Is John the Apostle immortal?

[amorphous_constellation]

I feel asleep to a reading of the gospel of John. As I woke up, I was met with the ending lines from the reader, (which I always found extremely spooky) where Jesus was talking to Peter, and then Jesus referred to the probable immortality of John. I guess the argument that he is immortal, would stem from the fact that Jesus had not yet 'returned' in the way that he supposedly would in the book of Revelation

And also, the apostles would likely not have read the book of revelation, to know that this might have been the kind of 'return' that Jesus was talking about. As well, when John talks about the 'books that would fill the world about Jesus,' and that almost would seem like a vision of the future, where John is constantly having adventures with Jesus on earth, since his mortality would have lapsed.

I would suppose that the immortal John would be a world traveler, learning new languages and changing dialects as history progressed, and hiding in the remote areas of countries, or finding a way to blend in.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I read that book, it was quite entertaining.

 

[1213]

I feel asleep to a reading of the gospel of John. As I woke up, I was met with the ending lines from the reader, (which I always found extremely spooky) where Jesus was talking to Peter, and then Jesus referred to the probable immortality of John. I guess the argument that he is immortal, would stem from the fact that Jesus had not yet 'returned' in the way that he supposedly would in the book of Revelation
...

Please show the scripture and explain why do you think it is about John?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Please show the scripture and explain why do you think it is about John?

John 21:22-23

They argued about what Jesus meant when jesus and peter left the area, but the thing is, they were often very wrong when they talked among themselves about what he meant. They thought he meant things far more literally than he did. Take the example of the 'beware the bread' passage, where they thought he was talking about literal bread or yeast.

 

[The Hammer]

No one but the Gods are immortal.

 

[exchemist]

I feel asleep to a reading of the gospel of John. As I woke up, I was met with the ending lines from the reader, (which I always found extremely spooky) where Jesus was talking to Peter, and then Jesus referred to the probable immortality of John. I guess the argument that he is immortal, would stem from the fact that Jesus had not yet 'returned' in the way that he supposedly would in the book of Revelation

And also, the apostles would likely not have read the book of revelation, to know that this might have been the kind of 'return' that Jesus was talking about. As well, when John talks about the 'books that would fill the world about Jesus,' and that almost would seem like a vision of the future, where John is constantly having adventures with Jesus on earth, since his mortality would have lapsed.

I would suppose that the immortal John would be a world traveler, learning new languages and changing dialects as history progressed, and hiding in the remote areas of countries, or finding a way to blend in.

I don't think that is what it means. As always, the context is important. These verses follow Jesus's prophecy to Peter that he, Peter, would face martyrdom. Jesus says to Peter that he is to "follow" him, i.e. to follow Jesus all the way to death by crucifixion.

Peter then asks "What about him?" pointing to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" - traditionally thought to be John the Evangelist. Jesus says, "If I should want him to stay behind, what is that to you?", meaning, "If I don't want him to follow me to martyrdom, that does not change what I want from you, Peter."

At least, that would be my reading of this passage. So, nothing to do with immortality. But I agree it is rather enigmatic and obscure.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

These verses follow Jesus's prophecy to Peter that he, Peter, would face martyrdom. Jesus says to Peter that he is to "follow" him, i.e. to follow Jesus all the way to death by crucifixion.

I don't know that peter would have inferred that, or that the whole group would have inferred that, by the short conversation, at least not immediately. Again, the group never seemed to understand what Jesus meant immediately upon hearing him, and it's possible that writer of the gospel, supposedly John himself, might have only 'understood' what it meant when peter finally died.

Peter then asks "What about him?" pointing to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" - traditionally thought to be John the Evangelist. Jesus says, "If I should want him to stay behind, what is that to you?", meaning, "If I don't want him to follow me to martyrdom, that does not change what I want from you, Peter."

And then the disciples debate what that meant after the two had physically walked away somewhere. And again, they are often wrong. And they would have no way of knowing how what he said would be fulfilled. They often want to interpret the things Jesus said very literally, when the gospels seem to show that he never meant anything in a way that was not obscure

 

[Wildswanderer]

No one but the Gods are immortal.

Everyone has an immortal soul.

 

[exchemist]

I don't know that peter would have inferred that, or that the whole group would have inferred that, by the short conversation, at least not immediately. Again, the group never seemed to understand what Jesus meant immediately upon hearing him, and it's possible that writer of the gospel, supposedly John himself, might have only 'understood' what it meant when peter finally died.



And then the disciples debate what that meant after the two had physically walked away somewhere. And again, they are often wrong. And they would have no way of knowing how what he said would be fulfilled

Verse 19 makes clear that the evangelist knew exactly what Jesus meant by his prophecy of Peter's death.

As for what he says about (supposedly) John, the disciples debated at the time what he meant, but the evangelist goes on to point out that it did not necessarily imply immortality.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Verse 19 makes clear that the evangelist knew exactly what Jesus meant by his prophecy of Peter's death.

It is clear that he would have known what that meant at the time of the writing, but what about at the time it actually occurred

As for what he says about (supposedly) John, the disciples debated at the time what he meant, but the evangelist goes on to point out that it did not necessarily imply immortality.

There's something about that which doesn't seem conclusive, because is doesn't explicitly include the input of Jesus on the matter. They all seem like they are left to puzzle with it

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Everyone has an immortal soul.

And in Christianity, is not everyone's flesh also immortal? For it seems like the new testament wants to keep them both intact, when resurrection occurs

 

[exchemist]

It is clear that he would have known what that meant at the time of the writing, but what about at the time it actually occurred



There's something about that which doesn't seem conclusive, because is doesn't explicitly include the input of Jesus on the matter. They all seem like they are left to puzzle with it

Peter clearly had an idea of what Jesus meant for him. But yes, maybe not even the evangelist knew what Jesus' remarks about him signified, until later.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And in Christianity, is not everyone's flesh also immortal? For it seems like the new testament wants to keep them both intact, when resurrection occurs

We get new bodies they way I read it.

 

[The Hammer]

Everyone has an immortal soul.

I don't disagree. But that doesn't include personality imo.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

We get new bodies they way I read it.

And is that 'new flesh' actually immortal, in some sense?

I don't disagree. But that doesn't include personality imo.

Are you saying that 'personality' would be subject to change, if it went on forever with the body and/or soul?

 

[The Hammer]

Are you saying that 'personality' would be subject to change, if it went on forever with the body and/or soul?

The "you" today, is not the "you' of yesterday.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And is that 'new flesh' actually immortal, in some sense?

Yes we will receive glorified bodies like Christ.

 

[1213]

John 21:22-23
....

Ok, thank you!

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Peter clearly had an idea of what Jesus meant for him. But yes, maybe not even the evangelist knew what Jesus' remarks about him signified, until later.

As to the whole thing we peter, to be honest with you, it's an extremely spooky moment. Why does he need to be martyred to glorify god? Didn't jesus stop the need for that kind of thing? It's like he's a de-facto human sacrifice. The whole weird mood of that section, the weird 'hypnotic' dialogue from jesus, the strange sudden arc from metaphor to perhaps literal speech, all of this seems meant to disorient, and it makes me uneasy.

In my opinion, as someone who tries to generally read these things historically, I'm apt to believe that this particular section was perhaps superimposed from elsewhere in the roman empire. The dialogue and mood seems like it could fit right onto some kind of 1st century cult, involving human sacrifice. Please don't be offended, I am just being completely honest with you. I could be wrong

I honestly don't understand what justified martyrdom in early christianity, if Jesus already did the job

 

[exchemist]

As to the whole thing we peter, to be honest with you, it's an extremely spooky moment. Why does he need to be martyred to glorify god? Didn't jesus stop the need for that kind of thing? It's like he's a de-facto human sacrifice. The whole weird mood of that section, the weird 'hypnotic' dialogue from jesus, the strange sudden arc from metaphor to perhaps literal speech, all of this seems meant to disorient, and it makes me uneasy.

In my opinion, as someone who tries to generally read these things historically, I'm apt to believe that this particular section was perhaps superimposed from elsewhere in the roman empire. The dialogue and mood seems like it could fit right onto some kind of 1st century cult, involving human sacrifice. Please don't be offended, I am just being completely honest with you. I could be wrong

I honestly don't understand what justified martyrdom in early christianity, if Jesus already did the job

OK two points here. The hypnotic nature of that passage is something that I think crops up in all the gospel accounts of Christ after the Resurrection. It's clear he is portrayed as not the same as before - for instance appearing and disappearing. But also, St. John's gospel, being written later than the synoptic gospels, has more mystical theology in it, e.g. famously the prologue, "In the beginning was the Word....etc"

The idea of sacrifice, primitive though it may seem, is at the heart of Christianity. Jesus was a human sacrifice of course. But, like Jesus, the early martyrs were put to death, not by each other as in a human sacrifice cult, but by unbelieving authorities who were trying to stamp out the new religion.