of God” is simply a title given to believers (1 John 6:2).

Deception 3: …that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, (The problem posed here is the fact that orthodox Christian dogma states ( as based on Jesus and the New Testament) that the soul of the non-believer will suffer for eternity in the fires of torment. The Greek word here is “ἀπόληται” clearly means “to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively -- destroy, die, lose, mar, perish”. So which is it? The dead according to both atheists and Jehovah Witnesses are simply fully destroy meaning no eternal soul / nothingness. So, we could say that John 3:16 supports the ahteist view of life too!)

Your issue here is with “orthodox Christian dogma”, not a deception in John 3:16.

Deception 4: …but have eternal life. (The propaganda sold in this verse is to an ancient world where the average person making it to the age of 30 was considered old where a simple abscessed tooth could mean certain death, to work miracles and not die was to be like the gods themselves (to argue that “ζωὴν αἰώνιον” means that the dead believer lives forever in Heaven is not only a contradiction of terms, but really begs the question all over again as to what not being destroyed and living forever plainly means).

John 3:16 doesn’t mention living forever in heaven.

When one considers the older Hebrew stories of Enoch, Moses and Elijah along with the Greek story of the miracle worker Apollinus of Tyana who is claimed also to have never died. The false claim in eternal life in John 3:16 is given even more credence as it was preached to the superstitious and mostly literate masses of the Greco-Roman empire to gain fast converts in a ancient world that swam in a sea of religions and promises of hope. End the end, it was Christianity which out sold its fellow religions with verses like John 3:16 which gave more hope to its superstitious world.

You haven’t shown this claim in John 3:16 is a deception. How do you plan on going about proving believers won’t be given eternal life?

Harry H. McCall said...

Jason, as an atheist, I'll be in heaven with you and the rest of the Christians since for you, Heaven is the grave (until some future resurrection when and if after 2,000 years and counting you and the rest of your soul sleeping Christadelphian ever make it to your final; dream land), so as an atheist I’m basically saved too.

As for my post, it’s aimed at Bible believers who trust this verse as proof of God’s eternal love.

Your response: “The “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 weren’t begotten by Him. Only Jesus was. In most instances, “sons of God” is simply a title given to believers (1 John 6:2).”

This is a Jason / Christadelphian special since you are denying the Bible to prove the divinity of Jesus as God’s only son. Weird theology, but your Jesus must be forced as God’ only son at all cost.

By the way, I planning to present myself as a Christadelphian to some Christians I work with. Of course I plan to rework some your blog’s theology to see just how far I can get away with radical theology and see just if they still accept me as a Christian (Christadelphian).

Since no one I've talked with knows what a Christadelphian beleives, this should be fun.

I’ll let you know some of the reactions I get. I would not do this if God did not want me to.

Jason said...

Harry,

As David said, "the only begotten son is what distinguishes Jesus in Sonship." This isn't a view that's unique to myself, it's a logical conclusion based on an unbiased reading of the Bible.

When you're ready respond to the other five points I raised, feel free to do so.

(BTW, if you're interested in discussing the Christadelphian religion further, I suggest you visit a Christadelphian forum and pose your questions/remarks there)

Harry H. McCall said...

Where do you get from: "the only begotten son is what distinguishes Jesus in Sonship."
Which David talked about Jesus as God’s son?

Harry H. McCall said...

"As David said, "the only begotten son is what distinguishes Jesus in Sonshipson"

Re: To read this statment on the lips of David is a very anti - Jewish statement.

You have made a Christian out of David. An anti-Semitic way to attack the Jewish faith.

guamy said...

Harry - to be fair, which Christian religions think the view held by a few of the Christians here regarding Genesis 6:2 is "denying the Bible to prove the divinity of Jesus as God’s only son"? (your words)

I know of no group which uses Genesis 6:2 to support their belief that Jesus is God's son and so I'd like some clarification on this.

As an aside, it seems to be common practice on this particular site to not be held accountable for ones comments by ones atheistic peers. Allow me to do so now: Please take your own advice and stay on topic. It makes for far easier reading and digesting of exchanges without having to sort through insidious rants and accusations of anti-Semitism. Thus far, you're coming across as being quite unwilling to respond to the points raised here.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with them, you do have a responsibility to back up your beliefs with rational arguments, the same as is being required from the Christians on this site.

Harry H. McCall said...

You see the odd thing is guamy, you appear to be Jason since you completely and conveniently passed over Jason’s statement of David announcing Jesus as God’s only son.

Nice try Jason, but you need to stick to the topic of a David who believes in Jesus Christ yourself!

guamy said...

Harry - I've been a happy lurker here for some time and am a self-professed agnostic with no ties to any organized religion. I am not Jason nor do I wish to be. I'm not Jewish but I do cringe at accusations of anti-Semitism. I'm not a scholar but I know when someone is dodging an issue.

Seeing it's such a rarity by your peers here, I am holding you accountable for the comment you made regarding Genesis 6:2 and Jesus being God's son. Clarify you position please and answer my question. Which Christian religions think the view held by a few of the Christians here regarding Genesis 6:2 is "denying the Bible to prove the divinity of Jesus as God’s only son"?

Either Christianity openly believes this or they don't. I have no stake in the matter, I only desire to see a little more transparency from the various presenters here, especially yourself.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hey Harry,

You said,

So, on the one hand we are told God loves the world only to be again told for Christians not to love the love. Since, in both cases the Greek word here is κόσμον, one is feed a flat out contradiction especially in light of the statement of Jesus “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Perfection is not contradiction!

No contradiction, sorry. Your understanding of the Greek word 'Agape' is short. In the Gospel of John [John 3:16] the author is referring to God's love for humans. In 1 John 2:15 The writer is referring to humans love for material possessions. Both are rendered in the Greek as "Agape", and are easily understood in context.

You said,

in Deception 2 that initial literalistic readings of Genesis 6:2 indicate that this is contra to John 3:16.

I have a couple of majors problems with this line of attack.

(1) You must adhere to a literalistic understanding of Genesis. If you do not then your argument is pointless. Do you read Genesis literally? Is this another example of an atheist having his cake and eating it too? The bible is dodgy but we will use it to disprove its own claims?

(2) No credible scholar of the Bible makes the assertion you do. God is seen as the "Father" of Israel, not because he literally birthed them but because he adopted them into his care. Words like, sons, children, people are all theological categories not literal manifestations. Please consult scholars before making silly claims.

You said,

The dead according to both atheists and Jehovah Witnesses are simply fully destroy meaning no eternal soul / nothingness. So, we could say that John 3:16 supports the ahteist view of life too!)

No again, Harry you are just selecting parts of definitions of words and making you argument on selective data. Poor science and poor argument.
“ἀπόληται” Can mean, metaphorically, to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell. A hermeneutic decision to go this way can be justified by other sayings and teachings of Jesus. Your failure to mention or research this shows either how little you know on the topic or how bad your research is.

You said,

The false claim in eternal life in John 3:16 is given even more credence as it was preached to the superstitious and mostly literate masses of the Greco-Roman empire to gain fast converts in a ancient world that swam in a sea of religions and promises of hope. End the end, it was Christianity which out sold its fellow religions with verses like John 3:16 which gave more hope to its superstitious world.

Problem, if you are right then why was Christianity so vastly established in so much of the known world before this gospel was written, and consequently proclaimed such a promise? The text came after the spread of eternal hope. A greater understanding of history will help here Harry.

Lastly I would just like to add my complete and utter confusion with which you attempt to conduct yourself on these comment stands. Your aggressive rebukes without verifiable questions, your hypocrisy in changing subjects when you yourself appear to oppose the tactic is just unbecoming. This is a debunking site yet all that appears to me is your defamation of Christians.

If your arguments are so water tight, why resort to slander?

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Author of the Blog "Christianity Versus Atheism."
http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/



(2)

elderchild said...

“Love Not The World”

”For the WHOLE world is under the control of the evil one”(I John 5:19)

Rather simple to "see" what the world is, for those with "eyes to see"? The Messiah declared the world to be wicked, and i believe it rather simple to "see" that the world is that 'place' where money is 'god', and 'god' is money. That 'place' where The Only True GOD's Order, which is HIS Will, has been cast aside, replaced by the "imag"ined systems of mankind, and especially the religious systems which create but confusion, dis-order, and every evil work. Yet to those who are of this world, such a 'place' is a paradise. And what better represents such a 'place' than that which is called the u.s. of a.?

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world will pass away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of The Only True GOD will abide for ever.” (I John 2:15-17)

“If you were of the world, the world would love it’s own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said unto you, the servant is not greater than his Master. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept My saying, they will keep yours also.” (John 15:19-20)

“Where do wars and fighting among you come from? Do they not come of your lusts that war in your members? You lust, and have not: you kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: you fight and war yet you have not, because you ask not. You ask, and receive not, because you ask amiss, that you may consume it upon your lusts. You adulterers and adulteresses, don’t you know that friendship with the world is to be at enmity with The Only True GOD? Therefore whoever will be a friend of the world is the enemy of The Only True GOD.” (James 4:1-4)

“The world cannot hate you; but the world hates Me, because I testify that the works of this world are evil.” (John 7:7)” and “The Messiah gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of The Only True God, Our Father.”(Gal 1:4)

The Messiah testified: “If the world hates you know that it hated Me before it hated you.”(John 5:18) Truly, Truly, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone: but if it die it brings forth much fruit. He that loves his life in this world shall lose it; and he that hates his life in this world shall have it unto life eternal.” (John 12:24-25)

John testified: “Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hates you.” (I John 3:13) “ James testified, “Whoever would be a friend of this world is the enemy of GOD”(James 4:4)

The “earth” is The Creation of The Only True GOD, Father of ALL! The “worldly” systems are the creation of, and under the dominion of “the god of this world”, he who is “the father of lies”, he who “has blinded the minds of those who believe not The Messiah”! All the nations of this world are under the dominion of, and serve, the evil one for he provides the fuel that feeds mankind’s “imag”ination, and mankind’s “imagination is destroying and perverting Creation(land, air, water, creatures, Truth, Love, Peace, Faith, Simplicity, .etc.) ;-(

And the “strongest thing” in the evil one’s worldly systems? “Woman”…… yet The Truth, that which is of The Only True GOD, is stronger even than woman. (read I Esdras 3&4 of the Apocrypha) And Truth, Love, Peace, Faith, Mercy, Hope,,,etc,,, all that is “good”, is of The Only True GOD and is of HIS Spirit, not of this world. Those born of The Spirit, those born of The Only True GOD, are the brethren of The Messiah, for they received "a love of The Truth that they might be saved”. Reborn!

And those who have received "a love of The Truth” have separated themselves from this world and those of this world, for they have taken heed unto The Call of The Only True GOD to “Come out of her MY people.” They are “in, but not of this wicked, evil world”, and The Only True GOD has received them, and is "A Father unto them, and they are HIS sons and daughters”. And they follow, and desire to be like their Master and Brother, The Messiah, He Who was “the firstborn of many brethren”. And as “The Messiah was a servant of The Only True GOD”, so also His Brethren are “servants of The Only True GOD.”

The called out ones are not “adulterers and adulteresses”, they are not “friends of this wicked, evil world”, they do not “fornicate with the god of this world” for they know that “to be a friend of this world is to be the enemy of The Only True GOD.” They are at war against the evil spirits that possess those who are of this world.

And they do not “allow that woman Jezebel, which calls herself a prophetess, to teach. For she teaches others to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. The Only True GOD gave her a chance to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.” (Rev 2:20-21)

“fornication” and “adultery..” in that which is recorded above signifies spiritual fornication with “the god of this world”, which is to love that which is of his world.

Once again, the “earth” is The Creation of The Only True GOD, Father of ALL! The “worldly” systems are the creation of, and under the dominion of “the god of this world”.

Those who “love this world” all serve “the god of this world”, and play their part in the processes that seek to destroy The Creation of The Only True GOD. “And The Only True GOD will destroy them who destroy the earth.” (Rev 11:18)

Global warming, polluted air, land and waters, toxic wastes, sexual perversion, evil inventions of destruction, greed, hate, carnal warfare, dis-ease ,,,etc,,, are all destructive processes that have their root in “the lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life”.

And as stated, “woman is the strongest thing of this world”. Yet stronger than woman is The Truth, which is in those who have “received a love of The Truth”.

The Truth Is Alive in those who have been born of The Spirit for “they no longer love this wicked, evil world and it’s things, nor do they love their own lives in this world”.

They but seek and desire The Will of GOD, their Father and Creator, as they await their final transformation. “Corruptible to Incorruptible" ndeed and Truth!

Now “the ground was cursed for Adam’s sake” because he “hearkened unto the woman”.

Adam listened to a woman rather than obeying The Only True GOD. Yet because of Faithful Noah, The Only True GOD “no longer would curse the ground for man’s sake” because Noah obeyed The Only True GOD! (Genesis 8:21-22)

And the Faithful today are exhorted to “love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.” And Faithful women are exhorted to “be in silence.” “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. For I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” “For Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (I Timothy 2:11,12,14)

A man and woman joined together in obedience and submission unto The Only True GOD are blessed indeed. All who are not obedient, all who will not submit themselves unto The Only True GOD will have to answer to HIM..period..

Be not of those who deny and defy “The One GOD, Father of All”. Be not of those who are destroying and perverting HIS Creation(land, air, water, creatures, Light, Truth, Love, Peace, Hope, Mercy, Thankfulness, .etc.)!

Paul testified, “The Only True GOD is The HEAD of The Messiah, The Messiah is The Head of the man, and the man is the head of the woman”. Multitudes pervert GOD’s Order because they have been seduced by ” the commandments and doctrines of men and devils”.

Multitudes are seduced by the religious systems that are in and of this evil world. Seduced because they love this evil world and their own life in it!

“Set your affections on things above”. Desire heavenly, eternal things. Quit serving ‘time’ in the prison that is this world and take heed unto The Call of "The Only True GOD" to ”Come Out of her, MY people!”

Once again, “Come out” from among those who are destroying and perverting Creation and be of those who follow The Messiah on “The Way to The Truth of The Life”.

“Come out” of the worldly systems, which are the product of mankind’s “imag”ination, especially the religious systems. "Pure religion and undefiled before GOD The Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself uncontaminated by the world." (James 1:27)

Simply, all other religions are impure, defiled and of this wicked, evil world!

Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(no-peace) that is of this world, for "the WHOLE world is under the control of the evil one" indeed and Truth.......

Truth is never ending.......

Keith said...

ElderChild you really frighten me...you are really jacked up on the "Jesus-Juice".

david said...

I think Jason was referring to me not the Old Testament David.

Jason said...

Correct.

Harry H. McCall said...

guamy: “Harry - to be fair, which Christian religions think the view held by a few of the Christians here regarding Genesis 6:2 is "denying the Bible to prove the divinity of Jesus as God’s only son"? (your words)”

Guamy, I know you are illiterate in Hebrew and Greek grammatical systems, but when the text CLEARLY states God / Elohim had sons, this MUST be denied to keep John 3:16 “only begotten son” from contradiction.

By the way, the Hebrew text states that, not one god (LXX: Theos), but many gods created the Heaven and the earth. The English versions, to keep theology kosher, uses the LXX translation here.

At least, guamy, I have BOTH the MT and LXX to attack John 3:16 with.

As to your demand (hey, you would not demand this unless you think you got me), try Mormonism…God is in Heaven with his Spirit Wife producing spirit children to become human babies on earth.

Man, Guamy, you apparently never have been taught by Mormon Elders!

Harry H. McCall said...

Rev. Philip Brown, there are a number of major problems in your apologetic response.

I'll reply tonight.

david said...

harry,

I do hope you'll address what I believe to be a serious mishandling of κόσμον in John 3:16.

Are you familiar with illegitimate totality transfer?

Here is an example:

http://books.google.com/books?id=viy12jDdvbsC&pg=PA206&dq=illegitimate+totality+transfer

guamy said...

Harry - The tone and nature of your response is completely uncalled for and is extremely unbecoming of a so-called 'scholar' of Biblical interpretation. I have said nothing that deserves such a reply.

Clarify your position and answer my question. Which Christian religions think the view held by a few of the Christians here regarding Genesis 6:2 is "denying the Bible to prove the divinity of Jesus as God’s only son"? I would like references supporting your remark. If you have them, you obviously have nothing to hide. I ask because your sole reference to Mormonism in your post leads me to believe that neither Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, etc. believe that the views posted here about Genesis 6:2 don't deny the divinity of Jesus. Is this true?

elderchild said...

Keith,

Perfect love casts out all fear and receives The Truth no matter how the flesh trembles and the "I" in all of us would seek to resist.

thedestructionoftheearth.wordpress.com

asimpleandspirituallife.blogspot.com

Harry H. McCall said...

Guamy, as I told David, the major LXX scholar John W. Wevers states that this term (Sons of God): “…has literally evoked a great deal of controversy both Jewish and Christian.”
(See: Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis: Septuagint and Cognate Studies 35, by J.W. Wevers, pp. 75 -76).

As John Wevers stated above, not just several “ Christian religions”, but early Christianity in their debates with the Jews.

For a so-called / self proclaimed agnostic, you come across as a Bible believing Christian.

Finally, did you not under Mormon doctrine?

david said...

Harry,

The Wever reference is a vague appeal to authority. What exactly does Wever say is controversial?

I'm guessing he's referring to the debate over whether the "sons of God" referenced angels, descendents of Seth, etc. To my knowledge, no scholar has even suggested that Gen 6:2 contradicts John 3:16.

Harry H. McCall said...

David, I have the late James Barr’s The Semantics of Biblical Language, 1 edition, 1962. I'll see how he uses “illegitimate totality transfer” in context.

I am not familiar with “illegitimate totality transfer”, but I would say it’s used all over the two orginal languages of the Bible.

I would submit the following as an example that the Biblical word of divine love ἀγάπη / agapa as used in the New Testament especially in the most famous evangelical Biblical verse, John 3: 16 “Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον…”. However, the systematic logical use of agapa is totally and completely lost in the LXX which uses agapa in sexual lust and rape context as in the story of David’s children Amnon and Tamar: “…και ηγαπησεν αυτην αμνων υιος δαυιδ.” (2 Samuel 13: 1).

Also in the early epic cycles in the Hebrew, not only in J and E in in Genesis and Exodus, but as redetected in the Tribal League epics in the Deuteronomistic History of the Tetratuch, the concept of the deity of the Hebrews / Israelites moves from a local god who creates the /a land for his people he rules over to a universal deity of the LXX drawn from the Classical Greek concept of θεός.

Genesis 1: 1
Unpointed Hebrew:
בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃

Greek:
εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος τον ουρανον και την γην

אלהים the plural masculine of אל or singular for god (see: Marvin Pope: El in the Ugaritic Text; E.J Brill)

Genesis 1: 1 clearly states that the world of the Hebrews was form by a polytheistic assembly of gods.

David, please explain how the Gospels (which most always only quote the LXX) made the transition of the Hebrew אלהים יהוה to the Greek κύριος ὁ θεός.

Here is a clear example of your “illegitimate totality transfer” in action as used to invent a new theology (Christianity) out of the theology of the Israelites (please note: Do not confuse Judaism with the early Israelites!).

Finally David, one can find your “illegitimate totality transfer” all over the theology of the Christian Bible, the LXX. A great reference to see just how the Greek Bible (LXX) of Jesus and Paul and the authors of the New Testament failed to make sense out of the fragments of “theology” of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible as to compare the Masoretic text with the LXX. (An excellent work is: A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament by Edwin Hatch and Henry Redpath).

Although I did not use your specific example of κόσμον, I think the Christian theology is support by similar equally wrong semantic meanings.

Regards,
Harry

guamy said...

Harry - Allow me to spell out my question for in the hopes you'll actually answer it. You criticized two people here for their statements that Genesis 6:2 has nothing to do with John 3:16 in the sense that the verse in Genesis doesn't contradict Christ being the only begotten son of God. You suggested these views are 'special' in that they're not shared by Christianity.

You've appealed to the Mormon religion without any hint they use Genesis 6:2 in the sense you're suggesting. You've also appealed to John Wevers but excluded any indication that the controversy was regarding the divinity of Christ (as David has already picked up on).

Thus, my question is: Can you provide clear evidence showing Christianity considers Genesis 6:2 as proving the divinity of Christ?

david said...

Harry,

I think you're missing the point. You are assuming that κόσμον refers to the "entire world" in both John 3:16 and 1 John.

I have pointed to John 17 as an example of where κόσμον clearly refers to part of "the world." Furthermore if you believe the same John wrote both letters, then he would be blatantly contradicting himself.

Illegitimate totality transfer means taking the whole semantic range of a word and applying it to an instance of that word. Its a fallacy because many Greek words have a wide semantic domain (possible meanings for a referent). Even the English use of world is varied, and one would not seek to derive a contradiction from these two phrases:

1. As UFC fighters, the world we live in is combative and violent.

2. This smoke is great, right now the world we live in is very much at peace.

Notice the context clues tend to help interpret the scope of "the world"?

Thats what you have to do with
κόσμον too...you can't just mechanically apply the same definition across all instances of a word and then try to derive a contradiction.


Also, I haven't seen any example of illegitimate totality transfer "all over the theology of the Christian Bible." Could you clarify this assertion? Even if its true that Christians did this, that doesn't help your argument.

Harry H. McCall said...

Guamy, we are beating a dead horse here.

What don’t you understand! The text CLEARLY states God had sons. I only need ancient Israelite theology to support this FACT. I don’t give a damn what latter Judaism nor Christianity claims as they have a theology to protect: latter ordoxothy.

Thus, my question is: Can you provide clear evidence showing Christianity considers Genesis 6:2 as proving the divinity of Christ?

Guamy, I never said it was “proving the divinity of Christ”. Those are your word, not mine.

Christianity is notorious for quoting proof text out of context to support their Christology. They would avoid Genesis 6:2 like the plague.

What I can do is use this, especially with “Bible Believing Baptist” to force them to think.

If you live near me, let attend a large Baptist Sunday this Sunday, and I’ll show you the shock this will cause. Hey, lets even make it the “Pastor’s Class”.

It appears you are also an agnostic as to exactly what I’m talking about.

It’s time I got off you Merry-Go-Round.

Regards,
Harry

Harry H. McCall said...

David,

Rev. 13:8 is a good example.
καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, οὗ οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου.

τῆς γῆς is not κόσμου here. But κόσμου ONLY has one use in these 2 verses in John (and yes, the same author wrote all 4 texts).

While your English example proves your point, this English example is not theology and is not used in the SAME context by the writer we call John.

Now if we are discussing Paul vs. John, you may have a point, but not in this case.

Harry H. McCall said...

Let me clarify something I just stated. All four texts: Gospel of John, 1,2, & 3 John are by the same author; not Revelation.

The John of Revelation is not the John of the elegant Hellenistic Gospel and Epistles, but one who whose first language is Semitic and not Greek.

david said...

απο καταβολης κοσμου is an entire phrase, and carries its own semantic load.

I'm not sure what point you're making about John varying his word choice in Rev 13:8...very common Greek rhetorical technique. (e.g. John 21:15-17, use of φιλω συ, αγαπαις με, φιλεω for love)

kosmos can refer to the universe (Acts 17:24) or the world as the sum total of created things (Greek philosophy) but for John it usually meant the world of humans (humanity) (John 1:29, 3:19, 12:47). Especially in John, the kosmos refers to sinful humanity (John 7:7).

So in summary, there is no contradiction between John saying to "love the world" and "God so loved the world."

The very "love of the Father" he speaks of in 1 John is the same love being spoken of in John 3:16.
So the immediate context renders the contradiction completely implausible, if one is not already convinced by the improbability of John contradicting himself, the improbability of kosmos meaning the exact same thing every time it appears (78x in John, 24x in the John's letters), and the fact that Gods "love for the world" and our "love for the world" are not in reference to the kind of love. The Bible teaches that God's love for the world was manifested in an action, but the Christian should be careful to not love the things of the world and thus compromise what Jesus spoke of in John 17: being set apart by truth.

guamy said...

Harry - Your words: "...since you are denying the Bible to prove the divinity of Jesus as God’s only son."

My question: Which Christian religions think the view held by a few of the Christians here regarding Genesis 6:2 is "denying the Bible to prove the divinity of Jesus as God’s only son"?

Your answer: "...try Mormonism" and "John W. Wevers states that this term (Sons of God) has literally evoked a great deal of controversy both Jewish and Christian.”

My response: You've appealed to the Mormon religion without any hint they use Genesis 6:2 in the sense you're suggesting. You've also appealed to John Wevers but excluded any indication that the controversy was regarding the divinity of Christ (as David has already picked up on).

My question: Which Christian religions think the view held by a few of the Christians here regarding Genesis 6:2 is "denying the Bible to prove the divinity of Jesus as God’s only son"?

david said...

oops, I meant "love not the world"

Harry H. McCall said...

guamy: If you are not Jason, his brain must have been transplanted into your head.

You repeated question: "Which Christian religions think the view held by a few of the Christians here regarding Genesis 6:2 is "denying the Bible to prove the divinity of Jesus as God’s only son"?" is Jason made over.

Just like his dumb ass demand: "Show me where Paul says women are eternally un-forgiven." though everyone else who commented at DC could see it.

On thing for sure, with your profile blocked, you sure the hell are not an agnostic, but you are Jason!

Jason, I don’t have time for your games. Goodby!

Harry H. McCall said...

David, I guess we can respectfully disagree on this issue, just as we disagree on the “truth” of Christianity.

Thanks for you time and input.

Regards,
Harry

guamy said...

Harry - In all sincerity, aside from an embarrassing case of mistaken identity, you're making mountains out of molehills. If a Christian was making a claim without offering evidence, would not everyone here be jumping all over them? Atheist, agnostic, or Christian, we must all be held accountable for the things we say and be prepared to support our views. We must never cease to question and we must never cease to be prepared to offer a rational defense of our beliefs. My intentions aren't to be difficult but you're making this situation needlessly complicated. This discussion between ourselves has nothing to do with evidence from the Christian bible nor am I asking you to use it (nor am I interested in using it). I don't know how I can be any more clear. I'm humbly and respectively asking you where you got your information regarding the Christian position that Genesis 6:2 supports the divinity of Christ. You used these words and I assume you have a legitimate reason for using them. I kindly ask again to show me something that lends credence to your remark. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, trusting you're not a liar.

Jason said...

lol Come on, it's not that bad being me. :) And harry, I truly hope you see the irony in your accusation that I was great at "getting topics off track". Your topic is 'John 3:16 is a Fraudulent Lie" and since the very first post, you've done absolutely nothing by way of intelligently addressing any of the concerns raised here. Incredibly, your very post on your own thread was to blindly attack torcant for changing the topic. You're a real class act.

Harry H. McCall said...

"I'm humbly and respectively asking you where you got your information regarding the Christian position that Genesis 6:2 supports the divinity of Christ."

Really Guamy, for the last time here is the exact quote for my post:

Deception 2: …that He gave His only begotten Son, (In Genesis 6:2 we are clearly told: “that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.” Just as the Hebrew states: בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים וַיִּרְאוּ God already had “sons” plural! So one must wondered, even if the Hellenistic Greek writer of John did not understand the Hebrew text, he surly had the LXX which clearly states “οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ”. While Christians get all choked up about God giving his only son, Jesus, they need to read and believe their Bibles more!)

Your question has totally no foundation based on the above quote.

Guamy, please tell the truth and shame the devil.

guamy said...

Harry - I've read your posts and the one you're referring isn't the same one I'm referring to. My question has to do with your comments following the statements by some here saying that Genesis 6:2 is not contradicting John 3:16. You said these views are 'special' in that they're not shared by Christianity. I'm enquiring about where you got your information regarding the Christian position that Genesis 6:2 supports the divinity of Christ.

Defaithed said...

Harry, I just discovered this blog (thank Google Reader's automated recommendations for that). I'm glad to see the topic of this post; given John 3:16's status as a favorite scripture of so many people, it needs to be scrutinized.

I earlier wrote my own post taking issue with 3:16, on the point you start out with: "For God so loved the world..." I made the same point about the flood of Noah, plus dozens more atrocities that give lie to "God so loved".

http://www.defaithed.com/blog/defaithed/2008/06/john_3_16

Your summary "Love and destruction are totally antonyms" is a great cap on things.

I look forward to reading more here.

Harry H. McCall said...

defatied, thanks for the kind comments.

Like Superman and Krypton, once the average mind is exposed to the word “love”, all our objective powers seem to greatly weaken and our ability to reason is totally compromised..

Though God is sugar coated with love in this verse, it can NOT cover up the Biblical God of ugly theological reality.

guamy said...

Harry - I'm still awaiting your reply. If you have nothing to offer, I can only assume you told an out and out lie. If this is the case, and I truly hope it's not, then shame on you and shame on the other blog contributors here for supporting you out of silence. You're no scholar. You're a playground bully who ducks and runs at the first time of trouble. I'm extremely disappointed in your behaviour.

Anonymous said...

Harry, I find the claim that you lied completely unjustified, and so guamy's accusations are bogus, whoever he is, a troll perhaps.

If you've said all you want to here you can close this thread. It's up to you, my friend. This has degenetated because of some ignorant commentators. You have better things to do than respond further.

Again, it's up to you.

Keith said...

ElderChild said...

Keith,

Perfect love casts out all fear and receives The Truth no matter how the flesh trembles and the "I" in all of us would seek to resist.

thedestructionoftheearth.wordpress.com

asimpleandspirituallife.blogspot.com

6:56 PM, October 20, 2008


Uhhh beer and brats make for some obscene gas?


That's how your post came across to me. What was the meaning of that babble?

Let's gather ourselves for a second and consider some things:

1) You're a Christian or, as I playfully like to call my friends that have not yet been awakened, a 'Jesus-Zombie'.

2) You no longer want to be a Jesus-Zombie or else you'd not be at a site like this.

3) I can help you, but you have to be willing to accept that what you think you know may be....well...

anyhow,

When you're ready to deconvert, look me up :)

guamy said...

John - Harry has made statements of which I am asking for hard facts that validate these statements. I see nothing wrong in my (eager) attempts to understand how he came to the conclusion that Christianity believes Genesis 6:2 is proof of the divinity of Christ. I've spent countless hours looking into the various Christian religions and at the stock proof for their various doctrines, as have you I'm sure, and I have never once heard of any Christian religion make the same claim Harry is. Have you?

Harry appealed to the Mormons and John W. Wevers as two entities who support his view but he's thus far refused to offer any evidence that specifically quotes this verse. I don't understand why this information wouldn't forthcoming if there are clear statements from both camps supporting his view. This is a fantastic opportunity to debunk Christianity - yet you and every other atheist here are just allowing it to pass by? I find this strange.

Harry H. McCall said...

Guamy, you are the liar since I NEVER made the claim you keep posting in your comment: “I see nothing wrong in my (eager) attempts to understand how he came to the conclusion that Christianity believes Genesis 6:2 is proof of the divinity of Christ.”

Use your brain for once will you?! My statement in Deception 2 is plain and clear.

A. You are not an agnostic (you are too obsessed with my attack on John 3:16). No agnostic I know of is so obsessed that when a famous Bible is attack one spends counts comments claiming I said something I NEAVER said!

I ask you several times to quote me verbatim any where I EVER said “that Christianity believes Genesis 6:2 is proof of the divinity of Christ.” You could NEVER do it, because you created a flat out lie.

I plainly stated that THIS PROVES GOD HAD OTHER SONS---OTHER SONS. Are you totally brain dead?

I agree with John, you are just here to cause problems.

You lied! You said you were an agnostic, but from everything I’ve read from you, you are just a Christian Troll.