John 3:16 - How is this claim justified?

[brinny]

Interesting thread, Josephus

 

[straykat]

You are correct. the value is 358, for both!

As a rule, anytime you have a numerical equivalent in scripture, you can replace one word with another of the same value and draw out another meaning, as long as that derivative understanding does not contradict the plain meaning of any scripture.

Can you see the evidence now that Jesus is pointing to when he said "just as" Moses lifted the serpent...so the Son of Man must be lifted up"?

As a rule, John's gospel is chock full of a mystical understanding of Torah, even starting his book with "In the beginning was the Word." It's not surprising to me that this argument Jesus is making from Torah would have fascinated him, and why we only find the story of Nicodemus in his gospel.



The statement Jesus makes is "that whosoever believes in him will not perish, but shall have everlasting life" is a claim that has to be found derived somehow from Torah, else its not valid. I will hopefully elaborate on this later as I want to see what others have to share on the matter. For now I leave you with this:

According to Psalm 119:142, what is truth? According to John, is truth a what, or who, or both?

Very cool.. Would there be a good primer (preferably a book) on Gematria you'd recommend?

 

[akaDaScribe]

Every Christian (should) know John 3:16:

For G-d so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life.

When Nicodemus heard this, there was no Matthew through Revelation. The only scriptures he knew was only Genesis through 2nd Chronicles - otherwise known as the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings - and he was an expert at them since he himself was a member of the religious body known as the Sanhedrin which ruled on all things scriptural for Israel.

How could Jesus make such a claim in light of the scriptures that came before? How could Nicodemus accept what Jesus said there, as truth? Did Jesus come to found a new religion? Or was his appeal to Nicodemus' knowledge of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, a sincere appeal, and thus his rebuke "do you not understand these things" justified?

I have made myself out to be an apologist (a reasoned defender of what we believe) since I was in my teens. I'm now in my late 30s. I haven't changed much, but my answers have matured for sure.

As such, I have answers of my own, to this question I'm asking above, and will be happy to share, but I am curious as to what your answers are - to see if I can spur to share or come up with an answer that will satisfy the question while also preventing giving the other religions and philosophies often discussed on Christian Forums, any justification for maintaining their claims. Truth, I believe, is really that precise, certain, and dividing.

This verse is the most basic of verses a Christian should know. Can you justify it to a Jewish religious leader? How?

Shalom

Maybe he was referencing this scripture from the old testament which I belief was commonly understood to be related to the Messiah.

Psalms 2:7

4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. 6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. 10Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Jesus didn't restrict Himself to the Scripture which had come before Him. He preached a new message, one of God's love and salvation. The Old Testament was about the history of the Jewish people leading up to God's promise of a Savior. The New Testament begins where the Old Testament leaves off, so of course Jesus had great deal to say that no-one of Old Testament times had never heard before.

 

[straykat]

Jesus didn't restrict Himself to the Scripture which had come before Him. He preached a new message, one of God's love and salvation. The Old Testament was about the history of the Jewish people leading up to God's promise of a Savior. The New Testament begins where the Old Testament leaves off, so of course Jesus had great deal to say that no-one of Old Testament times had never heard before.

It wouldn't be consistent at least. He was the author of all of it, both Old and New. "Before Abraham was, I AM."

"If you believed Moses, you would believe me. For he wrote of me."

 

[GingerBeer]

Every Christian (should) know John 3:16:

For G-d so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life.

I am sure that the passage says John 3:16 Yes, God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him may not be lost, but may have eternal life. 17 God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world; instead, through him the world is to be saved. 18 Whoever believes in him will not be condemned. He who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

 

[discipler7]

Every Christian (should) know John 3:16: ...

This verse is the most basic of verses a Christian should know. Can you justify it to a Jewish religious leader? How?

JOHN.3: = 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,(NUMBERS.21:9) even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

The suffering Jews and Pharisees rejected Jesus of Nazareth as their Promised Messiah/Christ because they desired for a military leader, like Joshua of Nun or King David, who would "save" them from their cruel Roman oppressors.(JOHN.6:15)
....... IOW, they wanted a Messiah/Christ who would give them back their grand life in a kingdom of earth(= Judah/Israel or like the 1776 America) but Jesus Christ "only" wanted to gift them an everlasting life in a kingdom of heaven.

Later the Jews appointed false christs(MATTHEW.24:15 & 24, LUKE.21:20) to lead them into armed rebellion = the Jewish-Roman Wars.

For causing Jesus Christ to be crucified by the Roman rulers(through false accusations), God cursed the Jews and Pharisees to be massacred and their Holy Temple of God in Jerusalem destroyed by the Roman Army in 70AD.(cf; ROMANS.12:19-21)

After WW2 in 1945, the suffering/pitiful Jews finally got back their kingdom of earth, Israel = Zionism. But it was not a grand or peaceful life that they got.

 

[Micah888]

This verse is the most basic of verses a Christian should know. Can you justify it to a Jewish religious leader? How?

How did Philip interpret Isaiah 53 to the Ethiopian eunuch, who no doubt was a Jewish proselyte reading Isaiah? One could start there, go to Jeremiah 31 (the New Covenant), go to Deuteronomy 18 (the Prophet who must be obeyed), and a multitude of other Scriptures in the OT.

 

[Josephus]

Jesus didn't restrict Himself to the Scripture which had come before Him. He preached a new message...

To a Jew mindful of Deut 12:32-13:5, such an approach contradicts the Torah and invalidates his claim, and unfortunately justifies every charlatan out there who claims theirs is the new and improved revelation of God or Mormon or Allah or Bhuddah on earth - even if they performed signs and wonders "proving" so.

For if God can so readily change His mind, and teach something so new that can't be proven by what He taught before, then what assurance does anyone have of discrediting such a claim or discrediting others who make similar claims?

Furthermore, if one accepts another's claim based on such an acceptance of dogma, then what is the stability of the hope they have that is based on something that changes so readily without reason?

 

[Butch5]

Every Christian (should) know John 3:16:

For G-d so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life.

When Nicodemus heard this, there was no Matthew through Revelation. The only scriptures he knew was only Genesis through 2nd Chronicles - otherwise known as the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings - and he was an expert at them since he himself was a member of the religious body known as the Sanhedrin which ruled on all things scriptural for Israel.

How could Jesus make such a claim in light of the scriptures that came before? How could Nicodemus accept what Jesus said there, as truth? Did Jesus come to found a new religion? Or was his appeal to Nicodemus' knowledge of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, a sincere appeal, and thus his rebuke "do you not understand these things" justified?

I have made myself out to be an apologist (a reasoned defender of what we believe) since I was in my teens. I'm now in my late 30s. I haven't changed much, but my answers have matured for sure.

As such, I have answers of my own, to this question I'm asking above, and will be happy to share, but I am curious as to what your answers are - to see if I can spur to share or come up with an answer that will satisfy the question while also preventing giving the other religions and philosophies often discussed on Christian Forums, any justification for maintaining their claims. Truth, I believe, is really that precise, certain, and dividing.

This verse is the most basic of verses a Christian should know. Can you justify it to a Jewish religious leader? How?

Shalom

Sure! Jesus was telling him that his birth as the physical seed of Abraham was not sufficient to gain him entrance into the Kingdom of God. God had promised He would give to Abraham that he and his seed all the land that Abraham could see. God also promised David that one of his seed would sit on his (David's) throne. The Jews were waiting for their Messiah who would come and set up the kingdom. Nicodemus believed all of this was his based on his physical birth as one of Abraham's seed. However, as Jesus pointed out his fleshly birth was not sufficient to gain him access to the kingdom of God. He needed something more. Jeremiah prophesied of a new covenant that God would make with Israel. Nicodemus knew this but apparently hadn't put the pieces together.

 

[akaDaScribe]

JOHN.3: = 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,(NUMBERS.21:9) even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

The suffering Jews and Pharisees rejected Jesus of Nazareth as their Promised Messiah/Christ because they desired for a military leader, like Joshua of Nun or King David, who would "save" them from their cruel Roman oppressors.(JOHN.6:15)
....... IOW, they wanted a Messiah/Christ who would give them back their grand life in a kingdom of earth(= Judah/Israel or like the 1776 America) but Jesus Christ "only" wanted to gift them an everlasting life in a kingdom of heaven.

Later the Jews appointed false christs(MATTHEW.24:15 & 24, LUKE.21:20) to lead them into armed rebellion = the Jewish-Roman Wars.

For causing Jesus Christ to be crucified by the Roman rulers(through false accusations), God cursed the Jews and Pharisees to be massacred and their Holy Temple of God in Jerusalem destroyed by the Roman Army in 70AD.(cf; ROMANS.12:19-21)

After WW2 in 1945, the suffering/pitiful Jews finally got back their kingdom of earth, Israel = Zionism. But it was not a grand or peaceful life that they got.

Genesis 12:3-4 King James Version (KJV)
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

4 So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

Bad idea delighting in the suffering of the Jews.

 

[TuxAme]

How could Jesus make such a claim in light of the scriptures that came before? How could Nicodemus accept what Jesus said there, as truth? Did Jesus come to found a new religion? Or was his appeal to Nicodemus' knowledge of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, a sincere appeal, and thus his rebuke "do you not understand these things" justified?

Is there anything in the Old Testament you believe (or others may believe) is at odds with Jesus' claim? If so, that could help guide the conversation.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Every Christian (should) know John 3:16:
For G-d so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life.

Exactly right.

I can't imagine anyone who subscribes to scripture who would not memorize that verse.

When Nicodemus heard this, there was no Matthew through Revelation.

But, as you rightly point out, he did have the book of Genesis and was probably more familiar with it than most of us here are with it or even the book of John.

.... was his appeal to Nicodemus' knowledge of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, a sincere appeal, and thus his rebuke "do you not understand these things" justified?

Yes it was and it was a well deserved rebuke that he received for not understanding that men must be born again.

This verse is the most basic of verses a Christian should know. Can you justify it to a Jewish religious leader? How?

Yes - assuming they (unlike Nicodemus) are well versed in the following quote from Genesis.

".....from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

The spiritually dead condition of Adam which resulted immediately from his eating from the tree in the garden (and the resultant like condition of fallen mankind which has followed that first man) is one of the most clear and basic teachings of the Torah and the first book of the Torah in particular.

Jesus rightly marveled that "the" teacher of Israel did not understand this very basic fact concerning our condition under the curse of the first Adam.

He likely marvels still at those who call themselves Christian (many teaching here in this forum) who do not understand it still even with the N.T. to guide them.

We preach the gospel to a dead world and unless they are born of the Spirit as well as the flesh they will not see the Kingdom of God.

Religion (even a religion named Christianity) won't get them any farther than Nicodemus was when He inquired of the Lord on that day.

They simply must be born again.

 

[Deadworm]

Modern NT scholars would being their reply by pointing that John makes no use of a sayings collection like the use of Q in Matthew and Luke. Rather John constructs "revelation dialogues" based on his own theology, dialogues only occasionally interspersed with sayings of Jesus from oral tradition. So, for the modern scholarly consensus, John 3:16 is the evangelist's invention to connect Jesus' teaching with the cross and resurrection.

For the conservative evangelical your question is hard to answer. One thinks of the application of the Suffering Servant Son in Isaiah 53 to Christ's atoning death (see Jesus' citation of Isaiah 53 in Luke 24). But John 3 offers no allusion to Isaiah 53 and, in any case, the messianic application of Isaiah 53 is unknown in the Judaism of late antiquity. We should also note that there is no mention in John of Christ's atoning death. The closest this Gospel comes is the Eucharistic language ib John 6:53-58. So you raise an interesting question.

 

[salt-n-light]

Every Christian (should) know John 3:16:

For G-d so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life.

When Nicodemus heard this, there was no Matthew through Revelation. The only scriptures he knew was only Genesis through 2nd Chronicles - otherwise known as the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings - and he was an expert at them since he himself was a member of the religious body known as the Sanhedrin which ruled on all things scriptural for Israel.

How could Jesus make such a claim in light of the scriptures that came before? How could Nicodemus accept what Jesus said there, as truth? Did Jesus come to found a new religion? Or was his appeal to Nicodemus' knowledge of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, a sincere appeal, and thus his rebuke "do you not understand these things" justified?

I have made myself out to be an apologist (a reasoned defender of what we believe) since I was in my teens. I'm now in my late 30s. I haven't changed much, but my answers have matured for sure.

As such, I have answers of my own, to this question I'm asking above, and will be happy to share, but I am curious as to what your answers are - to see if I can spur to share or come up with an answer that will satisfy the question while also preventing giving the other religions and philosophies often discussed on Christian Forums, any justification for maintaining their claims. Truth, I believe, is really that precise, certain, and dividing.

This verse is the most basic of verses a Christian should know. Can you justify it to a Jewish religious leader? How?

Shalom

I mean throughout the Torah, and in the major prophet books, God did establish that there was going to be a Savior, to the point where through a prophet gave a name, where He will be born, etc. Jesus, mind you, was a Jew, so he recognizes what the followers of the Torah was studying.

Jesus tried to make the connection to how it was actually being fulfilled as promise through Him, so often times with those who believed in God he brought back scriptures, as oppose to the unbelievers, in which He gave parables. But Jesus didn't make any far-fetch new claims, He points out how He is the fulfillment of the law. Basically told Nicodemus, "Yes you see the time where there had that snake on a stick with Moses, yeah it's revealing how you will look to me for salvation."

But its hard to justify it, if they will not hear. I can make the most sound argument, but if they don't receive it, then those connections will not click for them.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Have to say, it works either way, but It always seemed to me like John was just saying it and Jesus wasn't saying it about himself. I've listened to John many times and with different versions of the Bible, but I never thought that part was Jesus talking about himself.

Maybe someone who knows Greek could clarify that. Like if they had quotes for when someone was speaking vs an author writing.

 

[Haipule]

I don't know what you are looking for--exactly but, I'm sure the conversations between Nicky-Boy and Jesus was in Aramaic although recorded for us in KoinE Greek by John who was not there.

I think the first-most important thing is to first translate the verse correctly according to first century Greek thinking skills through words that are heavily influenced by Hebrew and Aramaic thinking skills:

Hyper-Literal: For(conjunction assigning a reason) thusly, (2)thee God, (1)He-agapaO-loves* (3-)thee kosmos-world even-as-and thee Son of-Him-same, namely--thee uniquely-begotten, He-gives* that(purpose) any thee one-keeps-on-trusting(not a “one shot” decision but continuous, repeated, customary action--do not argue with Greek present participles!) into Him-same no he-might-be(acting upon themselves--stupidly)-rendered-useless (keep-on trusting into Him and you cannot screw it up!) but-rather he-might-be(and continue)-having zOE-life(feminine), breath-being-belong-to-her(right here, right now!). John 3:16

Isn't that gorgeous!? Ain't it Good!? Ain't it good!?

The word translated as "eternal" which you are claiming means "everlasting" is aiOnion. Now, lets tear that alphabet soup apart:

ai=breath, -On = being or, existence, ion = belonging-to. The "i" makes it an adjective. The "-ion" makes it a accusative feminine singular--direct object of the verb implying motion(not resting).

Literally translated means: breath-being-belonging-to-her--zOE(abundant life/real living)-life.

Jesus is saying to Nicky-Boy that anyone who continues to trust the Son of Man cannot screw it up or fall into calamity.

To not understand aiOnios(lexical form) by it's parts as "breath-being-belonging to he/she/it" and instead, give it the accepted meaning as "eternal", or "everlasting", will create a lot of problems with Scripture.

Case in point:

Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you(-all) know that no murderer has eternal(breath-being-belonging-to-her) (zOE-)life(feminine) abiding(making its home) in him (right here, right now). 1 John 3:15 NASB

Yeah, now you know what this tricky verse says and means. Simple isn’t it! The hardest verse to teach is now--DUH!

 

[Haipule]

By the way, we must always take these thoughts, given through words, from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to English. If you go backwards you will serve up some raised(leavened) glazed donuts, with rainbow sprinkles, full of holes!

 

[ladodgers6]

Every Christian (should) know John 3:16:

For G-d so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life.

When Nicodemus heard this, there was no Matthew through Revelation. The only scriptures he knew was only Genesis through 2nd Chronicles - otherwise known as the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings - and he was an expert at them since he himself was a member of the religious body known as the Sanhedrin which ruled on all things scriptural for Israel.

How could Jesus make such a claim in light of the scriptures that came before? How could Nicodemus accept what Jesus said there, as truth? Did Jesus come to found a new religion? Or was his appeal to Nicodemus' knowledge of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, a sincere appeal, and thus his rebuke "do you not understand these things" justified?

I have made myself out to be an apologist (a reasoned defender of what we believe) since I was in my teens. I'm now in my late 30s. I haven't changed much, but my answers have matured for sure.

As such, I have answers of my own, to this question I'm asking above, and will be happy to share, but I am curious as to what your answers are - to see if I can spur to share or come up with an answer that will satisfy the question while also preventing giving the other religions and philosophies often discussed on Christian Forums, any justification for maintaining their claims. Truth, I believe, is really that precise, certain, and dividing.

This verse is the most basic of verses a Christian should know. Can you justify it to a Jewish religious leader? How?

Shalom

Nicodemus was an expert of Genesis through 2nd Chronicles--otherwise known as the Torah and the Prophets. If so, then Nicodemus, would have read & heard "The Protoevangelium" or "First Gospel in Genesis 3:15.

Genesis 3:15 15And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

Christ says that all of scripture speak about him, and that the prophets say he would suffer and enter in glory?

Luke 24:25He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

And in Luke 24:44,

44Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled” that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.

So Nicodemus, even though an expert did not understand the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms concerning the coming Messiah. Christ is preached from Genesis to Revelation.

Hope this helps.

God Bless

 

[disciple Clint]

I would say that's a start, but what exactly would be your logical argument to help Nicodemus understand John 3:16 is true and thus a valid conclusion drawn from the Torah, Prophets, and Writings?



You are correct in that Nicodemus certainly recognized the righteousness of Jesus by the things he did, and that Jesus is approaching him right where he's at. Jesus accuses him and others of not receiving "our testimony." The word "testimony" itself is a legal term, requiring legal vindication - which makes sense he would use this term since Jesus is talking to one of the 70 supreme court justices in Israel responsible for validating it. For Jesus' testimony (about what?) to stand, it would have to be legally validated, else it's not testimony, but hearsay. Since we assume the testimony is legally validated (somehow), then his rebuke that they "do not receive our testimony" is a charge not of a lack of belief, but of incompetence in understanding the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, or else outright rejection of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings.

What logical argument drawn from the Torah is Nicodemus missing, which justifies John 3:16?

Could it be the argument that the Torah law as never intended to provide lasting righteousness but instead it was to prove that a Savior was required if righteousness was going to be achieved on a permanent basis . Since Jesus is the fulfillment of the conditions outlined for the Messiah He is the fulfillment of the Torah and it could be said He is the Law as well as the Truth, the Life, and the Way. His blood provides for all time the gift of salvation from God. Blessings