Respectful question about Jesus (pbuh)

[Thomas]

Hi Immortalitylost —

Thomas, If the physical form is as integral a piece to the whole as the spirit, do you mean this only in the context of humans, or of God as well?

I would say God is outside the equation. Although God is a spirit, God is not a spirit as other spirits are, as God is not created.

Was God only whole once he had brought about the physical, and become one with it?

No. God is One. Creation does not add to nor diminish God.

Where does Jesus stand in all of this? Was he not whole when he left the body, after he had died, and before he was resurrected, or, since he is a manifestation of God, is he different from the rest of humanity?

The Incarnation differs from the rest of humanity in that the Divine unites Itself to a human nature in the person of Jesus Christ ... it is not God 'taking over' someone's life, or someone's life being 'Christed' ... so there is a divine nature, and a humna nature, but only one person ... it's a whole other discussion, really.

... and physical reality seems more a cutting off from completeness, rather than the fulfillment of.

Indeed, but that fault of vision is ours ...

My physical appearance doesn't reflect my soul.

But your soul is the root of your personality, as your human nature is the root of your humanity. I would say physical appearance is the interface between the soul and the world?

It doesn't change as I grow spiritually, and it doesn't reflect physically if I regress.

I wouldn't agree with that, personally.

It's just a vessel. And a way to truly experience the physical as part of it.

I would say it's a body, not a vessel. And it was created to experience the physical as well as spiritual. And not just experience, but 'relate to' ... I think God created man to relate to all creation (whereas angels can only relate to the spiritual) and in so doing all creation can relate to God ... I think man is the point on which creation turns.

If the aim of being 'authentically human' is to be pure spirit ... then I would say what's the point of angels? Or even if we achieved that aim, we'd always be second-rate angels ...

... and if the aim is to be pure spirit, then what's the point of the world?

Thomas

 

[Courage]

Hello everyone, may I ask a question about Jesus (pbuh) from a Christian view.

Something you might want to know from a historical/spiritual point of view.

1. Jews
It was in the cross junction that even the Law enforcers, the Pharisees couldn't abide by the old covenent to God's satisfactory. That's why a new covenant is needed.

2. Gentiles
It was in the historical cross junction that the religion of the Jews was going to influence the Gentiles. The Gentiles won't be able to obey the strict rules in Mosaic Law. Most likely, if they are going to adopt the religion, probably they will change alot of these rules, and even twist it to another religion. Thus a new covenant is needed.

3. Salvation
It was in the cross junction that humans could no longer keep God's Law and Commandments in complete. If they are judged by God's Law and His Covenant, they are all dead. In short, no matter what humans do, they can't save themselves in front of God's Law and Commandments. That's why someone needs to be sacrificed in order to atone for human sins. Thus a new covenant for atonement is needed.

4. His Deity
Now who to sacrifice for the atonement, and in what form? The sacrifice of a human for the billions of humans? To simply put, who is qualified to save all mankind, a man?

Actually it only makes common sense and legal sense that the sacrifice of God Himself in a form that will be qualified for the atonement of the zillions of human souls.

5. Jesus Christ
That's why He came as prophecied. Sacrificed Himself by dirty human hands, for the atonement of sins of both the Jews and Gentiles. He is God the Son.

 

[immortalitylost]

Thomas, thank you for answering my questions first off, and I believe your right, Jesus is a very complicated and separate question in all of this. The bodies as vessels thing also, probably poor wording on my part, yup. It's a tool in my opinion, to relate to the world around us. (tool is probably a bad choice of wording as well... instrument? I don't know...)

Now then, as far as humanity goes... Questions again.

Okay, the first, will you elaborate please, about how the physical body changes as effected by spiritual growth? I really would like to understand how you mean this, and what you have seen to make you feel this way.

Also, do you believe that we as humans will not be whole after we die until the end of the world and the prophesy in revelations is fulfilled? When we are in our bodies again? Just so I can really understand where you are coming from.

Just so you know my perspective on this matter, where I'm coming from, here it is. I've always been very intrigued at how large a role this prophesy of the end times has had in the bible. I mean, there have been loads of prophesies, but few given so much, I don't know, authenticity? At any rate, finality, and unquestioning belief, or unquestioned authenticity, that's the wording.

Now, and this is only from my perspective mind you, I've always attributed this unquestioned authenticity to a need for an ending to a story. Not the story of the bible, per se, but humanities story as a whole. And I never had the whole-hearted faith in revelations that I see in so many others. To me, it's just another prophesy. It may come true, may not, may happen, but in a completely different way, ya know. It's just one more vision of the end of mankind. Almost every culture has one, and they can't all be true. To me, it seems about as likely as any of the others, and born out of the same need to know how it's all gonna play out in the end.

But I digress from what I was really trying to say...

Forget the apocalypse for a moment. Forget the end of the story. Imagine that we don't know the end, and so, because of our ignorance, it is not important for us.

What if humanity, body and soul merged, does define us as a species, or being, or whatever...but only for as long as we are a part of the physical world? What if it isn't our merger of the spiritual and the physical that differentiates us as a species, from angels or anything else, but our ability to inhabit the physical, to merge with it completely.

The ability in itself of merging so completely, experiencing the physical so completely, is what differentiates us, and not the merger with the physical itself. What if we are able to learn as nothing else learns by taking on physical form, I mean learn in the context of good and evil, spiritual growth. And we are able to do this by truly existing as part of the physical world and nothing else. We can only experience the physical. We are, in essence, cut off because of this perfect union of physical and spiritual to all other planes of being...

What if we are whole as spirits before we enter these bodies, and after, but wholly different in that we can inhabit and interact with the physical so completely as to loose ourselves in it. And in doing so, we are able to enroll ourselves in a crash course, so to speak, in spiritual growth. Because we are completely cut off from all higher knowledge, we must learn by force, we have no choice but to grow.

So, looking at it like that, and in my opinion, we are complete in spiritual form, before and after we leave the physical. But after, we are complete, and with all of the knowledge that comes from being truly a part of the physical world. We can learn as no other beings can.

Because we feel all on our own here, and farther away from God than any angel could bear, and knowing that we will die, and not knowing for sure what will come after, and truly learning to have faith, because that is really all there is here, we can truly learn to have it. We can truly understand what it is to not know, and believe regardless.

Our physical bodies, our physical reality is boot camp, it's an all night cram session, and it shapes our spirit. It shapes who we truly are, but it is not who we truly are, except for the brief time that we inhabit it.

I just think that there is more. Much more than this physical reality, more than I can even imagine, and I would have to be more than I am now to even begin to experience it, more than this physical body, even perfected, would allow. There is more than the physical. There are greater things.

I really don't want the end times prophesy to be right. Because the physical is a test, and a forging ground. Just being alive, no matter if you are perfect, and have a perfect life, and everything is wonderful, is a learning experience, not a summer break. I just can't see it being all there is, school for eternity. Being the best there is. It just seems like there should be more... And to me, summer comes when the physical is left behind... I don't want to be stuck in school forever.

Lol, sorry for the horrendously long post... My bad...

 

[Thomas]

Okay, the first, will you elaborate please, about how the physical body changes as effected by spiritual growth? I really would like to understand how you mean this, and what you have seen to make you feel this way.

I think this happens on many levels, but in this context, it's a case of what one 'sees' and what one 'knows' are known in the sensible faculty ... the point here is it would require equivalent spiritual growth to see it. Thus what one sees physically is powered, as it were, by who one is spiritually. The spirit sees into the being of things, whereas the physical perceives only the surface, but the spirit makes it vision known to the sensible faculty.

So it is possible to see the spiritual in the physical.

Also, do you believe that we as humans will not be whole after we die until the end of the world and the prophesy in revelations is fulfilled? When we are in our bodies again? Just so I can really understand where you are coming from.

Yes, I'm saying a disembodied soul is not a whole person. You are now a person, body and soul, although imperfect. The assumption is that, being perfect, you won't need a body. I dispute that. If we don't need bodies then, why did we have one in the first place? Why create bodies at all?

I am also saying however, that our bodies will not necessarily be as they are now ... and in so saying I'm also saying I have no idea what might be capable for such bodies.

At present, there is an apparent inversion, the soul is 'trapped' or 'locked' into a physical body, and a physical realm, which we see is containing, limiting, confining, privative ... everything about it seems less that the life the unencumbered soul might enjoy. But turn the thing around. Supposing the soul is no longer passive in the body, but causative and active ... now the soul can be 'present' in a way in which a disembodied soul cannot ... supposing the body is the means by which the soul chooses to make itself present ...

... supposing spiritualised matter is nowhere near as 'dense' a material as physical matter ... it's still physical, but rarified ... supposing it's so rarified it's not constrained by gravity, or the laws of Newtonian physics ... supposing that standing on the moon, or in the heart of a distant nebulae, is simply a case of self-projection, not that you have to go there, but that you savour the essence of it in yourself ... supposing talking to your ancestors is equally possible, because in the eternal, there is only 'now' ... supposing everything is transparent, and illuminated from within ... supposing that, in your body, you can feel the limits of the physical universe ...

... everything I've supposed, above, is intimated in Scripture ... and I'm sure there's more that's never occurred to me.

+++

I'm sorry, but I think this 'we're here to learn' thing is trying to make the best of the current situation, without seeing how and why the situation came about. I don't think life is about learning, I think life is about living, and experiencing ... I think we will know what we need to know when we need to know it, because we'll be in the flow of it ... but as long as we serve ourselves and not the One Cause of All, we keep ourselves cloaked in privation, ignorance and blindness, and we know, and we experience, nothing.

And in the end that's what we're left with ... that maybe nothing is all there is ... and because of that, we're afraid to look.

I think the lesson we must learn is ... take heart. Courage, mon brave!

Thomas

 

[immortalitylost]

Living, existing, in the physical world is learning. Life's most valuable lessons come when you least expect them. That's what I mean that we're here to learn. The mere act of existing here is a learning experience in my opinion.

Your views are shaped by what you have learned in your time here, and mine are shaped likewise, by my accumulated knowledge.

All we as people can do is try to understand things based on what we see. And we all see things slightly differently, so we all come up with a different understanding of the world, physical, spiritual, or otherwise.

I think your right about the lesson. But that is only a small part of all one can learn in a lifetime immersed in the physical.

Thank you for answering my questions, it's nice to get a glimpse of someone else's perspective. Another learning experience! Lol. (^_^)

 

[Netti-Netti]

The Incarnation differs from the rest of humanity in that the Divine unites Itself to a human nature in the person of Jesus Christ

There is actually very little scriptural support for the uniqueness of Christ Jesus' nature, and most of it is in the form of a gospel written long after he left the planet. I'll get back to that momentarily.

First, the concept of divine sonship is evident in the Old Testament - but not as a prophesy of Jesus' incarnation:

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. (Hosea 11:1)
​

That's G-d speaking. He is referring to Israel as His 'son.'

Compare with the earlier reference:

This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." (Exodus 4:22)
​

It appears that the "my son" idiom was used to express G-d's love for the Israelites. It's unclear how this idiom came to be applied to a single individual (Jesus) much later.

In this connection, it should be noted that "only begotten Son" terminology apparently shows up only in the gospel of John, and in none of the synoptic gospels.

Given the centrality of Jesus' divinity in Church doctrine, it's puzzling that there is so little scriptural convergence on the issue or on its soteriological significance.

Further, while John does use "only begotten Son" terminology (four times), he does not link this ascribed status to atonement. He only mentions it in terms of being reason to have faith in Jesus.

I might add here that John is also the only author who uses "lamb of God" terminology - two times. Only one of these suggests atonement theology (John 1:29).

It's very hard to avoid the impression that church doctrines emphasizing Jesus' divinity and the relevance of his uniqueness to his ascribed atonement function are largely man-made and, in fact, at best only marginally related to any statements attributed to him.

My own feeling about it is that Jesus relationship to G-d is far more complicated than any man-made doctrines may might suggest.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Netti-Netti —

You should check out C.S. Lewis' Fern-Seeds and Elephants.

But at source, one wonders how, if tradition is self-servingly false, and scripture written so long after the event to be fundamentally unreliable, and no authority is to be relied upon, I don't see from where you derive any data to form any doctrinal opinion at all?

I mean, isn't your own feeling then just a 'Nett-Netti-made doctrine'?

And should I not mistrust it?

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Hi Netti-Netti —

You should check out C.S. Lewis' Fern-Seeds and Elephants.

But at source, one wonders how, if tradition is self-servingly false, and scripture written so long after the event to be fundamentally unreliable, and no authority is to be relied upon, I don't see from where you derive any data to form any doctrinal opinion at all?

Thomas, Perhaps you didnt read my post. I suggested that we should
consider Jesus' own words.

Your attempt make me out to be unreasonable would suggest that my position is at least coherent enough to to where you have no real objections that can be developed on scriptural grounds.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, Perhaps you didn't read my post. I suggested that we should consider Jesus' own words.

But I did. Consider:

There is actually very little scriptural support for the uniqueness of Christ Jesus' nature, and most of it is in the form of a gospel written long after he left the planet.

By your thesis then, if the Gospels are unreliable, we don't have access to His words without the Church having edited them first, do we?

Your attempt make me out to be unreasonable would suggest that my position is at least coherent enough to to where you have no real objections that can be developed on scriptural grounds.

No point — you'll just cast doubt on the authenticity or the veracity of the Scripture in question, and I've already stated I will no longer argue faith on this forum ... I'm just highlighting aspects of your philosophy that, it seems to me, are questionable, that's all.

If Scripture, Tradition and Authority are all suspect — they're all the product of the Church, after all — you've got nothing by which to determine anything, surely?

Thomas

 

[Faithfulservant]

I dont argue faith here anymore either.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I've already stated I will no longer argue faith on this forum ...

Let's see, trying to defend a Christian doctrine of physical resurrection by citing Aurobindo was not arguing faith. Very amusing.

....if the Gospels are unreliable, we don't have access to His words without the Church having edited them first, do we?

Thomas, anyone can read what I said earlier in this thread and see that your representations of my position is not even close. For example, in my other post I was referring to John, which is the more controversial, which of course is why I contrasted it with the synoptic gospels. I wasn't talking about all the gospels.

As a general comment, it's totally natural and inevitable for religious controversy to center on the authenticity of the Gospels and the validity of doctrines of divinity and justification.... as we have seen in previous discussions of Church history and the development of creeds. The reason whole books have been written on these questions is not because they are of academic interest. Rather, it's because these questions are central to faith. I sometimes get the impression you want to sweep controversy under the rug and pretend that faith should be considered perfected once and for all by some unspecified medieval tradition.

I'd like to point out here that Jesus was patient when his disciples came to him with questions. He performed miracles that attested to his authority, and these miracles also served to confirm followers in their faith. (See Pope Paul VI, Dignitatis Humanae, December 7, 1965)

Jesus was willing to explore the issues, and that's how it should be. In a book called Catholicism, Father Richard McBrian put it nicely: Faith is a gift from G-d, but it will be of no value unless the recipient opens the package. He adds that a living faith is an examined faith and that the ability to think theologically is essential to the life of the Church. I would add here a quick quote from Theologian James Luther Adams: "An unexamined faith is not worth having, for it can be true only by accident. A faith worth having is a faith worth discussing and testing."

Your tendency confuse reasoned questioning with dissent/heresy/disbelief would seem to suggest a need for you to do some rethinking.

One other thing: I can cite Catholic doctrine without feeling like I am "defending" the faith or attacking it. Why can't you? A little bit of scholarly detachment might help.

 

[Thomas]

Let's see, trying to defend a Christian doctrine of physical resurrection by citing Aurobindo was not arguing faith. Very amusing.

That you think I need to look outside Christian Doctrine to defend it shows how little you understand about me and about Christian Doctrine. If I was defending, which as I have said I don't waste my time doing any more, I'd hardly be posting in belief and spirituality, would I?

And Christian Doctrine is metaphysically complete and self-sufficient, one really has no need to look elsewhere ... quite the reverse, in fact.

In fact what I was adverting to was the content of another Doctrine I had assumed was missing.

Thomas, anyone can read what I said earlier in this thread and see that your representations of my position is not even close. For example, in my other post I was referring to John, which is the more controversial, which of course is why I contrasted it with the synoptic gospels. I wasn't talking about all the gospels.

Then that shows how little you've thought it through. I've highlighted the salient point — why is John the more controversial?
Consider:
1: We have less evidence supporting the disciple Matthew as the author of the Gospel that bears his name than we do John.
2: Neither Mark nor Luke were eye witnesses, so neither can be said to quote Christ, except through the mouth of the Church: Mark — a disciple of Peter — around 70AD, Luke — a disciple of Paul — around 80AD.
3: John is disputed as the author of the Gospel that bears his name for no other reason than its Christology — apart from that, it's internal evidence of authorship is stronger than any other Gospel.
4: What renders John more 'controversial' is the argument against Doctrine, not against the Gospels — therefore it's in the interest of critics to find controversy in John, else their argument collapses. You own argument was based on this.
5: The 'Quest for the Historical Jesus' shows quite clearly that once you start picking and choosing Scripture, the Jesus you're left with is the one that most accurately reflects yourself.

So basically I'm applying the same critical rule you apply to John across all the Gospels, which is only proper, because you will, should I offer an argument from the Synoptics. If not you, then others, so I'm only trying to be even-handed here.

And for which reason I say, from your point of view, as none of them are reliable, and you can have no idea what Christ actually said or did.

I'd like to point out here that Jesus was patient when his disciples came to him with questions... He performed miracles that attested to his authority, and these miracles also served to confirm followers in their faith. (See Pope Paul VI, Dignitatis Humanae, December 7, 1965)

So now you quote Scripture, and the Magisterium, in defence of the argument that refutes Scripture and the Magisterium?

So, in short, it would appear that when Scripture/Tradition agrees with you, it's right, and when it doesn't, it's wrong.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Thomas,

I've highlighted the salient point — why is John the more controversial?

Consider:
1: We have less evidence supporting the disciple Matthew as the author of the Gospel that bears his name than we do John.

2: Neither Mark nor Luke were eye witnesses, so neither can be said to quote Christ, except through the mouth of the Church: Mark — a disciple of Peter — around 70AD, Luke — a disciple of Paul — around 80AD.

3: John is disputed as the author of the Gospel that bears his name for no other reason than its Christology — apart from that, it's internal evidence of authorship is stronger than any other Gospel.

4: What renders John more 'controversial' is the argument against Doctrine, not against the Gospels — therefore it's in the interest of critics to find controversy in John, else their argument collapses. You own argument was based on this.

5: The 'Quest for the Historical Jesus' shows quite clearly that once you start picking and choosing Scripture, the Jesus you're left with is the one that most accurately reflects yourself.

So basically I'm applying the same critical rule you apply to John across all the Gospels, which is only proper, because you will, should I offer an argument from the Synoptics. If not you, then others, so I'm only trying to be even-handed here.

Your list is incomplete: Here's how John is different in other ways:

1) Debates about authorship and date continue.

2) The Synoptic gospels link Jesus to Judaism by positioning him as a Jewish Messiah whose mission was the fullfillment of Jewish law. His significance in this regard is developed in the context of how he observed or did not observe the existing Jewish customs like healing on the Sabbath.

The Judaic connection does not appear that way in the Gospel of John, where there seems to be more of an attempt to give Jesus a universal/nonsectarian appeal. I found th term "Messiah" twice in John, and in both instances the term is simply identified with "the Christ."

The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ).
(John 1:40-42)

The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
(John 4:24-26)
​

3) Starting with the opening sentence about Logos, the Gospel of John includes allusions to Greek philosophy that did not appear before. These evidently reflect doctrinal developments in the early church and ideological/evangelistic issues that did not obtain in the other gospels. In particular, the notion of Jesus as Logos seems to have evolved in reaction to the competing view of Jesus as a human being who evolved spiritually and became "more divine" through his devotion to the Heavenly Father.

4) Jesus has greater importance, with a significant shift away from the other gospels emphasis on the Kingdom and generalized G-d dependence to an emphasis on belief in Jesus as a mode of salvation.

5) The term "repent" does not appear in John, indicating a shift in devotional attitude as compared to the other gospels.

6) The term "hope" " does not appear in John, indicating a difference concerning notion of human perfectability.

7) Faith is centered on Jesus himself and is modulated by his divine authority. The "only begotten son" language appears only in the Gospel of John. I mentioned this previously. You chose to ignore it.

8) The intent for John appears to be quite different from the other gospels. John appears to be "evangelistic" in the sense that it includes many assurances about Jesus' nature as though to emphasize the "selling points" of the Christian religion, whereas the synoptic gospels are more dispassionate accounts. According to C.T Ward, Gospel Development: a study of the origin and growth of the four Gospels, p. 382) the sytematically ordered references to Jesus' miracles to assure people on Jesus' authority is specific to John, as is the self-identified author's reference to himself as Jesus' "beloved disciple" (another attempt to manipulate source credibility for purposes of addressing concerns that came up only after the writer/editor had gotten feedback/objections on specific content.) In other words, the final document appears to be the product of various after-the-fact revisions/customizings.

9) Accounts of historical events pertaining to the historical Jesus that contradict the other gospels, potentially creating the need for believers to make a forced choice between John and the other gospels. ( See E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, p. 63.)

To my way of thinking, these are important differences and the synoptic gospels, which might explain why it was left out of those that should be "seen together" (the meaning of the term 'synoptic').

And for which reason I say, from your point of view, as none of them are reliable, and you can have no idea what Christ actually said or did.

I make a distinction between statements attributed to him versus other material on a given Gospel.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Netti-Netti —

The point is, one either accepts it, or one doesn't. If one doesn't, then one is free to manufacture any solution to perceived problems one chooses — like the invention of the Q Gospel as a neat solution, among many neat solutions, to the question of dates and authorship that dogs the Synoptic Problem — or the many supposed authors of the Johannine texts ... the fact remains that the strongest argument is the traditional one.

What remains is all that one is left with is an insoluble problem ... oral tradition really annoys people because it's a take-it-or-leave-it argument. I happen to take it. I'm more interested in the content of the text ... for example I hold that the author of Hebrews was not Paul, and that we haven't got a clue who he was. Do we discount it then, as an inspired document? Personally, no.

The again, Irenaeus is a fact. Polycarp is a fact ... and its generally believed by commentaries that Polycarp was a disciple of John, so there's evidence which is stronger than the presuppositions of text critics.

Again, critics insisted that John was a 'gnostic gospel', now that argument has given way to the latest archaeological evidence which suggests the language of John is most heavily influenced by currents of Jewish mystical speculation/contemplation in Jerusalem prior to its destruction, Equally Judaism is emerging as a far more nuanced and sophisticated faith than the old Sadducee/Pharisee division ... and a whole new light shed on the Pauline understanding of 'The Law'.

Yes, there is 'logos' in the prologue, but so what? The word is deployed in an utterly Christian manner, not at all the Stoic idea of Logos ... so I can safely assume that a redactor of John offered the prologue as an overview of the following eye-witness testimony.

I'm sure you can shoot that idea down ... but really you can't actually assert anything in its place, all you can offer is doubt and speculation in an attempt to undermine the idea, as do others offer differing doubts and differing speculations.

I rest on the fact that Scripture seems sufficient enough to inspire the great eras of Christian Philosophical speculation, so it'll do me ... I'll never aspire to the genius of the Fathers, and picking the text apart until there's nothing left won't get me any closer to God.

So really, let's call this one a day. We can agree to disagree. I've got more interesting avenues I want to explore, and until you have any actual proof, this is a side-track and a dead-end to nowhere but uncertainty.

I really want to get into being and nothingness ... I've discovered meontology ... and I want to trace the line of thought through Origen, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Augustine, Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite (St Denys), St Maximus, Eriugena, Meister Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa ... a list of saints, mystics, philosophers and heretics!

I'll kick it off when I've organised my thoughts ... and you're welcome to join me there ... but it's philosophy, or metaphysics perhaps ... but not doctrine, those cards I'm keeping close to my chest!

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Hi Netti-Netti —

The point is, one either accepts it, or one doesn't. If one doesn't, then one is free to manufacture any solution to perceived problems one chooses — like the invention of the Q Gospel as a neat solution, among many neat solutions, to the question of dates and authorship that dogs the Synoptic Problem — or the many supposed authors of the Johannine texts ... the fact remains that the strongest argument is the traditional one.

What remains is all that one is left with is an insoluble problem ... oral tradition really annoys people because it's a take-it-or-leave-it argument. I happen to take it. I'm more interested in the content of the text ...

Me too, which is why I am puzzled by the rather different characterizations that appear in John versus the other gospels.


for example I hold that the author of Hebrews was not Paul, and that we haven't got a clue who he was. Do we discount it then, as an inspired document? Personally, no.

The again, Irenaeus is a fact. Polycarp is a fact ... and its generally believed by commentaries that Polycarp was a disciple of John, so there's evidence which is stronger than the presuppositions of text critics.

Again, critics insisted that John was a 'gnostic gospel', now that argument has given way to the latest archaeological evidence which suggests the language of John is most heavily influenced by currents of Jewish mystical speculation/contemplation in Jerusalem prior to its destruction, Equally Judaism is emerging as a far more nuanced and sophisticated faith than the old Sadducee/Pharisee division ... and a whole new light shed on the Pauline understanding of 'The Law'.

Yes, there is 'logos' in the prologue, but so what?

Like I said, it seems to have been an early church doctrinal development that was designed to give Jesus a status he didn't have before.

I'm sure you can shoot that idea down ... but really you can't actually assert anything in its place, all you can offer is doubt and speculation in an attempt to undermine the idea, as do others offer differing doubts and differing speculations.

No, I can trace the history of the development of ideas and see them in historcal context.

I rest on the fact that Scripture seems sufficient enough to inspire the great eras of Christian Philosophical speculation, so it'll do me ... I'll never aspire to the genius of the Fathers, and picking the text apart until there's nothing left won't get me any closer to God.

True enough.

So really, let's call this one a day. We can agree to disagree. I've got more interesting avenues I want to explore, and until you have any actual proof, this is a side-track and a dead-end to nowhere but uncertainty.

I can live with it.

Thanks for the invite on your future inquiry.

 

[wil]

. I've highlighted the salient point — why is John the more controversial?
Consider:
1: We have less evidence supporting the disciple Matthew as the author of the Gospel that bears his name than we do John.
2: Neither Mark nor Luke were eye witnesses, so neither can be said to quote Christ, except through the mouth of the Church: Mark — a disciple of Peter — around 70AD, Luke — a disciple of Paul — around 80AD.
3: John is disputed as the author of the Gospel that bears his name for no other reason than its Christology — apart from that, it's internal evidence of authorship is stronger than any other Gospel.
4: What renders John more 'controversial' is the argument against Doctrine, not against the Gospels — therefore it's in the interest of critics to find controversy in John, else their argument collapses. You own argument was based on this.
5: The 'Quest for the Historical Jesus' shows quite clearly that once you start picking and choosing Scripture, the Jesus you're left with is the one that most accurately reflects yourself.

Namaste Thomas,

I'm a little confused here...is the entire above your contention to be accurate?

and I thought that the issue with John was also John 1 and John 2 that it wasn't all the same author...and that the whole first paragraph (in the beginnning was the word) was added later...

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

... is the entire above your contention to be accurate?

That's the point, isn't it? Who's accurate? You pays your money, and you takes your choice. Pick a theory...

But yes, I think so ... to me there's nothing in John that's not implicit in the Synoptics or in Paul, it might be a mature reflection from one who was one of the three intimates of Christ, but there's no conflict.

Some pointers:
I don't dispute that the Johannine account of Jesus has been redacted, but I do believe that the source material is first-hand, eye-witness, and that the exegetical dimension is from the same source ... no-one is obliged to believe it ... but no-one can disprove it, so it's all a matter of what one chooses to believe.

Nor can anyone successfully show that later redactions 'invented' or 'fabricated' what has come to be regarded as orthodoxy onto a text tradition that itself makes no such claim — much as many would like to.

Re authorship, if not John ... who? Then the critics are lost, because there is no other contender that ticks all the boxes the way John does.

Take the Letter to the Hebrews — not written by Paul. Is it a fake, then? Is its place in the canon disputed? No ...

If one disputes John, then that leaves the Synoptics in even greater dispute. If one refutes the account of he who claims to be an eye witness, then why accept the accounts as verbatim of those who can make no such claim? No one else can say "He said this..." only that "I was told He said this ..." and then who told them that? Oh, the Church! There you go then, conspiracy proved!

And the answer is nothing to do with the text, it's to do with what one chooses to believe ... if it's easier to conform Christ to one's own ideas from the Synoptics, then one is happier to accept them, even though the evidence in support of their authenticity is less than the evidence for John.

I've even read a critique which seeks to argue — and not without foundation — that aspects of John are 'primitive' compared to the Synoptics, which suggests the Synoptics are later than John!

I tend not to believe it, but I take it into account. I go with tradition, with Origen and the like, who considered John the 'first fruits' of the Gospels and a mature reflection upon the faith of the Christian community.

Then there's Paul's Gospel. Paul predates the Synoptics, yet he claims no less than John does, and in some respects more ... the Doctrine of the Mystical Body and the Eucharist in Paul are far more explicit than in the Gospels, yet he's earlier than they ... and he got his Gospel from no man.

Anyway ...

As mentioned above, I'm looking to post on 'being and nonbeing', or 'being and nothingness' — I do hope to see you there, as we've locked horns on more than one occasion, and I hope that this direction will enable me to explain my case better ... don't expect to change your mind, but rather make my position more comprehensible — I think it's at the root of what I'm getting at.

And it's not doctrine, it's all metaphysical speculation ...

Thomas

 

[wil]

Namaste my brother,

Not looking to lock horns, as I said previously I am enamoured with most of your contemplation and discussion.

I suppose accurate was the wrong question, is that what you believe to be true is what I was getting at. I was confused as to whether you were discussing your thoughts or describing someone elses.

The previous post and the one you just completed is such an indication of how much common ground we have despite our disagreements.

thank you.

 

[Netti-Netti]

But yes, I think so ... to me there's nothing in John that's not implicit in the Synoptics

The Synoptics have no equivalent to "only begotten son."

If one disputes John, then that leaves the Synoptics in even greater dispute.

This does not follow and this strikes me as a very tricky line of argument. Does one accept them all just because someone decided one day that these gospels would be the ones to include in the canon?

To try to harmonize them based on commonalities while ignoring their differences would be to miss the uniqueness of their theological/historical perspectives. Moreover, it would be fundamentally dishonest, just as it would be dishonest to encourage people to accept biblical inerrancy when the likes of Augustine have called our attention to the problem of errors in translation. Neither strategy serves any real purpose except to make the Apologetic's task a little easier.

An article that appears in the American Catholic suggests that we should ask why the gospels are different and the question should by no means be limited to the matter of John as compared to the synoptic gospels. Some differences have to do with historical circumstance.

Matthew and Luke change Mark because Mark’s proclamation of the gospel is no longer the way that their communities need to hear the Good News.
​

More specifically,

Revisions occur when the original book is read in a new situation that demands new solutions to problems, or when a later author has new material that needs to be added. Both Matthew and Luke are guided by these fundamental motives as they edit Mark’s Gospel to reshape it for the problems challenging their communities.

Mark’s Gospel was written in a time of trial when following Jesus’ way meant taking up the cross and maybe even death. It was "the beginning of the good news" (Mark 1:1) for a mixed community of Jewish and Gentile Christians who thought it was the end. Mark shaped his life of Jesus like an extended parable that probes the issue of Jesus’ identity. Over and over his readers are forced to readjust their comfortable expectations in the light of surprising and challenging information about who Jesus really was.

Neither Matthew’s nor Luke’s communities confronted such trials. Matthew’s main problem was encouraging his mostly Jewish audience to embrace both their Jewish tradition and the mission to the Gentiles that was transforming Christianity into a new kind of community. To do this, he portrayed Jesus as an authoritative teacher who built upon Moses’ law but transformed it into the new Christian community of right relationships (righteousness).

Luke’s problem was to demonstrate how the new Christian community of his Gentile converts was rooted in the unfamiliar Old Testament traditions and to direct their energy into a worldwide mission following the example of Jesus. To do this, he portrayed Jesus as a compassionate prophet whose witness both in word and in suffering gathered everyone, especially the poor and those on the margins, into a new community of universal table fellowship and service.
​

Scripture From Scratch ©2000 - Exploring the Synoptic Gospels by Steve Mueller

 

[Thomas]

The Synoptics have no equivalent to "only begotten son."

Like I said, either one sees it, or one doesn't.

Thomas