I
Indyann
Guest
ATTENTION Publisher and New Perspective,
Anxiously awaiting answer to post #16.
Thanks.
Anxiously awaiting answer to post #16.
Thanks.
- Status
P
Publisher
Guest
My answer is not something you’d accept, but here it is. The Gospel of John was written during the time the new Christian movement was trying to separate itself from the Jewish community.
I seriously dobut it reflects the “words of Jesus” as it reflects what the “Johannine” community of believers had come to believe about Jesus. That the GoJ was debated as to whether it was to be part of the canon is an idicator that many who had gained prominence in the “Christian” movement didn’t exactly trust it…it was too “Gnostic” for many. It’s a “theological treatise” but I find much value in it.
We tend to diverge paths on these accounts…but that’s ok…“It is the spirit that gives life…”…I’m ok that we don’t agree, we each seek to follow the Light…I’m ok that you consider me a heretic…I am at peace with God and share relationship with Him and seek to share Incarnation with the Son.
I may understand the Catholic position…I simply don’t agree with it.
H
heisenburg
Guest
Please forgive me as I may be misunderstanding you,
Not antagonizing… seriously asking
In Christ
Are you suggesting that the gospel of John may not be a valid Gospel?
Not antagonizing… seriously asking
In Christ
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
You can be assured that when we detect any understanding of the Catholic position in your posts, we’ll let you know right away.
Blessings,
Gerry
P
Publisher
Guest
As “valid” as a gospel can be. I’m saying it was written in a time and place for a purpose…and one of those purposes was to distinguish those who called themselves “Christians” from the Jews as the legitimate continuation of the faith of Israel.
It was written after the fall of Jerusalem, during a time when the friction between “Israel” and the “Church” was getting very heated.
“John” was written last of the canonical gospels…and the view of the “Jews” became more hostile with every new gospel written and the view of the Romans becoming more “tolerant”…by the time John was written, the Jews were Jesus chief antagonists and the Romans were shown a bit more sympathetic…John uses the life of Jesus to reflect the conflict going on in the time it was written between the Church and Israel.
It is a theological “gospel”, relecting the beliefs of the Johannine Community concerning what they had come to belive about Jesus of Nazareth, not word for word accounts of his life…I seek to understand John in it’s historical setting…it is a “valid” reflection of the times in which it was written…some 60-70 years after Jesus died.
P
Publisher
Guest
How…“Catholic” of you:thumbsup:You can be assured that when we detect any understanding of the Catholic position in your posts, we’ll let you know right away.
Blessings,
Gerry
H
heisenburg
Guest
OK… so you do see it has just as much weight in it as say Mark and Matthew… Correct?
In Christ
In Christ
P
Pax
Guest
I am going to be as charitable as I can in my response. Your post is nonsense. To suggest that John’s gospel is even remotely “Gnostic” is absurd. Moreover, John was quite anti-Gnostic. This becomes abundantly clear when one reads the first letter of John. Furthermore, virtually every Protestant commentary that I have ever read disagrees with you. Not one of them has ever made the kind of statements you have about his gospel, but they have all pointed out his point of view concerning the Gnostics.
For example, the Morris Bible Book Synopsis says:
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF FIRST JOHN
The Apostle John, the follower of Jesus whom he loved so much (Jn 13:23; Jn 19:26; Jn 20:2; Jn 21:20), wrote this letter, probably about 95 A.D. A few scholars try to date it before the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.).
A tradition says that John took care of Jesus’ mother, first in Jerusalem and then later in Ephesus until she died.
The main purpose of this epistle was to combat the rising tide of Gnosticism. Later, in the second century, Gnosticism was to become a major threat to the historical truths of the gospel message. Gnostic devotees claimed to have a special “knowledge” (1108-GSN - gnosis) which was supposedly not available to rank-and-file Christians. These “intellectuals” believed, along with the Greek philosopher, Plato, that the human body and spirit were two entirely separate entities.
The flesh (4561-GSN - sarx) was allegedly and inherently “evil,” while the spirit (4151-GSN - pneuma) was “good” and functioned in a completely different manner. Since the material body was considered “evil,” these Gnostics were felt forced to reject the teaching that Christ had ever been in a real, physical body.
So, they taught that Jesus only “seemed” to have had a body (2Jn 7 ). In actuality (they claimed) Jesus was only a phantom. However, the Apostle John was very careful to point out that Jesus had been PHYSICALLY present (Jn 1:14; Jn 20:27-31).
John and the other apostles saw Jesus closely, heard him at close range, and touched him with their hands–both before and after his resurrection from death (1Jn 1:1-2).
Not even one of the four Protestant commentaries that I have makes references to John’s gospel as being too Gnostic for some people or that it has any characteristics resembling Gnosticism. Likewise, none of my Catholic commentaries make any such statements either. Your idea is simply outlandish.
P
Publisher
Guest
From Wikepedia…
**Epiphanius, however, takes note of an early Christian sect, the Alogi, who believed the Gospel was actually written by one **Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic [15]. Corroborating this evidence is a quotation by Eusebius of Caesarea (History of the Church 7.25.2) in which Dionysius of Alexandria (mid-third century) claims that the Apocalypse of John (known commonly as the Book of Revelation), but not the Gospel of John, was believed by some before him (7.25.1) to also have been written by Cerinthus. This discussion of the Alogi represents the only instance in which both the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John were specifically attributed to Cerinthus.[16]. Hill asserts that, at that time, the Gospel of John was never attributed to Cerinthus by the established orthodoxy; that Eusebius was only stating a theory that he had heard; and that Eusebius himself believed the Gospel to have been written by the Apostle John.[17]
Starting in the 19th century, critical scholarship has further questioned the apostle John’s authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The critical scholarship argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest redaction.[18]"
“John” was a disputed book, as was Revelation by some…it was felt it was “too Gnostic”…
Eilene Pagels in her book “Beyond Belief” contrasts the Gospel of John with the Gospel of Thomas, many also hold the GoT is not Gnostic.
I’m pleased you were as “charitable as you could be.”
**Epiphanius, however, takes note of an early Christian sect, the Alogi, who believed the Gospel was actually written by one **Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic [15]. Corroborating this evidence is a quotation by Eusebius of Caesarea (History of the Church 7.25.2) in which Dionysius of Alexandria (mid-third century) claims that the Apocalypse of John (known commonly as the Book of Revelation), but not the Gospel of John, was believed by some before him (7.25.1) to also have been written by Cerinthus. This discussion of the Alogi represents the only instance in which both the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John were specifically attributed to Cerinthus.[16]. Hill asserts that, at that time, the Gospel of John was never attributed to Cerinthus by the established orthodoxy; that Eusebius was only stating a theory that he had heard; and that Eusebius himself believed the Gospel to have been written by the Apostle John.[17]
Starting in the 19th century, critical scholarship has further questioned the apostle John’s authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The critical scholarship argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest redaction.[18]"
“John” was a disputed book, as was Revelation by some…it was felt it was “too Gnostic”…
Eilene Pagels in her book “Beyond Belief” contrasts the Gospel of John with the Gospel of Thomas, many also hold the GoT is not Gnostic.
I’m pleased you were as “charitable as you could be.”
S
St_Violet
Guest
wikipedia? the encyclpedia anyone can edit?
H
Hellisreal
Guest
Pagels is a Gnostic.
This is one odd thread.
P
Publisher
Guest
No, Pagels is not a Gnostic. I believe she is Methodist or Presbyterian…I don’t remember which, she gave her “testimony” of her return to faith after her sons death in her book “Beyond Belief”.
Pagels is a Gnostic.
This is one odd thread.
She also was a guest on Bill Moyers panel in his “Genesis” series, which was wonderful.
I realize it is difficult for many Catholics to step outside of their comfort zone, but fortuneatly I am not Catholic so I have no such problems.
It is a strange thread, we have some denying that the Gospel of John was ever thought of being Gnostic and then you have me
, I have always understood, even from my college days at George Fox College (now University) the problems the Gospel of John had.Go figure.
P
Pax
Guest
There is no credibility here for the idea that John’s gospel was considered to be Gnostic. Even the quote you give states that “Hill asserts that, at that time, the Gospel of John was never attributed to Cerinthus by the established orthodoxy; that Eusebius was only stating a theory that he had heard; and that Eusebius himself believed the Gospel to have been written by the Apostle John”.
There are all kinds of wild theories that can be thrown about. Such things do not give any kind of credence to the idea or to the number of people that may or may not have subscribed to such things. We have a huge amount of evidence that shows the amount of division caused by Arianism, and there were huge numbers that believed it. We do not have any historical data that shows that “many”(whatever that means quantitatively) believed that John’s gospel was in any way Gnostic. I simply do not buy this line of thinking. The scholarship simply isn’t there.
P
Publisher
Guest
Yes, it was the easiest to wade through, but I’m sure if you checked, you’d find another site that can’t be edited. You could also check the references Widepeida provided…that’s a start to answer the questions for yourself.
Going to a site that only provides support for your beliefs doesn’t answer all the questions…at least not in my mind.
I find I understand my own faith more and have a much deeper experience with God when I can answer questions for myself, no matter what the source of info. But I’m “funny” like that.
P
Pax
Guest
There is value in this line of thought…on this I can agree.Yes, it was the easiest to wade through, but I’m sure if you checked, you’d find another site that can’t be edited. You could also check the references Widepeida provided…that’s a start to answer the questions for yourself.
Going to a site that only provides support for your beliefs doesn’t answer all the questions…at least not in my mind.
I find I understand my own faith more and have a much deeper experience with God when I can answer questions for myself, no matter what the source of info. But I’m “funny” like that.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
“He who eats my Body and drinks My Blood shall never die…” This is the necessary Sacrament for salvation. It IS necessary.
P
Publisher
Guest
You’re right, no one is certain, we can only infer from history that some felt the GoJ had Gnostic influence…some felt a few of Paul’s writings had Gnostic influence too, but were included in the NT. The info is out there…I just didn’t make it up…I realize we read different “scholars”…Bart Erhamn, Burton Mack, Jacob McCoby, Eilene Pagels, to name a few. Biblical scholarship has raised new and exciting questions…some of those questions that were “squelched” in the past are being raised again…
That you do not “believe” the scholarship exists, comes as no surprise…it would conflict with your faith and what your church teaches…that’s very understandable.
P
Pax
Guest
Publisher,
In quoting Wiki you pointed to the Alogi. Please be advised that these folks were heretics and have no credibility for anything whatsover. They denied the divinity of Jesus among other things. Simultaneously they attributed authorship of John’s gospel to Cerinthus. Cerinthus, himself, denied the divinity of Jesus and would never have authored John’s gospel which clearly proclaims the divinity of Jesus. Like I said, there is no credible evidence that John’s gospel was thought to be Gnostic particularly among the orthodox.
In quoting Wiki you pointed to the Alogi. Please be advised that these folks were heretics and have no credibility for anything whatsover. They denied the divinity of Jesus among other things. Simultaneously they attributed authorship of John’s gospel to Cerinthus. Cerinthus, himself, denied the divinity of Jesus and would never have authored John’s gospel which clearly proclaims the divinity of Jesus. Like I said, there is no credible evidence that John’s gospel was thought to be Gnostic particularly among the orthodox.
P
Pax
Guest
It isn’t that I do not believe that there isn’t scholarship out there that disagrees with the position I support. Quite the contrary…the problem is the quality of the scholarship and its credibility. I simply haven’t found such arguments to be satisfying. They may be interesting, but I find them unconvincing.
P
Publisher
Guest
I understand they were considered “heretics” by the “proto-orthodox”. Joan O’Grady in her book “Heresies” offers an insight that to understand the history of Christianity, we must look at the heresies that were taking place. These were all steps of doctrinal development that eventually formed the Roman/Greek church. You and I don’t see “history” in the same way…the fact that John was considered “Gnostic” by some, and the writings of Valentinus lauded John’s Gospel as being truly Gnostic in belief, tells me it had a wide appeal.
That some in the “proto-orthodox” church group didn’t appreciate it’s “finer points”
, comes as no great surprise as many of the proto-orthodox were looking for heretics around every corner.That you accept your churches history is not surprising, you should affirm your beliefs…I simply do not agree with them…being called a “heretic” myself by many doesn’t come as any surprise…
- Status