Another problem with the Gospel of John

[Elijah John]

A fundamental contradiction with the Synoptics anyway:

John 3:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

VS


Luke 23:34

King James Version (KJV)

34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

---

The Romans who pinned Jesus to the cross did not believe "in the name of the only begotten Son of God." So according to John, they must have been "condemned already".

But in Luke, Jesus asks the Father to forgive them. Why? If they were supposedly "condemned already" for not believing in him. But Jesus pleads ignorance on their behalf.

Could it be that God's mercy is more extensive and encompassing than John gives Him credit for?

[1213]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Jesus asks to forgive the crucifixion. I think there is no reason to think he means everything else also.

And I also want to say that the judgment or damnation is not because of disbelief, it is because of unrighteousness. If person doesn’t accept the forgiveness and become righteous, the judgment that is already decided because of unrighteousness stays.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Jesus asks to forgive the crucifixion. I think there is no reason to think he means everything else also.

And I also want to say that the judgment or damnation is not because of disbelief, it is because of unrighteousness. If person doesn’t accept the forgiveness and become righteous, the judgment that is already decided because of unrighteousness stays.

I think Jesus' statement of "forgive them" is the deepest example Jesus could ever have given in being kind and understanding. It's an example of how he wants us to live our lives. You'll note he didn't say "You are forgiven" as if God himself is forgiving them, but rather he's expressing his own personal forgiveness. Notably, if he were God, that would be one and the same I suppose... I also would agree that unrighteousness is the real problem, but unfortunately that's not what the book of John claims. It only refers to lack of belief as being the downfall of the Pharisees. M.M.L is about being a good person and J. is about belief.

It must be noted that merely doing good deeds doesn't make someone a good person but that a good person does good deeds. This is often confusing enough to other people to think it's about faith instead as John would have you believe. A good person is kind and a kind person gives to those in need. But you can give to those in need without any form of kindness. The kindness is what makes you good, not the giving. But a kind person gives.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Jesus asks to forgive the crucifixion. I think there is no reason to think he means everything else also.

And I also want to say that the judgment or damnation is not because of disbelief, it is because of unrighteousness. If person doesn’t accept the forgiveness and become righteous, the judgment that is already decided because of unrighteousness stays.

Why, if forgiveness is an all or nothing proposition as Fundamentalist Trinitarians and followers of John and Paul assert, would Jesus ask God to forgive one particular sin, (major sin as it is) when it would have no effect on whether the perpetrator is ultimately saved or damned?

[1213]

I also would agree that unrighteousness is the real problem, but unfortunately that's not what the book of John claims. It only refers to lack of belief as being the downfall of the Pharisees. M.M.L is about being a good person and J. is about belief.

I think this depends on what you think person must believe. And even though the salvation is matter of belief, it is not the whole truth. By believing person can have new beginning, sin forgiven and clean start. But if person don’t also become righteous and is not born anew as Jesus taught, when he has sins forgiven, he most probably does sin again and so is again unrighteous and not going to get eternal life.

So I think it is mistake to reduce all that Jesus said to one word believe. All words that are in the Bible are there with good reason and they should not be ignored and bypassed blindly.

Also John told about this, when he said:

Jesus answered him, "Most assuredly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can't see the Kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Jesus answered, "Most assuredly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can't enter into the Kingdom of God! That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Don't marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.'
John 3:3-7

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13

Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

[1213]

Why, if forgiveness is an all or nothing proposition as Fundamentalist Trinitarians and followers of John and Paul assert, would Jesus ask God to forgive one particular sin, (major sin as it is) when it would have no effect on whether the perpetrator is ultimately saved or damned?

I don’t think we have any way to know at the moment that it would not have any positive effect.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 5 by 1213]

As every believer I have pressed on the issue will admit that they indeed have deliberately sinned after being born again and in fact they will continue to do so till they die, how is it that the Spirit will not allow the believer to overcome the world while that person remains in the world.

How can this fact be reconciled to this text?

59.1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

It in fact claims that no one who is born again sins in ignorance or weakness.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 5 by 1213]

As every believer I have pressed on the issue will admit that they indeed have deliberately sinned after being born again and in fact they will continue to do so till they die, how is it that the Spirit will not allow the believer to overcome the world while that person remains in the world.

How can this fact be reconciled to this text?

59.1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

It in fact claims that no one who is born again sins in ignorance or weakness.

It seems there were so many competing theologies at the time that different traditions were recorded and were the 'flavor of the day'.

Personally, I think it's a shame Marcion didn't have more support. Christianity would be so much more palatable.

Wait. I just realized I can assert Marcionism was the only true version of Christianity! Woe to those who are unbelievers!

[The Me's]

A fundamental contradiction with the Synoptics anyway:

John 3:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

VS


Luke 23:34

King James Version (KJV)

34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

---

The Romans who pinned Jesus to the cross did not believe "in the name of the only begotten Son of God." So according to John, they must have been "condemned already".

But in Luke, Jesus asks the Father to forgive them. Why? If they were supposedly "condemned already" for not believing in him. But Jesus pleads ignorance on their behalf.

Could it be that God's mercy is more extensive and encompassing than John gives Him credit for?

The basis of all claims of "problems" related to the Bible almost always arise from poor interpretation.

In the case of the passages you quoted above, you misunderstood John because it's an expression of the Asian view of fate. Most of us believe that fate is something that ultimately happens in the future, whereas most early Asian cultures believed fate was decided at creation in the form of boundaries, and since it was already set, it was inescapable.

Those fates are boundaries. Inside the boundaries we have freedom to choose, but our choices have consequences. In this passage in John, the consequences of not believing is ultimate death.

The Romans in Luke suffered this fate if they also didn't believe. Jesus asking for their forgiveness did nothing more than make an opportunity available to them, whether they took it or not was up to them.

[Divine Insight]

The basis of all claims of "problems" related to the Bible almost always arise from poor interpretation.

But who's to say what constitutes poor interpretation?

Surely you as an individual mortal person would not be so arrogant to believe that you would have a better interpretation than say Pope Francis, or any other Pope for that matter. Or any other priest or preacher for that matter.

Yet look at the world around you. It consists entirely of Popes, priests, pastors, and Christians who are all in total disagreement with each other over what constitutes a proper interpretation of these ancient fables.

In fact, why even stop with the Christianities?

Judaism was the original religion from which Christianity grew as an interpreted offshoot. Yet, the Jews themselves do not agree with the Christian interpretations of events and rumors.

And we can't ignore the Muslims and their disagreeing sects of Islam as well. Even they would count as people who have "poor interpretations" of this foundational mythology.

Now, in the light of this, can you even begin to fathom the extent of your own personal arrogance to suggest that all these other people of the world have a "Poor Interpretation" of things whilst you miraculously have somehow found a correct and true interpretation.

This has to be the worst apologetic argument that can ever be made for any particular interpretation of these ancient fables and rumors.

Clearly it's not even reasonable to suggest that a "Poor Interpretation" can even exist. All that exists are "interpretations" passing judgement on whether they are good interpretation or poor interpretations amounts to nothing more than personal arrogance.

In fact, it is precisely this kind of personal arrogance that has the Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Protestants all at each others own throats with accusations of having the "wrong interpretations" of these ancient fables.

To argue that "poor interpretations" are a problem within this religion is actually quite hilarious. Because for those of us who are "outside" of it, we can clearly see that nary a single solitary person has a clue what these ancient fables might mean.

In fact, no one has yet been able to give a consistent picture of these religions and this is precisely why they continue to all thrive simultaneously. These ancient fables are so ambiguous and impossible to pin down that they are actually the source of the mass confusion and arrogance associated with these religions.

And this is precisely what allows everyone's personal opinions to fly.

But they don't really fly. They only fly for the person who holds the delusion that their ideas smell better than everyone elses.

~~~~~~

I don't need an interpreter to show me that John specifically said that those who do not believe in the name of God's only begotten son are already damned, and that Jesus clearly rebuked that specific charge.

Jesus and John are saying precisely opposite things that cannot be justified or made to come into harmony.

As far as I'm concerned, if you claim to have an interpretation that can bring that into harmony then you are only fooling yourself because these are polar opposite proclamations.

John says they are condemned already specifically for this reason.

Jesus exonerates them on the grounds that they don't know any better, for this very same reason.

Jesus and John are butting head big time here.

If there is any truth to this story then one of these men are necessarily a liar. Is it Jesus or John?

Or to exonerate both of these men you could just allow that the whole thing is nothing more than superstitious rumors that people happened to be caught up in during these superstitious times. Then they can both be exonerated because they know not what they do.