The "Gospel" Of John

but maybe I need to insert a few thoughts.One of the more important things that can be leaarned from the Bible is an intimation of the Points of View, culture and society of those living when the various books were written. John was written during a major schism within the Jewish community. It reflects the beginnings of a Christian Church as something other than a Jewish Sect and a backlash against the rest of the Jewish community. It was an attempt by an author or authors to redefine the community that accepted Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and to distance that community from the rest of the Jewish communion.The picture presented in John is totally different than found anywhere else and IMHO that was intentional. John was saying that the Gospels that preceeded his were simply wrong, they gave the wrong message. He was trying to develop the franchise, to build brand recognition for Christianity.The author or authors of John had access to many of the other Gospels; Thomas, Mark, Matthew, Luke, Signs, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of the Hebrews, Secret Mark, and the Epistles of James and Mary. It was possibly based on the source shown in the Egerton Gospel and may be a direct dirivative of the social order portrayed there.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The evidence is the Gospel of John itself. It is a very different view of Jesus and of Christianity than found elsewhere.Remember, we are looking at a period when there was no New Testament, no Christian Creedal base, no Canon. If you look at Matthew 25 and then move over to John you find totally different viewpoints. John is far more strident, more militantly Christian and anti-semetic than any of the other Gospels except a few such as found in the Egerton Gospel. It's likely he drew heavily from the Signs Gospel and there is that pervasive aspect of the Gospel of John towards defining Jesus as a Helenistic "Divinity".There were also the writtings of Mara Bar-Serapion that were popular along about that time. He seemed to indicate that Jesus lived on in his teachings, a denial of the complete resurection, and he often made direct comparisons between the death of Jesus and the execution of Pythagoras and Aristole. He went so far as to draw parallels between what happened to the Jews, Greece and Samos based on those three philosophers.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But John is not consistent with Matthew. And there is little consistency within ANY of the Bible or Scripture. There are way too many examples of where one Book or even one passage of the same book is contrary to others.The point is that among the books of the Bible, what is the message? It's not whether or not any of the Books can be taken literally.John has a different take. For example, the contention that salvation must come through the acknowledgement of Jesus is totally contrary to the other Gospels and meant to exclude the Jewish community.Look through John and you'll find a far greater number of instances where "Jews" are identified as non-believers and even villains, for example is 9:8 and 10:31, as well as the assertion of the superiority of the Christian revelation over the Judaic. You can see signs of that in John 1:18 or in 6:49-50.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Exactly. This is the beginnings of Blaim the Jews.It is not an issue of what the stoning was a response too, it is that it is included. That was not included in the other Gospels.You know, I really don't understand what your problem is? What is it you are trying to show?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If you mean that I understand that the Bible was written by men, with all of the limitations, bias, politics, cultural influence of any men, that it is an anthology of anthologies that has been edited, redacted, changed, modified and revised time and time again, that it was written in the idiom of the day using references that would have had meaning to their peers, then you are correct.The Bible is a book of Religion, not a book of GOD.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sometime between 70-100CE, Christianity seemed to go through a major internal revolution. Part was the split between Judaism and the fledgling Christianity, but it does not appear to have been simple or subtle but rather like the change in Soviet Communism when Joseph Stalin rose to power.A lot of the asiatic influences that are so prevalent in in the Judaic tradition were subsumed and replaced by Hellenistic ones. The role of women were replaced and the influence of the women that played such a major part in the early church were shoved to the sideline.The result is that much of the evidence of early Christianity has been lost. We have only glimpses of what those who actually accompanied, lived with and studied under Jesus really thought, believed or did.Unlike Aristole whose life was reflected in Plato or Pathagoras who's contribution was eventually recovered we have very little to discover about the early Church. What would Jesus have thought about Christianity as it was redefined under the Helenistic revolution, or later under the Roman redaction?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think you're right that there was a movement during the second and particularly third wave of Apostles that there would be a second coming within their lifetime. But I'm not sure that was the case with the first group of Apostles. I'm not convinced that they were as convinced about the End Times as the second group.We have almost no information Post-Resurection of what the first Apostles did, and less information about the second group of twenty-five. We don't know what Gospels they were preaching, where they went, what they did.By the time John was written it is pretty clear that the purpose had changed from evangelizing to establishing a bureaucracy, a franchise. Most of the early inner circle were excluded or forgotten and the emphasis had shifted to differentiating the distinct character of "Christianity" as something seperate from Judaism.John, and particularly Paul, were more directed towards creation of Churches although there does not yet seem to be a hierarchy under any one city or person.The creation of a complete hierarchy as in the Roman Catholic and later Constantine Churches came after Nationalization. But it's interesting that there does not EVER seem to have been a central authority in Palestine although there are hints of the attempt to establish that in the records of Paul and Peter.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, my understanding (limited I know) is that the idea of a Messiah was quite different. It was not one of End Times unless you mean "It's time for Whup-Ass and we gonna be the bad boy on the block again type End Times for them not us".The End-Times with the Christian slant seems to have developed over the first few hundred years from some vague future event originally to "During our Lifetime" within the Hellenistic Pauline-John (whoever the author or authors of John might be) branch or sects and then further to some unknown future date as it became obvious that it was not going to be immediate or within the lifetime of the first through third wave of Apostles.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There is little doubt that with the destruction of Jerusalem the bureaucracy that was in place in Palestine was severely disrupted. I think there are several other factors though that can be seen in the various Bibles and Canon that can be found in the Christian Communion.The Christian Church in Egypt and Ethiopia were pretty well established by that time. It appears that many of the significant people from the original Apostles headed south, not unexpected condisering that was away from the Roman power and a historic presence for Judaism. If we look at the Ethiopian Bible as an example, it is quite different than the Hellenistic one.Another major issue IMHO is that for the Western Orthodox Churches (RC,COE, Protestant) we are getting a filtered history. When the Church was Nationalized and Politicized, all of the original POV and the perspective of those other than the Hellene Sects was lost. Instead, all we see is the politically approved history as determined under Constantine.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Or perhaps a group lead by the women that followed Jesus, or ones that followed Thomas or ...

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

DpardoWhat we see is the redacted version of history written and edited by the winning faction.What we do not see except in scattered bits is the infighting and conflicts among the various factions. Much of the data and writings have been suppressed and purged and it is only recently that many of those have come to light.John is an example of the effort at the time to create a bureaucracy, an organized church outside the existing structure of the Judaic Faith. It is repeated in much of the Pauline tradition and somewhat in Acts.What is missing is the information of James and his followers, the women in the leadership, the second wave of 25 and what they did, and the histories of the non-Hellenic Churches.

edited to add the e to creat. You can always tell an old programmer.

This message has been edited by jar, 12-16-2004 02:41 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Then why does the author of John paint a totally different picture of Jesus.Look at the miracles. In all of the synoptic gospels Jesus performs miracles because something needs to be done. It is NOT done as evidence of Jesus divinity but just cause folk need to be fed, a child needs to be healed, the party is running out of booze. In John though miracles are performed solely as evidence of divinity. Yet you never explain how anyone can commune with God. That's just a stupid statement Phat. How the hell can anyone fail a messiah?

and does the word for the same object vary from language to language?

Nope, in John. But an example of doing just because it needed doing without taking credit or using it to show that Jesus was divine.

Exactly, John places the emphasis on Jesus showing off. The story itself though has Jesus not taking credit.The point is how John places the emphasis. It is not what Jesus does but how John frames the tales.