Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 03-30-2012, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Why you would try to argue this is beyond me.

Why anyone persists in arguing in aa5874 is beyond me.

Duvduv · 03-30-2012, 08:24 AM

In addition to the fact that GJohn does not indicate a mother for Jesus and a father named Joseph in John 1, and brothers in chapter 7 (who do not believe him), the cut and paste job adds the idea in chapter 7 that Jesus was not even born in Bethlehem, the place where the Messiah is supposed to be born.

41 Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?”

Jesus does not respond in his own defense that he was really born in Bethlehem (and they forgot to check the gospels of Luke and Matthew). This silence in halacha is called "shetika ke-hodaa" ("silence is equivalent to admission"). But earlier he and the Jews agree they know where he is from, and that he is either a prophet or the messiah, but GJohn does not say. It's a secret, and in any case it doesn't matter because Jesus was sent from heaven.

outhouse · 03-30-2012, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Why you would try to argue this is beyond me.

Why anyone persists in arguing in aa5874 is beyond me.

at first you think you can push through the severe ignorance

not anymore :constern02:

Duvduv · 03-30-2012, 11:09 AM

In fact I forgot to include places in GJohn where an unnamed mother IS mentioned in John 2 and John 19, so Joseph is married to someone who is unnamed, and still the idea of HOW the Logos/Word became Flesh is left to the reader's imagination. Presumably and logically it would have been the ideal scenario to present the idea of the virgin birth, which is unknown in GJohn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

This area seems to suggest more than one author or a cut and paste job. We see that Jesus is "the Word that became flesh," though the author does not specify HOW Jesus became flesh.

We see that Jesus is described as the "son of Joseph" in 1:45 and 6:42. However this is also ambiguous, since in 1:45 the Jews say they know "his parents," but it isn't clear (at least in English) whether this refers to the parents of Jesus (with no mother) or the parents of Joseph.

Throughout chapters 6 and 7 we are told that he descended from heaven, seeming to suggest a spiritual being masquerading as a human, the son of "his Father."

And yet back in 1:42 we read:
"Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

Now this is rather strange since nowhere in the Torah is there mention of any messiah or someone named Jesus son of Joseph, etc. How could they have "found" the one if the Jewish messiah is supposed to be revealed to all? It isn't totally clear that he is considered the Davidic messiah anyway.

Or does Nathanael mean to refer to the "messiah son of Joseph" who precedes the "messiah son of David"? This is rather unlikely since the Torah doesn't talk about that either. Or is Nathanael referring to some other type of "the one" since he doesn't even use the word Messiah??

So HOW did the Word get into flesh without a mother at all? Not even a hint of a "worthy mother" who gave birth to Jesus.

And although the Baptist simply refers to Jesus as "the one who comes after" and is "the chosen one," but there is no definitive description of Jesus as the Jewish messiah OR the Baptist as the Elijah precursor. He is merely the voice in the wilderness from Isaiah 40 but GJohn leaves out the metaphor from Malachi 3, the Messenger.

Only in John 3:28 does the Baptist then describe himself as the one (Elijah?) who comes before the "Messiah."

So the entire picture is ambiguous and confused. Jesus has no known mother, he has a human father yet his "Father" is in heaven. He is "the one" who comes after, but is not the messiah, either davidic or otherwise, and then he is the "messiah" without any description of which messiah. He is the Word yet is a physical being. Looks like a real cut and paste job by an author who had various sources and agendas and was confused. A non-Jewish gentile would probably be totally confused as to what the author(s) of GJohn are talking about.

aeebee50 · 03-31-2012, 04:17 PM

Mary was the mother of Jesus. Mary is a direct line to Adam and
Eve.

Duvduv · 03-31-2012, 07:30 PM

And in fact the way GJohn is set out, it is the Logos who becomes man, not the other way around. And the way the themes are enunciated it gives the sense that Jesus is the son of the Father who is not the father of the Jews (who in chapte 8 is the devil), thus suggesting a demiurge influence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

However, out of all possible ways of allegorizing the Logos with a Jewish flavor as a human he chose "Jesus" who was the subject of writings of other sources (gospels), whose communities of adherents are unknown, including the other "branch," the "Paulist" Christ. He could have chosen something totally new without a Jewish flavor, or at least without a connection to this "Jesus". Something impelled the author(s) to stick with the Jesus storyline.

Yes, and a Jewish origin to the story, with a genuine crucified Jew, would be one possible explanation.

He wasn't trying to turn the Logos into a human, he was to turn a person into the Logos.

aa5874 · 03-31-2012, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Athengoras is late 2nd century. Are you kidding me with that?

You know who wrote gJohn?? Not even the Church was able to identify the real author of gJohn.

You PRESUME your own history.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-31-2012, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Athengoras is late 2nd century. Are you kidding me with that?

You know who wrote gJohn?? Not even the Church was able to identify the real author of gJohn.

You PRESUME your own history.

The identity of the author is irrelevant. It has a terminus ad quem prior to Athenagoras based on p52, as well as mentions by Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and others.

judge · 03-31-2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Johns gospel seems full of one metaphor after another.
The words becomes flesh, the light of the world, the bread of life, the vine, the door, god is his "father" etc etc etc
None of these are "real"

These all should be read metaphorically

All but the "flesh" part.

Well "the word became flesh" is a literrary device. I think metaphor may fit best.

aa5874 · 03-31-2012, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Athengoras is late 2nd century. Are you kidding me with that?

You know who wrote gJohn?? Not even the Church was able to identify the real author of gJohn.

You PRESUME your own history.

The identity of the author is irrelevant. It has a terminus ad quem prior to Athenagoras based on p52, as well as mentions by Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and others.

Your claim about P52 is NOT as certain as you propose. As usual you fail to understand that the dating by paleography is extremely wide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands...ry_Papyrus_P52

Quote:

...Although Rylands 52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among critical scholars.

The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE.

But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE....

Your terminus ad quem is of no real significance. gJohn could have been written AFTER the writings of Athenagoras.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-30-2012, 08:24 AM	#22
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	In addition to the fact that GJohn does not indicate a mother for Jesus and a father named Joseph in John 1, and brothers in chapter 7 (who do not believe him), the cut and paste job adds the idea in chapter 7 that Jesus was not even born in Bethlehem, the place where the Messiah is supposed to be born. 41 Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” Jesus does not respond in his own defense that he was really born in Bethlehem (and they forgot to check the gospels of Luke and Matthew). This silence in halacha is called "shetika ke-hodaa" ("silence is equivalent to admission"). But earlier he and the Jews agree they know where he is from, and that he is either a prophet or the messiah, but GJohn does not say. It's a secret, and in any case it doesn't matter because Jesus was sent from heaven.

03-31-2012, 04:17 PM	#25
aeebee50 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 5,810	Mary was the mother of Jesus. Mary is a direct line to Adam and Eve.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.