John 3

[J. Jump]

As per the OP, J.Jump, I believe the onus is on you to show that the passage, (John 3:1-11) is speaking of the millennial Kingdom.

What a surprise. Another person who thinks we are the only ones that have to prove anything.

Let's just look at one more example of why this is not an everlasting life context. The Son of man was the one being lifted up. And this lifting up was tied directly into the OT type of the serpent being lifted up.

Now who was the serpent lifted up for, saved or unsaved folk? The answer is for saved folks. Those were saved individuals. They ALL left Egypt saved. They ALL passed through the Red Sea saved. They were ALL wondering in the wilderness saved.

And saved folks can be bitten by serpents today just like there were then. And it is because the So of man has been lifted up that we can still today look upon Him and live. If we don't look upon Him today we will perish just like they did if they didn't look at the snake. But nowhere in the OT type or the NT anti-type is this dealing with people that are destined to the lake of fire forever and ever and ever.

That's just a little added tidbit to what has already been given that shows this passage is not talking about everlasting life.

 

[DHK]

What a surprise. Another person who thinks we are the only ones that have to prove anything.

Let's just look at one more example of why this is not an everlasting life context. The Son of man was the one being lifted up. And this lifting up was tied directly into the OT type of the serpent being lifted up.

Now who was the serpent lifted up for, saved or unsaved folk? The answer is for saved folks. Those were saved individuals. They ALL left Egypt saved. They ALL passed through the Red Sea saved. They were ALL wondering in the wilderness saved.

And saved folks can be bitten by serpents today just like there were then. And it is because the So of man has been lifted up that we can still today look upon Him and live. If we don't look upon Him today we will perish just like they did if they didn't look at the snake. But nowhere in the OT type or the NT anti-type is this dealing with people that are destined to the lake of fire forever and ever and ever.

That's just a little added tidbit to what has already been given that shows this passage is not talking about everlasting life.

I am not interested in OT typology or in allegories. Are you unable to take a passage of Scripture and properly exegete it? Do you have any good hermeneutics? Please demonstrate.
Demonstrate it through John 3:1-11.

 

[J. Jump]

I am not interested in OT typology or in allegories.

Scripture is!

 

[DHK]

Scripture is!

I will gather by your answer to my request that you are unable to expound the Scriptures when it comes to John 3:1-11, as you keep avoiding it. After all that was the OP
Do you have an agenda in deliberately derailing this thread.

 

[npetreley]

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 qualification is to believe (not do good works, but believe, or trust) and the result is eternal life. Then it is further qualified as "be saved". This is eternal salvation.

 

[J. Jump]

I will gather by your answer to my request that you are unable to expound the Scriptures when it comes to John 3:1-11, as you keep avoiding it.

And you will gather incorrectly! Just because folks don't want to play your silly games doesn't mean anything.

You got an answer, but your rebuttal is I don't want to hear about types. Well that's not my fault. That is your pickle to deal with. Scripture is written in type-antitype setting. Therefore if we are going to have a correct understanding of Scripture we are going to have to study after that fashion.

You have made it perfectly clear that you are not interested in those things. And that is fine. That is your choice.

 

[DHK]

And you will gather incorrectly! Just because folks don't want to play your silly games doesn't mean anything.

You got an answer, but your rebuttal is I don't want to hear about types. Well that's not my fault. That is your pickle to deal with. Scripture is written in type-antitype setting. Therefore if we are going to have a correct understanding of Scripture we are going to have to study after that fashion.

You have made it perfectly clear that you are not interested in those things. And that is fine. That is your choice.

I am truly sorry if you are unable to engage in meaningful discussion or debate. It is polite to answer a question with a suitable answer not with a "non sequitor." In other words if I asked you about the political conditions in America (I live in Canada), I wouldn't expect you to tell me about farming in China. Yet that is precisely what you are doing.

So let's try again. I will ask you to give me an exposition of John 3:1-11. Please look at the title of the thread and note that it says John 3 So lets begin with the first eleven verses. Do you think that you can be a gentleman and polite enough to engage in any meaningful discussion about this chapter?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

What he also cannot do is to prove that the salvation of Israel has any real bearing on the typology of Numbers 21. The threat of death was not eternal but immediate and restricted to the physical.There is no indication in that passage nor n John 3 to the contrary.

The typology begins with the lifting up and ends with belief on that which is lifted up. The outcome of that belief can be two different things between Numbers 21 and John 3. The eternal salvation of Israel in numbers is irrelevent to the typology.

 

[npetreley]

JJ is just engaging in the same typical behavior of ME proponents. When the topic is sheep and goats, they make the interpretation hinge upon the unrelated fact that goats are clean animals.

One of their debate techniques must be, "When the immediate context doesn't help you make your ME case, grab whatever you want from some other part of the Bible and use it to force the text to support ME."

In fact, their debate tactics are so narrow and predictable, I could write a handbook on how to support ME.

 

[webdog]

Now who was the serpent lifted up for, saved or unsaved folk? The answer is for saved folks. Those were saved individuals. They ALL left Egypt saved. They ALL passed through the Red Sea saved. They were ALL wondering in the wilderness saved.

So what happened to the "saved folk" who passed away prior to this incident with Moses?
Is looking on the snake a "work"?

 

[J. Jump]

It is polite to answer a question with a suitable answer not with a "non sequitor."

Your question was answered. It is not my fault that you are not satisfied with the answer. There is nothing else left open on the matter. I've answered your question and you don't want to interact with what I have said. That's your pickle not mine.

 

[DHK]

Your question was answered. It is not my fault that you are not satisfied with the answer. There is nothing else left open on the matter. I've answered your question and you don't want to interact with what I have said. That's your pickle not mine.

I have seen no exposition of John 3. Are you totally incapable of doing such a task. Or are you unfamiliar with the Scripture?

 

[J. Jump]

So what happened to the "saved folk" who passed away prior to this incident with Moses?

I guess they were buried? What do you think?

Is looking on the snake a "work"?

Yes. They had to do something in order to be saved. They had to look upon the serpent lifted up.

 

[J. Jump]

I have seen no exposition of John 3.

Okay. You are entitled to your opinion, but it's just that.

 

[webdog]

I guess they were buried? What do you think?

I think the text is dealing with eternal salvation, and it's a similie. Your view, however, they didn't get a chance to "work" (look) upon the serpent. What happens to them according to ME?

Yes. They had to do something in order to be saved. They had to look upon the serpent lifted up.

You sound like the calvinists now. Belief is not a work. Receiving a gift is not a work. looking upon the serpent is not a work, as it stemmed from faith, and encompasses the first two.

 

[webdog]

Okay. You are entitled to your opinion, but it's just that.

No opinion...you didn't do it! That's fact.

 

[J. Jump]

Your view, however, they didn't get a chance to "work" (look) upon the serpent.

Who didn't get a chance to look on the serpent? The people that died before that instance? If those are the people you are talking about they didn't need to look on the serpent because they weren't bitten by the snakes. Only the snake bitten folks needed to look upon the serpent.

If that's not what you were addressing this please re-phrase.

Belief is not a work.

Let's just see what Scripture has to say on the matter, shall we?

Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

Looks like believing in this context is a work.

Receiving a gift is not a work.

ABSOLUTELY! But the text we are talking about says nothing about receiving a gift.

No opinion...you didn't do it!

Again it was done you just don't agree with it. That doesn't mean it wasn't done that simply means you don't agree. Your agreement is opinion. Nothing more and nothing less. You can rant and rave until you are blue in the face if you want to, but it doesn't change anything. I explained the verse using Scripture. Your disagreement is opinion.

 

[npetreley]

Again it was done you just don't agree with it.

Everyone but you - that is, everyone here in the land of reality - knows you didn't deal with John 3.

 

[TCGreek]

1. Without getting into the teeth of this discussion I wish to correct a false impression from John 6:28, 29.

2. Jesus was saying to some Jews "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life."

3. Then the Jews asked, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" A fair question.

4. Jesus responded, "This is the work of God, that you belive in Him whom He has sent."

a. This must not be viewed as meritorious works which the Scripture has condemned in so many places (Rom 3-4; Eph 2; Gal 2-3; Phil 3).

b. Rather it must be viewed as "the work of God," which only God can enable the sinner to exercise. In this way, it is a gift of God (Eph 2:8, 9; Phil 1:29).

 

[Hope of Glory]

John 3:3 is talking about being saved (born from above) to see the Kingdom.

John 3:5 goes on further to talk about works to enter the Kingdom.

Nicodemus was a teacher of Israel. He knew the way to get saved.

He should have known more.

Being born from above is the easiest thing in the world.

Being born of water and spirit is the beginning of the hard part.

Back to the type we are given of the children of Israel. They were already in the Promised land before they even stepped foot out of their houses. They were saved. They didn't even have to leave Egypt. All they had to do to receive this promise was to be born into the family. When we are born from above, we are in the family. This promise was unconditional, based on nothing but being in the family, just like our spiritual salvation is. (Genesis 15:18: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates

But, God also made them a promise based on being faithful and doing stuff. This journey began with leaving Egypt behind, being baptized, and being faithful while wandering in the wilderness. This promise was conditional, just as the promise of the coming Kingdom is dependent upon us being baptized and being faithful. (I did a sermon contrasting "born from above" to "born again", and pointed out that "born again" is the idea presented in John 3:5. I found out later that there are Greek mss with "born again of water and spirit".)

If you keep on reading down, when you get to John 3:16, you see that aionian life is dependent upon remaining faithful, and is not guaranteed at all. If it's talking about our spiritual salvation, then we earn getting born into the family, and we can lose our spiritual salvation, and there are contradictions with all the passages that clearly show us that our spiritual salvation is secure and can never be lost or forfeited and is based on nothing but "believe" in the Lord Jesus.

The entire book of John is written to the spiritual man. There is little regarding getting born into the family, other than as a jumping off point, which is quite befitting, since getting born into the family is our jumping off point for our spiritual lives.