rhutchin

Which allows only for those circumcised in heart to enter His sanctuary regardless whether circumcised in flesh. Fleshly circumcision is irrelevant.

rhutchin

He could have been a very unique human. One conceived without a human father, for instance.

I don't see why this would be true.

That system did not save the Jews from their sins. It only allowed them to atone for sins that they committed.

But consider who it was that accused Jesus of blasphemy.

How do these attributes (being human and dying in disgrace) invalidate John 3:16.

Jayrok

That's not what it says. No one uncircumcised in heart can enter my sanctuary and no one uncircumcised in the flesh can enter my sanctuary. To enter into God's sactuary, according to God, you have to be circumcised in heart and also in the flesh.

Paul is the only one that said circucision is irrelevent.

aa5874

So, how can a supposed man give other humans eternal life even when he has died? To worship a human as a God cannot help anyone when they are dead.

Dead bodies have been found that are thousands of years old, do you still think John 3.16 applies to those dead bodies.

John 3.16 cannot be shown to be true, it was a bogus claim, especially when it is considered the Jews had a system already in use for the atonement of sins sanctioned or commanded by the supposed God of the Jews, with the Jewish Temple still standing.

Doug Shaver

Well, we already disagree. I think the reliability of an unknown person is itself unknown, and I cannot agree that that is an irrelevancy.

Can you quote a professional historian endorsing that presumption? I took a course in historiography just last year. We had four textbooks, and not one of the authors said anything like it.

aa5874

Well, in John 3.16, a man promises people eternal life if they believe he is the son of a God, now as soon as the first believer died, the claim became bogus.

Even, the life of Jesus was not eternal, in the NT, the life of Jesus came to an end.

John 3.16 is both false and stupid, it would appear Jesus thought he would never die, but according to the story, he did and would have been known to be a fraud and a blasphemer if he existed at all.

bacht

John's gospel is usually dated after the other 3 in the NT, and he seems to deliberately comment on them (eg. the dating of the trial and execution). His Jesus is a superhero, not a normal teacher or prophet.

I don't know the current scholarly consensus but I thought gJohn was dated no earlier that mid-2nd C, and possibly much later. The bit about the beloved disciple is a clear indication of a fictional narrative device intended to date the whole book pre-70.

The experts here could probably list anachronisms and heresy de-bunking going on in this gospel. For one thing there is no apocalyptic, rather a realized eschatology, which seems more appropriate to the second C rather than the 1st.

show_no_mercy

gJohn is, according to scholars, the last canonical gospel written. Another thing that damages the credibility of the anon writer is that he says that Christians have been kicked out of the synagoges during the lifetime of Jesus but this doesn't actually happen until after the fall of the 2nd Temple. gJohn's Christ seems to be a mixup of the "gnostic" Christ of Paul's epistles and the Clark Kent/Superman Jesus (ie hiding his "true identity") of the synoptics.

I don't know about mid-second century, but it's definitely after the fall of the Temple and after the synoptics; probably written sometime after Paul's letters began being seen as "authoritative" and Gnosticism began gaining popularity. It's definitely fits in the trend of going from a purely human with a little bit of magial powers Jesus in Mark without a resurrection (in the original ending) to the 100% god/Superman Christ of the Gnostics.

aa5874

From the very first verse of gMark, Jesus is introduced as a full-blown God.

And gMark 1.23-24 And in gMark 2.5, Jesus forgave the sins of the sick which prompted the Jews to ask this question. Mark 2.7 There is also Mark 9.2-4 This is Mark 16.6, considered to be the short ending or part of the original ending Jesus was a full-blown God in gMark.

Analyst

In the versions we have now, yes.