To "see" the kingdom of god . . .
My wife knows how much I love Billboard Religiosity, so she took this wonderful snap shot for me . . .
Yeah, there's a lot of gems in this chapter. I have a very simple argument against these types of claims in the New Testament . . . other than that Nicodemus goes right in to this:
Really? Enter the womb TWICE, Nicodemus? Instead of sounding like a complete idiot, why don't you just ask him what he meant by this claim.
Anyways, Jesus makes this claim that "unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God". When he says "born again", he is referring to being "born of the spirit" . . . that which is the spirit of the "Son of Man". A very small note is how confusing it is is that Jesus keeps referring to the "Son of Man" in third person, even though he is supposedly that very thing. If he's referring to himself, he should really remain in the first person context.
Now I am no linguistic scholar in ancient Greek, but if we say that someone cannot "see" heaven, then we are also saying that they cannot be aware of it, cannot understand it, cannot look at it . . . cannot perceive it. When jesus says that "he cannot see the kingdom of GOD" he is condemning them to either idiocy, mental deficiency or hell (either on earth or eternally). People raise these arguments all the time. What if we're talking about someone who has never heard of the Bible? What if we're talking about someone who has never heard of Christ? What if they died too young and had no knowledge of salvation? The apologist might say that only god has the right to condemn or it is only he that can judge. The apologist might say that we have to look at the bible in its own historical context and that we must set it apart in terms of generational morality, or other such nonsense.
Here's the tricky about about this chapter and how it tries to define certain things. Christianity boasts to possess the "truth" and to proclaim it. It tells its people to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation". According to 2 Corinthians, we are "ambassadors for Christ". So, when people say that this dude is about peace and forgiveness and salvation . . . I call bullshit. Here's a few versus to think on:
It goes on and on in the Gospels about how Christ is the utmost to deserve your love. I don't know about you, but that sounds a lot like the jealousy of the Old Testament GOD and we can clearly see that in Matthew 5:17, Christ is not outdoing with the Old Testament Law. So, all that shit in the Torah that, by today's standards, we find utterly deplorable is not void. It is still the Law of god and of christ. Note that christ is just as capricious as the god of the Old Testament when he would rather use a sword over peace.
Do not be fooled by the apologist who uses such recitation as:
While we are in an age where we so easily navigate technology today, there are still a great many people that have not heard of the Bible or the words of christ . . . no matter how sadistic. So, how far did god stretch out his hands? Did he get tired just as the disciples did and give up? Where does salvation exist where it doesn't exist?
If I were a paid scholar I would keep on going at this moment because now i'm pissed off about the insanity of these texts. However, I have to say "fuckit" . . . i'm double dating and seeing the new monsters, inc. film tonight. These texts have been around long enough and will still be there in the morning for me to despise.
Just know that love is a beautiful thing and that it is stabbed in the heart by the Bible.