John 3:16 questions

I received one of those emails a while back that are designed to uplift and encourage people. This one was a story about John 3:16, and a little boy who was finding out what John 3:16 means. I've always had reservations about John 3:16, even when I professed to be a christian. So...I'll air a few of these questions and comments here.

If you are easily offended, you might want to stop reading now. I will not intentionally say anything disrespectful about christianity, but questions seem to upset people in this area, where unquestioning belief seems to be required.

To preface these questions I will say I am not an atheist, nor am I in the business of leading people away from their religious beliefs. If you accept christianity unquestioningly and are happy that way, I am truly happy for you. I, however, am apparently incapable of accepting it unquestioningly. I can't help but believe that when God instilled reason in me that God expected me to make use of it. And reason has led me to the following questions.

That aside, here is the text of John 3:16 (for the benefit of those who do not have it memorized)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

1) My first question relates to the "one and only son" aspect. Presumably he is the one and only son by choice, right? What would stop an omnipotent god from creating another son?

2) "...he gave his one and only Son..." The gist of this statement seems to imply that God so loved the world that he made this sacrifice of giving his only son to the world. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, the wording of the statement leads me to believe that God is making the _sacrifice_ of giving his only son. Does he really give him, though? If God is omnipresent, as most christians I've encountered will assert, was there ever a time when God was without his son? Let's say for the sake of argument that God is not omnipresent. That would mean he was separated from his son for ~ 33 earth years, right? To an eternal being, as God presumably is, what an infinitessimally small amount of "time" must 33 years be? Let's be generous and say that it equates to one second. After that time, according to the story as it has been communicated to me, God gets his son back for eternity. How much of a sacrifice is that? If I gave you my car for one second, and then took it back, should you be expected to be eternally grateful to me for my sacrifice?

3) That leads to Jesus' sacrifice. Granted, 33 years of life in an earthly body would no doubt be terribly constraining for an omnipotent God. I expect being crucified really hurt (though I would expect an omnipotent God-man to have some mad mind-over-matter skills.) Spending 3 days in hell paying for the sins of the world isn't really something I can fathom, so I won't try. BUT - 3 days? I can fathom that. (As an aside, if he was crucified on a Friday afternoon and was already ressurected on Sunday morning, isn't that closer to 2 days?) IMO, the sacrifice aspect of dying for someone is terribly diminished if you rise from the dead in less than 3 days, and spend eternity ruling the universe at the right hand of God. That's really kind of a sweetheart deal, more than a sacrifice. I bet money that you would be able to find regular old non-divine humans that would take a deal like that.

4) If the sacrifice of Jesus was part of the plan, which seems to be suggested by John 3:16, could the people have done anything BUT crucify him? When you come up against a plan of God, it seems to me that your hand is somewhat forced. It seems very much like a "blue suicide" where someone kills themself by causing a cop to shoot them. Most people would agree that's not a very nice thing to do.

5) A bloody human sacrifice for the vicarious atonement of sins? The logic of that utterly escapes me. It is, IMO, so plainly a continuation of the line of primitive thinking in which animals were sacrificed to appease gods. Washing away sins with blood? That makes no sense. None. Wash your hands with blood...wash your clothes with blood, you'll see just how good blood is at washing things. I bet that most people you'll meet would agree with the statement "Bloody human sacrifices are babaric." Yet many of these people have no problem believing that God centered his entire plan of human salvation on this practice. That seems rather insulting to God, IMO.

6) I'm going to burn in hell forever. That's what many people believe. Because I do not profess belief in Jesus as my savior, and accept that he died for my sins, I will perish in the everlasting flames of hell. This is a horrendous insult to God, IMO. Why? I'm better than that, and it's insulting to say that I'm better than God. There is nothing my son could say or do that would cause me to allow him to be tortured for eternity. Nothing. Especially something as paltry as simply not believing some fantastic tale I've spun that doesn't accord with reason. Shield your eyes in heaven, those of you who accepted Jesus, because as a man who loves and serves God, I'll burn with a righteous flame.

 

Going to have a very busy day but all your questions can be answered with a few words, THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.

 

Your primary fallacy is assuming that human reason in general and your reason in particular is "reasonable".

That's a big "if".

You are a closed system; you have an extraordinarily limited frame of reference. And you must grant that it could be wrong--damnably wrong. And so could mine.

This is the problem with those who accept only those things that they can understand or can wrap their natural minds around. In their arrogance, they fail to acknowledge their profound limits; they lie to themselves about how tiny they are.

Now, brace yourself, and hang in there with me. Don't tune me out.

Let me give you an example: the Earth is a ball about 8,000 miles wide. To scale, it's pretty much a BB orbiting within a solar system the width of metro area. Our solar system itself is similarly a speck within the context of our galaxy. Our galaxy is but one speck of light within the context of our universe.

We can't even begin to grasp it, we're just throwing around words at this point without a shred of comprehension. But if you'd like to know, as near as we can tell, our Universe is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles or so wide. But we don't even know if dimensions as we know them apply here--they probably don't. And even if they did, just seeing those zeros there doesn't even begin to give you a notion. Remember, light travels 186,000 miles a second. And we can see "distances" through our highest-powered telescopes of 13 or 14 billion light years.

Now, to what end did I write that? I just wanted to show you what a speck our earth is--and by extension what specks you and I are. I can't even come up with a frame of reference that either of us can understand about the size of us vis-a-vis the Universe--not a chance. I think National Geographic tried to do it a few years back, and it took them several understandable frames of reference before they could compare the Earth with the Universe. In other words, the Earth is a marble within the context of an object the size of a city, then that in turn is a marble in the context of a state, then that in turn is a marble in the context of an object the size of a...etc etc etc. I think they went through seven such frames of reference before they finally reached the limits--as near as we know--of the whole shooting match.

And yet, that infinitesimal speck with which we started--the Earth--is even beyond your comprehension. Can you really comprehend the size of the Earth--as unbelievably small as it is--except as a number or an absraction?

No, you cannot. In fact, you know so little, you can't even tell me how many socks you have in your drawer right now. Or how many lines you have on the palm of your own hand which you see every day.

Not let us assume a G-d who could create--or destroy--such a Universe with a crick of a finger. A G-d who says the Universe and the Heavens beyond cannot contain Him. A G-d who can measure the Universe, so we read, with the span of his hand. Your span's 8-10 inches, as is mine. Try a span a million times a million times a million times a million miles wide!

Now tell me you can grasp that G-d and wrap your brain around His plans. Tell me it's not presumptuous and laughable vanity to rule out anything because it "doesn't accord with reason", knowing how paltry your reason must be given that you--like me--basically know one marginal step above nothing at all.

You need to understand your place, realize the limits of your very finite mind, and approach this with a little wonder and awe. You will never see the Kingdom of G-d until you approach it as a little child. You will never understand your place in the Universe without a healthy dose of humility.

And by the way, you are most certainly not "righteous", and neither am I.

 

I work with what I have.

Looking about creation, one can see what appears to be a mathematical regularity to the cosmos, yet in this realm that is arguably of the utmost importance to humanity, I am expected to believe that an incomprehensible "God logic" takes over?

That seems to be a pass to believe any absurd notion that comes down the pike.

Thanks for your comments.

 

It would (or could) be helpful to see specific responses to dcv's six specific questions or stipulations above, if possible.

To dcv:

This is not meant to disrespect or "flame" you but the wise cahuna said that "it is easier to attract birds with nectar than with poison."

Oftentimes, if one sincerely seeks answers or a genuine dialogue, it helps to remove all traces of condescension from one's query. Having said that, I do admire and respect your courage to boldly post your thinking on such deeply religious (or at least, christian) matters, knowing full well that you could - or would - be attacked, maybe unfairly.

Carry on!

Thanks.

 

ALL IMO

"Son of God" is not a creation of God. He is God. God does not make Himself. This Son of God took on humanity. Thereafter The Son exists in two complete natures: divine and human, each having a mind and will.. ie, the Son as God was not limited to that body or mind.

It was the humanity of Christ which was given not the deity. The humanity of Christ matured , learned obedience to God, was perfected for His office , and died a redeeming death for my sins.

As said above, this was divinely decreed. Yet, I'm not sure that His death requires any more than letting men be what they are and do what they will. He also was resurrected. I am saved by believing that and accepting His righteousness.

as said, this is ALL IMO.

I don't mind evidencing my views with Scripture and theogical methods which are Christian. But I've no interest in arguing my views outside of these. Neither am I sure that can be convincingly done.

I'm sorry if my views really are no answer to the difficulties you express.

 

DCV:

And what you have is utterly inadequate to the task at hand. I think I've demonstrated that pretty much beyond dispute.

Admit that, and you might find the Truth.

What are you but a vapor that's here for moment, then gone? I've already shown you--and you must acknowledge--that you can't even comprehend the size of the infinitesimal speck upon which you reside.What exactly about you and your grand incredible mind makes you think you could understand G-d's ways? His spiritual ways? He already said quite clearly that His ways are not ours. Would you really expect them to be?

You can persuse the Periodic Table of Elements, look at the numbers, imagine those little electrons spinning about with dizzying speed. Now try inventing all those elements from scratch. Inventing the concept of elements. Inventing the concept of matter. And bringing it all into existence with a word.

Any entity that could pull that one off would not be capable of natural comprehension.

Of course you can see a mathematic regularity to the Cosmos. That's the fingerprint of G-d. I suppose you'd even acknowledge the possibility. But just because you see this regularity doesn't mean you really understand it. Of course, you don't. You might be able to give it words: "The Universe is 13.7 billion light years or so deep in any given direction--we think." But don't equate that with understanding. And don't presume that even if you could understand the Universe in its entirety, that you could understand the G-d behind it, the spiritual realm. That's a whole different ball game. And yes, it is incomprehensible and it is G-d's logic.

Why are you insisting on believing only that which you can grasp with a finite mind? Can my cat, presently licking her butt, understand quantum mechanics? No, she understands but a few things: eat, poop, lick. And I'll hazard a guess that if the cat's level of understanding is 1 on a scale of 1 to 1,000,000, with G-d being 1,000,000, that DCV, as smart as he may be compared with the average man on the street, is about 1.001. And I'm right there with you.

You need a mite of humility. We all do.

 

I don't think DCV's a flamer (not that you're accusing him of it), and I sincerely hope that I'm not attacking unfairly.

 

Doctor Fauss,

Your reasoning is identical to that contained in the "grafted" conclusion to the Book of Job. It was unsatisfactory then and it is unsatisfactory now.

I have never quite been satisfied with Job; the parable raises issues that can best been seen for what they are, reasoned, good faith dissent from the Party line (I'm talking Jewish, here, not Christian).

A more real version of dissent is Korach's Rebellion. Korach demanded to know what made Moses and Aaron so special; in consequence, so we are told, the earth split and swallowed the dissenters.

Sure. Well, Moses WON at any rate but there IS NO satisfactory ANSWER to Korach's question given in Torah. Had Korach won, I suppose Torah would read completely differently, it it existed at all.

What you and the others posting here are saying is, "We don't understand. You can't understand. God is arbitrary. Get over it."

Sometimes I think that the real "leap of faith" is exactly that "getting over it". But, like the original poster, I am unwilling to let God (as constructed by Jews and Christians) off the hook quite so easily.

The lesson I think should be drawn is NOT "We don't understand the mind of God" but rather, "Our conception of the Divine in the Universe leads to an unresolvable contradiction. Therefore, our beliefs about GOD are wrong."

 

Here we go with this Job thing again. Job is completely satisfying because it's the truth and it exposes us for our utter vanity. As does Solomon.

G-d is not arbitrary. He simply cannot be understood through natural means. And yes, you're right, when attempting to use your human reason alone, G-d will be a hopeless contraditction.

Now, I'm not going to let you off the hook so easily: please tell me, with Job and the size of the Universe and the incredible incomprehensibility of it all--which you must absolutely, without qualification acknowledge--in mind, what about your brain and powers of reason makes you think you could understand the Creator of everything? You, o little man, who struggles to master the Rule Against Perpetuities?

 

It wasn't grafted.

And stop calling me "doctor", you "Doctor" and soon-to-be "Master".

 

Look at the Hebrew.

And I do NOT accept Goethe's position that what men do not understand they must needs worship. (My translation)

How about changing your screen name to "Dr. Fauss-tus"?

 

I will. Our goal around this house is to learn it. But for now, I'll just have to make do with my Hebrew-English concordance.

Nor do I.

But I do believe that any object worthy of worship will necessarily not be capable of full human comprehension. And a very famous and very brilliant Pharisee had a similar sentiment: "We see through a glass, darkly."

 

1) For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son ... . John 3:16. But as many as receive him, to them gave he power to become sons of God ... . John 1:12. He only needed one begotten Son to die as an atonement for the many who would be given the opportunity to become adoptive sons and daughters. Besides, YHWH is not a selfish male gutterslut like Zeus and all the others.

2 & 3) The 33 years, however, would have seemed like a fairly long time once Jesus was endowed with a human nature. I think that death by asphyxiation would be quite painful. And you seem to forget that one of the thieves on the cross next to him told him, if he was truly the Son of God, to "save yourself and us." And Jesus, of course, rebuked him. So, no magic here.

4) Humans have free will. I think that everybody involved in Jesus' death would have freely done so anyway. So why worry?

5) The sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the Christian religion was intended to put an end to the system of animal sacrifices in the Jewish religion just as the system of animal sacrifices in the Jewish religion was intended to put an end to human sacrifice in the Canaanite religion.

6) You have every right to make that decision.

 

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

I'm certainly not a Christian theologian. But I have to say that this sentence doesn't seem to imply the orthodox trinitarian and incarnation doctrines.

God and Son are apparently being treated as if they were two distinct things. The sentence seems consistent with an adoptionist or an Arian Christology, or something like that.

Personally I'd be more inclined to read it in terms of preexisting Jewish understandings of what they expected their Messiah to be, rather than in terms of later Christian doctrine which hadn't been elaborated at the time of writing.

But the seeds of subsequent theological problems certainly seem to be present.

If salvation comes from belief in the Son rather than belief in God, and if the Son is a man (or perhaps a created heavenly human archetype or something) who God chose to be his earthly instrument, the problems with the verse are obvious and serious. I think that Athanasius made a similar point a couple of hundred years later, arguing against the Arians that Christ had to be divine in order for Christian salvation to work.

But if the Son is divine, then he has to be a component part of God himself if polytheism is to be avoided. So we have two thirds of the trinity in place.

 

You make a lot of good points, in addition to the one I quoted here.

The trinity is most certainly a difficult doctrine, one that must on some level be accepted on faith rather than reason (though not entirely). The last third of the Trinity is in place when the Son says He will send the Spirit to come and live in us, that He must leave before that Spirit comes (can't exist in the same place at the same time perhaps? But I'm just hand-waving here), and when the Scriptures later proclaim that G-d is Spirit and must be worshipped in spirit.

G-d is One--but G-d is three. They are separate--but one and the same. Does this confuse people? Of course.

Can a three dimensional being comprehend a four dimensional object? No, fat chance. A four dimensional object would cast a three dimensional shadow into our world that--when the four dimensional object is rotated in that "other world" that our minds cannot begin to comprehend--would defy all the three dimensional laws of physics. Yet scientists hypothize additional dimensions of space and time and put numbers to them. We cannot comprehend it, but we can conceive of its existence and imagine that such a universe may be there, yet outside our realm of knowing--we would only see its effects.

Similarly, the G-d who conceived of not only matter but dimensions of space and time, and could create a Heaven or a spiritual world of a million dimensions, might be likely to dom and be things that are outside our comprehension.

But what a foolish conceit it is that would drive a man to reject that G-d because he can't understand Him/Her/It with his paltry, laughably naive reason. Give me a break!

(BTW: I am not accusing you, Bill, of the above)

 

You know, little fauss, you are an object of considerable interest, not only to me but to the various Christian scholars on this board because you are attempting to reinterpret your Christian faith into the context of Jewish observance.

This is, of course, not unknown...there are a couple of so-called "Messianic Jewish" congregations in this area. But I must say that it strikes me as IMPOSSIBLE to see through Jewish eyes and with Jewish experience and arrive at Christianity. History, to a large extent, would seem to bear this out.

Nevertheless, that's your mishegoss and I wish you all blessings from heaven since, of course, the result will be at a minimum a just and compassionate life well lived. No Jew could ask for more.

But I would hint this: Seeing Jewishly isn't like seeing, say, as a Muslim...Islam means, or so I'm told, "submission". Christianity demands faith from those who do not see (i.e. Thomas, right?) But the very NAME "Israel" means something like, "He struggled with God".

Nothing in Jewish thought allows you to accept without questioning. In the Middle Ages, there is a famous story, a group of Rabbis put God in trial for breach of contract! This was a serious exercise, not a Purimspiel.

I think you will find that Job is far more than a Divine Warning to accept without question. It is at once an indictment, a plea for justice, an expression of the tangled relationship between searching humanity and a diety that we absolutely CANNOT describe in any way whatever.

I give you the Book of Job! To understand Job is to dispair and exult at the same time and for the same reason!

 

Re: Re: John 3:16 questions

OK. YHWH's not a gutterslut, but Zeus is. Got it.

How is it that I seem to forget this?
The relevance of this anecdote to the question at hand escapes me, as does your comment "no magic here."

I'm not worried...just curious. Whether they would have freely done it or not doesn't really matter. If this were the plan of a determined omnipotent god then they had no choice.

I'm a little more cynical about the origins of animal sacrifice, and my conception of it doesn't include something God gave to man. To ascribe such a barbaric practice to God is unspeakable, IMO. Have you ever read the Iliad? I can't help but notice that the guts and other inedible parts of the animal were burnt in sacrifice, while the "tasty bits" were consumed by those giving the "sacrifice."

Allow me to reiterate, though. Sacrifice implies giving something up. If you get it back, it ain't much of a sacrifice, IMO.

Thank the gods for that.

 

And to think I always thought it was because I was a complete nut!

Actually, I agree--to an extent. It was very difficult in Jeshua's day to see His status as Messiah through Jewish eyes conditioned by tradition.

They expected a warrior-king who would push the Romans into the Mediterranean and establish an eternal reign on Earth for G-d's Chosen People. What they got was a Messiah who warned followers that "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword", and admonished them to "turn the other cheek", " don't resist an evil man", and "pray for your enemies", and "if you want to be the greatest, you must be a servant and slave of all". Yet He simultaneously called Jewish leaders of the day "snakes" and "sons of snakes", and my personal favorite: "whitewashed tombs" (hint: probably not a good idea to invite Jeshua to speak at the local Rotary Club meeting).

One can sympathize with them: "Wait a minute, this isn't part of the program!"

He certainly wasn't what they expected. But how often, exactly, is G-d? He wanted to bring more to them than any earthly reign; He wanted to reconcile them to Himself, to give meaning to those eons of sacrifices (I, the L-rd G-d Himself, will be the sacrifice now for all times). He wanted to establish a kingdom in their hearts.

But you know what, the whole thing has that odd sort of twist that makes me think it's not just a concotion of man. It's certainly not what I would've devised, nor what the Jewish leaders wanted.

Let me agree with you on another thing: I don't see how you can look through Jewish eyes and experience and arive at Christianity, either. At least if "Christianity" is defined as what we see practiced on TV or at most mainstream churches. But I would call the majority of that tainted Christianity. Why do you think I lean Messianic? because I believe we lost something centuries ago, we made faith in a Jewish Messiah into something that a Jew can't even recognize. We made a wonderful Pesach into little wafer and cup of juice, we magically turned Saturday (Shabbat) into Sunday, we decontextualized Jeshua from his culture and turned him into an innocuous white hippie. So I agree with you, it's very hard to get from what was to what you see in Christianity today; but that doesn't mean that true Christianity shouldn't be very recognizable to the Jew--it once was, even for those Jews who rejected it.

Remember, my faith teaches that I am but the wild root grafted into the the larger vine of Jewishness. No matter how big the hair gets or how silly the doctrine gets, nothing those televangelists can do can change that simple fact: if you call yourself a Christian, you might as well call yourself a Jew at bottom (even if the Jews cry "foul").

I don't see anywhere in Christian theology that one should not question or wrestle as well. I love the story of Jacob. I feel like him sometimes. My wife always says: "Stop wrestling with G-d all the time". And as Jacob is my model, I know it tends to give one a sore hip.

Perhaps some people in their interpretation of what Christianity is think that one should accept all without question, but that's not me.

I don't disagree in any way.

But isn't the G-d who chose Job as the first book--at least, most scholars think--to put in the hearts of man magnificent? What a wonderful book. Why? becuase he establishes the ground rules: He tells us what He is (to an extent), tells us what we are, and then tells something of the magnitude of the difference.

What a perfect place to start.