Everything I ever needed to know about God I found in John

  • Thread starter Thread starter Afterburned6387
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Afterburned6387

Guest
I really dunno why I started this thread, moderators, if you wish to delete it, go for it, but there seems to be something missing from the “Sola Scriptura” debate.

John Says:
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:30

This is often used to show the existence of additional “Tradition” because everything was not written, but the emphasis of this verse seems to be that even if the rest of scripture were to fall away, this one book alone would be sufficient to find salvation. So, then even if I were to reject the catholic church, never go to mass, not participate in the sacraments (Eucharist is not mentioned in John), I could have life in his name. Sweet!

Responses of all types welcome
 
easy, I wouldn’t know how to conduct the ordinance of the Eucharist, I would assume he was speaking spiritually
 
Afterburned6387 said:
I really dunno why I started this thread, moderators, if you wish to delete it, go for it, but there seems to be something missing from the “Sola Scriptura” debate.

John Says:
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:30

This is often used to show the existence of additional “Tradition” because everything was not written, but the emphasis of this verse seems to be that even if the rest of scripture were to fall away, this one book alone would be sufficient to find salvation. So, then even if I were to reject the catholic church, never go to mass, not participate in the sacraments (Eucharist is not mentioned in John), I could have life in his name. Sweet!

Responses of all types welcome
Click to expand...
I don’t think the people to whom the gospel of John was written, were Siberian Eskimos or Japanese samurai – they were followers of Jesus already part of a Christian church, already taking part in tradition and traditional practices, and already knowledgable about how to practice the eucharist and so forth. So John has to be read in that context, not the context of the Western cowboy individualist with his iPod and Starbucks.😃
 
Then why start at the creation of the World in John 1:1 if they are already familiar? Words have meaning, John meant, “I write these things so that a person, in general, can be saved by what is written here” Your conclusion doesn’t make sense
 
Afterburned6387 said:
I really dunno why I started this thread, moderators, if you wish to delete it, go for it, but there seems to be something missing from the “Sola Scriptura” debate.

John Says:
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:30

This is often used to show the existence of additional “Tradition” because everything was not written, but the emphasis of this verse seems to be that even if the rest of scripture were to fall away, this one book alone would be sufficient to find salvation. So, then even if I were to reject the catholic church, never go to mass, not participate in the sacraments (Eucharist is not mentioned in John), I could have life in his name. Sweet!

Responses of all types welcome
Click to expand...
I respectfully submit that there is nothing in this post that I can agree with. John 20:30 does not suggest that “this one book alone would be sufficient to find salvation.” Moreover, every book of scripture is to be understood in the context of the entire bible. If the gospel of John were all that is needed there would be no need for the rest of scripture and we should simply consider the rest of the bible to be nothing more than excess fluff.

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide believers are sometimes myopic in the way they view scripture. This leads to serious misinterpretations.
 
well, we aren’t discussing the “fullness of the faith” Paul had some very valuable insights, the point I’m making is this, the Catholic Church, and primarily, the Eucharist, is not a requirement of salvation, because it isn’t here
 
Afterburned6387 said:
Then why start at the creation of the World in John 1:1 if they are already familiar? Words have meaning, John meant, “I write these things so that a person, in general, can be saved by what is written here” Your conclusion doesn’t make sense
Click to expand...
You’re assuming that John meant “All you have to do is believe (that is, “merely think about with deep attachment”) that Jesus is the Christ and you will be saved”. By assuming that, you’re imposing 20th-century Protestant notions (or 16th-century Protestant notions) on a text written within a deeply non-Protestant culture, a culture in which liturgy, ritual, and priestly/apostolic lineage actually meant something very real. God never told the Jews that they could be saved by just “believing in the Temple sacrifices”, because salvation is never done “alone”, whether “scripture alone” or “faith alone” or “me alone”. Aloneness is damnation.

I’m not Catholic, so I’m not arguing that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. But what I am saying is that the broad Protestant tradition is missing a humongous piece of what it means to be Christian, in the fullest sense of Christian.

It might be good to find out the Greek term John uses for “believe” and “save”. It also might be good to find out to whom John was writing.
 
The environment in which John was writing was not as the Catholic Church would have you believe. The Apostolic Church was vibrant, alive, had little ecclesiastical structure, with Apostles travelling and evangelizing, local church leaders popping up everywhere, Not a gold-and-art filled Lateran Palace, complete with Cardinals (Edited) wandering about. Besides, shouldn’t we assume that John was saying what he meant?

Sola Fide is true, but IF faith is real, many deeds follow, (James 2:14)

Somehow that Idea got lost in the millenia…
 
Afterburned6387 said:
The environment in which John was writing was not as the Catholic Church would have you believe. The Apostolic Church was vibrant, alive, had little ecclesiastical structure, with Apostles travelling and evangelizing, local church leaders popping up everywhere, Not a gold-and-art filled Lateran Palace, complete with Cardinals (Edited) wandering about. Besides, shouldn’t we assume that John was saying what he meant?

Sola Fide is true, but IF faith is real, many deeds follow, (James 2:14)

Somehow that Idea got lost in the millenia…
Click to expand...
Then why don’t you assume Jesus meant what he said when he said ‘who listens to you (the Apostles, founders of the Church) listens to me, who rejects you rejects me’. And that those who refused to listen to the Church were to be outcasts and treated like the pagans? There’s a bit of inconvenient teaching for you.

By the way, the Holy Spirit is hardly so daft as to require a whole Bible when one single book would do. ALL the Scripture is important, AND tradition (since nothing Jesus said or did was unimportant, but not all of it was recorded in Scripture, rather revealed through Tradition)
 
http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gifSo what arehttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif we all supposed to do???
:eek: Toss all our Bibles on the:eek: fire, except for the few pages written by John???
That simply makes no sense at all…If John were all we needed, http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gifwhy bother with the Bible at all???
This whole subject has me feeling like I’m looking at one of those old medieval maps that say, at the edges, “Beyond this be dragons”…Treading very dangerous ground here…
 
Afterburned6387 said:
The environment in which John was writing was not as the Catholic Church would have you believe. The Apostolic Church was vibrant, alive, had little ecclesiastical structure, with Apostles travelling and evangelizing, local church leaders popping up everywhere, Not a gold-and-art filled Lateran Palace, complete with Cardinals (Edited) wandering about.
Click to expand...
But they also didn’t have Altar calls, nor did they worship by listening to Praise and Worship music with hands up in the air; they didn’t even have the Apostles shouting from pulpits saying ‘Can I get an Amen!?’.

I guess Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Peter, Jude and James just wasted their time and energy by writing books and letters that’re not necessary anyway! On second thought, that would make Bibles cheap and less cumbersome. No more debates on which Book to start, the Lectionary would be the same every year; and there’d be no ‘Synoptic Problem’ and ‘Which Gospel was written first’ debates! 😃
 
When I read the title of this thread, I thought, wow, he read John 6!

What I can’t get over is if the Apostles and their disciples didn’t think that the Eucharist was a necessary part of salvation, then why was it even mentioned in Luke, Matthew, John, and in the letters of Paul??

Hmmm…:rolleyes:
 
Afterburned6387 said:
John Says:
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:30
Click to expand...
That passage indicates the purpose for which John wrote his Gospel: to prompt faith in Christ. The passage does not imply that the Gospel of John is sufficient for either faith or salvation.

If you are building a car, and I give you four tires for it, telling you “I have a lot more tires, but I’m giving you these so that you can build your car, and once your car is built you can go places with it,” then that’s great, but it’s not enough for your car to start much less for it to go anywhere. Not only do you need to put the tires on the car, you also need an engine, gasoline, etc.

Similarly, the Gospel of John by itself is clearly not enough for anyone to have faith. Why? Because faith is a gift from God. This passage from John doesn’t need to mention that (as well as that the grace of faith must be accepted, that is, we must assent to divine truth) because it’s beyond the scope of what the written Gospel can do.
 
Your title is what really intrigues me. How the heck is it that you claim to know what you need to know about God?
 
well, we aren’t discussing the “fullness of the faith” Paul had some very valuable insights, the point I’m making is this, the Catholic Church, and primarily, the Eucharist, is not a requirement of salvation, because it isn’t here
Click to expand...
John tells you the following:

“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.” [John 3:5]

And later,

*“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” *[John 6:53-56]

John goes on to say:

*“As the Father has sent me, so I send you [the apostles].” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” * [John 20:21-23]

So, according to your book of choice:
  1. Baptism and the Eucharist are necessary components of salvation;
And,
  1. The Apostles’ office of authority is like that of Christ, from whom they draw their authority. If this is so, the implications are clear: You should be listening to their successors, the bishops, and most certainly to the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles–that is to say, the Holy See.
Logical? Very. Do you accept it? I don’t know …
 
No, unfortunately, I don’t

Once again, if left with John Alone, I would interpret the verses on true drink and true food as spiritual.

Ever heard of fasting? The whole way I understood that works is a man subsists on the bread of God in scripture and prayer during the fast
“Man does not live by bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”

And isn’t that same holy spirit that was given to the apostles given to us?

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Matthew 26:18-20

Jesus still has all Authority, the **disciples **of Christ are told to go make disciples, and to teach them to obey everything the Apostles obey

Did God give the apostles special blessings? Of Course!
Did they in turn, pass them on to us? most surely

As for the posts reccomending we throw out the rest of the bible, If the verse that started this thread is true, and the standard for Salvation Alone is set so low, Praise be to God! Why should anyone not be a Christian? Furthermore, how generous was God that he gave us so many other books to enrich our walk with Christ, to learn what he is doing, and what he has done?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top