John 3

1. I respect the direction that you are trying to lead this thread. Neither am I trying to derailed it.

2. I am only pointing out that some guys are not prepared to let anyone interact with the Scripture unless it agrees with them.

 

This is my exact point. All you are doing is asking a question that I can turn right back around and ask you. I think I hold the correct view. You think you hold the correct view. I and others have explained our view using Scripture. All your side has done is say hey look Strong's agrees with what I'm saying you're wrong.

If you feel like your view is correct then you need to be willing to defend it to someone that you are accusing of being incorrect.

Actually that couldn't be further from the truth. I believe what I believe, but I'm not so arrogant to think that I can't be wrong. I have not always believed these things. I used to believe just like a typical Baptist. I just changed my views about two years ago. So I am more than willing to admit error and change my views. But I'm not doing to do it just because you say I should.

Well where there is error there needs to be exposure, so as long as these things come up I or someone else is always going to give people a different perspective. And it's not "new" enlightenment, but I love how you all have to make up words to make it sound so bad.

I know this has been stated many times, but one would think that if "your" side is SO right how come you all have to use such deception and name calling and rhetoric. Do you think by emphazing "NEW ENLIGHTMENT" that you can some how scare people away from even looking into the matters?

And if you don't then you should re-evaluate because it does scare people off. Every time the word heretic or cult or whatever else your side continues to come up with it scares people away. You all should be confident enough in what you believe to not "skew" someone's mind, but let them make it up for themselves.

Just let the Truth stand instead of adding biased commentary.

 

1. Unless you can show where I have used deception and naming calling, then don't introduce it in your reply to me. Please, bring forth your evidence from a thread I have been in.

2. The same can be said of you. We need to let the Scripture speak. But I am not too sure what that means in a discussion with you.

 

I apologize for helping to take this thread into another direction.

 

Hello . . . you even used BOLD letters. NEW ENLIGHTENMENT . . . does that ring a bell?

I've not added any commentary to your belief system as you have not laid it out for anyone to see. The biased commentary I was speaking of was NEW ENLIGHTENMENT. When others throw out the heretic word or cult, etc.

There's no need in all that if your stance is based on the Truth then just let the merit of Truth reveal the untrth. I think it says a lot that you folks have to use those type tactics. That should cause a flag to raise up in the minds of readers, but I'm sure it doesn't these days.

EDIT: Let me just add that you were not one included in the name calling, but those of your side have taken part in such. To my knowledge you have not. Hopefully we can keep it that way .

 

Sounds good to me!

 

So let me get this straight. You think the whole of the ministry of Jesus was not for us, but was for the millenium? That's really strange! I reject that out of hand. I claim the words of Jesus to believe and live by. This is nothing more than a new form of the old discredited hyper-dispensationalism.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the kingdom of God. Note that Jesus said to the Pharisees, "The kingdom of God is within you." Never mind whether it shoud be "among you" or not, as we recently discussed in the translation thread. It was present tense. Therefore the kingdom of God existed at that point in history, and therefore could not be the millenium.

 

No that's not what I think. Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom. When He was here it was a message only for the Jews. However the Jews didn't want to have anything to do with His spiritual kingdom.

The offer of the kingdom was eventually taken away from the Jews and given to a new nation. This new nation is the people that make up the one new man in Christ.

As saved individuals we are now in a position to entertain the same offer as Israel. And just as with them we can either accept or reject the offer. There are consequences for either decision.

 

So how much of the teaching of Jesus is for us? You say that John 3 is talking about the millenium. (You never addressed what I said about John the Baptist in John 3.) If that is so, do you therefore believe that John 3 is not for us? That is the logical conclusion of your position, because the millenium is still future.

 

I'm not sure there is any of His teachings that should not impact us in one way or another.

That's what Scripture says, and I just believe it.

Absolutely it is for us today. The offer of the kingdom is open to the spiritually saved, so anything having to do with the kingdom is relevant to us today.

And yes the kingdom is yet future, but whether or not we get to have a place of rulership in that kingdom is based on this lifetime, and it will ultimately be decided by the Judge on that day.

 

That's not quite the same as saying, "All of Christ's teachings are for me." Kind of weak.

I completely disagree. The Scripture doesn't say that. It is an interpretation of what the Scripture says. I just finished reviewing our new Japanese translation of John 3, and got no millenium in the passage, either in Greek, English or Japanese. It is simply not there. The only way you can get it there is to prove that the kingdom of God is always future. Christ distinctly used the present tense for the kingdom, as I showed and you never answered.

Well, that's good. It's a step above the old hyper- (or ultra-) dispensationalism.

 

Well I think Jesus speaks of a judgment of the nations which we will not particpate in so I don't think it is competely accurate to say "All of Christ's teachings are for me."

However even though the judgment of the nations text is not for me, I think we have quite a few valuable Truths we can learn from it.

So you are entitled to think it weak all you want.

Again you are entitled to disagree, but just because you disagree doesn't mean your view is valid .

Well as you said the "word" millenium is not in the text, but that does not mean the text is not speaking to the millenium. The word Trinity is never in Scripture either, but we don't dismiss texts that are speaking of the Trinity.

The key indicator as to the context is a continual faith (which is not required and or necessary for everlasting life) and the word aionios which is modifying life.

The text is speaking to age-lasting life not everlasting life. Therefore the Scripture IS in fact speaking to the millenium as the kingdom is the next age.

Not familiar with each so I'm not sure if you have complimented me or not :laugh:.

 

I saw a show about cattle mutilations. It was obvious that the producer(s) of the show were convinced the cattle mutilations were done by aliens (or they just wanted viewers to think that).

One person mentioned that there were helicopters near the spot where cattle were mutilated. So they followed that up with a sound bite from another person who speculated that they were aliens disguised as helicopters.

That's what your reasoning is like. You've already decided that it's about the millenium, so any evidence to the contrary won't matter. It may say "eternal" but as far as you're concerned, it's really "1,000 years" disguised as "eternal".

 

More of your nonsense and untruths. Might try sticking to what people actually say instead of putting your spin on things. I know that's hard, but it is at least the honorable thing to do.

 

I'm trying to get used to your view. I've never heard of it before. (We missionaries often get ambushed by new views on furlough, so the BB is a help in this area.) I'm having to work through the similarities to the hyper-dispensationalism of Stam, O'Hair and co., and the differences.

The judgment of nations is prophecy. Obviously Christ's prophecies are to inform us about the future and thus shape our lives today.

Try this on for size. There is virtually no prophecy in John's Gospel--none that I remember. Matthew is the big Gospel for prophecy. So, what is John written for, what is its purpose? That is very clear. It is a tract to win souls to faith in Christ (20:31). So there would be no purpose in describing the millenium, and indeed neither the word nor concept appear in John. (The only possible way to get it there is by the "kingdom of God" phrase, which I have clearly shown is used by Christ in the present tense in Luke.) Based on this clear purpose for John, John 3 is definitely talking about salvation, not entering the millenium. Nicodemus is told he must be born again right then.

Once again, note that John is about salvation (20:31). As to John 3 speaking about "age-lasting life," this is the first I've ever heard that interpretation, and I simply don't believe it. The same exact phrase occurs 34 times in the LXX and NT, and its meaning has been firmly established for a long, long time. I don't have time to discourse more on that--have to work.

Now, are you going to answer my comment on the present tense in Luke (6:20, 7:28, 10:9)?

It was a slight compliment. I don't know enough about your belief to give you more than that. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Well there you go. Nothing more I am going to say is going to convince you. As a missionary I surprised to hear that you have never heard of aionios meaning something other than everlasting. I don't why that surprises me. It shouldn't, but it did.

By the way you hit John on the head in that it is talking about the salvation of the soul. The salvation of the soul is NOT eternal salvation and can only occur AFTER eternal salvation is over and done with.

Unfortunatley you have gone the way of most and that is saying that it isn't true after a few minutes of looking at it.