The worlds biggest lie?

[Joshpantera]

John 3:1621st Century King James Version (KJ21)

¹⁶ “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.

 

So as I was driving home through the mountains of North Carolina, headed back down south, my Mom saw a John 3:16 sign off the side of the road. She said, "that has to be one of the biggest lies ever told to mankind - telling people that if you believe that Jesus died and rose from the grave, you too will rise from the grave after you die." I laughed and smiled, because she really hit the nail on the head. She's been doing a lot of youtube watching about religious issues and trying to learn more about science and evolution. I guess this has all been sinking in more and more as of lately. 

 

I went on to explain how shaky and obscure the historical evidence for Jesus actually is, let alone the dying and rising part. And we went on to discuss the political aspect of christianity and how invested apologists are in keeping this 'biggest lie ever told' going along as far as they can manage to drag it. This prompted the discussion in the direction of how I think that as people stop caring one way or another what happens when you die, christianity will continue to die. And that's the only real muscle against this 'greatest lie ever told.' I pointed out that it's roughly nothing more than taking the Egyptian religion of resurrection (the basic notion of resurrecting the dead) and taking it to the public, in a country right next door to Egypt. And how the Egyptian religion went on for some 2,000 years or more and then just sort of died out. Christianity came in behind that basically reworking it in different ways. But 2,000 years later it's in digression and burning out as well. In all of this no one's resurrecting from the dead! No one's going to resurrection from the dead, shoot up into the sky, or any of it. 

 

That may well be the biggest lie ever told. 

 

And probably deserves a T-Shirt to wear around with the heading: 

 

John 3:16

 

The Biggest Lie Ever Told

 

[Geezer]

I think the social component religion offers is a big factor in its survival. Liberal versions of Christianity are a lot like country clubs without the swimming pools, tennis courts, & golf courses. A few mega churches do have some pretty nice recreational facilities though. 

[Blood]

It's essentially just a continuation of the Egyptian and Greek afterlife concept with a different judge. Instead of Osiris as your judge and savior, it's "Jesus." The only mystery is why they didn't just continue with Osiris. 

 

It's a coping mechanism, not really a lie per se. 

[older]

Yup. It's fear. Fear of death, fear of the unknown, fear of things beyond the individual's control, fear of sex and the human body.

 

As Mark Twain once wrote: “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

[Joshpantera]

On 1/5/2018 at 9:52 PM, Blood said:

It's essentially just a continuation of the Egyptian and Greek afterlife concept with a different judge. Instead of Osiris as your judge and savior, it's "Jesus." The only mystery is why they didn't just continue with Osiris. 

 

It's a coping mechanism, not really a lie per se. 

 

The part I'm zeroing in on is the lie that anyone, for any reason, will not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

I'm sure we can see the original lie of becoming, "The Osiris," or the resurrected body, experiencing life after death, being copied and told as John 3:16, as one lie being transformed into another. Now the first lie had a some 2,000 year duration as the Egyptian religion. The copy of the original lie, christianity, has now gone on for about an equal duration. The original lie (The Osiris), just sort of died off and the 2nd version of the lie (Jesus) arose and grabbed the baton, so to speak. And carried the relay race of lying about death into the future. 

 

The big question is whether another 3rd installment of the world's biggest lie could emerge in such a technologically advanced society, time and place? 

 

Because if not, then there's no one and nothing to grab the lying about death baton and continue running the race with it as the 2nd lie (Jesus) burns out. It seems quite possible, perhaps probable, that the lying about death trend may well not survive the 2nd leg of the race. Mainly because it's just not true. Just like Santa Claus or anything else that isn't true, becomes too evident to ignore any longer, and then looses ground in the sphere of human belief. 

[Blood]

On 1/5/2018 at 10:57 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

The part I'm zeroing in on is the lie that anyone, for any reason, will not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

I'm sure we can see the original lie of becoming, "The Osiris," or the resurrected body, experiencing life after death, being copied and told as John 3:16, as one lie being transformed into another. Now the first lie had a some 2,000 year duration as the Egyptian religion. The copy of the original lie, christianity, has now gone on for about an equal duration. The original lie (The Osiris), just sort of died off and the 2nd version of the lie (Jesus) arose and grabbed the baton, so to speak. And carried the relay race of lying about death into the future. 

 

The big question is whether now, at the point where one might expect a 3rd version, or copy of the original lie about death to possibly emerge, could emerge in such a technologically advanced society, time and place? 

 

Because if not, then there's no one and nothing to grab the lying about death baton and continue running the race with it as the 2nd lie (Jesus) burns out. It seems quite possible, perhaps probable, that the lying about death trend may well not survive the 2nd leg of the race. Mainly because it's just not true. Just like Santa Claus or anything else that isn't true, becomes too evident to ignore any longer, and then looses ground in the sphere of human belief. 

 

There is a third version: Islam. This lie, also, promises a blessed paradise after death. 

 

I think the lie must pre-date Osiris. I would imagine all religious concepts that we're familiar with existed in pre-historic times. 

[Orbit]

On 1/5/2018 at 9:57 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

The part I'm zeroing in on is the lie that anyone, for any reason, will not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

I'm sure we can see the original lie of becoming, "The Osiris," or the resurrected body, experiencing life after death, being copied and told as John 3:16, as one lie being transformed into another. Now the first lie had a some 2,000 year duration as the Egyptian religion. The copy of the original lie, christianity, has now gone on for about an equal duration. The original lie (The Osiris), just sort of died off and the 2nd version of the lie (Jesus) arose and grabbed the baton, so to speak. And carried the relay race of lying about death into the future. 

 

The big question is whether now, at the point where one might expect a 3rd version, or copy of the original lie about death to possibly emerge, could emerge in such a technologically advanced society, time and place? 

 

Because if not, then there's no one and nothing to grab the lying about death baton and continue running the race with it as the 2nd lie (Jesus) burns out. It seems quite possible, perhaps probable, that the lying about death trend may well not survive the 2nd leg of the race. Mainly because it's just not true. Just like Santa Claus or anything else that isn't true, becomes too evident to ignore any longer, and then looses ground in the sphere of human belief. 

 

I just want to speak to the issue of "everlasting life". My husband has studied ancient Greek of the Biblical era, and he says the word that gets translated as "eternal" is the Greek aonios, which means "of the age" and in most contexts means a lifetime, not an eternity.

[Joshpantera]

On 1/9/2018 at 6:15 PM, Orbit said:

 

I just want to speak to the issue of "everlasting life". My husband has studied ancient Greek of the Biblical era, and he says the word that gets translated as "eternal" is the Greek aonios, which means "of the age" and in most contexts means a lifetime, not an eternity.

 

An Aion or age, is a world age, which is some 2160 years and there's 12 world ages, or Aion's of zodiacal reference in a Platonic Great Year cycle. The writer of John being a Platonist, making use of the Platonic "Logos" concept at the outset of the gospel and alerting anyone to his Platonic concept usage. Such as in Matthew where the end of the world, is really the end of the age or Aion. And low, I am with you always, even unto the end of the Aion. Jesus, the solar personification for the age of pisces, lasting the duration of the age of pisces.  But that's going in a different direction. 

 

The point being that an Aion or world age is part of Gnostic philosophy that deals in terms of reconciling time and the eternal principle. The Aions are at the interface between time and eternity, all wrapped up in the Platonic Great Year reasoning and expression. 

 

I haven't looked at John 3:16 with the same thing in mind because I wasn't aware that Aion is what is being translated at the end of John 3:16. But at face value, and if that's the case, then it's literally saying something to the effect of:

 

 'whosoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have the world age (Aion)?

 

'whosoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have life throughout the duration of the world age (Aion) 2160 years?' 

 

"whosever believes in him, shall not perish, but have "a normal lifetime?" 

 

Of course none of that seems to fit the context of what's being suggested in John 3:16 at all. Neither does the context seem to suggest a world age or something to the effect of a given human lifetime as what is meant by Aion in it's context. What does that have to do with "believing" in Jesus? You don't need to believe in Jesus to live out a normal human life time. And it doesn't seem to be suggest a 2160 year human life span, life the duration of one Aion either. 

 

It seems more likely that Aion is being used in the context of a long, long period of time or periods of all time, which is what it means in context, and probably for the purpose of portraying living forever as it's been translated in John 3:16. Again, nothing else makes any sense and doesn't fit the context of what's being suggesting in the gospel accounts in any way. 

 

If you believe in Jesus, then you will live forever, an Aion, a gazillion years, an eternity, etc. etc. 

 

Believe in what exactly? 

 

That Jesus rose from the grave and will live on forever and so will you, if you simply believe it. 

 

The worlds biggest lie....

[Orbit]

The word being used isn't aon, it's aonios. Contemporary uses of aionios in other documents of the time show its use to refer to periods of time, like a king's reign, or a judge's tenure, not just a long historical period.

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, Orbit said:

The word being used isn't aon, it's aonios. Contemporary uses of aionios in other documents of the time show its use to refer to periods of time, like a king's reign, or a judge's tenure, not just a long historical period.

 

I'll have to look at that closer. 

 

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/aionios.html

Strong's Number: 166 Browse Lexicon Original Word Word Origin aionioß from (165) Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Aionios 1:208,31 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech ahee-o'-nee-os  Adjective Definition without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be without beginning without end, never to cease, everlasting

[Joshpantera]

It seems to be in exactly the context I applied it, even to the extent of the root Aion aspect of the word. The only way it makes any sense at all is in the context of living forever, eternity, and all that Aion and Aionios are involved with and used to suggest - mainly long time keeping and the interface between eternity and time. These are what the Jesus character is representing in the myth, the merger between time and the eternal principle. God and man in unity, the finite and the infinite in unity. So that's the context of John pretty much from the outset, leading eventually into John 3:16 and continuing into John 10:30 and beyond where this context becomes ever more clear and obvious. 

 

On 1/11/2018 at 7:38 PM, Joshpantera said:

ontemporary uses of aionios in other documents of the time show its use to refer to periods of time, like a king's reign, or a judge's tenure, not just a long historical period.

 

That doesn't seem to fit the context in any way of John 3:16, though. 

 

"whosoever believes in him, will not perish, but have (a kings reign?) (a judges tenure?)"  

 

The only context that makes any sense is the one used for translation in this instance: 

 

On 1/11/2018 at 7:38 PM, Joshpantera said:

• without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
• without beginning
• without end, never to cease, everlasting

 

NAS Word Usage - Total: 68

eternal 66, eternity 1, forever 1

 

The worlds biggest lie doesn't get off the hook that easy. lol

 

68 usages, all of which are used to express something to do with the eternal principle.

 

It seems to mean what it says, and what it says is complete bullshit. No one will live forever (aionios) because they 'believe in Jesus' at literal face value....

 

[Orbit]

On 1/11/2018 at 5:45 PM, Joshpantera said:

It seems to be in exactly the context I applied it, even to the extent of the root Aion aspect of the word. The only way it makes any sense at all is in the context of living forever, eternity, and all that Aion and Aionios are involved with and used to suggest mainly long time keeping and the interface between eternity and time. These are what the Jesus character is representing in the myth, the merger between time and the eternal principle. God and man in unity, the finite and the infinite in unity. So that's the context of John pretty much from the outset, leading eventually into John 3:16 and continuing into John 10:30 and beyond where this context becomes ever more clear and obvious. 

 

That doesn't seem to fit the context in any way of John 3:16, though. 

 

"whosoever believes in him, will not perish, but have (a kings reign?) (a judges tenure?)"  

 

The only context that makes any sense is the one used for translation in this instance: 

 

 

NAS Word Usage - Total: 68

eternal 66, eternity 1, forever 1

 

The worlds biggest lie doesn't get off the hook that easy. lol

 

68 usages, all of which are used to express something to do with the eternal principle.

 

It means what it says, and what it says is complete bullshit. No one will live forever because they believe in the Jesus at literal face value....

 

 

I'm going to call hubby to thread so he can clarify/give references  @wellnamed

 

[Joshpantera]

On 1/12/2018 at 9:53 PM, Orbit said:

 

I'm going to call hubby to thread so he can clarify/give references  @wellnamed

 

 

Ok. I'm thinking that with respect to contemporary uses of say, a kings reign or judges tenure, the context would probably turn out to be one of associating the eternal principle or age long aspect of the word with the kings reign or judges tenure, by way of using aionios.

 

It's hard imagine how that would apply in any other context. 

 

But essentially none of that actually matters, because the only context that's relevant to the writer of John is how the writer used aionios in his own gospel, which, is identical to how all of the other biblical writers used it as well. And that has squarely to do with the eternal aspect, over, and over, and over again:

 

John 3:15 Adj-AFS
GRK: ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον 
NAS: will in Him have eternal life.
KJV: but have eternal life.
INT: might have life eternal

John 3:16 Adj-AFS
GRK: ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον 
NAS: but have eternal life.
KJV: but have everlasting life.
INT: might have life eternal

John 3:36 Adj-AFS
GRK: ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον ὁ δὲ
NAS: has eternal life;
KJV: the Son hath everlasting life: and
INT: has life eternal he that moreover

John 4:14 Adj-AFS
GRK: εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον 
NAS: springing up to eternal life.
KJV: springing up into everlasting life.
INT: into life eternal

John 4:36 Adj-AFS
GRK: εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἵνα ὁ
NAS: for life eternal; so
KJV: unto life eternal: that both
INT: unto life eternal that he that

John 5:24 Adj-AFS
GRK: ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ εἰς
NAS: Me, has eternal life,
KJV: me, hath everlasting life, and
INT: has life eternal and into

John 5:39 Adj-AFS
GRK: αὐταῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχειν καὶ
NAS: that in them you have eternal life;
KJV: think ye have eternal life: and
INT: them life eternal to have and

John 6:27 Adj-AFS
GRK: εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἣν ὁ
NAS: which endures to eternal life,
KJV: endureth unto everlasting life, which
INT: unto life eternal which the

John 6:40 Adj-AFS
GRK: ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ ἀναστήσω
NAS: in Him will have eternal life,
KJV: him, may have everlasting life: and
INT: should have life eternal and will raise up

John 6:47 Adj-AFS
GRK: ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον 
NAS: has eternal life.
KJV: me hath everlasting life.
INT: has life eternal

John 6:54 Adj-AFS
GRK: ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω
NAS: has eternal life,
KJV: blood, hath eternal life; and
INT: has life eternal and I I will raise up
 

 

[Joshpantera]

@wellnamed

 

Hey bud, I don't think the first link went through. 

 

We were hoping you'd weigh in on this one. 

 

Thanks. 

[wellnamed]

Sorry, I've been busy/lazy @Joshpantera @Orbit

 

On 1/9/2018 at 4:15 PM, Orbit said:

 

I just want to speak to the issue of "everlasting life". My husband has studied ancient Greek of the Biblical era, and he says the word that gets translated as "eternal" is the Greek aonios, which means "of the age" and in most contexts means a lifetime, not an eternity.

 

OK, so to clarify a few things, "in most contexts" means outside of the New Testament. It may be the case that the original authors of the N.T. texts really did mean "eternal" in the sense of "never-ending" when they wrong αἰωνιος, but the reason I think it's interesting is that it's a little ambiguous in its meaning, although I'm not sure the ambiguities are particularly important to this thread.

 

I'm not sure what source the biblestudytools.com site is using for Greek word meanings, but I tend to prefer to look at the Tufts University site, although Strong's Concordance seems to have basically the same gloss, which differs from the bible study tools site. Actually, that site is not even spelling the word correctly. They have it as αἰονιος but it's αἰωνιος. They list the number in Strong's so they are clearly trying to reference the same word, but I wouldn't trust that site for a neutral definition.

 

Anyway, as with a lot of Greek words, it can have various shades of meaning, which is why I've said it's ambiguous and not some slam dunk that it doesn't mean "eternal", but what I find interesting in the definitions is both that the primary and several secondary meanings refer to something clearly non-eternal. There is also a different Greek word that does actually unambiguously mean eternal: αἰδιος. That word is actually much older, but is used in the N.T. twice (Romans and Jude, cf. Strong's), once in reference to attributes of God and once in reference to the binding of fallen angels. So it's least reasonable to wonder why the gospel authors used αἰωνιος instead if they wanted to emphasize the idea of a chronological infinitude.

 

Various early Christian theologians (most notably Origen) advanced theories of "universal salvation" which sometimes hinged on arguments about the real meaning of αἰωνιος, and various mystical/ascetic strands of Christianity at various times have interpreted the meaning of Ζωή Aἰωνιος differently, trying to emphasize it in a qualitative way, i.e. a certain quality of life which should be entered into immediately rather than postponed for an afterlife.

 

On the other hand, the idea that it means "eternal life" in something like the modern sense is also pretty ancient in Christianity, and as far as I know has always been more mainstream, so if the argument were to be settled purely on popularity throughout history then "eternal" as a translation wins fairly easily, which is of course why the word is translated the way it is. I'm content to say that I think the ambiguity is intriguing but leave it at that as far as endorsing any particular conclusion.

 

The reason I said I'm not sure it matters too much to the subject of this thread is that I'm not sure it matters to your point. Presumably you would argue that Jesus was lying (or the author of John) whether he meant that you would enjoy an eternal afterlife, some age-long afterlife, or merely a certain heavenly quality of life in the here and now. And I'd certainly agree that the text is stating something false in any of those cases. Usually if I bother trotting out this little line of thought it's in arguments about hell.

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 2/2/2018 at 8:15 PM, wellnamed said:

The reason I said I'm not sure it matters too much to the subject of this thread is that I'm not sure it matters to your point. Presumably you would argue that Jesus was lying (or the author of John) whether he meant that you would enjoy an eternal afterlife, some age-long afterlife, or merely a certain heavenly quality of life in the here and now. And I'd certainly agree that the text is stating something false in any of those cases. Usually if I bother trotting out this little line of thought it's in arguments about hell.

 

Thanks for the analysis. 

 

That's what I was thinking. Either way one takes it, John 3:16 is a false statement in so much as we have to assume that no one will literally live on forever, especially in some bodily resurrection and all else that that line of thinking entailed.