Steven Carr

Was the author of 1 John really the same person who wrote the Gospel According to John?

Everybody knows John 3:16, yet 1 John 2:15 says Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

How can John 3:16 claim the death of Jesus was a sign of divine love for the world, while 1 John 2 claims that it is wrong to love the world, and that loving the world is not a divine thing?

Why should Christians not love what God loves? This is the implication of 1 John 2, who clearly did not know the saying of Jesus about loving the world.

Julian

Is there any reason why we should assume that the authors are one and the same? Despite the appellation, that is. The assignment of the gospel to John is late, as is well-known, but almost certainly had nothing to do with the original author. I don't know much about the letters other than their dating and authorship are also uncertain. No reason why they should be the same author, especially given the well-known contradictory quotes you have given.

Julian

Steven Carr

So did the author of 1 John really know this saying by Jesus in John 3:16?

Surely this famous saying must have been circulating among all Christians (musn't it?)

Amaleq13

Commentary on the subject at Peter's website is here.

IMO, I think the problem is created by giving the same meaning to the word "world" in both contexts and I don't think that is correct.

I think John 3:16 should be understood to mean:

"God so loved all of humanity..."

While 1 John 2:15 should be understood to mean:

"Do not love material things..."

For those who claim both were written by an original disciple, I have always thought it incredible that 1 John describes folks abandoning the community for the teaching of others. Who would they have considered more credible than a guy who actually knew Jesus?

Steven Carr

Both say 'agape' the 'cosmos'.

One says it is good to love (agape) the cosmos, and another says it is bad to 'agape' the cosmos. A pretty clear contradiction, and not one a devoted disciple of a teacher would cause. He would have chosen another wording than Jesus used, rather than appear to be off-message.

And 1 John then goes on to say 'or the things in the world'. So the cosmos we should not love is distinguished by him from the material things in the world.

'Do not love the world or anything in the world.' Your interpretation misses out the 'or'.
There are *two* things which should not be loved.

Apart from anything in the world (presumably the material things), what else should we not love?

braces_for_impact

Oops, excuse me, I though this thread was about men that use prostitutes.

<Makes discreet exit>

:Cheeky:

Amaleq13

I still think you are ignoring the context.

John 3 goes on to more specifically define what is meant and it is clear that all of humanity was the intended reference. The sacrifice of Jesus offers salvation to people, not the 'cosmos'.

Likewise, 1 John 2 goes on to define what is meant by specifically identifying "desires of the flesh" as something to be avoided.

It seems to me the subsequent verses suggest that it is better understood to be two ways of referring to essentially the same thing than a reference to two different things.

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'.

Amaleq13

Only if you restrict the basis for interpreting it to the sentence in which it occurs. I think you have to read the sentence within the context of the entire passage to obtain an accurate understanding of what meaning was intended.

Either that or the author didn't consider it a contradiction because he didn't interpret it as literally.

Chris Weimer

I agree with Amaleq that the context is entirely different here, although the poor choice of wording is suggestive that the Johns are different. Also, per spin's work on John earlier, the gospel of John might only be in part by the same John, and part of another "John" etc...