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

[URAVIP2ME]

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.
.

If Jesus is responsible for what John says then Jesus is responsible for John 1:18 which John wrote that 'No man has seen God at any time '. People saw Jesus, thus Jesus is Not his own God, and people lived after seeing Jesus.

I find since John is also the writer of 1 John 4:12 which lets us know that ' No man has seen God at any time ' then according to John and Jesus then Jesus is Not God.

For good measure, I'll conclude with what 'Jesus gave to John' at Revelation 3:12 that the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him.

 

[Skwim]

If Jesus is responsible for what John says then Jesus is responsible for John 1:18 which John wrote that 'No man has seen God at any time '. People saw Jesus, thus Jesus is Not his own God, and people lived after seeing Jesus. I find since John is also the writer of 1 John 4:12 which lets us know that ' No man has seen God at any time ' then according to John and Jesus then Jesus is Not God.

Then how do you explain this?

And
10 Biblical Reasons Jesus Is God

.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Then how do you explain this?
And
10 Biblical Reasons Jesus Is God
.

OR 10 BIBLICAL REASONS JESUS IS ' NOT ' GOD

I explain just as John explained:
1) Jesus did Not lie, so Jesus told the truth at John 10:36 when he said he was the Son of God.
- That would have been the ideal opportunity to tell the Jews he was God if he was.
2) At John 1:18 John wrote that No man as seen God at any time ( that is in harmony with Exodus 33:20)
3) At John 1:49 John wrote that Nathanael believed Jesus is the Son.
4) At John 3:16-18 John wrote that God sent Jesus, and did Not write that Jesus sent Jesus.
5) At John 4:23-24 John wrote that Jesus said true worshippers worship the Father.
6) At John 6:69 John wrote that Peter, as spokesman for the 12, believed Jesus to the Son of God.
7) At John 10:29 John wrote that that Jesus' Father is greater than 'all ' ( all would include Jesus )
8) At John 11:27 John wrote that Martha believed Jesus to be the Son of God.
9) At John 14:28 John wrote that Jesus believed his Father is greater than Jesus.
10) At John 20:31 John concludes that he wrote that we would believe Jesus is the Son of God.

P.S. at Revelation 3:12 the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him.

 

[Skwim]

OR 10 BIBLICAL REASONS JESUS IS ' NOT ' GOD

I explain just as John explained:
1) Jesus did Not lie, so Jesus told the truth at John 10:36 when he said he was the Son of God.
- That would have been the ideal opportunity to tell the Jews he was God if he was.
2) At John 1:18 John wrote that No man as seen God at any time ( that is in harmony with Exodus 33:20)
3) At John 1:49 John wrote that Nathanael believed Jesus is the Son.
4) At John 3:16-18 John wrote that God sent Jesus, and did Not write that Jesus sent Jesus.
5) At John 4:23-24 John wrote that Jesus said true worshippers worship the Father.
6) At John 6:69 John wrote that Peter, as spokesman for the 12, believed Jesus to the Son of God.
7) At John 10:29 John wrote that that Jesus' Father is greater than 'all ' ( all would include Jesus )
8) At John 11:27 John wrote that Martha believed Jesus to be the Son of God.
9) At John 14:28 John wrote that Jesus believed his Father is greater than Jesus.
10) At John 20:31 John concludes that he wrote that we would believe Jesus is the Son of God.

P.S. at Revelation 3:12 the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him.

AND . . .

 

[URAVIP2ME]

AND . . .

...AND... there is No Scripture teaching the ^ above ^. See previous post # 23

 

[Skwim]

...AND... there is No Scripture teaching the ^ above ^. See previous post # 23

Scripture or not, most Christians (70% in one survey) believe it. Just as most Christians believe Sunday as the sabbath is rooted in the Bible, or that the snake in the Garden of Eden was Satan. Now these may be inferred, and typically are, but there isn't any scripture stating them to be true.

But hey, if you don't buy into the trinity, or that Jesus is never a form or aspect of god, then good for you............I guess.

.
.

 

[Neuropteron]

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

---------
You probably are referring to the Gospel of John, since John wrote 3 more letters as well as the book of Revelation.

However since you do not specify which part of the Gospel of John you are questioning I will make the assumption that it is the whole Gospel you find disputable.

It should be considered that John was the Apostle that Jesus "loved" and that Jesus while dying entrusted his mother to him. (Joh 13:23, 19:26)
Of course it could be argued that these statements are made by John himself, however if that were true many eyewitness would have testified to the contrary.

Whilst these statement by themselves do not prove that Jesus was in agreement with all that John wrote in his Gospel the fact that Jesus was alive sitting at the right hand of his father does, since Jesus was in a position to make sure that what John wrote was acceptable.

Additionaly Jesus would not have given John the priviledge of writing the book of Revelation. (Rev 1:1 "A revelation by Jesus Christ which God gave him...)

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

IMHO, Jesus authored via inspiration the 66 books of the Bible. Is there something in John's writing you are concerned about?

 

[pearl]

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?

In each Gospel the moment that Jesus is recognized as the Son of God is moved back. Mark presents Jesus as the Son of God at his baptism, "this is my Son...', Matthew and Luke Jesus is God's Son at conception and birth, and along came John, with his high Christology, Jesus' pre-existence. The synoptics present an 'ascending' Christology, beginning with Jesus' earthly life, John presents a 'descending' Christology from Jesus' pre-existence 'with God',
We have to remember that by all human standards Jesus was a failure, cursed and executed as a criminal, his movement now dead, his followers scattered.

A disgraceful collection of fibs.......... and why would Christians have been so keen to continue visiting Jewish synagogues?

Because they were Jews and the synagogue/temple was the place to hear Scripture. They gathered later to celebrate Eucharist.

So basically G-John lied about the Jews that Jesus loved because Christians didn't like them? A disgrace .....

As stated previously by the time John wrote the Christian sext had been expelled from the synagogue. This meant loosing the protective umbrella they enjoyed within Judaism, they were now open to Roman persecution.

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

True. The Church following instruction given by Vat II has, through its official documents, its homilies and its catechesis, corrected this gross interpretation of John where the Jewish leaders become collectively, the Jews.

 

[Phantasman]

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.

If you follow the catholic orthodox, you will see what they see.If you explore all the Christian writings, you see both sides, then choose.

The chasm of early Christianity is quite plain. Paul showed it in his letter to the Galatians, the Incident at Antioch, and the letter of 1 John. Catholic priests didn't want man to see the difference, hence destroying all books and peoples who didn't accept their ideology. Yet the truth survived. A good start is the Gospels of Thomas and Philip. Unless the fear of learning overcomes you.

(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."
(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."- Gospel of Thomas

There is more to knowing than just "seek and you will find". The forces of evil will scare you the closer you get to truth. Jesus said we must overcome the "troubling" part.

 

[metis]

Catholic priests didn't want man to see the difference, hence destroying all books and peoples who didn't accept their ideology. Yet the truth survived. A good start is the Gospels of Thomas and Philip. Unless the fear of learning overcomes you.

That makes not one iota of sense since some of these books, especially Paul's, were in circulation mid-1st century.

Secondly, what proof can you offer that Gospels of Philip & Thomas are somehow superior to the synoptic's + John's? I can guarantee that you can't provide even one shred of evidence for that belief of yours.

"Opinions" and "facts" are not synonymous terms, so when you cite your "opinions" as if they're "facts", you've fallen off the turnip truck, thus losing all credibility. If you think I'm wrong, put forth your objectively-derived evidence-- not your opinions.


BTW, just to be clear to anyone who doesn't know where I'm coming from, I'm a believer in neither canon.

 

[Phantasman]

That makes not one iota of sense since some of these books, especially Paul's, were in circulation mid-1st century.

Secondly, what proof can you offer that Gospels of Philip & Thomas are somehow superior to the synoptic's + John's? I can guarantee that you can't provide even one shred of evidence for that belief of yours.

"Opinions" and "facts" are not synonymous terms, so when you cite your "opinions" as if they're "facts", you've fallen off the turnip truck, thus losing all credibility. If you think I'm wrong, put forth your objectively-derived evidence-- not your opinions.


BTW, just to be clear to anyone who doesn't know where I'm coming from, I'm a believer in neither canon.

The term "catholic" is used to describe the one God concept. Orthodox is what is termed as the finite ideology starting with the Pharisee's desire to remain celestial authority over man. This is the teaching of the false gospel mentioned by Paul in Galatians 1, and continues in Galatians 2 when Paul addressed Peter for siding with the circumcised (Pharisee's) and fearing their authority. Read it to understand or don't. Google the Incident at Antioch (mentioned in Acts). Paul taught that the flesh profited nothing (as Jesus says in John). The Pharisee's attempted to add OT laws of flesh to the spiritual gospel. It's clear and the Gospels (including Thomas and Philip) teach such. It's just that Thomas and Philip call out the priests in a clearer light than the synoptics that the Catholic church held hostage in Latin for almost 1000 years.The Dark Ages. The Bible was only for the elite priests who could read Latin. Just like attorneys and doctors. Not for common man.

(39) Jesus said, "The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."- Thomas

You either believe Christ said it or you don't. Christ never said to teach the Bible now, did he?

 

[metis]

The term "catholic" is used to describe the one God concept. Orthodox is what is termed as the finite ideology starting with the Pharisee's desire to remain celestial authority over man. This is the teaching of the false gospel mentioned by Paul in Galatians 1, and continues in Galatians 2 when Paul addressed Peter for siding with the circumcised (Pharisee's) and fearing their authority. Read it to understand or don't. Google the Incident at Antioch (mentioned in Acts). Paul taught that the flesh profited nothing (as Jesus says in John). The Pharisee's attempted to add OT laws of flesh to the spiritual gospel. It's clear and the Gospels (including Thomas and Philip) teach such. It's just that Thomas and Philip call out the priests in a clearer light than the synoptics that the Catholic church held hostage in Latin for almost 1000 years.The Dark Ages. The Bible was only for the elite priests who could read Latin. Just like attorneys and doctors. Not for common man.

(39) Jesus said, "The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."- Thomas

You either believe Christ said it or you don't. Christ never said to teach the Bible now, did he?

You avoided the points I put forth as the above simply doesn't directly deal with what I had posted. Your post above is simply a matter of avoidance and delusion. On top of that, your last sentence is 100% hypocritical since you claim your own scriptures are accurate.

 

[Phantasman]

You avoided the points I put forth as the above simply doesn't directly deal with what I had posted. Your post above is simply a matter of avoidance and delusion. On top of that, your last sentence is 100% hypocritical since you claim your own scriptures are accurate.

Blind. I never said accurate, since all scripture is based on faith. I just see a different Gospel message than you, that's all.Because my seeking takes me everywhere, and not inside the box created by orthodoxy.

"Most things in the world, as long as their inner parts are hidden, stand upright and live. If they are revealed, they die, as is illustrated by the visible man: as long as the intestines of the man are hidden, the man is alive; when his intestines are exposed and come out of him, the man will die. So also with the tree: while its root is hidden, it sprouts and grows. If its root is exposed, the tree dries up. So it is with every birth that is in the world, not only with the revealed but with the hidden. For so long as the root of wickedness is hidden, it is strong. But when it is recognized, it is dissolved. When it is revealed, it perishes. That is why the Word says, "Already the axe is laid at the root of the trees" (Mt 3:10). It will not merely cut - what is cut sprouts again - but the ax penetrates deeply, until it brings up the root. Jesus pulled out the root of the whole place, while others did it only partially. As for ourselves, let each one of us dig down after the root of evil which is within one, and let one pluck it out of one's heart from the root. It will be plucked out if we recognize it. But if we are ignorant of it, it takes root in us and produces its fruit in our heart. It masters us. We are its slaves. It takes us captive, to make us do what we do not want; and what we do want, we do not do. It is powerful because we have not recognized it. While it exists it is active. Ignorance is the mother of all evil. Ignorance will result in death, because those who come from ignorance neither were nor are nor shall be. [...] will be perfect when all the truth is revealed. For truth is like ignorance: while it is hidden, it rests in itself, but when it is revealed and is recognized, it is praised, inasmuch as it is stronger than ignorance and error. It gives freedom. The Word said, "If you know the truth, the truth will make you free" (Jn 8:32). Ignorance is a slave. Knowledge is freedom. If we know the truth, we shall find the fruits of the truth within us. If we are joined to it, it will bring our fulfillment"- Philip

The freedom of the orthodox "box". .

 

[metis]

Blind. I never said accurate, since all scripture is based on faith. I just see a different Gospel message than you, that's all.Because my seeking takes me everywhere, and not inside the box created by orthodoxy.

"Most things in the world, as long as their inner parts are hidden, stand upright and live. If they are revealed, they die, as is illustrated by the visible man: as long as the intestines of the man are hidden, the man is alive; when his intestines are exposed and come out of him, the man will die. So also with the tree: while its root is hidden, it sprouts and grows. If its root is exposed, the tree dries up. So it is with every birth that is in the world, not only with the revealed but with the hidden. For so long as the root of wickedness is hidden, it is strong. But when it is recognized, it is dissolved. When it is revealed, it perishes. That is why the Word says, "Already the axe is laid at the root of the trees" (Mt 3:10). It will not merely cut - what is cut sprouts again - but the ax penetrates deeply, until it brings up the root. Jesus pulled out the root of the whole place, while others did it only partially. As for ourselves, let each one of us dig down after the root of evil which is within one, and let one pluck it out of one's heart from the root. It will be plucked out if we recognize it. But if we are ignorant of it, it takes root in us and produces its fruit in our heart. It masters us. We are its slaves. It takes us captive, to make us do what we do not want; and what we do want, we do not do. It is powerful because we have not recognized it. While it exists it is active. Ignorance is the mother of all evil. Ignorance will result in death, because those who come from ignorance neither were nor are nor shall be. [...] will be perfect when all the truth is revealed. For truth is like ignorance: while it is hidden, it rests in itself, but when it is revealed and is recognized, it is praised, inasmuch as it is stronger than ignorance and error. It gives freedom. The Word said, "If you know the truth, the truth will make you free" (Jn 8:32). Ignorance is a slave. Knowledge is freedom. If we know the truth, we shall find the fruits of the truth within us. If we are joined to it, it will bring our fulfillment"- Philip

The freedom of the orthodox "box". .

I'm not interested in your deflection, so I'll just take a pass on the above.

 

[Phantasman]

I'm not interested in your deflection, so I'll just take a pass on the above.

I didn't write it. Suite yourself.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Scripture or not, most Christians (70% in one survey) believe it. Just as most Christians believe Sunday as the sabbath is rooted in the Bible, or that the snake in the Garden of Eden was Satan. Now these may be inferred, and typically are, but there isn't any scripture stating them to be true.
But hey, if you don't buy into the trinity, or that Jesus is never a form or aspect of god, then good for you I..guess.

I would like to reply 70% of 'so-called Christians' or apostate Christians as foretold at Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30.
So, it is the so-called or fake 'weed/tares' Christians that believe 'Sunday' to be the biblical Sabbath.
It was Constantine, Not Scripture, who set us Sunday as a rest day, especially for the farmers.
As far as that 'snake-in-the-grass',so to speak, in Eden, Revelation names who that Serpent is at Revelation 12:9,14.
Satan just used that animal just as a ventriloquist uses his dummy. Satan (Not snakes) will ' bite the dust ' as per Genesis 3:14-15. God was Not talking with an animal, but with Satan whom Jesus, as Messiah, will 'destroy' Satan as per Hebrews 2:14 B. So, Satan will ' bite the dust ' in death's destruction for him.
Good for You Skwim for knowing God is Not a triune or triad God, and that Sunday Sabbath is un-scriptural.

 

[pearl]

It was Constantine, Not Scripture, who set us Sunday as a rest day, especially for the farmers.

As far back as the 50's the 'Lords day' was Sunday, the first day of the week. It was on this day that Christians 'broke bread' and celebrated the Eucharist. But on the Sabbath they attended the Synagogue. Sunday became the 'eighth' day.
http://www.stspyridons.org/the-sabbath-day-sunday-and-the-eighth-day/

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

I agree with the points colored in magenta in one's post.
Regards

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

At John 1:18 John wrote that No man as seen God at any time

But that's not accurate and a casual stroll through the OT will say otherwise. How does God go through a stroll through a garden and converses with people and people can't see Him?

Of course it could be argued that these statements are made by John himself, however if that were true many eyewitness would have testified to the contrary.

Or they wouldn't have mentioned it. Is John the only place where certain things happen?

I've heard it said that if the gospels weren't true, people would've called them out on it. But they clearly DO call out the gospels, and the critics are just accused of working for Satan and that's why Jesus prefers dumb people over educated ones.

Whilst these statement by themselves do not prove that Jesus was in agreement with all that John wrote in his Gospel the fact that Jesus was alive sitting at the right hand of his father does, since Jesus was in a position to make sure that what John wrote was acceptable.

No one can see God, right? Who, then, could see where Jesus was sitting?

In each Gospel the moment that Jesus is recognized as the Son of God is moved back. Mark presents Jesus as the Son of God at his baptism, "this is my Son...', Matthew and Luke Jesus is God's Son at conception and birth, and along came John, with his high Christology, Jesus' pre-existence. The synoptics present an 'ascending' Christology, beginning with Jesus' earthly life, John presents a 'descending' Christology from Jesus' pre-existence 'with God',
We have to remember that by all human standards Jesus was a failure, cursed and executed as a criminal, his movement now dead, his followers scattered.

yup