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 derivative of the social order portrayed there.
This all goes along with your assertion that Jesus, as portrayed in the first 3 Gospels, was only trying to reform Judaism and that the author of John, as well as Paul, were trying to create a new religion. Correct?
I see Christianity as distinct from Judaism in that we rely on our communion with God Whom we believe to be established through the risen Christ. You prefer to stick with Matthew 25 and reformation of Judaism.
jar in 2004 writes:
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 writings 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 resurrection, 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.
Does 2017 jar wish to add anything to what 2004 jar wrote?(well done writing, I might add. I'm saving you time by including your earlier responses.)
As I peruse this topic, I find our discussion was quite lively. Lets continue.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler