Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 05-12-2005, 07:03 PM

I would also add that, even if we assume they refer to the same concept of "world", I really doubt that the author(s) would have considered God's love for the world to be equivalent to the prohibited human love of the world or things in the world.

I just don't think this can be used to establish two authors or even that the author of the letter was unaware of the Gospel.

Steven Carr · 05-12-2005, 09:55 PM

I suppose it is a bit like claiming that 'Vote for Bush' and 'don't vote for the Bush administration' are non-contradictory.

One can vote for Bush without wanting to support the people in his administration.

Chris Weimer · 05-12-2005, 09:59 PM

Er, a better analogy would be don't love the US but love the people in the US.

Julian · 05-13-2005, 11:03 AM

Burton Mack argues that the writer of 1-3 John represents the community of GJohn at the time of the community split. Part of the community went towards the centrists (Katholikos) and the other part towards gnosticism. The gospel was modified to be more centrist, essentially hijacked by the centrists and chapter 21 was added to give authority to the authorship, the 'beloved disciple,' and the letters were written against the gnostic splinter group. YMMV. Makes some sense to me. Since there seems to be a fundamental shift in the community it is not surprising to see some contradictions.

Julian

andrewcriddle · 05-13-2005, 12:03 PM

It may be worth noting that there are rather hostile passages about 'the world' in the Gospel of John as well as in the epistles.

EG John 17 verse 9 has Jesus saying

Quote:

I am praying for them I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me for they are thine

and John 17 verse 14 has Jesus saying

Quote:

I have given them thy word and the world has hated them because they are not of the world even as I am not of the world

Andrew Criddle

goozlefotz · 05-13-2005, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

But John 3:16 refers to cosmos , not people. It really does, as that is the word that is used.

And 1 John 2 refers to cosmos. That is the word that is used.

It is irrelevant that the terminology is used in different ways. To be more precise, the fact that the terminology is used in different ways is extremely relevant.

People who know famous sayings of the teacher they worship do not subvert their teachers terminology in that way.

There is a famous Mormon phrase called 'Pearl of Great Price', and we do not find Mormons saying that pearls are worthless.

1 John 2 cannot have heard one of the most famous sayings of Jesus.

To say that they do not contradict because 1 John uses the words of Jesus ('agape and 'cosmos') in entirely different ways only proves that the author of 1 John did not know how Jesus used words like 'agape' and 'cosmos'.

The Gospel of John was not written until over 100 years after Jesus' ministry. The writer was trying to make Jesus into a God, which none of the writers who knew Jesus had done. Thus, 1 Jon is more likely to represent the attitude of the disciples than the Gospel of John.

Dave G

Steven Carr · 05-14-2005, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Er, a better analogy would be don't love the US but love the people in the US.

You mean that if somebody wrote 'God so loved the US that he gave his only son...', that would mean that God didn't love the US?

The terminology between 1 John 2 and John 3:16 is so close , yet so obviously used in different ways (as people here agree), that the same person cannot have written both.

Indeed, it is doubtful that a hearer of Jesus saying would twist the terminology of his Lord and Saviour in such a way.

I can't think of comparable examples. Can you?

Steven Carr · 05-14-2005, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It may be worth noting that there are rather hostile passages about 'the world' in the Gospel of John as well as in the epistles.

EG John 17 verse 9 has Jesus saying

and John 17 verse 14 has Jesus saying

Andrew Criddle

This is a good point, but we don't find 'don't agape the cosmos' in the Gospel of John.

There is nothing contradictory about God loving a world He regards as hostile to his purposes. (The Gospels say love your enemies after all).

The Gospel of John does not go as far as saying God did not love the world, as 1 John 2 advises Christians not to do.

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

05-12-2005, 07:03 PM	#11
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	I would also add that, even if we assume they refer to the same concept of "world", I really doubt that the author(s) would have considered God's love for the world to be equivalent to the prohibited human love of the world or things in the world. I just don't think this can be used to establish two authors or even that the author of the letter was unaware of the Gospel.

05-12-2005, 09:55 PM	#12
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	I suppose it is a bit like claiming that 'Vote for Bush' and 'don't vote for the Bush administration' are non-contradictory. One can vote for Bush without wanting to support the people in his administration.

05-12-2005, 09:59 PM	#13
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Er, a better analogy would be don't love the US but love the people in the US.

05-13-2005, 11:03 AM	#14
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	Burton Mack argues that the writer of 1-3 John represents the community of GJohn at the time of the community split. Part of the community went towards the centrists (Katholikos) and the other part towards gnosticism. The gospel was modified to be more centrist, essentially hijacked by the centrists and chapter 21 was added to give authority to the authorship, the 'beloved disciple,' and the letters were written against the gnostic splinter group. YMMV. Makes some sense to me. Since there seems to be a fundamental shift in the community it is not surprising to see some contradictions. Julian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.