Another graffiti attack on a Church billboard has left the rather bizarre message “Well this sucks: John 3:16″.
I assume that this means that the Graffiti commentator thought that the content of John 3:16 sucked, or else they thought Jesus thought John 3:16 sucked. The latter makes the most sense of this cryptic message.
However this raises the second question: does this mean Jesus thought that it sucks that God gave his son (ie. him), or that is sucks that we will have eternal life? Either way the fact that Jesus is the one saying that John 3:16 sucks means that he was not really down with this plan. Surely, the only possible explanation of this piece of exegesis is that the graffiti commentator has a theology that claims that Jesus was an unwilling sacrifice who did not want us to have eternal life?
The Dunedin School 
Why is Jesus wearing pink?
elton john dudut. thez woi.
I wondered about that and have twotheories:
(i) they are trying to maintain Jesus’ modesty by giving him some elaborate clothes (showing a preference for John’s Gospel… but this does not fit with them thinking that John sucks)
OR (ii) They are Mel Gibsonites and thought there was not enough blood and gore in the picture and hence splatted Jesus with blood.
you misapprehend. they are replacing the message of the billboard with a reminder of john 3:16. jesus wouldn’t whine on the cross. etc.
na Jim, elton (probably) and Jesus thought John 3.16 sucks. It’s wrong. Even elton knows Mark 15.34 reports Jesus whining. He suffered, in agony and John sucks. And Max wrote this, not Tyrone.
Sarcasm, Jim, come on in …
Does citing a Bible verse without quoting it count as ‘a reminder’ in a heavily secularised (in terms of organised Christianity at least), anti-intellectual country with little knowledge of the biblical text?
I wondered about the effect of writing JN 3:16, and figured that it served more as in-group anxiety relief and confidence boost than a message to The Great Unwashed.
a fundy musta dunnit – the whole Johannine creation just doesn’t hold water in the Great unwashed, speaking as one of those from ‘darkness’. John is the Christian Prosac.
Mind you, it was the first written Gospel. Mark just tried to historicize it, didn’t he (followed by Matthew and Luke)?
I think that people almost view “JN 3:16” (not the verse but the citing of the verse) as a sort of talisman or a magical inscription. They think that it has the power to ward of evil merely by inscribing it on a wall – in much the same way a crucifix warded off evil in old vampire movies. In that case the graffiti is not an intellectual endeavor at all – as I first suspected – but rather an example of modern christian magic.
bingo – you’re right
Max,
Maybe you haven’t heard, but we as modern people have all moved past magic, past Christianity, and especially past Christian magic. There has been no magic in Christianity since the Reformation, of course. With the arrival of sociology, Marxism, and psychology, we are now all rooted firmly in reason and the scientific method, firmly, I say.
Welcome aboard, by the way,
Eric
Thanks – I am your token super-naturalist ;)
Too late – Eric believes in ghosts.
I also believe in the relentless if strategic deployment of sarcasm …
I used to. But some people seem to be able to take the most obviously sarcastic comment literally. I think ghosts are a safer bet.
Max,
People, especially in the academy, are indeed not good at spotting humour, but I’ve decided that this is not my problem (even when it is).
Ghosts are much easier to deal with.
Eric
an agonising cry in Aramaic would be unlikely to have been made up by early Christians – Mark’s little cry has strong historical plausibility.
A sign of late Syrian docetism?
bollox – context Tyrone!
You might be right.