Well today there is no concensus that john wrote john... And other works previously attributed to him are more than in question and most consider them authored by others.
The Crucifixion - comparison between Christian and Islamic views
- Thread starter nashkage
- Start date
Me.... Rebel?
I do like the thought of leading "the rebellious nature project"
I do like the thought of leading "the rebellious nature project"
Hi Will —
(Actually, some dissenting writing does survive. Not a lot, but then only a fraction of assenting writings survived ...)
But it's possible — and illuminating — to read the assenting writing, because often that illuminates what the dissent was about. have you read Creeds, Councils and Controversies? Irenaeus' Against Heresies, for instance, is the most complete compendium of Gnostic teachings. The Canons of the Councils give us an insight into the Early Church and the issues it faced. There's loads of good scholarship out there on the opposition viewpoint, and its contextual legitimacy.
St Paul gives us some illuminating insights into the controversies that faced his congregations, both from within and without. Acts with the Jerusalem community. The Johannine Letters pinpoint an Hellenic (and porto-gnostic dualism) that dogged and continues to dog Christian understanding to this very day.
Scholarship has unlocked much, and continues to do so ...
Well I was talking about those who we do know were in agreement, I didn't say there wasn't any conflict.
(Actually, some dissenting writing does survive. Not a lot, but then only a fraction of assenting writings survived ...)
But it's possible — and illuminating — to read the assenting writing, because often that illuminates what the dissent was about. have you read Creeds, Councils and Controversies? Irenaeus' Against Heresies, for instance, is the most complete compendium of Gnostic teachings. The Canons of the Councils give us an insight into the Early Church and the issues it faced. There's loads of good scholarship out there on the opposition viewpoint, and its contextual legitimacy.
St Paul gives us some illuminating insights into the controversies that faced his congregations, both from within and without. Acts with the Jerusalem community. The Johannine Letters pinpoint an Hellenic (and porto-gnostic dualism) that dogged and continues to dog Christian understanding to this very day.
Scholarship has unlocked much, and continues to do so ...
Nope. But then you look at the polemical position of those ploughing a path to see why they contend.
And if you line all the possible authors up, John comes out way ahead of the rest as the most likely candidate.
In the Catholic Constitution, we make plain we have no idea who wrote the Gospels — the author is referred to as 'the sacred scribe' never by name — but goes on to say we accept the Tradition as being the most likely, and there's no reason not to.
And that's been the case since the 2nd century on.
The Letter to the Hebrews, which when I was a kid at Mass was announced 'St Paul's Letter ... ' (it isn't today) was disputed from the 3rd century. Eusebius wrote: "some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul." It was accepted as Paul in the East, but not in the West. Clement of Alexandria suggested it was written in Hebrew by Paul and later translated into Greek, possibly by Luke. But dubious. Tertullian, Barnabas, Gaius of Rome, Hippolytus ... all rejected Paul as author.
So these disputes are nothing new, just something scholars like to rake over now and again — the JEPD sources of the Pentateuch, the Wellhausen hypothesis that you've referenced before, it losing favour. There's a proliferation of models for the sources, dating and relation of the Synoptics to each other — this kind of thing keeps scholars going.
And a work of 'theology' that's couched in populist, anti-authoritarian terms, has a chance of becoming a best-seller, while the serious books, like Leontius of Byzantium, the complete works, which I'd dearly like to read, costs £140!
What is clear in the Early Histories is that there was an orthodox 'line' (The Middle Way), and if a teaching went off message, then there was a grass-roots challenge. That's where the Arian crisis — the biggest schism to hit the Church — began. At one point 70% of Christendom was Arian (by virtue of if the emperor was, all his subjects were). But the orthodox view stayed at grass roots level.
So modern scholars know there's little new, but modern populist theologians like to present millennia-old stuff as 'breakthrough' and 'bombshell' and radical new thinking, because it's good for sales.
Good for sales? Or because the sheeple have been mislead by literalist and/or ignorant preachers and schools? It is a revelation to many that the bible is not all authored by G!d or Moses, or Mathew Mark Luke and John... It is a revelation that the garden isn't a metaphor... In the most recent civil rights battles in the US billboards have been erected saying "it wasn't Adam and Steve"
The bible keeps getting reprinted as is, and put in the nonfiction section of the library... The millennial old breakthrus sit on shelves in libraries if theologians... What is preached from pulpits and on podiums often has an agenda of control and plate filling...
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Seems to me our discussions continue and evolve... Thomas is well read...and striving to learn more (as evidenced by his wanting to read more from books he has yet to get his hands on). Here with simple things like human rights our unread masses are clinging to notions he indicates his church gave up on a thousand years ago.
Most here still put Mary Magdalene as a whore... Maybe if we get beyond that slut shaming will disappear?
I beat the drum for the future!
Most here still put Mary Magdalene as a whore... Maybe if we get beyond that slut shaming will disappear?
I beat the drum for the future!
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Neither....of course it took a while ... And you are evidence of what the lay understanding still is despite theologians beating this drum for centuries...
I ain't always talking to thomas... But the unwashed masses of the future.
To me, the author is insignificant compared to the message itself. I think the word is meant to stand on it's own and not be attributed to any particular individual.
Last edited:
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 391
- Points
- 83
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,221
- Reaction score
- 541
- Points
- 108
Tertullian (155-240 AD) also upheld this view. Unlike Matthew and Luke, in Mark Elijah is named first: It's "Elijah with Moses", not "Moses with Elijah" (Mark 9.4). In the next verse Peter reverses the order. Scholars have pondered the reason. Perhaps it's simply because Elijah plays a prominent role in Mark. I'm unaware of any Jewish views of Moses signifying the Law and Elijah signifying the Prophets.
Peter, James, and John witnessed Jesus raise Jairus' daughter from the dead (Mark 5.21-43). Just a few chapters later the same disciples question "what this rising of the dead could mean" (Mark 9.9-10). They just witnessed him raise somebody from the dead. A bodily resurrection isn't a difficult doctrine to grasp, especially when somebody is regularly performing such signs right before their eyes. Nobody would doubt the words of such a miracle worker. I know Mark is merciless in depicting Peter's stupidity, but it's harder to believe these are realistic reactions to literal events. If they are symbolic, these reactions make more sense. What to take literal and what not to take literal has always been a thorny issue. Compare the early Christians that castrated themselves for the Kingdom of God with later Christians today that point out their misinterpretation because they literalized the text (Matthew 19.12). There's a joke saying Origen's castration as a young Christian later inspired his alternative readings of scripture!
Complicating the matter of resurrection is the subject of different views regarding the rising of the dead, because some believed John the Baptist was resurrected, but notice he was not bodily resurrected or reincarnated (Mark 6.14-16, 8.28; Matthew 14.1, 16.14; Luke 9.7, 9.19). I think the NT preserves something that deserves more attention here.
Indeed. John 2.20-21 is one example. Their literalism withheld them from beholding Christ's meaning.
I think the empty tomb story is a parable. Parables are great vehicles for multiple meanings! I believe the resurrection narratives are about teaching the disciples the concept of recognition, a more advanced teaching. It is a theme highlighted in Mark about John the Baptist, who the disciples didn't "recognize" as Elijah (Mark 9.13). Through Christian practice the disciples recognize the risen Christ within individuals in their community. They were able to recognize the spirit of the prophets returned in a different form to address their dangerous times. This alone was a marvelous accomplishment in such confusing times. The Egyptian Prophet reportedly gathered 30,000 followers, but early Christians didn't recognize him as a prophet. Recognition is a key teaching that seems to go hand-in-hand with resurrection. Without recognition one will not perceive resurrection.
Which makes since if it's not a bodily resurrection. Rumi said:
"What if inside every lover's tear you saw the face of the Friend: Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha . . . ?"
This is my last post in this thread.
Last edited:
Dang...it was.just getting good!
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Agreed
Actually the reference to resurrection, Ahanu makes a good point, There are nine instances of resurrection in the Bible. Three in the OT, three attributes to Christ, the Resurrection itself, and then one to Peter and one to Paul. There is also the case of the saints resurrected along with Christ ...
Jeehyd
New Member
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Thomas, with all due respect your response to Zarif's question(s) was totally illogical, as Jesus(PBUH) clearly said "As Jonah was in the BELLY OF THE FISH, so shall the son of man(Jesus(PBUH) himself) be in the heart of the earth(the tomb)." Here jesus(PBUH) is comparing himself in the tomb directly to JONAH in the belly of the whale, so as zarif(& jesus(PBUH) mentioned if jonah was ALIVE then so should JESUS...!!
So I don't see where any part of your above post, (attempting to answer to zarif's question) stands logically!
Hi Jeehyd — welcome to the forum.
“Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Master we would see a sign from thee. Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet…”
In the text, the scribes and Pharisees are harrying Our Lord and are asking for a ‘sign’, a miracle, for Him to prove who He is. Our Lord is getting quite sharp with them by this stage, which is obvious from the text, as all-in-all it’s an indictment of their disbelief.
So He says no, except the Sign of Jonah, saying that as Jonah was in the belly of the fish, He will be in the heart of the earth for three days — obviously a prediction of the tomb – but that He is one greater than Jonah (v41).
He then goes on to say that come the Judgement, the population of Nineveh will rise in judgement on them, because Nineveh repented and ‘saw the light’, whereas they will not.
Some things to consider:
Jonah didn’t want to go to Nineveh, they were the enemy as far as he was concerned, so he defied the will of the Lord and went in the opposite direction — then when the boat he was on is beset by bad luck, he fesses up, offers himself as a sacrifice, and they quite reluctantly throw him overboard, whence he is swallowed by the fish, and spewed up back at Nineveh — I doubt Our Lord is asking his audience to make any such comparison with Himself — they are not the enemy, he is not defying God’s will, nor will the move be reluctant in calling for his crucifixion…
Even after this, Jonah gets annoyed when Nineveh converts – he wants God to strike them down – and goes off into the desert and sulks. Again, I doubt Our Lord is asking his audience to assume that He will do the same.
So, the point is all about his audience, not about Himself, and that they will receive a sign — the Resurrection — but will refuse to believe it.
I don’t think He is. Let’s look at the text (Matthew 12:38-41):
“Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Master we would see a sign from thee. Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet…”
In the text, the scribes and Pharisees are harrying Our Lord and are asking for a ‘sign’, a miracle, for Him to prove who He is. Our Lord is getting quite sharp with them by this stage, which is obvious from the text, as all-in-all it’s an indictment of their disbelief.
So He says no, except the Sign of Jonah, saying that as Jonah was in the belly of the fish, He will be in the heart of the earth for three days — obviously a prediction of the tomb – but that He is one greater than Jonah (v41).
He then goes on to say that come the Judgement, the population of Nineveh will rise in judgement on them, because Nineveh repented and ‘saw the light’, whereas they will not.
Some things to consider:
Jonah didn’t want to go to Nineveh, they were the enemy as far as he was concerned, so he defied the will of the Lord and went in the opposite direction — then when the boat he was on is beset by bad luck, he fesses up, offers himself as a sacrifice, and they quite reluctantly throw him overboard, whence he is swallowed by the fish, and spewed up back at Nineveh — I doubt Our Lord is asking his audience to make any such comparison with Himself — they are not the enemy, he is not defying God’s will, nor will the move be reluctant in calling for his crucifixion…
Even after this, Jonah gets annoyed when Nineveh converts – he wants God to strike them down – and goes off into the desert and sulks. Again, I doubt Our Lord is asking his audience to assume that He will do the same.
So, the point is all about his audience, not about Himself, and that they will receive a sign — the Resurrection — but will refuse to believe it.