Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is ultimately a matter of faith. Either you accept what is written for what it says or you don't. As I said before, it's the intended audience that makes it different. I believe the book of John was written as a response to gnosticism, to show how that was false teaching/doctrine and to affirm the truth of the gospel and the truth of Jesus. I believe it was written by God, through John the diciple as dictated to his secretary (whom I believe to be Polycarp of Ephesus). This is all IMHO.
Plausible, but it mentions quite a few things - important things I might add - that are found in none of the other Gospels and the emphasis shifts from a Jesus who seems to dodge the label of "divine" (at least early) in Mark's Gospel but invites it in the Gospel of John. So inevitably the question must be asked, was Jesus a reluctant messiah or did he welcome and relish the role as it appears in the Gospel of John. It's hard to see how both could be right at the same time. So when we are talking about the 'truth of Jesus,' which one?
Again, the Gospel of John, conservatively speaking, was written some 20 or more years after the destruction of the temple, a time when just about any eyewitness to a Jesus was long dead and no kingdom came about. Hope shifted from looking for an earthly kingdom to "many mansions" in heaven to all of those who accepted eternal life in Jesus. To the writer of John, no longer was the kingdom coming to earth. The kingdom is in heaven and to get there you could only get to the Father who lives there you had to go through the son (Jesus). This, to me, is a radically different message from what appears in the earlier Gospel of Mark. Why the shift?
In addition, as I've mentioned before, in the other Gospels, Jesus refused to perform miracles to prove himself. They are signs of power reserved for those in need not to prove anything to anyone. As a result, they are called miracles and not signs. When the religious leaders asked him for signs he rebuked them sharply. In John, however, his works are called signs and they are done specifically to do what exactly what the other Gospels said he refused to do them for. John claims Jesus said, "I am the bread of the world" and then he performs a sign to prove this claim by using loaves of bread to feed the crowd (John 6). He claimed Jesus was the "light of the world" and a sign follows when he healed the man born blind (John 9). "Resurrection and the life" he then raises Lazarus from the dead.
Interestingly enough, in the Gospel of Matthew even the Devil Jesus refuses to display any signs to prove anything summed up in "do not test God," however, in the Gospel of John, the signs are designed to expressly prove the divine calling/mark of Jesus. In John, Jesus even tells someone, "Unless you see signs of wonders, you will not believe." (John 4:48). The Book of John even ends with the writer stating that the things written in his book were specifically designed to promote faith in Jesus by the works he did.
Quote:
So what is one to do? Are we to chalk everything up to "revisionist historians" from both camps who feel compelled to go back and re-write everything that's been known and understood based upon some "new" very thin, very fragile "evidence"? Are we to believe that nothing historical can be accurate if it was preserved by the Church because they supposedly had an agenda?
I would not say there was 'nothing historical.' My doubt resides in I wonder how much history was lavishly embellished to promote a particular agenda.
Quote:
Are we to forget that many of the first century Church were devout people of God who knew lying was wrong and if they did lie or misrepresent the facts, the truth, and it was discovered that it would actually harm or destory the very work they were performing, the work many were giving their lives for?
You've heard about Eusebius I take it?
Quote:
So does it make any sense that they would be as purposely decietful as many modern folk claim they were when it comes to the histrocity and veractiy of the books of the canon? Or is it more reasonable to accept the history that's been preserved, including authorship, because those closer in time knew much more about that then we could ever presume to know today?
The second century critic, Celsus also lived closer to the time too and many of today's critics, whether they know of him or not, echo many of his own issues with the emerging Christian sect. He, living closer to the times, seemed to have a bird's eye view or the fabrications that were being manufactured from the Christian camps. Ironically, the only reason we even know this guy existed and questioned the faith is because a "church father" quotes him in a rebuttal. Like, perhaps, many others, if this was not the case, we might not know about a Celsus or his critiques because his work would have just "disappeared."
Fundamentalist churches often encourage new believers to start off their new life by reading the book of John before any other biblical book, however, just a few chapters in, you realize the book has an entirely different theme about Jesus from that found in the other Gospels. Why?
It was written years later....and had a different focus than the others. None of the 4 are purely chronological biographies...but are all written to different audiences. John's gospel had a different audience.
Plausible, but it mentions quite a few things - important things I might add - that are found in none of the other Gospels and the emphasis shifts from a Jesus who seems to dodge the label of "divine" (at least early) in Mark's Gospel but invites it in the Gospel of John. So inevitably the question must be asked, was Jesus a reluctant messiah or did he welcome and relish the role as it appears in the Gospel of John. It's hard to see how both could be right at the same time. So when we are talking about the 'truth of Jesus,' which one?
Both are correct. He was waiting for the right time and the right hour to reveal His true self, which is why it appears earlier he was "dodging" his divinity, but later in his ministry, as the time was coming upon him, he was revealing his divinity. Peter, in Mark 8:27-30 acknowledges Jesus' divinity, which Jesus does not deny. But the time was not right for it to be widely known. Jews at that time wanted an earthly king, and Jesus came at that time to provide salvation, not set up an earthly kingdom. And that purpose was not even fully known to all the followers until after Jesus' death and resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
Again, the Gospel of John, conservatively speaking, was written some 20 or more years after the destruction of the temple, a time when just about any eyewitness to a Jesus was long dead and no kingdom came about. Hope shifted from looking for an earthly kingdom to "many mansions" in heaven to all of those who accepted eternal life in Jesus. To the writer of John, no longer was the kingdom coming to earth. The kingdom is in heaven and to get there you could only get to the Father who lives there you had to go through the son (Jesus). This, to me, is a radically different message from what appears in the earlier Gospel of Mark. Why the shift?
I can only speak for myself on this. My opinion is the shift was because of their understanding. Even while the disciples walked with Christ, they admit they didn't understand many things and many things were kept from their understanding until the appropriate time. However, many of Paul's writings agree with John. The shift of focus was dictated by the audience it was intended for ... those who were chasing false teachings that sounded close to the truth, but were false nonetheless. Again, in my opinion, simply because the focus shifted does not mean it contradicts any other scriptures. It is simply another facet of our complex God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
In addition, as I've mentioned before, in the other Gospels, Jesus refused to perform miracles to prove himself. They are signs of power reserved for those in need not to prove anything to anyone. As a result, they are called miracles and not signs. When the religious leaders asked him for signs he rebuked them sharply. In John, however, his works are called signs and they are done specifically to do what exactly what the other Gospels said he refused to do them for. John claims Jesus said, "I am the bread of the world" and then he performs a sign to prove this claim by using loaves of bread to feed the crowd (John 6). He claimed Jesus was the "light of the world" and a sign follows when he healed the man born blind (John 9). "Resurrection and the life" he then raises Lazarus from the dead.
Interestingly enough, in the Gospel of Matthew even the Devil Jesus refuses to display any signs to prove anything summed up in "do not test God," however, in the Gospel of John, the signs are designed to expressly prove the divine calling/mark of Jesus. In John, Jesus even tells someone, "Unless you see signs of wonders, you will not believe." (John 4:48). The Book of John even ends with the writer stating that the things written in his book were specifically designed to promote faith in Jesus by the works he did.
Jesus did not perform his miracles/signs on demand for the devil or Pharisees or Saducsees. He didn't say "come see and I'll prove it to you". John is writted in a manner to show Jesus is God. This is what the other gospels tell us as well, in their version from their POV. All the gospels are written with a purpose, with an intent, with an audience in mind and in a certain format. Again, they do not contradict, but compliment each other. What you read into it is different that what is intended to be read from it. If one reads it with the intent to see differences that are not there, one just might find them.
Again, it is the position of the reader, where their heart is, what their motives are, what their bias is that will determine what they see. The truth is plain for anyone to see and available to all.
Well Mams, I certainly do not see it that way. The book is obviously dramatically different from the other Gospels. Even at Jesus' interview with Pilate, the other Gospels has Jesus saying very little yet in the Gospel of John he is rather wordy. When asked by Pilate in Mark, Luke and Matthew if he is the King of the Jews, Jesus basically tells him, "yes." When asked in John, he gives an entirely different answer. Granted, the other possibility could be he said more but the other Gospels simply left it out all of the rest of the blabbering, but the "wordiness" in John is consistent with the rest of the portrayed example of Jesus in the book.
While on a different note, I once showed another example of how even the synoptic Gospels differed from each other and one particular example came to mind. Mark, Matthew and Luke all detail Jesus' death upon the cross (that in itself is another story), however, Matthew gives an account of something incredulous claiming that dead people rose out of their graves and went into Jerusalem and were seen by many. Mark nor Luke mention any of this despite both giving the same exact details up to and beyond that point. We never again read or hear anything about this unprecedented event by any other New Testament writer or by Peter in his Pentecost message a few days later or by secular historians. This would not surprise the critical mind because the writer of the book of Matthew proved a history of taking great liberties with "facts" and not above creating his own realities.
IMO whoever wrote it first, they may have written it from a different standpoint. The Gnostics (there were two sects BTW) were excommunicated as a whole. Most agree that (the guilty group) they should of been as they denied Jesus in the flesh. All their writings were burned so we really do not know just how much they may have added or taken away from the message. The bits I have read does not see to be too bad.
This is the problem. What history was preserved, the truth or what they wanted us to hear/see?
IIRC Bart still teaches biblical studies even though he is agnostic. There are few that can hold a candle to him in modern times. His research was exhaustive. His findings certainly raise many questions.
It is relevant to understand the early church history - it does exist. The part of Bart I read was concerning the trinity doctrine and how it came to become and article of faith, it was not something the early church believed in - it evolved over time IIRC approximately 250-400AD through various councils leaving us finally with the Nicene creed which has survived till today.
When we consider the politics behind the canon of the NT, we see there was a particular bias. The Christian religion was a good tool to control the masses in light of a glorious hereafter, hence it becoming a statewide religion. This decision began the demise of the Roman empire. It of course led to persecutions of other believers and the dark ages.
To enter into contextual criticism is a fascinating study. But beware, you may come away w/o your faith.
Well Mams, I certainly do not see it that way. The book is obviously dramatically different from the other Gospels. Even at Jesus' interview with Pilate, the other Gospels has Jesus saying very little yet in the Gospel of John he is rather wordy. When asked by Pilate in Mark, Luke and Matthew if he is the King of the Jews, Jesus basically tells him, "yes." When asked in John, he gives an entirely different answer. Granted, the other possibility could be he said more but the other Gospels simply left it out all of the rest of the blabbering, but the "wordiness" in John is consistent with the rest of the portrayed example of Jesus in the book.
While on a different note, I once showed another example of how even the synoptic Gospels differed from each other and one particular example came to mind. Mark, Matthew and Luke all detail Jesus' death upon the cross (that in itself is another story), however, Matthew gives an account of something incredulous claiming that dead people rose out of their graves and went into Jerusalem and were seen by many. Mark nor Luke mention any of this despite both giving the same exact details up to and beyond that point. We never again read or hear anything about this unprecedented event by any other New Testament writer or by Peter in his Pentecost message a few days later or by secular historians. This would not surprise the critical mind because the writer of the book of Matthew proved a history of taking great liberties with "facts" and not above creating his own realities.
You have it right, I think. While bearing in mind that witnesses don't always agree and the viewof writing from a different point of view, the strong impression is that the writer of John, whoever it was, inserted a lot of long sermons which the synoptics never hint at, despite a lot of very important teachings which at least they'd have tried to pass on in their gospels - if they'd heard of them. the conclusion is that they didn't and they are all the views of the evangelist, not Jesus.
It then follows that the long arguments and debates in the Temple and around the healing of the man born blind are not really reflected in the synoptics. Even the man born blind with his sarky arguments about the priests not knowing where Jesus comes from sounds like the voice of 'John'.
Similarly, the business in the Synagogue about jesus losing his followers doesn't find a reflection in the synoptics. Although this can be explained away as an embarrssament that they preferred not to mention, it doesn't really look like a real synagogue meeting, more a proto- church with a congregation waliking out because they can't swallow the eucharist. So
that, to me, looks like more of John writing about his own ideas and experiences.
Same with the foot-washing at the 'last supper'. Such a remarkable event and the synoptics don't mention it. Is it beyond possibility that it reflected a practice in John's own church that he wanted to show Jesus as instituting?
While we are on things done as well as things said. John shows how he tinkered with the Jesus story. The procession to the temple on an Ass, followed by the temple cleansing is clear, thought the synoptics fiddle about with the timing. But John hacks out the temple cleansing in a sanguine chunk (from 12-20 on) to the begnning of the story. Filling in the gap with another sermon. What's more he compounds the error by referring to what the people in Galilee said about what Jesus did at the festival (the temple cleansing) which hadn't really happened.
Gotta go...but there's more to come in showing that John could not be a disciple and the whole Gospel is not to be taken without careful scrutiny.
You have it right, I think. While bearing in mind that witnesses don't always agree and the viewof writing from a different point of view, the strong impression is that the writer of John, whoever it was, inserted a lot of long sermons which the synoptics never hint at, despite a lot of very important teachings which at least they'd have tried to pass on in their gospels - if they'd heard of them. the conclusion is that they didn't and they are all the views of the evangelist, not Jesus.
It then follows that the long arguments and debates in the Temple and around the healing of the man born blind are not really reflected in the synoptics. Even the man born blind with his sarky arguments about the priests not knowing where Jesus comes from sounds like the voice of 'John'.
Similarly, the business in the Synagogue about jesus losing his followers doesn't find a reflection in the synoptics. Although this can be explained away as an embarrssament that they preferred not to mention, it doesn't really look like a real synagogue meeting, more a proto- church with a congregation waliking out because they can't swallow the eucharist. So
that, to me, looks like more of John writing about his own ideas and experiences.
Same with the foot-washing at the 'last supper'. Such a remarkable event and the synoptics don't mention it. Is it beyond possibility that it reflected a practice in John's own church that he wanted to show Jesus as instituting?
While we are on things done as well as things said. John shows how he tinkered with the Jesus story. The procession to the temple on an Ass, followed by the temple cleansing is clear, thought the synoptics fiddle about with the timing. But John hacks out the temple cleansing in a sanguine chunk (from 12-20 on) to the begnning of the story. Filling in the gap with another sermon. What's more he compounds the error by referring to what the people in Galilee said about what Jesus did at the festival (the temple cleansing) which hadn't really happened.
Gotta go...but there's more to come in showing that John could not be a disciple and the whole Gospel is not to be taken without careful scrutiny.
to the 'reeks'. . bloowhole;,wdn't
That sounds about right. Now THAT is what I call a bible study.
An oft overlooked verse at the end of the book that bares his name gives it away or at least implies the entire book was not written by him or edited later by others.
John 21:24
Clearly the person writing (speaking) is someone else other than the 'disciple who testifies of these things.' The writer or editor then tells his reading audience that the disciple Jesus loved wrote these things and then added we (whoever 'we' is) believes his testimony. That's an opinion.
Take it for what it's worth, but you have to wonder if John, an original disciple, wrote the book OR was it the work of a later scribe using the pen name of John (for credibility, a VERY common practice in those days) to promote an agenda, that agenda being to prove Jesus was God himself hence a divine being. This is certainly a far cry from the older Gospel of Mark which has Jesus trying to actually downplay any such labels whereas in John he is unapologetic about it.
What John is referring to is the other Apostles and disciples.
That sounds about right. Now THAT is what I call a bible study.
Yes. It's a really interesting study - what redaction criticism should be used for rather than arguing whether "Q" was a written or oral source and looking for ways of explaining away Matthew's silly slip about the two asses.
Yo. As I as saying, The temple cleansing is really displaced. Even if the the references (to the upsetting if the tables of the money - changers, the reference to it being a house of prayer, not what they had turned it into and questioning about what authority) did not identify it as the same event - in a bit of text; not an eywitness report - the absence of any similar 'cleansing' before the baptism in the synoptics and the absence of any 'cleansing' where it really should be in John shows clearly what he did with the text that was before him.
It is clear that, no matter what you argue from ancient claims of who had met whom in Ephesus or who claimed to have got an account from whom, the Gospel of John was not written by an eyewitness, though he may claim that his text was by an eyewitness, or so he assures us. So it may be, but John reworked it and added to it very heavily. That's the point.
Let's look at the final scenes. It's known that John describes the same arrest, crucifixion and burial as the synpotics. Given that he tinkers in his own way with the text (anyone who now denies the evidence for that lacks credibility, no matter how many diplomas they have), he agrees an appearance before the High priest but in his own house, but there is no Sanhedrin meeting. Jesus is taken direct to Pilate.
That means that there is no assembly of 'false witnesses', no condemnation for blasphemy and, in fact, in none of the gospels is the blasphemy charge ever brought. But this is about John's credibility, not that of the synoptics (though theirs is no better).
In fact I think even dickering about whether the spear and seamless robe are true and the differences in the 'last words' or when the 'angels' appeared or even whther the disciples stayed in Jerusalem or went to Galilee is probably not needed here.
It should be clear that the theological pronouncements in 'The Divine' John are bogus. Totally ficticious and merely John's own opinion. When trotted out by believers as evidence of their own particular take on what they expect JesusGod to do for them (or to those with whom they disagree, doctrinally) they are quoting text which has no more credibility than does Campbell34 or YeshuaSavedMe on the subject of Palaeontology.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
