Response To John-3

1   

RESPONSE BY EBRAHIM SULEMAN TO BOB BENJAMIN John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have ever-lasting life.” On Sunday, the 3rd of February 2008, in a Baptist Church in Port Elizabeth, in our presence, a Pastor by the name of Bob Benjamin delivered a sermon with the following comments on the above verse (which he did not quote). He began his sermon by stating: “Today we are going to look at one of the most sublime, glorious texts of Scripture. John 3:16 – (shorthand for) The Gospel of Jesus written by the Apostle John, Chapter 3, verse 16 – has been called ‘the gospel in a nutshell’, ‘or the whole Bible concentrated in one text’, the centre of Scriptures and so on. Superlatives1 abound2.” In his statement he made claims which the Gospel writer/s never made. The closest narration to his claim in the King James Version is the words: “The Gospel according to John.” This claim by Pastor Bob is therefore false, as his actual interpretation states: “The Gospel of Jesus written by the Apostle John...” This interpretation is as a result of his statement: “John 3:16 – (shorthand for).” We refer to Peake’s Commentary on the Bible 1962, 580a; p. 663: ‘Nothing remains from any scribal hand earlier than A.D. 200 (except a tiny fragment of the Gospel of John)’ this further clarifies that none of the contents of the New Testament are original. We have not erred; it must be kept in mind that “Jesus” spoke in the Aramaic language which has since been lost. All his (Pastor Bob’s) phrases describing the verse above are irrelevant as it is not in the New Testament. He then states: “Now to help us understand John 3:16 I have divided my sermon into 3 paragraphs. Three points if you like. Each paragraph starts with the letter ‘L’ – this alliteration3 will help us to understand and remember and respond.” The important points made in the above paragraph are: understand; remember; and respond.

                                                            

: ‘Of outstanding quality, degree, etc.; supreme’. : ‘to exist or occur in abundance’ etc. 3 : ‘the use of the same consonant’. 1 2

 

2   

In order for a person to comprehend what has been said, one must take special note of the three points. Let us first deal with the word ‘understand’ in relation to the term begotten. According to the Macmillan’s Modern Dictionary 1943 begotten means: ‘procreate; bring into existence; produce.’ The phrase: ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son’ This phrase is illogical and beyond the comprehension of a rational being. One has to ask the question, how can a Son God be created by a Father God? What is even more illogical is that according to the Bible the “angel” told ‘...Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.’4 The above statement is something to ‘remember’ but not to ‘understand’! What is to ‘remember’ is that “Jesus” is called ‘Son of God’, for the reason as is claimed in the bible that he ‘is of the Holy Ghost’. Hence, it is necessary to ‘respond’! A sane truthful rational being cannot grasp or ‘understand’ how this could possibly be true! All known laws relating to procreation contradict the statement in the Bible referring to the above analogy and does not help one to ‘understand’ the Biblical claim – it is irrational! Pastor Bob then goes on and asks the following: _______________

“Firstly, I want to speak of LITERATURE. This morning we read from an English Bible. If say we were in Holland we would have read from a Dutch Bible…a Xhosa congregation would have used Xhosa and so on – Now the question is, with all these Bibles is the message the same?” How nice to ask this question. Any knowledgeable person ought to realise that when one translates scripture into another language, there will always be some difficulties as words may have vast meanings which may not translate literally into another language. Hence, when these difficulties arise, commentaries may be the only method to relate what has been written in another language. This can only be done by referring to the original script; unfortunately this exercise cannot be undertaken with the Bible. Cultural influences may also play a significant part in conveying what was actually said, as the idiom may not be exactly the same to someone with a different cultural background. Pastor Bob later refers to the

                                                             4

 

: Matthew 1: 20.

3   

meaning of a Greek term in an attempt to resolve his problem. He will certainly not succeed. Consequently, the answer that Pastor Bob advances needs to be analysed. He states: “The answer is decidedly yes! Whatever is the spoken language and written language, the N.T. is based on the Greek text. The Greek text or the Greek N.T. is a work that is carefully monitored by the United Bible Societies (I have my Greek N.T. here if anyone would like to see it after the service). As a research group they are “open” – anyone can visit the Bible Society and see the Greek N.T. You can even purchase one.” How nice of him again to think that nothing original is lost by translations! Yet, when Christians are confronted with certain statements, they refer to the Greek Dictionary’s version of a word for a better understanding! So according to Pastor Bob when he says “The Greek text or the Greek N.T. is a work that is carefully monitored by the United Bible Societies”, one must first understand that “Jesus” never spoke Greek so the “monitoring by the United Bible Societies” of the Greek New Testament is of no consequence whatsoever. However, Pastor Bob goes further and makes the following admission: “But Jesus did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. It was the common language of Palestine in N.T. times. So if Aramaic was largely restricted to Palestine – and it was – help was at hand! The help at hand was the ‘Greek language’. And the disciples of Jesus knew from Jesus’ message that His Message should be proclaimed to the ends of the earth – and so the message of Jesus was transcribed from Aramaic into Greek. So through the medium of language, the message of Jesus was moved from local (Palestine) to international (the world).l” Pastor Bob is surely under an obligation to reveal that: “… Jesus did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic”! This is true! However, Pastor Bob or any other biblical scholars cannot justify the authenticity of the Bible, as it was written in the Greek language. The fact that the original Aramaic scriptures are lost renders the Bible man made as man has now to rely on the reconstructed Greek Version which is not divine. Anything tampered with the hand of man can never be divine. Pastor Bob conveniently does not reveal the fact that the Aramaic language which was spoken by “Jesus” is lost! The facts are as follows:

 

4   

According to the Virtues Catholic Bible (1959), the language of “Jesus” is said to be Aramaic, which was the spoken language in Galilee at that time.5 If this is so then the Essenes could also have spoken Aramaic, as “Jesus” grew up amongst them in his boyhood years.6 Already, one can see that much confusion exists about the mother tongue (language) of “Jesus”, since “...no contemporary literary remains of this dialect, [Aramaic remains] we cannot determine precisely the dialect He spoke” [Our emphases].7 At this point, we would emphasise that the fact that “Jesus’” dialect of Aramaic is unknown, one can already realise the daunting task the Textual Critics face in completing the NT, which at this point in time remains a “vast and unfinished” task (said in 1978). In fact this is what they have said: 8

“Thus the task of New Testament textual criticism is vast and unfinished.”

How could the Greek language at hand be of any help when the original is lost!!! It cannot be verified whether the so-called translation into the Greek is correct!!! It is also incorrect to suggest that: “It was the common language of Palestine in N.T. times” because the ‘New Testament’ was only formulated long after “Jesus”. If it is true that: “...the disciples of Jesus knew from Jesus’ message that His Message should be proclaimed to the ends of the earth – and so the message of Jesus was transcribed from Aramaic into Greek”, then where is the evidence to substantiate this point? A very important question is why did God not reveal his words in the Greek language if he wanted it to be a world message as claimed? Did he not as the all Knowing know, that the Greek language still needed to be translated? Hence, every translation will have to be from a translated Greek version and not from the original Aramaic that “Jesus” spoke. The rest of the paragraph is of no significance. It appears from the next paragraph that Pastor Bob is concealing something: “So here you have Jesus speaking John 3:16 in Aramaic. John later records it in another language. You and I read it in still another language – couldn’t something in all this go wrong? To put it bluntly – is this text correct? Do I need to defend the Bible?” How nice of Pastor Bob to ask the question: “Do I need to defend the Bible?” Does Pastor Bob sincerely believe that the reconstructed Bibles are authentic? He begins with the following so-called justification:

                                                            

5 : J. P. O'Connell, et al. The Holy Family Bible Holy Family Edition of the Catholic Bible, from a Practical Dictionary of Biblical and General Catholic Information, Virtue and Company Limited: London, 1959, p. 30 hereafter the following abbreviation will be used: C.B. 6 : See Peake 1962, p. 734:639h. 7 : C.B., p. 30. 8 : New Bible Dictionary 1978, p. 1269.

 

5   

“The answer is emphatically no! God has given us two “checks” that ensure the text of Scripture is correct. Firstly, there is the ‘Godward check’ and secondly there is the ‘manward’ check or test. The Godward test is this. Later on in John 16:13 Jesus promises His disciples that the gift of the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth. The Spirit will ensure accuracy.” How nice of Pastor Bob to refer to the term ‘Godward’ (possibly his own creation) in order to justify the truth of the Bible. He states: “Later on in John 16:13 Jesus promises His disciples that the gift of the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth. The Spirit will ensure accuracy”. The following is the actual verse which is quoted below- it states: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” (John 16:13) The above verse cannot be substantiated with evidence, as it is not the original words of “Jesus” as previously described above. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the verse is the truth. Then the promise of “Jesus” needs to be tested. One of Pastor Bob’s key points can be used where he uses the key words i.e. remember, hence, we ‘remember’ what he said: “Do I need to defend the Bible?” Do you ‘remember’? How is he going to defend the fact that the New Testament begins with an untruth? Below follows the factual evidence of the untruth: “It is true that this Gospel was largely dependent upon an earlier Aramaic writing, which tradition assures us was composed by St. Matthew. But this work of St. Matthew no longer exists, and the Gospel which now bears the name of Matthew was written in Greek and based on the work of St. Mark.”9 From the above it is clear that the Gospel of Mathew is ‘based on the work of St. Mark’ which makes it even more questionable, as it cannot be established as to who the actual writer was! The next point that needs clarity is what is the rational meaning of the term Holy Spirit? What or who is the Spirit of truth? What is the Greek word for the Spirit of truth, nay, what were the words in the lost unknown Aramaic dialect that “Jesus” spoke? What do these phrases mean; why is the Spirit of truth referred to as ‘he’? If the reference is to three Gods, why did God not know that the Aramaic book of Matthew would get lost, and why did He not reveal it somewhere in the book? Furthermore, if it was true that “The Spirit will ensure accuracy” then why are there so many different denominations in Christianity???

                                                             9

 

: Virtue’s Catholic Encyclopedia Editor Mabel Quin Vol. 1,1965, p. 141.

6   

Why did the Spirit of truth fail to: “...guide you into all truth...”? Is it not true that according to the New Apostolic Church that states under the heading: VII. Forerunners of the Reformation: “In those days only a few wealthy people possessed a Bible, which existed in no other language but Latin, for the Bibles had to be copied by hand as the printing press had not yet been invented”10 (Our emphases) Does it not mean that there were no Bibles in existence in any other language at the time of the Reformation? The writers are under the impression that the Textual Critics reconstructed the verse incorrectly. What it means is that “The Godward test...” has failed! Let us refer to the manward test as stated below: “The manward test is that God has placed the Bible publically in the world. In fact to illustrate this you can go to C.N.A. and buy a Bible. There are in fact very few places in the world where the Bible or the message of the Bible is not known. So there are many eyes – and a lot of them hostile – fixed on the Bible for one mistake to go unnoticed. IMPOSSIBLE.” The manward test referred to by Pastor Bob is a very weak argument. In fact this is no test at all!!! It is no criteria for the truth!!! The huge amounts of books in the world do not make it the truth – billions upon billions of material will not make untruths true!!! Pastor Bob argues further: “Let me give you one illustration of how the public domain or manward test works. Recently a so-called ‘gospel of Judas’ was brought to light. Christian scholars claimed it was post – New Testament writings – at variance with certain Christian Bible truths and definitely not literature that should have been included in the N.T.” How can Pastor Bob argue that? “Recently a so-called ‘gospel of Judas’ was brought to light. Christian scholars claimed it was post – New Testament writings – at variance with certain Christian Bible truths and definitely not literature that should have been included in the N.T.” The Gospel of Judas contains logical arguments which can be substantiated! Whereas the New Testament can be proven wrong with logic, on the same points! Pastor Bob then continues:                                                             

10 : History of the Kingdom of God, vol 1. Printed 1971 1st Edition. Issued by The Apostles‘ College of the New Apostolic Church p. 98.

 

7   

“O yes Christians are aware that sometimes slight textual variations of a verse or that some of the O.T. numbers contradict. But our modern Bibles indicate these things – but of the central message of the Bible, namely that God sent His Eternal Son to die on Calvary – here there is no doubt, no ambiguity. No murkiness at all.” The mere fact that contradictions in the Bible are admitted by Pastor Bob, and the authenticity by his own admission of the Bible falls flat. The argument that: “...the central message of the Bible, namely that God sent His Eternal Son to die on Calvary – here there is no doubt, no ambiguity. No murkiness at all” is no evidence that the story of the Bible is the truth!!! Remember the claim that God is One, is contradicted by sending one of the Gods ‘to die on Calvary’, which makes God not one but many; this fact stands out clear, so much so that even an ignoramus should be able to understand this. Pastor Bob now relates a story of himself: “When I was a schoolboy I would, every now and then, pretend to be ill so that I didn’t have to go to school. I would feign sickness to avoid school. Many people today feign problems with the Bible – for no other reason than they know the teaching of Scripture is true. They know the message of the Bible is binding on their lives. They try to escape from its message so they feign problems.” How nice of Pastor Bob to tell the story, but where are the facts to substantiate it? No one is feigning11 problems with the Bible with regard to the following: “Bible, Manuscripts of the. Copies of the Biblical text, written by hand. The text of the Bible has been handed down to us through handwritten and printed copies of the original writings and through translations into various ancient and modern languages. None of the original manuscripts written by the inspired authors themselves (autographs) is known to exist, but there are many ancient copies of the originals.” [Our emphases] 12 Even the Protestants had no option but to support the Catholics: “Since no autograph of any book of the Bible has survived, textual criticism plays an important part in Bible study. The material on which textual critics of the Bible work includes not only manuscript copies of the books of the Bible in their original languages13 but also ancient translations                                                             

: I.e., inventing. : J. P. O'Connell, et al. The Holy Family Bible Holy Family Edition of the Catholic Bible, from a Practical Dictionary of Biblical and General Catholic Information, Virtue and Company Limited: London, 1959, p. 30. 13 : This is a deliberate lie as no originals are in existence, and even the language that Jesus spoke is unknown. 11 12

 

8   

into other languages and quotations of biblical passages by ancient authors” [Our emphases].14 These are the evidences that destroy any allegation that is not based on facts. The following becomes unimportant in the light of the above: “Just as little fleas clinging to an elephant’s leg will not stop its stride – so perceived problems with the Bible will not, will not keep the Bible from its mighty advance in the world. Many a hammer has been worn out attacking the Bible.” I want to close this point. I’m sure this morning as the text was read many followed in various Bible translations. Perhaps some had the K.J.V. or the N.I.V. or the E.S.V…so people like to talk of many Bibles in the English language. This is loose talk. Very unhelpful. We need to correct that – there is one Bible but many translations – be it of the paraphrase type or the stricter, near to the literal text, type. But there are many translations and that is largely due to the expanse and growth of the English language. Just the other day I read that had William Shakespeare come to life today – he would have been semi-literate. The English language just keeps growing and growing! It is disturbing to read what Pastor Bob has to state, when he says: ‘there is one Bible but many translations’ it seems as if he is unaware of the meaning of the term versions. It should always be borne in mind that when Christians or Jews refer to a ‘revision’ of the Bible, it could mean that they refer to the revision of the first reconstructed version of the Bible. That is namely, the Septuagint of which its original copy according to history is lost or was destroyed. It is necessary to mention here, that after a new version was constructed it remained subjected to constant revision throughout history and could continue to be, as time goes on, in order to comply with the ideologies of the day.

‘Version’ means:

‘An account of a matter from a certain point of view, as contrasted with others: his version of the accident is different from the policeman’s.’15 This brings us to the next stage of Pastor Bob’s understanding of the verse:                                                              14 15

 

: New Bible Dictionary, 1978, p. 151. : The New Collins Concise Dictionary, 1985 edition. 

9   

Now we go to our second paragraph – LOVE. The Scripture says ‘For God so loved the world…’ These are glorious words. Great words. ‘God so loved the world…’ Now I want to say three things (not enough) about the love of God… • Firstly, the text tells us God’s love first. God’s love foremost. God and His Love at the forefront… This God of Love initiates salvation: He is the Author. He is the Source. One theologian put it like this – “If God requires my salvation, He must provide it.” He has taken the initiative… He does because of His Love. • Further, God’s love is more than words – He gave His Son. Now when Jesus says that ‘God gave’ the principle teaching here is the Cross of Christ. While the whole Christ-event was God’s love in action- here in 3:16 it is chiefly the Cross of Calvary that is in view. • Also when Jesus speaks of God’s love, we must understand it was to propitiate His Holiness. That is His Supreme Gloriousness, Perfection, His Majesty Pure and Spotless would be upheld. He was satisfied.”

The statement that ‘For God so loved the world…’ informs a truthful intelligent person that these are not the Creator’s words! Let us explain: The Almighty Creator brought everything into being through His attribute of Love which is inherent in His creative activity. This we see in everything when we look at His creation. Pastor Bob tells us: ‘God’s love is more than words – He gave His Son’, when a truthful rational person analyses as to why God had to give ‘His Son’ in order for us to understand His love; then it becomes irrational. We have explained the absurdity of the claim above: ‘that he gave his only begotten Son’, making no sense whatsoever. Let us give some explanation on his next statement: “God does not offer us salvation on the cheap – salvation is not about how low can God go – but rather maintaining His Righteousness as an expression of His Love. Holy Love.” There is no question of ‘maintaining His Righteousness as an expression of His Love.’ Let us repeat that: The Almighty Creator brought everything into being through His attribute of Love which is inherent in His creative activity. One cannot separate His Love from His actions!

 

10   

We shall analyse the next two paragraphs which should have been included in the first section under literature: “God gave His One and Only Son. The K.J.V. speaks of ‘His Only Begotten Son…’ The E.S.V. has ‘His Only Son’… the Greek word is monogenĕs. Now this word ‘monogenĕs’ occurs 5 times in the writings of John. On the one hand it is a Greek word that is difficult to pin down to a few English words – but essentially the idea behind the word is that of Trinitarian Sonship. Jesus is the uncreated, eternal Son of God. See how much God loves us. He gave His best. Behold what manner of love is this…” The point that needs clarity is Pastor Bob’s argument that the Greek MSS are the authentic writings. It is not necessary to go into great detail as the evidence makes it easily refutable: because there are “...no contemporary literary remains of this dialect, [Aramaic remains] we cannot determine precisely the dialect He16 spoke” [Our emphases].17 Just to be clearer we refer to Peake’s Commentary on the Bible: “All the autographs of NT (i.e., New Testament) books and of the earliest collections of books have disappeared – such as the Pauline Corpus (about A.D. 95) and the Four Gospels (about A.D. 130). Nothing remains from any scribal hand earlier than A.D. 200 (except a tiny fragment of the Gospel of John). The few copies that survive from the period 200-500 clearly attest the variety of textual forms which had developed from the original Gr. (i.e., Greek) documents. It is this state of the text that has called forth ‘textual criticism’ as a means to the recovery of the original textual form.” 18 (Our emphases) The facts stand out clearly. The important points to remember and understand is the fact that there exists no original Greek or Aramaic New Testament in the world. It is a blatant untruth to speak of a Greek New Testament as if it still exists in its original form! The following statement makes this fact clear: “It is this state of the text that has called forth ‘textual criticism’ as a means to the recovery of the original textual form” This really informs all that the New Testament is the creation of the unknown Textual Critics, and that it does not contain any divine words! In simple words the foundation of Christianity is based on a myth! How can something that is lost forever be recovered?                                                              : That is: “Jesus”. : C.B., p. 30. 18 : Peake’s 1962, 580a, p. 663. 16 17

 

11   

Let us pay particular attention to the dictionary of Greek words to which Pastor Bob indirectly refers. ‘The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible - Greek Dictionary of The New Testament’ it states on page 64 under the number: “3439: ‘…mǒnŏgĕnĕs, mon-og-enace’; from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole; - only (begotten, child).’ “3441: ‘…mŏnŏs, mon’–os; prob. [i.e., probably or probable] From 3306; remaining, i.e., sole or single; by impl. [i.e., implication, implied, impliedly] mere: - alone, only, by themselves.’”19 Is Pastor Bob attempting to create a non existent new dictionary? Examine again the meanings as presented by Pastor Bob: “God gave His One and Only Son. The K.J.V. speaks of ‘His Only Begotten Son…’ The E.S.V. has ‘His Only Son’… the Greek word is monogenĕs. Now this word ‘monogenĕs’ occurs 5 times in the writings of John. On the one hand it is a Greek word that is difficult to pin down to a few English words – but essentially the idea behind the word is that of Trinitarian Sonship. Jesus is the uncreated, eternal Son of God. See how much God loves us. He gave His best.” The lexicographer was not sure if the word mŏnŏs originated from 3306, hence, ‘sole or single; by impl. (i.e., implication, implied, impliedly) mere: - alone, only, by themselves’ cannot really be used in the argument. For God cannot be associated with doubt. What it really means is: ‘only-born, i.e. sole; - only (begotten, child).’ Unfortunately, the whole idea is irrational! Under no circumstances can “Jesus” be the “only Son” or “only begotten Son” of God. The fact that the term ‘Son’ was used makes the whole point irrational! Therefore, it does not matter whether such irrational statements are original or not according to the dictionary, it does not make any sense! In fact, whatever the Greek words may mean, do not make it original or true, as those who wrote it were not the eye or ear witnesses, nor can anyone prove that “Jesus” said so – as his words are in the unknown Aramaic, which is lost. When one ponders over this wrong interpretation, one will realise that whether one uses the words begotten son or only son it amounts to the same illogical message!

                                                            

19 : Please note that the following is our interpolations: [i.e., probably or probable] and [i.e., implication, implied, impliedly]

 

12   

The rest of Pastor Bob’s sermon requires no comment as no Divine authentic constructive lessons can be achieved from the message of the Bible! ____________________

“Now we come to our third paragraph – LESSON Now here is the lesson. Whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. what God has done in Christ calls for our trust – our commitment – our lives in fact. We displace self and enthrone Him. And those who will take His Name to their lives – the Scriptures are clear, the demands of discipleship are strenuous but they are also joyful. To take up your Cross and follow Him is to be like Jesus in this world. But those who do not believe in Him will perish. Those who spurn God’s offer in Christ will receive His wrath… The tragedy of the final judgement for those who did not honour Christ is that God will give them what they have chosen. What you have sought, you will find – nothing more and nothing less. You will get what you set your heart on! ______________________ John Newton (Old English) What think ye of Christ? Is the test To try both your state and your scheme You cannot be right in the rest Unless you think rightly of Him As Jesus appears to your view And He is beloved or not So God is disposed to you – And mercy or wrath is your lot Some take Him a creature to be – A man, or an angel at most But they have not feelings like me Nor know themselves wretched and lost So guilty, so helpless am I I dare not confide in His blood Nor on His protection rely – Unless I were sure He is God.  

13   

In Arthur Wallis: Jesus of Nazareth. Who is He? - p.49 F.F. Bruce: The Books and the Parchments… - p.170, 171