John 3

Well, this is strange. How in the world could it possibly be the Millenium? It occurs during Christ's earthly ministry; Christ is talking to a Jew of the 1st century; Christ prophesies nothing in the whole chapter; much of the chapter is the words of John the Baptist and he prophesied nothing about the Millenium. Must I go on? This is a no brainer. :type:

Are there actually people who believe John 3 speaks of the Millenium? And what in the world could possibly be the basis for such a belief? I've been out of the States too long!

 

Yes there actually are. Aionios life is the subject which is age-lasting life. The whole of Jesus' ministry was preaching the gospel of the kingdom. The gospel of the kingdom is speaking of the millenium. He came to the lost "sheep" of the house of Israel. He came to an already eternally saved people (spiritually alive) with a spiritual message that they were supposed to have believed in and were certainly capable of believing in.

If they were spiritually dead it would have been impossible for any of them to have believed. It was required of all to believe, but only a few decided to believe.

In John 3 Jesus told Nicodemus that he should have known these things being a spiritual leader of Israel. That would be impossible if Nicodemus was spiritually dead and in need of eternal salvation.

And the whole OT picture of the serpent being lifted up and the people looking on the serpent to live. The serpent was lifted up for an already redeemed people.

 

You provided the Scripture in your OP. John 3 :laugh:.

As to a couple of other references do you really need me to list where it says Jesus came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and that he came preaching the gospel of the kingdom?

 

This verse sums it up.

Jhn 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

He who does not believe will NOT see life. Period. It doesn't mean he will see life after his 1000 year punishment. He will not see life at all. He who does not believe will receive God's wrath. If anyone were to "stop" believing (I do not believe a born again believer "stops" believing), he recieves wrath, not life with 1000 yr. punishment.

belief=life

unbelief=wrath

It's pretty simple. Even a child can understand it.

 

This has already been done several times. Why do you want to go through it again?

 

Amy just curoius as to where you got your interpretation that this person will not see life at all? That's not what the text says. It just says shall not see life. It doesn't add on your words "at all."

It's talking about the same type of life in the first part of the verse. This person shall not see aionios life.

Now with your views of aionios you can hold to your view and still be consistent, however aionios doesn't mean everlasting. So in fact what you have stated is not what the text states.

But I know you aren't going to agree with that. :thumbs:

 

John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Again I thought this was rather obvious.

 

1. Now this is the problem with certain comments:

a. There are guys pushing the ME view on BB.

b. They are going to force Scripture no matter what you say into their theological grid.

c. They have no regard for historic Christianity.

2. While I know you are asking for Scriptures to support one's view, the ME guys are going to repeatedly tell others that is not what it means, but this is what it "means."

3. They are out to redefine historic Christianity


4. But I will keep it simple:"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 3:16, NASB).

5. Even the great promise of John 10:28 has been redefined, for it contains the Greek καγω διδωμι αυτοις ζωην αιωνιον και ου μη απολωνται εις τον αιωνα και ουχ αρπασει τις αυτα εκ της χειρος μου ( "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
John 10:28," ESV, emphasis mine)

6. But the ME guys are trying to snatch us out of the Father's hand. Let them try!

 

Yes.

Most translations translate it as eternal life.

Which is not a particularly good translation because of today's English vernacular, however as eternal has been understood in the past it is fine. However a better renduring would be age-lasting, age-during, life for the age, something along those lines so that no mistake would be made because of the change in meaning of eternal over the years.

And there are several "literal" translations of Scripture that have translated it that way.

 

The same could be said of you!

Another false statement. Which just don't regard "your" view of historic Christianity.

Nobody has ever tried to change the definition of the words. That's another false statement.

Nope. Wrong again. Just trying to give an accruate view of Christianity through the ages. Now granted it has never been the majority teaching, but I've already addressed the problems with the "majority" throughout history.

And yet you and others have failed to show that eternal means without beginning and without end. Which theologically wouldn't even be correct in the first place because life is everlasting not eternal. We have a beginning, but no end.

But until you can show that aionios means without beginning or without end or without end then you have no case. And just showing some scholar that happens to agree with you is not proof, because all that boils down to is a battle of scholars.

 

1. I have never addressed the issue of everlasting versus eternal (BTW, everlasting and eternal mean the same thing; it's a translation mistake) on this board. So you really don't know what I believe about that. Do a search and you will never see me in that debate.

[QUOTW] But until you can show that aionios means without beginning or without end or without end then you have no case. And just showing some scholar that happens to agree with you is not proof, because all that boils down to is a battle of scholars.[/QUOTE]

2. So what does it come down to?

3. What is the sense then of discussing these issues? Tell me.

 

That's my whole point. You want to point out how we are wrong, but you have not proved that you are in fact holding the correct view.

That is a GREAT question. I think it doesn't take long for these discussions to become pointless when the regular set of players are involved. However, I and others post in some of these threads for the lurkers who read and never post so that they can have another perspective on things and not be sold the same old bill of goods.

But I don't think there is much purpose that is being served in a back and forth amongst the regulars. You all are obviously cemented in what you believe and what you are going to believe and you haven't shown me anything that has changed my mind yet.

That's why I don't understand why these last rounds of threads have been opened. All we are going to do is rehash what we've already said back and forth.

 

1. How can I hold the correct view, unless it agrees with your view? Tell me.

2. We all are cemented in our beliefs.

3. Your mind has already been made up. What is the point trying to change a mind like yours.

4. Well, kindly stay out of them. No one says that you have to join a thread and push your NEW ENLIGHTENMENT.

5. I stand proudly with the old theologians and the God they knew. The God they knew is my pilgrimage.