Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but this claim was rejected by Jewish leadership… yet Nicodemus (one of said leaders) visited Jesus under cover of darkness and pressed him further.
Read 16-21 again, remembering who Nicodemus was and that he did not visit openly, but secretly in the darkness, and that his line of questioning was patronizing at best, and bad faith at worst (which Jesus does not let him get away with).
The context here is explicitly It’s about Israelites - but even more specifically Jewish leadership (e.g. the Sanhedrin, of which Nicodemus was a member) rejecting Jesus status and authority as Messiah despite both the evidence and Jesus unambiguous claims.
See also Luke 7, where Nicodemus suggests his peers hear Jesus out, and they essentially reply: “Pfft, nobody from a redneck backwater like Galilee could ever be a prophet.”
Where does he specify that? Because I’ve read it in context and he never specifies that he’s specifically talking about the Sanhedrin, so please don’t try this on me.
Look, this isn’t very hard. Who is Jesus talking to? What is the circumstance for this discussion? What are they talking about and why?
Jesus is the Messiah to the Israelites… the ethnically Jewish people… God’s chosen people. To inherit eternal life, they needed only to accept him as such, which also means accepting his authority and obeying his teaching. This is exactly in line with the much older religious Law regarding righteousness (e.g. going back to Noachide Law). It was only after the resurrection that he commanded his apostles to spread this to the rest of the world.
Now because this section of scripture you want to scrutinize is little more than a restatement of concepts that span most of scripture, I feel like I need to clear up an assumption you may have (and a completely understandable one, at that) about the “afterlife”.
In Jesus time there was an ongoing debate about the Resurrection of the Dead, an even in which everyone who ever lived is raised and judged. The Righteous will be granted eternal life in a new creation/reality… those judged otherwise will be destroyed; dead forever. The Pharisaic tradition, of which Jesus was an advocate, taught this. The Sadducees (the priest caste) disavowed this dogma, arguing that you had one life and dead was dead.
The Pharisaic tradition had also slightly adapted the rules for gentiles, which were more lax given they weren’t raised under the Law.
Modern Judaism (mostly) teaches the Sadducee interpretation: you have one life and dead is dead.
But modern Christianity teaches something else entirely: neo-Hellenism. That is, when you die, your “soul” (which is not a scriptural concept) is judged immediately and then sent to either heaven or hell (hades). As such, modern Christianity teaches that you that you either “love Jesus” or you will be tormented for all eternity. None of that is scriptural. None of it occurs in scripture at all.
Scripturally, Heaven (specifically “Third Heaven”) is the dwelling place of God and it is not a place for humans (Jesus even mentions this in the very section of John we are discussing). The idea of an immediate “afterlife” is entirely of Hellenist origin… hades, hell, the concept of some kind of ongoing consciousness after death… all of it pagan and completely at odds with scripture and Jesus own teaching.
But then, I ask you, how often does a modern “Christian” let Jesus’ teaching get in the way of their political agenda? It’s almost like they reject Jesus teaching and behave like the scribes and Pharisees instead…
I didn’t say that, either, and I think you know that. It’s odd that you seem to deliberately ignore the context of my words as much as those we are discussing.
Excuse? It’s a scathing rebuke to Nicodemus face.
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but this claim was rejected by Jewish leadership… yet Nicodemus (one of said leaders) visited Jesus under cover of darkness and pressed him further.
Read 16-21 again, remembering who Nicodemus was and that he did not visit openly, but secretly in the darkness, and that his line of questioning was patronizing at best, and bad faith at worst (which Jesus does not let him get away with).
And yet he says any non-Christian is condemned. That’s very clear. The all-loving Jesus condemns anyone who doesn’t love him back.
It doesn’t say that at all, though.
The context here is explicitly It’s about Israelites - but even more specifically Jewish leadership (e.g. the Sanhedrin, of which Nicodemus was a member) rejecting Jesus status and authority as Messiah despite both the evidence and Jesus unambiguous claims.
See also Luke 7, where Nicodemus suggests his peers hear Jesus out, and they essentially reply: “Pfft, nobody from a redneck backwater like Galilee could ever be a prophet.”
Where does he specify that? Because I’ve read it in context and he never specifies that he’s specifically talking about the Sanhedrin, so please don’t try this on me.
I don’t know what to tell you. The text hasn’t changed in nearly two millennia. It’s right there right now as it always has been.
Well then I guess John 3:16 was also only addressed to a small number of Jewish leaders, right?
“That whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” only applies to the Sanhedrin, yes?
Because it’s only two verses away and 3:17 isn’t “but the next thing I say only applies to the Sanhedrin.”
So I guess only the Sanhedrin who believe in him will have eternal life.
Correct?
Look, this isn’t very hard. Who is Jesus talking to? What is the circumstance for this discussion? What are they talking about and why?
Jesus is the Messiah to the Israelites… the ethnically Jewish people… God’s chosen people. To inherit eternal life, they needed only to accept him as such, which also means accepting his authority and obeying his teaching. This is exactly in line with the much older religious Law regarding righteousness (e.g. going back to Noachide Law). It was only after the resurrection that he commanded his apostles to spread this to the rest of the world.
Now because this section of scripture you want to scrutinize is little more than a restatement of concepts that span most of scripture, I feel like I need to clear up an assumption you may have (and a completely understandable one, at that) about the “afterlife”.
In Jesus time there was an ongoing debate about the Resurrection of the Dead, an even in which everyone who ever lived is raised and judged. The Righteous will be granted eternal life in a new creation/reality… those judged otherwise will be destroyed; dead forever. The Pharisaic tradition, of which Jesus was an advocate, taught this. The Sadducees (the priest caste) disavowed this dogma, arguing that you had one life and dead was dead.
The Pharisaic tradition had also slightly adapted the rules for gentiles, which were more lax given they weren’t raised under the Law.
Modern Judaism (mostly) teaches the Sadducee interpretation: you have one life and dead is dead.
But modern Christianity teaches something else entirely: neo-Hellenism. That is, when you die, your “soul” (which is not a scriptural concept) is judged immediately and then sent to either heaven or hell (hades). As such, modern Christianity teaches that you that you either “love Jesus” or you will be tormented for all eternity. None of that is scriptural. None of it occurs in scripture at all.
Scripturally, Heaven (specifically “Third Heaven”) is the dwelling place of God and it is not a place for humans (Jesus even mentions this in the very section of John we are discussing). The idea of an immediate “afterlife” is entirely of Hellenist origin… hades, hell, the concept of some kind of ongoing consciousness after death… all of it pagan and completely at odds with scripture and Jesus own teaching.
But then, I ask you, how often does a modern “Christian” let Jesus’ teaching get in the way of their political agenda? It’s almost like they reject Jesus teaching and behave like the scribes and Pharisees instead…
Absolutely none of that tells me whether or not John 3:16 only applies to the Sanhedrin like John 3:18, according to you, does.
I didn’t say that, either, and I think you know that. It’s odd that you seem to deliberately ignore the context of my words as much as those we are discussing.