aa5874

Don't you see the major problem of your statement? You are going to ignore references that point out your errors and then still want me to give you credible references.

The clues in gLuke are blatant

Luke 24:37 - What makes the author of gLuke less credible than the author of gJohn?

It is extremely clear that Luke 24.36-43 deals with Jesus entering a place with his disciples when the doors were already shut, and that the disciples thought he was a Spirit. Jesus finally put their fears to rest by eating fish and honeycomb.

And it is clear that if gJohn ended at chapter 20, as it appeared to have been, based on Tertullian, where Jesus, after his appearance, did not eat any meat, then it may have been mis-construed by the readers of gJohn 20 that Jesus was a Spirit. I t would appear that John21 was added later to resolve any mis-construed notion that Jesus was a Spirit after resurrection.

So, why was John 21 written? If all the disciples, after seeing and handling Jesus, were satisfied that Jesus was indeed flesh and blood, then John 21 was not necessary.

But John 21 was written, and Jesus did eat fish and bread and you will find the clues for the reasons John 21 was added in Luke 24.36-43.

And in any event, both authors of gLuke and gJohn are propagating anti-docetist propaganda. They both declare that Jesus was flesh and blood after the resurrection. John 21 was added sometime later to re-inforce the propaganda.

And by the way, the entire NT permeates anti-docetist propaganda. Even the author of gJohn appearing to portray Jesus as the Word did write that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

A perfect example of anti-docetist propaganda.

John 1:14 -

jakejonesiv

Early Christianity was split on the subject of docetic Christology.
Proponents of docetic Christology included Simon Magus, Saturninus, Basilides, Cerinthus, Marcion, Valentinus, and Bardesanes. For them, Christ had come in merely phantasmal shape, devoid of the substance of flesh.

They were opposed by the no less impossible “Incaration” Christology of a carnalized fleshly Christ of the proto-orthodox fathers—Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, and especially Tertullian.

This controversy existed within the Johanianne community itself.
The affirmative statements made by the author of 1 John reveal the opposing position.
#1. Jesus did not come in the flesh. 1 John 4:2-3.
#2. Jesus could not be seen or heard. 1 John 1:1-4. (Except by those of perception?)
#3. Jesus came by water only, not by blood. 1 John 5:6.
This is confusing, but may be related to the notion that Christ used Mary as a mere conduit into the world rather than taking on flesh. "Christ, moreover, was sent by that First-Father who is Bythus. He, moreover, was not in the substance of our flesh; but, bringing down from heaven some spiritual body or other, passed through the Virgin Mary as water through a pipe, neither receiving nor borrowing aught thence."
Valentinus according to Tertullian, _ Appendix. Against All Heresies _ chapter IV.

The Gospel of John consists of mixed messages about Jesus. Is GJohn sponsoring docetism or trying to oppose it? It is not easy to tell in the replastered text of the fourth gospel. The long and tenditious “farewell discourse” resembles nothing so much as the Gnostic gospels (Gospel of Mary, Book of Thomas the Contender, Apocryphon of James, etc.) in which the Aeonic Christ imparts secret teachings to a select group of disciples. Jesus reveals the unknown Father (6:46). He is not part of the world, the world cannot understand or see him. The Father and the “Archon of the Kosmos” are at odds. John 14:30-31.

Along side the portrayal of a seemingly Docetic Jesus are blatant contradictions that he was real flesh. The best explanation for this IMHO is that an originally gnostic document was redacted by proto-orthodox scribes who inserted pro-flesh statements, of which John 1:1-18; 6:51-66; 19:34f are notable examples. Consider the schizophrenic resurrection appearances where the phantom appears behind locked doors, insists that he is flesh, but nobody actually checks it out. Jesus allegedly invites Thomas to put his fingers and hand inside the apparent wounds, but Thomas does no such thing. He believes based on the appearance only. More blessed are those who believe without seeing anything! John 20:19-29.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Hi Jiri,

Of course John 20 "hints" that "Jesus was a bodiless apparition." He entered a room through locked doors!

But Thomas is never said to actually touch Jesus. To the contrary, he is said to believe because he has seen, not because he has touched.

BTW, are we being asked to think that the disciples believed the glorious body of those resurrected would retain the disfigurments of their mortal wounds and infirmiries? Right now, I am imaging St. Paul, after his alleged date with the headsmans axe, approaching the Pearly Gates with his head tucked under his arm.

jakejonesiv

Hi AA,

Very good. I see your point.

In Luke 24:36-39 Jesus appears in a ghostly manner and invites his disciples to touch him. Well, they don't touch him, and still don't believe (v. 40) so he eats fish. It is not said that this is convincing either. It is only when Jesus reads the scriptures that their "minds are opened" (v. 44,45). I think this is revealing: the reality of Jesus is not in physical existence, but "in the scriptures."

Jake