John 3:16 means you have to be Christian to get into heaven

[Indeependent]

Wasn't speaking of importance, but rather what one treasures. One example, for me, is the passage in Genesis where God clothes Adam and Eve. It is a beautiful illustration of God's kindness, compassion, empathy, and love. Another is in the Book of Kings where God reveals Himself in a tiny whispering sound.

As far as other Biblical characters, I love Jeremiah where he just could not remain quiet. Isaiah warning, Listen carefully, look intently--but...

You might dismiss these and many others as just the same as all others (all important), but (in my life) they have made more of an impact than some others equally important.

"One example, for me, is the passage in Genesis where God clothes Adam and Eve. It is a beautiful illustration of God's kindness, compassion, empathy, and love."

No it wasn't. It was a symbol of God shaming them for their pitiful humanity.

Now, which of us is correct? Dang, no way to tell...

"No it wasn't. It was a symbol of God shaming them for their pitiful humanity."
Can you elaborate on this using the surrounding verses?
Can you define "humanity"?

Is it surprising that the solution, such as making clothes from a tree, was in existence prior to trespassing God's command?
Or does God provide the solution to all potential trespasses?

The answers to your questions are:

1) pancake
2) cartoon
3) beer


And I get an A+, because anything anyone says about all of this magical nonsense is as true or false as anything anyone else says.

My questions were not in regards to belief, they were in regards to your slant on the scenario.

Yes, I know. But I can produce 20 different "slants" in about 10 minutes, so what is the point of manufacturing even one? THAT is my point.

I'm truly interested...Produce 20...I'll wait.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"One example, for me, is the passage in Genesis where God clothes Adam and Eve. It is a beautiful illustration of God's kindness, compassion, empathy, and love."

No it wasn't. It was a symbol of God shaming them for their pitiful humanity.

Now, which of us is correct? Dang, no way to tell...

"No it wasn't. It was a symbol of God shaming them for their pitiful humanity."
Can you elaborate on this using the surrounding verses?
Can you define "humanity"?

Is it surprising that the solution, such as making clothes from a tree, was in existence prior to trespassing God's command?
Or does God provide the solution to all potential trespasses?

The answers to your questions are:

1) pancake
2) cartoon
3) beer


And I get an A+, because anything anyone says about all of this magical nonsense is as true or false as anything anyone else says.

My questions were not in regards to belief, they were in regards to your slant on the scenario.

Yes, I know. But I can produce 20 different "slants" in about 10 minutes, so what is the point of manufacturing even one? THAT is my point.

I'm truly interested...Produce 20...I'll wait.

No, sorry. Producing 20 equally worthless interpretations as an exercise for you is maybe a job for someone else. But, then you will have 21, including yours.

 

[Indeependent]

"No it wasn't. It was a symbol of God shaming them for their pitiful humanity."
Can you elaborate on this using the surrounding verses?
Can you define "humanity"?

Is it surprising that the solution, such as making clothes from a tree, was in existence prior to trespassing God's command?
Or does God provide the solution to all potential trespasses?

The answers to your questions are:

1) pancake
2) cartoon
3) beer


And I get an A+, because anything anyone says about all of this magical nonsense is as true or false as anything anyone else says.

My questions were not in regards to belief, they were in regards to your slant on the scenario.

Yes, I know. But I can produce 20 different "slants" in about 10 minutes, so what is the point of manufacturing even one? THAT is my point.

I'm truly interested...Produce 20...I'll wait.

No, sorry. Producing 20 equally worthless interpretations as an exercise for you is maybe a job for someone else. But, then you will have 21, including yours.

So you're full of useless air...as usual.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The answers to your questions are:

1) pancake
2) cartoon
3) beer


And I get an A+, because anything anyone says about all of this magical nonsense is as true or false as anything anyone else says.

My questions were not in regards to belief, they were in regards to your slant on the scenario.

Yes, I know. But I can produce 20 different "slants" in about 10 minutes, so what is the point of manufacturing even one? THAT is my point.

I'm truly interested...Produce 20...I'll wait.

No, sorry. Producing 20 equally worthless interpretations as an exercise for you is maybe a job for someone else. But, then you will have 21, including yours.

So you're full of useless air...as usual.

"So you're full of useless air"

Yes, exactly right, in this case. Crafting differing interpretations of this magical nonsense (and also then debating them) IS, indeed, "worthless air". But instead of "you're", you should have said, "we're". Might as well debate whether or not unicorns are faster than leprechauns.

"as usual"

Don't get all whiny on me.

 

[Indeependent]

My questions were not in regards to belief, they were in regards to your slant on the scenario.

Yes, I know. But I can produce 20 different "slants" in about 10 minutes, so what is the point of manufacturing even one? THAT is my point.

I'm truly interested...Produce 20...I'll wait.

No, sorry. Producing 20 equally worthless interpretations as an exercise for you is maybe a job for someone else. But, then you will have 21, including yours.

So you're full of useless air...as usual.

"So you're full of useless air"

Yes, exactly right, in this case. Crafting differing interpretations of this magical nonsense (and also then debating them) IS, indeed, "worthless air". But instead of "you're", you should have said, "we're". Might as well debate whether or not unicorns are faster than leprechauns.

"as usual"

Don't get all whiny on me.

Your adherence to atheism is no more inspired than the Christian adherence to a Cannon filled with incorrect references.

I presume you have never engaged in a discussion of revisionist history, as all history is, or a work of fiction.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, I know. But I can produce 20 different "slants" in about 10 minutes, so what is the point of manufacturing even one? THAT is my point.

I'm truly interested...Produce 20...I'll wait.

No, sorry. Producing 20 equally worthless interpretations as an exercise for you is maybe a job for someone else. But, then you will have 21, including yours.

So you're full of useless air...as usual.

"So you're full of useless air"

Yes, exactly right, in this case. Crafting differing interpretations of this magical nonsense (and also then debating them) IS, indeed, "worthless air". But instead of "you're", you should have said, "we're". Might as well debate whether or not unicorns are faster than leprechauns.

"as usual"

Don't get all whiny on me.

Your adherence to atheism is no more inspired than the Christian adherence to a Cannon filled with incorrect references.

I presume you have never engaged in a discussion of revisionist history, as all history is, or a work of fiction.

I don't claim atheism is inspired. Nor do I care if it is or not. My non-belief in unicorns and leprechauns is also rather uninspired.

And your attempt to pigeonhole this as a discussion of revisionist history is a charlatan's tactic. Revised or not, the point is that this is magical nonsense, and there is no way to measure who is correct. That's a luxury you magical believers have that rational, evidence-based thinkers do not.

I imagine a historian would have a tough time revising the Civil War with States on different sides. He would have evidence to contend with. You have no such burden.

#Worthlessair

 

[Indeependent]

I'm truly interested...Produce 20...I'll wait.

No, sorry. Producing 20 equally worthless interpretations as an exercise for you is maybe a job for someone else. But, then you will have 21, including yours.

So you're full of useless air...as usual.

"So you're full of useless air"

Yes, exactly right, in this case. Crafting differing interpretations of this magical nonsense (and also then debating them) IS, indeed, "worthless air". But instead of "you're", you should have said, "we're". Might as well debate whether or not unicorns are faster than leprechauns.

"as usual"

Don't get all whiny on me.

Your adherence to atheism is no more inspired than the Christian adherence to a Cannon filled with incorrect references.

I presume you have never engaged in a discussion of revisionist history, as all history is, or a work of fiction.

I don't claim atheism is inspired. Nor do I care if it is or not. My non-belief in unicorns and leprechauns is also rather uninspired.

And your attempt to pigeonhole this as a discussion of revisionist history is a charlatan's tactic. Revised or not, the point is that this is magical nonsense, and there is no way to measure who is correct. That's a luxury you magical believers have that rational, evidence-based thinkers do not.

I imagine a historian would have a tough time revising the Civil War with States on different sides. He would have evidence to contend with. You have no such burden.

#Worthlessair

So why did you post on this Thread?
To prove you can never back up your claims of being able to address any issue?
You're not a very good atheist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, sorry. Producing 20 equally worthless interpretations as an exercise for you is maybe a job for someone else. But, then you will have 21, including yours.

So you're full of useless air...as usual.

"So you're full of useless air"

Yes, exactly right, in this case. Crafting differing interpretations of this magical nonsense (and also then debating them) IS, indeed, "worthless air". But instead of "you're", you should have said, "we're". Might as well debate whether or not unicorns are faster than leprechauns.

"as usual"

Don't get all whiny on me.

Your adherence to atheism is no more inspired than the Christian adherence to a Cannon filled with incorrect references.

I presume you have never engaged in a discussion of revisionist history, as all history is, or a work of fiction.

I don't claim atheism is inspired. Nor do I care if it is or not. My non-belief in unicorns and leprechauns is also rather uninspired.

And your attempt to pigeonhole this as a discussion of revisionist history is a charlatan's tactic. Revised or not, the point is that this is magical nonsense, and there is no way to measure who is correct. That's a luxury you magical believers have that rational, evidence-based thinkers do not.

I imagine a historian would have a tough time revising the Civil War with States on different sides. He would have evidence to contend with. You have no such burden.

#Worthlessair

So why did you post on this Thread?
To prove you can never back up your claims of being able to address any issue?
You're not a very good atheist.

I posted right on topic. What "claim" here would you like me to back up? That I can create different slants on any Bible story? Seriously? That's an academic claim; backing it up would be an exercise, and I am not your student. In fact, you would be a fool to deny my claim.

 

[Indeependent]

So you're full of useless air...as usual.

"So you're full of useless air"

Yes, exactly right, in this case. Crafting differing interpretations of this magical nonsense (and also then debating them) IS, indeed, "worthless air". But instead of "you're", you should have said, "we're". Might as well debate whether or not unicorns are faster than leprechauns.

"as usual"

Don't get all whiny on me.

Your adherence to atheism is no more inspired than the Christian adherence to a Cannon filled with incorrect references.

I presume you have never engaged in a discussion of revisionist history, as all history is, or a work of fiction.

I don't claim atheism is inspired. Nor do I care if it is or not. My non-belief in unicorns and leprechauns is also rather uninspired.

And your attempt to pigeonhole this as a discussion of revisionist history is a charlatan's tactic. Revised or not, the point is that this is magical nonsense, and there is no way to measure who is correct. That's a luxury you magical believers have that rational, evidence-based thinkers do not.

I imagine a historian would have a tough time revising the Civil War with States on different sides. He would have evidence to contend with. You have no such burden.

#Worthlessair

So why did you post on this Thread?
To prove you can never back up your claims of being able to address any issue?
You're not a very good atheist.

I posted right on topic. What "claim" here would you like me to back up? That I can create different slants on any Bible story? Seriously? That's an academic claim; backing it up would be an exercise, and I am not your student. In fact, you would be a fool to deny my claim.

You are a phony.
If you have nothing to post, post nothing.
Your humorless cynicism is boring.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"So you're full of useless air"

Yes, exactly right, in this case. Crafting differing interpretations of this magical nonsense (and also then debating them) IS, indeed, "worthless air". But instead of "you're", you should have said, "we're". Might as well debate whether or not unicorns are faster than leprechauns.

"as usual"

Don't get all whiny on me.

Your adherence to atheism is no more inspired than the Christian adherence to a Cannon filled with incorrect references.

I presume you have never engaged in a discussion of revisionist history, as all history is, or a work of fiction.

I don't claim atheism is inspired. Nor do I care if it is or not. My non-belief in unicorns and leprechauns is also rather uninspired.

And your attempt to pigeonhole this as a discussion of revisionist history is a charlatan's tactic. Revised or not, the point is that this is magical nonsense, and there is no way to measure who is correct. That's a luxury you magical believers have that rational, evidence-based thinkers do not.

I imagine a historian would have a tough time revising the Civil War with States on different sides. He would have evidence to contend with. You have no such burden.

#Worthlessair

So why did you post on this Thread?
To prove you can never back up your claims of being able to address any issue?
You're not a very good atheist.

I posted right on topic. What "claim" here would you like me to back up? That I can create different slants on any Bible story? Seriously? That's an academic claim; backing it up would be an exercise, and I am not your student. In fact, you would be a fool to deny my claim.

You are a phony.
If you have nothing to post, post nothing.
Your humorless cynicism is boring.

Cynicism? No, you are confused. This is not cynicism. This is skepticism. Is it cynical to think the Buddhist holy texts are magical nonsense? No. You are just tossing out 50-cent words because you have an emotional attachment to this particular bit of magical nonsense.

 

[Indeependent]

Your adherence to atheism is no more inspired than the Christian adherence to a Cannon filled with incorrect references.

I presume you have never engaged in a discussion of revisionist history, as all history is, or a work of fiction.

I don't claim atheism is inspired. Nor do I care if it is or not. My non-belief in unicorns and leprechauns is also rather uninspired.

And your attempt to pigeonhole this as a discussion of revisionist history is a charlatan's tactic. Revised or not, the point is that this is magical nonsense, and there is no way to measure who is correct. That's a luxury you magical believers have that rational, evidence-based thinkers do not.

I imagine a historian would have a tough time revising the Civil War with States on different sides. He would have evidence to contend with. You have no such burden.

#Worthlessair

So why did you post on this Thread?
To prove you can never back up your claims of being able to address any issue?
You're not a very good atheist.

I posted right on topic. What "claim" here would you like me to back up? That I can create different slants on any Bible story? Seriously? That's an academic claim; backing it up would be an exercise, and I am not your student. In fact, you would be a fool to deny my claim.

You are a phony.
If you have nothing to post, post nothing.
Your humorless cynicism is boring.

Cynicism? No, you are confused. This is not cynicism. This is skepticism. Is it cynical to think the Buddhist holy texts are magical nonsense? No. You are just tossing out 50-cent words because you have an emotional attachment to this particular bit of magical nonsense.

Skepticism accompanied by zero useful commentary.
You have a reputation of the quick zinger followed by zip.

 

[flacaltenn]

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Is there any support in the Bible for the opposite position, that a man or woman can obtain salvation without belief in Christ?

Because this is a pretty common belief, even among Christians, and I think it is wrong.

Christians can worry about Heaven all they want. It's their little Club AfterLife. Muslims are kinda big on afterlife as well. But for Jews -- not so much.

The difference comes from the immediate distinction about being born either into "original sin" or "original virtue". If you're born cleanly with original virtue --- the whole emphasis is on MAINTAINING and building that virtue. Not redemption in an afterlife after decades of being a n'er do well.

 

[shimon]

Meriweather you are back to apologizing again...I told you that Christian Apologetics are all over the web APOLOGISING for wrongs they have done and covering up the countless lies that have been told in the name of Jesus....Putting aside the fact that In the New Testament Jesus had many claimed fathers ie Joseph, David etc etc or himself fathering himself by having an incestious relationship with his mother...This is because Christians play a popular game called TWISTER where they twist and contort and use circular reasoning to baffle guliable or naive people with their bull...Anyways you launched into this or that regarding that silly verse found in John 3:16 but I and I am sure others noticed you avoided the fact that those verses were NOT FOUND in the Gutenberg Bible of the 1400 s and that in other bibles there are references or footnotes that those verses were added at a later date.... Meaning that those verses including John 3 :16 might not have been added to the Christian NT till at least the mid 14 th century if not later... Lol... That is a lot for an apologist to try and cover up isn’t it.... Wink...

No, I am not apologizing. I flat out stated I investigated the claims about the Gutenberg Bible and could not verify them. Journalism training: Go to the source and find three verifications. They are not there. If people are fine with a claim quoted by others "all over the Internet" that's their prerogative. I'm a bit more picky. Original source, and then three separate verifications. Just like the Shroud of Turin, I will continue to study future data--not that I expect you to believe that . I can already see the Meriweather you are designing in your own mind. That's certainly an option when it is too much trouble to keep up with reality

Look. When people want to whine and defame the name of God, there is really not a lot that can be done. People are going to continue to believe God was mean and unfair to Adam and Eve, that He is a murdering, immoral being for what happened to people during the flood or to the Amalekites. Naturally, Jesus is going to be subjected to the same type of denigration. Some have very nasty minds and seem to delight in creating even nastier ones day by day.

If you want to denigrate me, go for it. Join the nauseating group who delights in maligning the Hebrew Bible by creating another nauseating group to malign the New Testament. What is the end game? Whoever disheartens the greatest number wins? Don't expect me to follow suit and trade insults with devoted followers of Judaism because it's not going to happen.

I've tried with all my might to tell people of the beauty of the accounts in Genesis, Exodus, and other stories and teachings presented in the Jewish Bible. No one wants to hear it. They want a genocidal supreme being they can tear down and feel great superiority in doing so.

Now, are there Biblical passages you especially treasure? If not, I'll move on.

Gutenberg digital

 

[shimon]

Knock yourself out there are also other bibles where there are references stating that John 3:16 was added at a later date.... I would like to point out that verses such as these have caused not just my people great harm over the years but many other peoples as well... I find the book of John particularly distasteful and full of lies as the son of god reference is not understood properly by those who wrote it and that son of god was not to be taken Literally but symbolically and the The gd of Abraham Isaac and Jacob had many many sons(Those were people who behaved symbolically like gd did)... There are many places in the Hebrew Scriptures where specific people as well as Israel and Ephraim were referred to as Gds sons.. Even in the New Testament you are told blessed are the peacemakers as they would be sons and daughters of gd... It is up to people to figure out who is telling the truth and who is lying...If you are being honest as you say then I will be watching to see if you are telling me the truth or just mouthing words of little value...Shalom to you...

 

[Meriweather]

Gutenberg digital

Sigh. Like that wasn't where I started.

 

[Meriweather]

Knock yourself out there are also other bibles where there are references stating that John 3:16 was added at a later date.... I would like to point out that verses such as these have caused not just my people great harm over the years but many other peoples as well... I find the book of John particularly distasteful and full of lies as the son of god reference is not understood properly by those who wrote it and that son of god was not to be taken Literally but symbolically and the The gd of Abraham Isaac and Jacob had many many sons(Those were people who behaved symbolically like gd did)... There are many places in the Hebrew Scriptures where specific people as well as Israel and Ephraim were referred to as Gds sons.. Even in the New Testament you are told blessed are the peacemakers as they would be sons and daughters of gd... It is up to people to figure out who is telling the truth and who is lying...If you are being honest as you say then I will be watching to see if you are telling me the truth or just mouthing words of little value...Shalom to you...

Let me get this straight. You don't wish to talk to me about your faith and/or the Hebrew Bible. Your only interest is telling me what is wrong with John's Gospel.

 

[shimon]

Knock yourself out there are also other bibles where there are references stating that John 3:16 was added at a later date.... I would like to point out that verses such as these have caused not just my people great harm over the years but many other peoples as well... I find the book of John particularly distasteful and full of lies as the son of god reference is not understood properly by those who wrote it and that son of god was not to be taken Literally but symbolically and the The gd of Abraham Isaac and Jacob had many many sons(Those were people who behaved symbolically like gd did)... There are many places in the Hebrew Scriptures where specific people as well as Israel and Ephraim were referred to as Gds sons.. Even in the New Testament you are told blessed are the peacemakers as they would be sons and daughters of gd... It is up to people to figure out who is telling the truth and who is lying...If you are being honest as you say then I will be watching to see if you are telling me the truth or just mouthing words of little value...Shalom to you...

Let me get this straight. You don't wish to talk to me about your faith and/or the Hebrew Bible. Your only interest is telling me what is wrong with John's Gospel.

No I am staying on topic since this is Blackrook topic...There is time for that “ possibly” at a later date and time... Goodnight...

 

[Synthaholic]

John 3:16 means you have to be Christian to get into heaven

It's religion - it means whatever you want it to mean.

 

[JohnPrewett]

Sad that many (of all religious backgrounds) will worship the Beast and take the mark and end up in the lake of fire ....
falling for "strange delusion" .. due to refusing to accept the love of the truth.

 

[LittleNipper]

Hebrews 8, New International Version (NIV) | Chapter 8 | The Bible App | Bible.com

There are so many errors in Hebrews it would take me hours to explain the corruptions from the Torah and Psalms.
There's no way an educated Jew could ever take it seriously.
The shame is your fear base Heaven/Hell paradigm.

Yehudim in Moshiach 8:1-13

Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
8 Now the main point of what is being said is this: we in fact have such a Kohen Gadol, who has taken his moshav LIMIN HASHEM ("at the right hand of the kisse of the kavod in Shomayim" TEHILLIM 110:1).

2 Our Kohen Gadol is mesharet baKodesh (minister in the holy things) of the true Mishkan set up by Adoneinu and not by any mere mortal.

3 For every Kohen Gadol is ordained to offer both minchot and zevakhim, from which it was necessary for this Kohen Gadol to have something also which he might offer.

4 If, therefore, he were on ha’aretz he would not be a kohen, als there are kohanim who offer every korban (sacrifice) according to the Torah;

5 However, the avodas kodesh sherut of these kohanim is service of a copy and shadow of the things in Shomayim, just as Moshe Rabbeinu was warned, when he was about to complete the Mishkan for "URE’EH" ("Now see to it"), Hashem says, "VA’ASEH BETAVNITAM ASHER ATAH MAREH BAHAR" ("that you will make it according to the pattern having been shown to you on the mountain" SHEMOT 25:40).

6 But now our Kohen Gadol has attained a more fest (excellent) avodas kodesh sherut in as much as he is also the Metavekh (Job 33:23; Isa 43:27; 2Ch 32:31; Isa 42:4; cf. Dt 5:5, 22-31) of a more fest (excellent) Brit upon which more auspicious havtachot (promises) have been enacted.

7 For if the Brit HaRishonah had been without fault, it would not have been necessary to speak about a Brit HaShniyah [YIRMEYAH 31:30-33 (31-34)].

8 For, when Hashem finds fault with them, he says, "HINEI YAMIM BA’IM, NE’UM HASHEM, VKHARATI ES BEIS YISRAEL V’ES BEIS YEHUDAH BRIT CHADASHA"("Behold, days are coming, says Hashem, when I will establish with the Beis Yisroel and with the Beis Yehudah a Brit Chadasha”).

9 "Not like the Brit that I made with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to lead them out from the land of Egypt; because they broke my Brit, though I was a husband to them")

10 "KI ZOT HABRIT ASHER EKHROT ES BEIS YISROEL ACHAREI HAYAMIM HAHEM, NE’UM HASHEM; NATATI ES TORATI BEKIRBAM V’AL LIBAM EKHTAVENNAH, V’HAYITI LAHEM L’ELOHIM V’HEMMAH YIH’YU LI LE’AM" ("Because this is the Brit which I will make with the Beis Yisroel after those days, says Hashem: putting my Torah into the mind of them and upon the levavot of them I will write it and I will be to them G-d and they will be to Me a people"— see Jer 31:30-33; also Prov 30:4; 8:30;Yn 1:1; Rev 3:20).

11 "V’LO YELAMMEDU OD ISH ES RE’EHU V’ISH ES AKHIV LEMOR, DE’U ES HASHEM; KI KHULAM YEDE’U OTI LEMIKTANNAM V’AD GEDOLAM" ("No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying ‘Have da’as of Hashem,’ because they will all have da’as of Me, from the least of them to the greatest.")

12 "KI ESLACH LA’AVONAM U’LECHATTATAM LO EZKAR OD" ("For I will forgive the wickedness of them and their sin I will remember no more." Jer 31:30-33 [31-34]).

13 When Hashem uses the word "CHADASHA" he has thereby made the Brit HaRishonah yeshanah and a Brit thus made aging, is near to being yakhlof (vanished).

Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com
"Version Information

The Orthodox Jewish Bible, completed by Phillip Goble in 2002, is an English language version that applies Yiddish and Hasidic cultural expressions to the Messianic Bible. "

Are you jerking me around?
You're using a Jesus site that supposedly has an Orthodox Jewish Bible that is simply a compendium of bull crap?

Do better.