Hallandale

I think that the gospel of John is a fraud.
The prologue is very similar to some Greek philosopher's writing about "sophia"
or wisdom. It may have been adapted and plagerized for use by the gospel writer.

Take a look at John 20:30-31..........
30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name

This certainly reads like it is the ending of the gospel. But it is not. There is a chapter 21 which ends at John 21:25
25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
Most certainly chapter 21 was added at a later time. Also note the hyperbole.
Proof positive that the gospel was edited.

Take a look at John 19:25
Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Jesus' mother is named Mary and her sister is also named Mary. Two siblings both named Mary. Strange. Of course the Christians have some imaginative explanations. But it appears that something was edited.
Take a look at the next 2 verses .....John 19:26-27
.26When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"

27Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

Since Jesus had brothers, and his brother James becomes the leader of the Christians it seems odd that Jesus would give the care of his mother over to a disciple. It appears that perhaps a wife was edited out of the text.
From AskMoses.com......
Does one must be married to qualify as a rabbi?
With regards to Torah obligations, rabbis are no different than any other Jew—whichever rules apply to all Jews apply to rabbis as well, and vice versa.
That being said, every Jew is obligated to marry. The first mitzvah in the Torah is: “Be fruitful and multiply.”

As you can see an unmarried Jesus seems odd.

Nick Hallandale
enterprisestrategy@earthlink.net

Julian

Yep.
I am agnostic on the whole mythicism issue. I don't know if he was real or not and it really doesn't matter much to me. It's quite a relief.

I can understand appreciating GJohn as literature. I like some of the psalms in the OT, for example.
The placebo effect is a real and measurable phenomenon because the subjective expectation gives rise to a physical manifestation. Most of the so-called miracles seem to be entirely subjective perceptions. I wouldn't use the word miracle although I do consider the phenomenon highly interesting yet it is obviously not uncommon. If miracles were common would they still be miracles? And doesn't a miracle require miraculous evidence?
A placebo is a lie, by definition. It is said to do something it doesn't actually do. The effect, however, is certainly real. If you reveal the lie, i.e. tell people in advance it is a placebo, you are unlikely to get the same effect. It has to be a lie for any curative results to occur.
I am not sure why a resurrection is necessary. It sounds like doctrine. The Jews manage to believe in god just fine without the NT. The gnostics believe in god without either testament.

I think there is a separation between the idea or perception of god and the doctrinal documents that religion is given to. It would seem self evident that the former can subsist just fine without the latter, probably better, actually. Nothing like the bible to turn people into atheists and agnostics.

Julian

Buster Daily

Chapter 21 was required to reinstate Peter at the leader of the church. It also connects Jesus' unnamed life partner with someone who wrote down a testimony, commonly understood as "this" testimony (Gospel of John). It also contains some bizarre crap about whether the unnamed life partner would die before Jesus returned and how Jesus really didn't say that. Either part of that was redaction on the redaction or this whole bit was added to counter circulating claims that disciples dying invalidated Jesus' earlier predictions. The hyperbole is corny and provides a lame excuse for an abrupt ending. Chapter 20 ends much better.

hatsoff

I don't really know what to make of John. It's very interesting because it's so unique. It does, however, not sound like an eyewitness account. All things considered, I'd be shocked if I ever learned it was.

Febble

Yes. I have a hope, if I'm honest, that one day our perception of God will simply outgrow religion. I think it already has, actually. Dennett has this metaphor that religion is a kind of "nurse crop" that eventually we can discard. I have some sympathy with that, even though I don't share his atheism, or perhaps simply give it a different name.

But what it boils down to, I suppose, our perception of God undoubtedly evolved (probably as a biproduct of language), and if God is real in any sense, then we can say that what evolved is our capacity for awareness of God (I wrote another thing about that for my son here.) And if that is true (big if) then documents that chronicle the cultural development of that awareness tell us something about the nature of God. I regard the bible as a collection of such documents. I have a special regard for the Gospel of St John because it presents Jesus as an answer to the question "what is God like?", and the answer is an answer I like. In the end, I don't mind much whether it is literally true or not (although I am arguing neither case here).

But I have wondered for a while whether, if I found out a bit more about biblical scholarship then my confidence would falter. So I'll hang out in this forum for a bit if that's OK.

I've already learned a lot about geology and biochemistry (even though I came here to debate exit polls....)

RUmike

Jesus, if he existed, was NOT your stereotypical Jew. He said and did things that would be shocking to a 1st century Palestinian Jewish audience. So an unmarried Jesus is not unusual, even if that was the Jewish norm.

Febble

This sounds like an eyewitness account to me:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john20.htm

Enough like one, that if it isn't, I rather agree with the OP that it is a lie (even though I originally argued it didn't).

I don't think you can write off John by saying it's just literature. It aims at verisimilitude in a way that IMO the synoptic gospels don't (although Mark sounds closest, to me).

Diogenes the Cynic

19:35 makes no claim that the author was a witness.
No. There was only one expulsion. There was no expulsion during the life of Jesus. I don't know where you heard that but it's wrong. You are welcome to produce any evidence of a previous expulsion but I assure you, none exists.

Diogenes the Cynic

The empty tomb is a Markan invention. Since there never was an empty tomb, there can't be any "eyewitness" to it. I'm not sure why you think this particular narrative sounds like an eyewitness account but the details in question are really only designed to make Peter the first "witness" to the tomb.

Febble

OK, I misunderstood you. What did you mean when you said the author thought Christians had been expelled from the synagogue?

I was referring to 9: 34, and I thought another instance was mentioned, but I'm rusty and can't find it.


Re 19:35 - the NAB has:

And the Jerusalem bible has:

Are those bad translations?