The Gospel of John

[RJM]

Removed
Go to next post

 

[RJM]

But on this point it was a pagan correcting Christians, wasn't it?
And the response to that is usually a total failure to acknowledge the new knowledge.
Maybe it's just put to bed?

It says Jesus and his followers went to the temple and looked around. Few people know every word of scripture. What's so startling or significant about the passage? What does it matter?

Please do show me an example of that.
I only ignore passages which have appeared after the earliest copies that we have.

Well it's a different thread, but the spear thrust passage is an example. While using the spear thrust to support the 'swoon theory' folks ignore that the same passage affirms the eye-witness account of the death, which is the next line of the passage.

Ok, so perhaps the writer just thought Jesus was dead, etc ... but it's not what the gospel actually says. There are many such dismissals, but I need to make clear it's not mainly just you I'm responding to -- there are several other folks out there with similar theories ... let's say.

I need to take a break now. For rest of today. I'm spending too much time posting on these threads

Thank you for your robust contributions

 

[RJM]

There are no Christians around here, my home, only social ones, apart from two that I do know.
I have been discussing and debating with Christians all over the world for may many years ....

Perhaps it needs saying that the two who visit are not a sect representing the majority Christian belief. If they are who they seem to be they should not be considered an example of how 'most' Christians think ...

 

[badger]

Perhaps it needs saying that the two who visit are not a sect representing the majority Christian belief. If they are who they seem to be they should not be considered an example of how 'most' Christians think ...

That's a new thread, right there .

 

[Ella S.]

Perhaps it needs saying that the two who visit are not a sect representing the majority Christian belief. If they are who they seem to be they should not be considered an example of how 'most' Christians think ...

There's only one thing that I think I can justifiably claim the majority of Christians think. That's that our Creator so loved humanity that he gave his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins so that we may enter the Kingdom of Heaven and be reborn to eternal life after our current bodies die. I think I can back this up statistically, using data from polls conducted in numerous countries.

Everything else is give-and-take.

There are also Christians who don't believe that Jesus was begotten of God like the Docetists or Adoptionists, for instance. There are also Christians who do not believe in sin, seeing it as an antiquated metaphor for immorality. There are even Christians who do not believe in an afterlife or a bodily resurrection. So even this belief is just what most Christians think, rather than all of them.

We see more and more Christian Pantheists and Christian Deists who see Jesus more as a philosophical figure who had a deep understanding of God, rejecting all of the miracles, prophecy, resurrection, etc. They tend to place more importance on the cultural role that Christianity plays through its holidays, ceremonies, and symbolism than any literal belief.

So even that majority isn't necessarily representative of all of Christianity. I, myself, was a Christian Pantheist for awhile when I was a Rosicrucian and when I was a Gnostic alchemist. I will tell you that I was considered to be "not a real Christian" both in person and on Christian forums, where sometimes even the LDS Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses were considered "not Christian."

This is also why I feel like I have positive evidence that Christianity isn't true, because I think I can make compelling arguments for why there is no Creator of the universe, there is no such thing as sin, and there is no afterlife. It's that last one that was my primary reason for deconverting from Gnosticism, and I was agnostic on the issue for a long time.

ETA: That's not me saying that Christianity isn't true, just that the information that I have seems to indicate that it's false. I could be misinformed, ignorant, or have some error in reasoning that I've overlooked.

 

[badger]

So even that majority isn't necessarily representative of all of Christianity. I, myself, was a Christian Pantheist for awhile when I was a Rosicrucian and when I was a Gnostic alchemist. I will tell you that I was considered to be "not a real Christian" both in person and on Christian forums, where sometimes even the LDS Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses were considered "not Christian."

I was interested in all of your post, but the above para is going to start off new thread.
There are even Christians who will not take food or drink with other Christians, and many think that they are the 'only ones'.

I find the Predestination Christians to have the strangest ideas about that.

 

[Thomas]

....looked round about upon all things ...

To you means sightseeing. To me means more.

 

[badger]

Moving forward...........

Is John out of Order? The Strange Geography and Chronology of the Fourth Gospel
AUGUST 17, 2015 PAUL D.36 COMMENTS


German theologian Rudolf Bultmann, in his famous and still widely cited commentary on John, wrote many decades ago:

The thesis has been represented, occasionally even in very early times but strongly from the beginning of this century, that the original order of the text [of John] has been disturbed, through an interchange of leaves or by some other means. …it must be presumed that the present order of our Gospel is not derived from the author. …It is not enough to reckon with a simple exchange of the pages of a loose codex, for the sections that appear to demand a change of position are of unequal length. The assumption lies closest to hand that the Gospel of John was edited from the author’s literary remains on the basis of separate manuscript pages, left without order. In any case, the present form of our Gospel is due to the work of a redactor. (pp. 11–12)

And so........ whenever I read a report from a 'scholar' professor, etc etc, I look to find out more about him, so I will add my research as an EDIT after this:-
Later....
EDIT.........back again.
Rudolf Karl Bultmann was a German Lutheran theologian and professor of the New Testament at the University of Marburg. He was one of the major figures of early-20th-century biblical studies. A prominent critic of liberal theology, Bultmann instead argued for an existentialist interpretation of the New Testament.

So it seems that many have felt the need to be cautious when reading the gospels. Speaking for self, I find reports of Jesus moving from Galilee to Jerusalem in a half verse in a very short span of time to be questionable. It's as if the authors didn't have or make enough time for travel. Like this:-

John {2:10} And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: [but] thou hast kept the good wine until now. {2:11} This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
{2:12} After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days. {2:13} And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

 

[Thomas]

German theologian Rudolf Bultmann, in his famous and still widely cited commentary on John, wrote many decades ago:

Bultmann's scholarship should not be underestimated, but some of his fundamental claims have been largely been discredited, so if one is going to base a thesis on his claims, you have to present the claim, with the pros and cons. A lot of what he said was brilliant. A lot was false assumptions.

So it seems that many have felt the need to be cautious when reading the gospels.

I'd say caution is a sign of good scholarship.

Speaking for self, I find reports of Jesus moving from Galilee to Jerusalem in a half verse in a very short span of time to be questionable. It's as if the authors didn't have or make enough time for travel. Like this (John 2:10-13):-

In what way questionable, though?

As I read it, Jesus was at Cana, then went down to Capharnaum (17 miles, a 1 or 2 day journey?), stayed a few days, then went up to Jerusalem (a 4-day hike), the first of possibly four trips recorded in John, this one quite early in His ministry, although He already had a gathering.

Capharnaum seems to have been his base, so maybe it was all planned, He has a family wedding to attend at Cana, then back to base, pick up His followers and off?

+++

Here as in the discussion of Mark you take a general comment and then apply it to a specific verse. All I have tried to say is, to do that, you have to show how the specific verse is itself suspect, it's not enough to assume under a blanket condemnation that because some verses are suspect, all are suspect ... that's not what Bultmann is saying.

 

[badger]

Bultmann's scholarship should not be underestimated, but some of his fundamental claims have been largely been discredited, so if one is going to base a thesis on his claims, you have to present the claim, with the pros and cons. A lot of what he said was brilliant. A lot was false assumptions.

I make no thesis needing anybody's claims, just introducing the fact that I'm not alone in treating something with caution.

I'd say caution is a sign of good scholarship.

Yes

In what way questionable, though?

I don't trust that journey to, during and from Jerusalem because......
The duration of the whole trip was described as if he had popped around to Magdala.
The cleansing of the Temple is shockingly out of timeline and proposes that there were no consequences involved for this serious criminal offence and he could not have dated to attempt that alone.
The gospel of Mark mentions nothing about an early trip to Jerusalem.
That none of the disciples are mentioned being on this trip.
No.....I don't give that s vpimt any credibility at all.
But of you do, then, ok.

As I read it, Jesus was at Cana, then went down to Capharnaum (17 miles, a 1 or 2 day journey?), stayed a few days, then went up to Jerusalem (a 4-day hike), the first of possibly four trips recorded in John, this one quite early in His ministry, although He already had a gathering.

Actually I don't trust his being in company with mother and siblings, the idea of a working class family just travelling about and staying at places.... either.

Capharnaum seems to have been his base, so maybe it was all planned, He has a family wedding to attend at Cana, then back to base, pick up His followers and off?

No mention was made of any disciples.

Here as in the discussion of Mark you take a general comment and then apply it to a specific verse. All I have tried to say is, to do that, you have to show how the specific verse is itself suspect, it's not enough to assume under a blanket condemnation that because some verses are suspect, all are suspect ... that's not what Bultmann is saying.

If you have a better technique then please apply it. I read exactly what Bultmann said. By your standards as described you should be demonstrating what you think Bultmann was saying. But I was simply demonstrating how others have worried about John's GEOGRAPHY ....

 

[RJM]

The cleansing of the Temple is shockingly out of timeline and proposes that there were no consequences involved for this serious criminal offence and he could not have dated to attempt that alone.

Yes, but this assumes mayhem, and the whole of the rest of the thesis is built upon the fact that Jesus was killed for interfering with the Temple traders. But it is an assumption only. It's not treated in the gospels themselves as a life threatening intervention; it is not serious enough to come up before Pilate.

There's no reason to assume it was not more than Jesus just kicking over a table or two, in the heat of the moment – and then getting into a discussion with the Pharisees about Caesar's Coin. Literary licence aside, the whole perspective that the Temple intervention was a major criminal event, is not necessarily valid, nor is making it the prime reason for the crucifixion of Jesus, imo

The gospel of Mark mentions nothing about an early trip to Jerusalem.
That none of the disciples are mentioned being on this trip.

There are a lot of things not mentioned in the very concise Gospel of Mark that are expanded in later gospels, using the Mark material, but also material of the writers' own, as well as material supposedly from the Gospel of Q*

*John excepted

 

[badger]

Yes, but this assumes mayhem, and the whole of the rest of the thesis is built upon the fact that Jesus was killed for interfering with the Temple traders. But it is an assumption only. It's not treated in the gospels themselves as a life threatening intervention; it is not serious enough to come up before Pilate.

There's no reason to assume it was not more than Jesus just kicking over a table or two, in the heat of the moment – and then getting into a discussion with the Pharisees about Caesar's Coin............................................

Wrong! Amazing!
John , {2:14} And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: {2:15} And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;

About 400,000 attended the Great Feasts! The inspection, purchasing and slaughter of animals was huge....massive.
The people came from all over (that list popped in to G-Mark as another venue will do) with different currencies, all to be changed in to clean pure silver of exact weight. Anna's Bazaar was massive.

– and then getting into a discussion with the Pharisees about Caesar's Coin.

Wrong again........
After the clearance they picketed the Temple Courts! That required a lot of people.

Wrong again......
There was no debate with Priests on that day....... that all happened (including the coin incident) during the next day.

 

[RJM]

Removed
See next post ...

 

[RJM]

I don't believe he cleared out the whole bazaar, and then went on teaching there during the next week as if nothing had happened.

I believe he probably caused a fuss, but it's unlikely the temple court ceased to function during the week that followed. It was never mentioned again and it did not come up at the trial before Pilate.

It's taking words written 20 centuries ago and giving a literal meaning to the word ALL, imo. In the same way it's unlikely he could have stopped everybody from entering the temple on the next day.

The disruption would have been too great. There would have been week long mayhem around the Temple during the crowded time of the feast and the Romans would have had to intervene. Jesus went on teaching daily in the Temple during that week.

I don't believe it was such a huge intervention -- more symbolic -- although it obviously didn't make Jesus popular with the religious authorities. We cannot know ...

 

[badger]

I don't believe he cleared out the whole bazaar, and then went on teaching there during the next week as if nothing had happened.

John : he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;

I think that's fairly clear, even though this piece of information got patched in to the wrong place in the calendar.

I believe he probably caused a fuss, but it's unlikely the temple court ceased to function during the week that followed. It was never mentioned again and it did not come up at the trial before Pilate.

Please quote where I or anyone has mentioned that the 'temple court ceased to function during the week that followed'.
The Temple Courts were picketed on the Monday and the Tuesday...... It says so in G-Mark.
Whether the case was tried by Sanhedrin or before Pilate I haven't got a clue what the real charges were. If you think that you have then that's your opinion.

It's taking words written 20 centuries ago and giving a literal meaning to the word ALL, imo. In the same way it's unlikely he could have stopped everybody from entering the temple on the next day.

Please quote exactly where I or anyone has said that 'Jesus stopped everybody from entering the Temple'.
The Temple Courts were picketed on Monday and Tuesday.

The disruption would have been too great. There would have been week long mayhem around the Temple during the crowded time of the feast and the Romans would have had to intervene. Jesus went on teaching daily in the Temple during that week.

The disruption on Monday and Tuesday was huge. There were riots around Jerusalem that week...it refers to these. The Romans did not enter the Temple precincts, only patrolled the Temple walls. 6000 Levite guards patrolled the Temple precincts at major feasts.
G-Mark explains that Jesus dodn't so much teach in the Temple but debate and confront the priests who were asking him 'why did he do these things'.

I don't believe it was such a huge intervention -- more symbolic -- although it obviously didn't make Jesus popular with the religious authorities. We cannot know ...

G-John needed to completely ignore these incidents during that last week, maybe that's why they popped up at the beginning of the mission. Christianity needed to find another reason for the trial and to downplay the mayhem and picketing as 'more symbolic' or 'trivial'.
We can know........ fortunately G-Mark (Cephas) got it written down.

 

[RJM]

G-John needed to completely ignore these incidents during that last week, maybe that's why they popped up at the beginning of the mission. Christianity needed to find another reason for the trial and to downplay the mayhem and picketing as 'more symbolic' or 'trivial'.

Or not

We can know........ fortunately G-Mark (Cephas) got it written down.

That's why there are four gospels. Matthew and Luke take material from Mark, but also add material of their own, and about a quarter of their gospels also contain material from the hypothetical lost gospel Q. John is rejected by those who want to have a 'good man social reformer Jesus' -- often a Jesus who did not die on the cross, but who married Mary Magdalene and moved away from Judea.

But that's not the way it happened. Paul, writing before the gospels, knew Peter, James and John, and believed in the incarnation, death and resurrection. As did those other three senior apostles.

So it's possible to get whatever I want out of the gospels, if I discard the stuff that doesn't suit.
I've no more to say here ...

 

[Thomas]

I don't trust ...

OK, I get that, but that alone is insufficient to discredit the text.

But I was simply demonstrating how others have worried about John's GEOGRAPHY ....

Can you give me the references for this, because I have references that speak to the contrary.

Dr of Theology Carsten Claussen writes on his commentary on the Wedding at Cana:
"... it has been frequently observed that the author of John contributes a number of accurate details about the geography of first century Palestine, about Jewish customs, and about certain historical personalities. Archaeological findings support John's knowledge of Palestine and Jerusalem, such as the Pools of Siloam and of Bethesda (or Bethzatha), stone vessels (which disappeared from use altogether after 70AD), and the outdoor paving stones near the Antonia Fortress which may have been part of the Roman Praetorium in Jerusalem. His itinerary and chronology of Jesus' ministry and death are taken by some interpreters to be more reliable than those of the Synoptics. The debates and trials on the way to Jesus' execution seem to provide a better representation of what happened. Thus ... John's Gospel appears to provide historical data complementing our knowledge of the historical Jesus and even proving more accurate."

He cites Paula Fredriksen, a renown scholar, author of Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews remarking: "Given what we know about Jesus, the sort of itinerary that John presents makes much more sense than the one-year, one-way itinery in Mark (followed by Matthew and Luke) that itself so much obliges Mark's distinctive theology. I do not defend the historicity of particular words, phrases, or the exact details of John's itinerary per se. As all the conflicting erudition shows, the evidence is simply too problematic to yield any unarguable conclusions."

I make no thesis needing anybody's claims, just introducing the fact that I'm not alone in treating something with caution.

But it seems to me you display no such caution in proposing your 'solutions'.

The cleansing of the Temple is shockingly out of timeline and proposes that there were no consequences involved for this serious criminal offence ...

And yet there is no further mention of it at all in Scripture, is there? So perhaps not such the big deal you suppose it to be.

(And, to my reading, John's makes more sense. John places the event early, and then later says the authorities began to regard Jesus as a dangerous threat to be dealt with even before His final trip to Jerusalem.)

The gospel of Mark mentions nothing about an early trip to Jerusalem.

Mark is hardly authoritative. We know he wasn't there, that he's relating Peter. He utilises Peter's homilies to build his story, and arranges the materials accordingly.

Actually I don't trust ...

Actually there's a lot you don't trust ... Remember that Jesus' ministry missions were funded.

If you have a better technique then please apply it.

My technique is to read the text with caution, and be doubly cautious about leaping to unfounded conclusions because they fit my picture.

I read exactly what Bultmann said. By your standards as described you should be demonstrating what you think Bultmann was saying.

OK. Bultmann regards the miracle at Cana as a myth. Many exegetes do, and many have pointed out the correspondences with the miraculous occurrences attributed to the Greek god Dionysus.

Space here does not allow for a critique of a 700-page thesis (Bultmann's The Gospel of John: A Commentary). I haven't read it. But I did study the basic premise, and its counter-arguments. Bultmann regards the Cana story was a pagan legend applied to Jesus (p118-119), and it can be loosely presented as:
A The wine stories of the Greek god Dionysus are myths
B The wine story in John 2 reads like the above, therefore
C The wine story in John 2 is a myth.

Logicians, atheist or otherwise, have pointed out the flaw: Because B reads like A, does not mean B is the same genre as A. It does not logically follow, therefore it is neither a sufficient argument, nor a proof.

Later, and especially informed Jewish, scholars have argued otherwise. John was preaching to an essentially Jewish audience, probably Christian converts who had been forbidden to attend the synagogue. Read in the light of its historical context, the Wedding at Cana points to failure of the authorities to meet the spiritual needs of the people. Read Causten's conclusion.

 

[Ella S.]

OK. Bultmann regards the miracle at Cana as a myth. Many exegetes do, and many have pointed out the correspondences with the miraculous occurrences attributed to the Greek god Dionysus.

Space here does not allow for a critique of a 700-page thesis (Bultmann's The Gospel of John: A Commentary). I haven't read it. But I did study the basic premise, and its counter-arguments. Bultmann regards the Cana story was a pagan legend applied to Jesus (p118-119), and it can be loosely presented as:
A The wine stories of the Greek god Dionysus are myths
B The wine story in John 2 reads like the above, therefore
C The wine story in John 2 is a myth.

Logicians, atheist or otherwise, have pointed out the flaw: Because B reads like A, does not mean B is the same genre as A. It does not logically follow, therefore it is neither a sufficient argument, nor a proof.

As a counterpoint:

P1: All known wine stories are myths
P2: John 2 is a wine story
C: John 2 is probably a myth

This is logical, and I think it's the actual argument that is being straw-manned here.

 

[Ella S.]

But that's not the way it happened. Paul, writing before the gospels, knew Peter, James and John, and believed in the incarnation, death and resurrection. As did those other three senior apostles.

Yes, but by Paul's own admission, the things he preaches did not come to him from Peter or James.

Galatians 1:11-12 "But I acertify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

He did stay with Peter for 15 days and he saw James, but he clearly states that he prioritizes his private revelations above what the other apostles were saying. This makes him completely unreliable as a source for what Jesus taught, in my opinion, since he never even met Jesus before his death but only speaks about Jesus in private revelations

To hammer this point home we see him talk about these revelations in 2 Corinthians 12:1-3, "It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; ) such an one caught up to the third dheaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; )"

So Paul is not a reliable source on what Jesus actually taught. He never met the guy and doesn't hold the opinions of those who had in very high regard.

We don't really know what Peter or James believed, because we have no writings from them. At most, it seems likely that they really did exist and were part of the early Christian milieu.

 

[badger]

Or not
That's why there are four gospels. Matthew and Luke take material from Mark, but also add material of their own, and about a quarter of their gospels also contain material from the hypothetical lost gospel Q. John is rejected by those who want to have a 'good man social reformer Jesus' -- often a Jesus who did not die on the cross, but who married Mary Magdalene and moved away from Judea.

But that's not the way it happened. Paul, writing before the gospels, knew Peter, James and John, and believed in the incarnation, death and resurrection. As did those other three senior apostles.

So it's possible to get whatever I want out of the gospels, if I discard the stuff that doesn't suit.
I've no more to say here ...

Oh dear........ the things I sometimes read....
I don't and never have souggt what I wanted, but trained myself to discover there there is.