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.

Juststeve

It might help to ask whether the current Gospel Of John had a single author, or multiple authors, and whether if multiple all of the authors agreed with each other.

Steve

Duvduv

Yes, I agree. And then WHEN this all happened and how long it took to get a final draft that was acceptable to all presumably after the onset of a struggle with gnostics and docetists if such existed. Indeed, the gospel has something for everyone. It has a Jewish flavor for those who were Judeophiles. It has a docetic feel to it. It has an anti-Jewish and demiurge sense to it. And something for pagans as well. Authors had to cram into it a bit of everything.

The idea of DISCOVERING the messiah figure carries a strong mystery sense to it that is not Jewish but would appeal to mystical types.

But is there a phenomenon of a divine being born of a human father without a human mother?? After all, the author(s) could have thrown in the name Mary once or twice even without a nativity chapter like GMark.

outhouse

the many authors of J were building biblical jesus only.

the seperation from a strict judaistic sect was firmly in place as a johannine community wrote their hellenistic roman version of jesus was taking place, over a long period of time.

so far away from the real jesus, not much of the real charactor made it through.

Duvduv

Some suspect communities adhering to the various gospels before the final emergence of "THE church," but where were they? Where was the Johannine community? Is there any evidence a group existed that adhered to the GJohn? Was it in Ephesus? Corinth? Alexandria? Rome?
And the others?
In any event, was no one keeping track of the cut and paste job or montage being worked on at least in this GJohn gospel?
Or was it intentional, as I suggested, whereby the
author(s) wanted to offer something to everybody?

Diogenes the Cynic

John's Jesus is an incarnation of Philo's "Logos." Philo fused Platonic and Jewish philosophical elements to define his Logos as basically a hypostatic manifestion of God's influence/power/intervention in the world. His "Word" as it affected the earth.

John's Gospel interprets Jesus as a literal personification of Philo's more abstract hypostasis.

aa5874

Your statement is completely unsubstantiated and contradictory. Philo was NOT the first to mention the idea of the Logos so you certainly cannot say gJohn's Jesus was derived specifically from Philo.

Diogenes the Cynic

Yes I can, and you're wrong. Philo's version of the Logos was particular to him and not the same as the Platonic idea from which he derived it. As I indicated in my post, Philo fused the Greek Logos with Jewish Theology and came up with the hypostatic logos. The Platonic logos was NOT hypostatic, but only an abstraction.

Why you would try to argue this is beyond me. It's not like it has any bearing on the mythicist position.

aa5874

Why do you make your assertions is beyond me when they are unsubstantiated???

Again, your assertion that 'John's Jesus is an incarnation of Philo's Logos' and 'John's Gospel interprets Jesus as a literal personification of Philo's more abstract hypostasis' is UTTERLY unsubstantiated when you cannot even determine when gJohn's Gospel was written and the sources that the author really used.

You have made Presumptions and then want people to BELIEVE your Presumptions are factual.

Philo claimed the World was a Son of God.

Examine Philo's the Unchangeableness of God
Please ADMIT your error. You really don't know that the author of gJohn used Philo.


You ought to know that the author of gJohn may have used the writings of Athenagoras of Athens.

Examine "The Plea to the Christians" attributed to Athenagoras.


The author of gJohn MAY have used the writings of Athenagoras and NOT Philo.

Diogenes the Cynic

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