Is Jesus responsible for what John says? The book of John?

[Desert Snake]

Is Jesus responsible for what John says, the author of the book of John?

 

[oldbadger]

Is Jesus responsible for John says, the author of the book of John?

Hi......
And 'No', Jesus was never responsible for what John wrote.

John collected many anecdotes about Jesus and his life, but he had no idea of the sequence of events or the length of the timeline of events. And so his story was stretched out from 11-12 months to about three years, and the events were all jumbled up.

But John's most wicked (or ignorant) reports were about 'The Jews'. John had Jesus in contention with 'the Jews' again and again, when in fact Jesus was campaigning for the Jewish peasantry against a corrupt, greedy, disloyal and hellenised priesthood, and total Temple corruption.

If there is a Heaven then John should not be anywhere near it, imo.

 

[Skwim]

Considering that Jesus is part of the godly trinity, and god is said to be responsible for the content of the Bible, I'm going with, Yes, Jesus is responsible for what the book of John says.

What do I win?

.

 

[Desert Snake]

Considering that Jesus is part of the godly trinity, and god is said to be responsible for the content of the Bible, I'm going with, Yes, Jesus is responsible for what the book of John says.

What do I win?

.

You dont actually believe any if theism though

In other words contradiction arbitrary

 

[wizanda]

Is Jesus responsible for what John says, the author of the book of John?

In the grand scheme of things, the Gospel of John is purposely made up to fit certain criteria in prophecy...

Thus Yeshua had knowledge of the master-plan to Snare the whole of mankind with it.

Yet we can't equate Yeshua being responsible for the teachings of the Pharisees John, Paul, and Simon, as they're teaching diametrically opposed.

In my opinion.

 

[pearl]

John collected many anecdotes about Jesus and his life, but he had no idea of the sequence of events or the length of the timeline of events. And so his story was stretched out from 11-12 months to about three years, and the events were all jumbled up.

Neither John's nor any other Gospel writer intended a biography of Jesus or a chronological history, they are the result of the author's theology, Christology.

Unique to John's gospel is the 'personhood' of the Spirit. In John alone the Spirit has the title Parakletos, the gender of which is masculine, requiring personal pronouns. (Elsewhere in the New Testament the term Paraclete is featured only in 1 John 2:1, and there it refers to Jesus.) The Paraclete Spirit is described in five passages, all in Jesus’ long discourse at the Last Supper, often accompanied by the designation "Spirit of Truth," which also is peculiar to John.


In a famous passage from the Old Testament Book of Job (19:25), Job knows that he will go to death judged guilty by all because of the sufferings visited on him; yet he knows that his vindicator lives, namely, the angel who will stand on his grave and show to all that he was innocent. That vindicating spirit has the role of a paraclete, and Jesus now looks for the Holy Spirit as his Paraclete. Jesus prepares his disciples for the coming of the Spirit: the world will hate the disciples who have received the Spirit of Truth for it does not recognize that Spirit. The disciples will be expelled from the synagogues and even put to death.

But John's most wicked (or ignorant) reports were about 'The Jews'.

Its true there is an increased anti Semitism in John's gospel. By this time the Christians have been expelled from the synagogues.

"As we trace the history of the New Testament traditions, they move from disputes with Pharisees, scribes, and chief priests [all members of various Second Temple-era Jewish sects] to polemics against the Jews and Judaism, from the notion of some Jews as enemies of Jesus to the demonization of the Jewish people as a whole." https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/how-jewish-christians-became-christians/

The concept of the Paraclete/Spirit offered an answer to this problem. If the Beloved Disciple had borne witness to Jesus, it was not solely because of his recollections. After all, the disciples had seen Jesus and not understood (14:9). Only the post-resurrectional gift of the Spirit taught the disciples the full meaning of what they had seen (2:22; 12:16); and their witness was the witness of the Paraclete speaking through them (15:26-27).

 

[Phantasman]

Is Jesus responsible for what John says, the author of the book of John?

John wasn't the author, but the authors were taught of John. So yes.

24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Scholars agree that by the end of the first century that there were around 100 gospel writings.

 

[Phantasman]

Neither John's nor any other Gospel writer intended a biography of Jesus or a chronological history, they are the result of the author's theology, Christology.

Unique to John's gospel is the 'personhood' of the Spirit. In John alone the Spirit has the title Parakletos, the gender of which is masculine, requiring personal pronouns. (Elsewhere in the New Testament the term Paraclete is featured only in 1 John 2:1, and there it refers to Jesus.) The Paraclete Spirit is described in five passages, all in Jesus’ long discourse at the Last Supper, often accompanied by the designation "Spirit of Truth," which also is peculiar to John.


In a famous passage from the Old Testament Book of Job (19:25), Job knows that he will go to death judged guilty by all because of the sufferings visited on him; yet he knows that his vindicator lives, namely, the angel who will stand on his grave and show to all that he was innocent. That vindicating spirit has the role of a paraclete, and Jesus now looks for the Holy Spirit as his Paraclete. Jesus prepares his disciples for the coming of the Spirit: the world will hate the disciples who have received the Spirit of Truth for it does not recognize that Spirit. The disciples will be expelled from the synagogues and even put to death.



Its true there is an increased anti Semitism in John's gospel. By this time the Christians have been expelled from the synagogues.

"As we trace the history of the New Testament traditions, they move from disputes with Pharisees, scribes, and chief priests [all members of various Second Temple-era Jewish sects] to polemics against the Jews and Judaism, from the notion of some Jews as enemies of Jesus to the demonization of the Jewish people as a whole." https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/how-jewish-christians-became-christians/

The concept of the Paraclete/Spirit offered an answer to this problem. If the Beloved Disciple had borne witness to Jesus, it was not solely because of his recollections. After all, the disciples had seen Jesus and not understood (14:9). Only the post-resurrectional gift of the Spirit taught the disciples the full meaning of what they had seen (2:22; 12:16); and their witness was the witness of the Paraclete speaking through them (15:26-27).

Paraclete is Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Broken from Hebrew where rauch is the feminine of spirit. Jesus exclaimed that his mother is the Holy Spirit when told that his "mother and brethren" wait to see him. Luke also verifies the Holy Spirit as mother when he describes Jesus birth as the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary and the power of the Highest (capital H) overshadowing them. Mary gave Jesus flesh, but the Holy Ghost made him Christ. It is her voice that is saying "this is my son" twice, since Jesus has said "you have never heard the Father's voice nor seen his shape".

Just my unorthodox observation of scripture.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I call for shared responsibility. Yes, it's the student's fault when they flunk a test, but the teacher should be looked at as well to see where it went wrong.

 

[Tumah]

Broken from Hebrew where rauch is the feminine of spirit.

Actually ruach is one of those words that doesn't have a set gender. It has a masculine singular form and feminine plural form, but those are completely ignored. In Eze. 42:16 it's used with a masculine adjective and in Isa. 40:7, it's attached to a feminine verb. It's not the only word like that, but it is pretty rare.

 

[Jumi]

Jesus isn't responsible for anything written about him or the interpretations of the people who read those books.

 

[David1967]

What do I win?

.

A years supply of Haggis pudding from the pantry of @Revoltingest .

 

[Skwim]

You dont actually believe any if theism though

In other words contradiction arbitrary

Ever read a piece of fiction and have someone ask you some specific about it? That's where I'm coming from. I don't have to believe Little Red Riding Hood is true to know what the story says she was bringing to her grandmother. Same is true of the question, "Is Jesus responsible for what John says? The book of John?"

.

 

[Desert Snake]

Ever read a piece of fiction and have someone ask you some specific about it? That's where I'm coming from. I don't have to believe Little Red Riding Hood is true to know what the story says she was bringing to her grandmother. Same is true of the question, "Is Jesus responsible for what John says? The book of John?"

.

Literalism doesn't equate Jesus being responsible for what John says, it would equate John being honest about his gospel.

 

[Phantasman]

The goddess that I am personally aware of, isn't called the H. Spirit. The Spirit, as far as I know, is neither male, or female. Hence, although your idea might be deduced by some, I'm not aware of traditional belief, attributing female charasteristic, to the Spirit, which would be the Spirit, in the trinity.

If there were a trinity, it is father, mother, son. If John 1 says that Christ gave man the power to be sons of God, a son in the sense is of father and mother. Jesus taught man how to become Christs by being the first.

Orthodoxy (catholic) is just a view that was forced on man leading up to 325AD when Rome made it law. Before that, the gnostic view rivaled that of the orthodox church fathers.

It's up to each person to explore the full ramifications of spiritual knowledge from the Gospel Christ taught. Not just those enforced by the Romans to appease Constantine.

 

[Desert Snake]

If there were a trinity, it is father, mother, son. If John 1 says that Christ gave man the power to be sons of God, a son in the sense is of father and mother. Jesus taught man how to become Christs by being the first.

Orthodoxy (catholic) is just a view that was forced on man leading up to 325AD when Rome made it law. Before that, the gnostic view rivaled that of the orthodox church fathers.

It's up to each person to explore the full ramifications of spiritual knowledge from the Gospel Christ taught. Not just those enforced by the Romans to appease Constantine.

What does that have to do with what I wrote?

As I said, I am not aware of any traditional belief that supports your idea, and your argument seems to be irrelevancies.

 

[Muffled]

Is Jesus responsible for what John says, the author of the book of John?

I believe so.

 

[Muffled]

I call for shared responsibility. Yes, it's the student's fault when they flunk a test, but the teacher should be looked at as well to see where it went wrong.

I believe God is always right.

 

[Muffled]

Literalism doesn't equate Jesus being responsible for what John says, it would equate John being honest about his gospel.

I believe to be literal i this case to be ingenuous.

 

[oldbadger]

Neither John's nor any other Gospel writer intended a biography of Jesus or a chronological history, they are the result of the author's theology, Christology.

But the synoptics did describe the life and mission of Jesus, especially Mark's.

What has Christology to do with the life and mission of Jesus?

Unique to John's gospel is the 'personhood' of the Spirit. In John alone the Spirit has the title Parakletos, the gender of which is masculine, requiring personal pronouns. (Elsewhere in the New Testament the term Paraclete is featured only in 1 John 2:1, and there it refers to Jesus.) The Paraclete Spirit is described in five passages, all in Jesus’ long discourse at the Last Supper, often accompanied by the designation "Spirit of Truth," which also is peculiar to John.

I cannot help but have no respect for John's theological waffle. And that is a kind description, imo.

In a famous passage from the Old Testament Book of Job (19:25), Job knows that he will go to death judged guilty by all because of the sufferings visited on him; yet he knows that his vindicator lives, namely, the angel who will stand on his grave and show to all that he was innocent. That vindicating spirit has the role of a paraclete, and Jesus now looks for the Holy Spirit as his Paraclete. Jesus prepares his disciples for the coming of the Spirit: the world will hate the disciples who have received the Spirit of Truth for it does not recognize that Spirit. The disciples will be expelled from the synagogues and even put to death.

But I believe that G-John is just a theological 'spin', and nothing to do with the real Yeshua BarYosef, who with the Baptist was campaigning against the Priesthood and Temple corruption.

Its true there is an increased anti Semitism in John's gospel. By this time the Christians have been expelled from the synagogues.

A disgraceful collection of fibs.......... and why would Christians have been so keen to continue visiting Jewish synagogues?
So basically G-John lied about the Jews that Jesus loved because Christians didn't like them? A disgrace .....

"As we trace the history of the New Testament traditions, they move from disputes with Pharisees, scribes, and chief priests [all members of various Second Temple-era Jewish sects] to polemics against the Jews and Judaism, from the notion of some Jews as enemies of Jesus to the demonization of the Jewish people as a whole."

Yes....... a propaganda and a lie which fueled two millennia of bigotry and hatred against Jews.