firedragon
Veteran Member
Believing in jesus won't save someone; following Yeshua's teachings, and having faith in God will.
How could one follow Jesus's teachings without believing in him?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can anyone give a thorough breakdown and explanation of JOHN 3:16
- Thread starter hebrew
- Start date
How could one follow Jesus's teachings without believing in him?
We can understand E = MC2, without needing to believe in Einstein.
If Yeshua is a manifestation of the divine; then it is the divine we're meant to believe in, not make them into an idol.
There are odd aspects of Yeshua's prophetic words, that need us to believe he is the person who'll fulfill them.
Yet most of Yeshua's parables, sayings, can all be followed by anyone seeking righteousness, without having to believe in him personally.
Guess you've got a point in terms of some people follow someone as they believe in them; yet some will accept the teachings they like, without the need to follow someone.
firedragon
Veteran Member
We can understand E = MC2, without needing to believe in Einstein.
If Yeshua is a manifestation of the divine; then it is the divine we're meant to believe in, not make them into an idol.
There are odd aspects of Yeshua's prophetic words, that need us to believe he is the person who'll fulfill them.
Yet most of Yeshua's parables, sayings, can all be followed by anyone seeking righteousness, without having to believe in him personally.
Guess you've got a point in terms of some people follow someone as they believe in them; yet some will accept the teachings they like, without the need to follow someone.
Einsteins theory is proven. We dont need to have FAITH in einstein anymore to BELIEVE in the EMC.
But follow JESUS'S words you have to believe in JESUS. This is not about him being divine at all.
But if you just follow some of his teachings without taking it as a theology then it is similar to following Tsun Zu and Kung fu zu. Thats fine.
Actually it is a theory (belief), that has been over turned.
That is just silly, you can pick up any book, and agree with the statements within it, without even knowing who the author is.
You can accept his teachings, based on logic; just the same as reading Confucius, etc...
You don't need to follow or believe in him, to accept what he had to say.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Actually it is a theory (belief), that has been over turned.
That is just silly, you can pick up any book, and agree with the statements within it, without even knowing who the author is.
You can accept his teachings, based on logic; just the same as reading Confucius, etc...
You don't need to follow or believe in him, to accept what he had to say.
Though in the final statement you are repeating the same thing I said, of course. I agree with you.
IMO, if scripture had intended for 3:16 to be understood as solely about Jesus, it would have used that name.
That it does not, leads me to scratch my head as to how anyone can suggest this "Son" is solely referencing Jesus.
I do, myself, interpret Son to equal Christ, and pretty sure an orthodox Christian would not dispute this. To then equate Christ with Jesus only might be where paths separate. I see such an assertion as idolatry.
I generally interpret 3:16 as simple as: Believe in Self as Christ (and all selves as Christ) and you will never, in God's Reality (or Kingdom) perish, but instead experience everlasting life.
Admittedly though, from reading this thread, I did experience a stumbling block in first few words.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son
is (perhaps vastly) different than:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son
Interesting, to me in this moment, how much difference the comma makes.
Difference (in case it's not clear) that I see is:
First is saying that God loved the world he gave to His Son
Second is saying that (because) God loved the world, he provided opportunity for His Son to experience it
Or something like that.
Because of the comma (and the second one after Son), I can see how it could be stated as:
"For God so loved the world, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life."
Obviously, that is taking away from scripture, and IMO, in a significant way. Though does really depend on how "believe on him" is interpreted.
But unless placing letter of the Word before Spirit of the Word, I'm not sure how believing on Christ differs from believing on God is going to lead to two separate paths. Especially with love being part of the quote.
Such that I take "believeth on him" to mean on Christ. Helps though to take other parts of scripture into account for such contextual understanding, or seek other doctrines for further understanding, and to seek within for even greater understanding.
That it does not, leads me to scratch my head as to how anyone can suggest this "Son" is solely referencing Jesus.
I do, myself, interpret Son to equal Christ, and pretty sure an orthodox Christian would not dispute this. To then equate Christ with Jesus only might be where paths separate. I see such an assertion as idolatry.
I generally interpret 3:16 as simple as: Believe in Self as Christ (and all selves as Christ) and you will never, in God's Reality (or Kingdom) perish, but instead experience everlasting life.
Admittedly though, from reading this thread, I did experience a stumbling block in first few words.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son
is (perhaps vastly) different than:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son
Interesting, to me in this moment, how much difference the comma makes.
Difference (in case it's not clear) that I see is:
First is saying that God loved the world he gave to His Son
Second is saying that (because) God loved the world, he provided opportunity for His Son to experience it
Or something like that.
Because of the comma (and the second one after Son), I can see how it could be stated as:
"For God so loved the world, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life."
Obviously, that is taking away from scripture, and IMO, in a significant way. Though does really depend on how "believe on him" is interpreted.
But unless placing letter of the Word before Spirit of the Word, I'm not sure how believing on Christ differs from believing on God is going to lead to two separate paths. Especially with love being part of the quote.
Such that I take "believeth on him" to mean on Christ. Helps though to take other parts of scripture into account for such contextual understanding, or seek other doctrines for further understanding, and to seek within for even greater understanding.
Meh. Sunrise123 had a better post.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Don't feel too bad about it.
roger1440
I do stuff
In very simple layman's terms it means, "If you don't believe in Jesus, you are screwed".
John 3:16 is a stmblingblock scripture. It may sound ridiculous, but it is. Give me your opinion on what is means.
More like 4,000 years, but still a considerable time. I believe Jehovah is not constrained by time or circumstance. He decides when to accomplish his word. And " one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8) The Bible says "But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent his Son, who was born of a woman and who was under law." (Galatians 4:4) God has allowed time to progressively carry out his purpose, and unmistakably identify the Messiah, IMO.
Tomorrows_Child
Active Member
Austin 3:16