JOHN - The Lazy Apostle ? (page 2)

gumby

John wasn't lazy........he was a fraud.

John was written in the 2nd century to silence the heretical free thinkers as regards who Jesus was. The book of John was written to dogmatise specifics about Jesus to unify the church who wanted complete control.

Matt, Mark, Luke, all deal with Gods Kingdom.....yet John focuses on Christ himself to establish the belief in a literal godman called Jesus to estblish the fact the Jews indeed have a true messiah.

John was illiterate as Acts 4:13 brings out....yet john writes perfect Greek! Here's a fisherman, untrained, who becomes a prolific greek writer, who gets treated like a prince while in prison with scrolls, pen, and whatever other writing utensils he needed.

John has Jesus last supper on Thursday while the other 3 had it on Friday.

John has Jesus ministry at 3 years instead of 1 like the others and also has the purification of the temple at the begining of Jesus ministry instead of the end of it like the other 3.

John also gets to be the guardian of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Jesus himself. Gee...I wonder who took care of Johns mom?

Purely the work of the Catholic editing committee.

Gumby

Greenpalmtreestillmine

The Gospel of John is more a Gospel for today's Christians rather than the Christians of the 1st or 2nd centuries, imo. The freedom of women in that Gospel is extraordinary for its time. Many of the so called fathers of the church had poor opinions of women and of their place in the church. Women were not given the dignity of their own mind. Disgusting really.Very dark. When it comes to the typical treatment of women in those days the Gospel of John is like a great light shining in a very dark place. Also, the superior argumentations and symbolisms as, for example, those used in the Samaritan woman at the well story are not 1st century things but things of today and for today imo.

The Bible is not stagnant it was written and compiled in such a way that it would have up to date relevance and usefulness even 2000 years later. The treatment of women in that Gospel is way beyond its day and even still to an extent beyond our day where in many churches Christian women are still restricted to receiving spiritual food not providing it. Rather than be vocal witnesses before the congregation of men and women as the Samaritan woman and Mary Magdalene were many Christian women today are, in the congregation, in effect still covered in a religious burka. In the Gospel of John they are not.

The Samaritan woman introduced the men of her city to the Christ. She worked through no third person. The Christ spoke to her directly told her things he had not openly told others and then she herself brought the men of the city directly to the Christ.

Mary Magadalene brought the news of the risen Christ to his male disciples. She was in fact "sent forth" by the Christ himself.

Martha and her sister Mary enjoyed great ease of conversation with the Christ himself. No barrier did he put up before them because they were women. They asked questions of him, they complained to him, they spoke freely and openly to him and were not told to be silent.

In this respect and many others the Gospel of John is a Gospel for today. A modern Gospel for modern Christians.

Sabrina

eyeslice

In this respect and many others the Gospel of John is a Gospel for today. A modern Gospel for modern Christians.

Nice comments Sabrina. I agree with you.

Eyeslice

gumby

Does anyone here recall at least scripture that tells us that god ever wanted a N.T. written? Who did god give the command to that a N.T. should be written? What was there name(s).

Here is a book that is held as gods own words for mankind.....yet not one time did god tell anyone to write a written record of the like and times of his son. Peter said "all scripture is inspired of god"...yet the book of Peter was originally thrown out of the bible canon till a much later date.

Gumby

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Gumby,

Here is a book that is held as gods own words for mankind.....

I don't believe the Bible is a perfect word for word account of history. That's not reasonable but it is what fundamentalists and the like teach. They do that in order to raise up their own authority.

They have made the bar so high, the bar of direct word for word inspiration, for their own purposes. It's like a strict father who requires that his daughter be a pure untouched woman until she marries. Then he sets the bar: she must remain a virgin, she must not touch even the hand of any boy, she must not look at boys and she must not even think of boys. If she should do any of these things then her father says she is a whore. Well, of course the poor thing will end up being called a whore by her father because she can't possibly live up to his impossible standards.

In my opinion, the Bible has been falsely made to look like that young woman by Christian fundamentalists. They say she is pure and no defect at all is in her and as a result she is the divine word of God in every respect. Then when, after believeing them, we do find flaws and we find contradictions we automatically assume she is a whore. But that's only because we are requiring the Bible to jump the hoops the fundamentalists set as the bar of her purity. But the Bible does not have to be perfect to be considered divinely guided. She only has to be true to her God and to his spirit. This she is.

Sabrina

gumby

Then when, after believeing them, we do find flaws and we find contradictions we automatically assume she is a whore. But that's only because we are requiring the Bible to jump the hoops the fundamentalists set as the bar of her purity. But the Bible does not have to be perfect to be considered divinely guided. She only has to be true to her God and to his spirit. This she is.

If the girl you mentioned in your parable was...."divinely guided".....could she still be a whore?

Can the bible have flaws and still be.....'true to her god and his spirit'? Please explain.

Gumby

Narkissos

Gumby:

John was written in the 2nd century to silence the heretical free thinkers as regards who Jesus was. The book of John was written to dogmatise specifics about Jesus to unify the church who wanted complete control.

I don't agree: the first recipients of the fourth Gospel (which doesn't call itself "of John" btw) were early Gnostics. Its first known commentary is by Valentinian Gnostic Herakleon. Even the late second conclusion in chapter 21 tries to manage a distinct place for the beloved disciple (i.e. the Johannine school) besides Peter (i.e. the early Catholic church). Although the fourth Gospel was subjected to a lot of emendations and changes before it was accepted in the Catholic canon, it keeps a distinct Gnostic (or proto-Gnostic) ring. E.g. the "devil" is the "prince of the world"; he is not a "fallen angel" but is a liar from the very beginning (8:44). This full-fledged dualism does not suit the orthodox Christian doctrine.

Sabrina: as much as I often disagree with your comparisons I enjoyed this one. I agree that the fundamentalist take at Scripture has actually called overcriticism on Bible texts, hindering many people from seeing their real value. As one theology professor put it once, "people enjoy and understand the Bible pretty well until someone comes up and says it is the inerrant Word of God".

I don't agree: the first recipients of the fourth Gospel (which doesn't call itself "of John" btw) were early Gnostics

Are you talking "recipients" or who wrote the book?

John is about the furthest thing from 'gnostic' as you can get.

Gumby

JOHN - The Lazy Apostle ?

gumby

Greenpalmtreestillmine

eyeslice

gumby

Greenpalmtreestillmine

gumby

Narkissos

SixofNine

Narkissos

gumby

Share this