Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

I and the Father are one.

The Word became flesh.

God sent His only Son into the world that He might save
the world.

Blessed are those who believe who have not seen.

    Deeply doctrinal and spells out clearly the plan of salvation.  It
    touches more in detail the purpose of Christs coming, his death and
    resurrection.
    
    -Jack

    
    Definitely the most mystical of the 4 Gospels.
         
    Cindy

The Gospel of John is a fascinating piece.  More like an essay than
an attempt at a chronological account, John opens with an audacious
affirmation deliberately and undeniably paralleling Genesis 1.1.

John's first reference to the Christ is as "the Logos," a multi-leveled
word, exquisite in its complexity, most often translated into English as
"the Word."

Because of possible interpretations of the first few verses, some
have suspected John's gospel to be the work of a Docetist or a Gnostic.
Others have pointed out what seems to be the influence of ancient Stoicism
in John's portrayal of Jesus.  I won't burden you with the details.

There are 4 accounts of what we have come to call communion in the Bible.
Not one of them, however, is found in John.  In fact, very few events
recorded in the Synoptic gospels have a corresponding account in John.
Those that do include the feeding of the multitudes and the so-called
cleansing of the Temple (John, however, places this event at the beginning
of Jesus ministry, rather than at the end).

John tells us Jesus didn't baptize (with water):
  John 4:1-2  When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard
  that Jesus made and �baptized� more disciples than John,
  (Though Jesus himself �baptized� not, but his disciples,)

Peace,
Richard

	to present:  Christ as Life.


ace

I was reading John 5 and 6 the night before last.

The message I got was very clear:  Jesus is THE ONE
to follow.

First, John points out in 5:18 that Jesus was making himself
equal to God the Father in the eyes of the Jews who
persecuted him when he called God his own Father.  Jesus
never denies this, but rather affirms the intense closeness
of their relationship.  In fact, Jesus claims to have power
that was only for the Father - to give life and death and
all judgment.

Then Jesus goes on to his main message:  "whoever hears my word
and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be
condemned; he has crossed over from death to life (5:24).

Then Jesus notes the work that the Father has given him
to finish (which is the reason He is here).  He throws in a
passing comment about their belief that eternal life is found
in the Scriptures.  He does not deny this; rather he points out
that the Scriptures discuss *him* and that they *still* do not
recognize him.

Then Jesus goes back to who He is in the middle of chapter 6.
In verse 29, it says, "The work of God is this: to believe in
the one he has sent."  In verse 32-33, Jesus replies, "I tell you
the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven,
but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.  For 
the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life
to the world."

"I am the bread of life.  ...  For my Father's will is that everyone
who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life,
and I wqill raise him up at the last day.  ...  I tel lyou the
truth, he who believes has everlasting life.  I am the bread of
life.  ...  If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever.
This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the
world.

Jesus - Son of God
Jesus - God
Jesus - the one to believe for eternal life
Jesus - will give his life for the world 

Collis

I noticed recently (actually, my wife pointed it out) that John contains
no parables, at least, not in the sense that the synoptic Gospels do.
Curious.

Peace,
Richard

    I am finally getting to study John.  Unfortunately we will only spend
    two weeks on John which is impossible.  It's also heading into the
    Christmas season and the end of the class where I just want to be done.
    I am not going to decipher the hidden meaning of John in this one
    introductory class.
    
    I have learned though, that the Gospel we have is not the original
    Gospel of John.  It has been extensively edited to make it more
    acceptible to the early Orthordox Christian Community.  It faced
    charges of Docetism and Gnosticism by the early church.
    
    My exegisis this semester will be on the first part of the prologue to
    John.  I am reading a book on Sophia and the Johanine community.  It
    identifies three sources for John's "Logos",  Gnosticism, Philo, and
    Hebrew Wisdom Literature.  It rules out Gnosticism, Identifies Philo as
    having the same source as John, and concludes that Logos originates
    with Hebrew Wisdom Literature.  It then asks the impact of the
    transformation of the Feminine Wisdom to the Male Jesus.  Was this
    deliberate?  Was Gender a major factor when the Gospel was written? 
    What impact does this transformation have on the potrayal of women in
    the Gospel of John?  I have only read the first chapter of the book so
    I do not know the authors conclusion.
    
    I am enticed into the discussion though.
    
    
                                   Patricia

 Will you share the "original gospel of John" with us?






Jim

    The conclusion that the Gospel as it is is not the original is based on
    Redaction Criticism of the existing Gospel.  
    
    Forms Criticism identifies the sources or forms of the Gospel and
    studies the individual Forms.  For instances Mark and "Q" are
    identified as early sources of the other Gospels.
    
    Redaction Criticism analysis the existing Gospel to understand the
    editing done by the final or successive editors.  The theology of the
    editors can be inferred from the editing.
    
    The Gospel of John was written for the Johanine community which was
    very separate and different from the mainstream Christian communities
    of the late first century.  1,2, & 3, John were also written, probably
    by a different author for the same community.
    
    Interesting, the High Christology of John, the Christology that
    emphasizes the Divine nature of Christ above the Human nature of Christ
    has become dominant in many modern Christian Churches.  What appears to
    me to be more cultic in the First/Second century has become the
    dominant strain in current Christianity.  The Johanine community
    continued to fragment with one group adopting practices much more
    spiritual and much less physical.  In my opinion, this group became a
    gnostic Christian group and was eventually excluded from Orthordox
    Christianity.   Orthordox Christianity evolved from the simple
    Christology of Mark to the higher Christology of Matthew.  With the
    evolution to a higher Christology and more doctrinaire Christology, the
    John tradition became more of an integral part, with the Gospels of
    Luke and Mark playing a lessor role.
    
    All this of course is my interpretation.  I have a long way to go
    before I will be confortable asserting my interpretation authoritavily. 

    p.s.
    
    Some of the  Andover Newton Community may find me as much of a heretic as
    some of you do!
    

 But where is this "original Gospel of John" that has been extensively
 edited?  Whoever came to that conclusion must have had something by
 which they could compare it.




 Jim

    Jim,
    
    I'm sorry that Biblical Studies is not as neat, precise, and fool proof
    as you would like it to be.
    
                                          Patricia

Note 793.8

>   It faced
>   charges of Docetism and Gnosticism by the early church.

Most definately.  The Gospel of John and the Revelation were two most
hotly debated texts to considered during the canonization process.
    
>   Philo, and
>   Hebrew Wisdom Literature.  It rules out Gnosticism, Identifies Philo as
>   having the same source as John, and concludes that Logos originates
>   with Hebrew Wisdom Literature.

Also see topic 900.

>   It then asks the impact of the
>   transformation of the Feminine Wisdom to the Male Jesus.  Was this
>   deliberate?  Was Gender a major factor when the Gospel was written?

The Gnostics granted equal authority to women.

>   What impact does this transformation have on the potrayal of women in
>   the Gospel of John?  I have only read the first chapter of the book so
>   I do not know the authors conclusion.
    
It is my own sense that Luke is the most feminist of the four gospels.

Shalom,
Richard

>    Some of the  Andover Newton Community may find me as much of a heretic as
>    some of you do!

re.8

	Patricia,

	I've found that understanding any book of the Bible is greatly impaired
by the veils of natural thought, philosophies, and traditional christian
teachings. Those veils must first be removed, then we must be granted a spirit
of wisdom and revelation (Ephesians 1:17). Nothing else works.

regards,
ace

    John 1 uses the term "Lamb of God" twice.  Is this term used elsewhere
    in the Bible?
    
    What does this term imply?
    
    Was a human sacrifice required to appease God?
    
    Is Christ identified as  "The lamb of God"  essential to Christianity?

    Patricia,
    
    The term "Lamb of God" refers to the typology of Christ in the Passover
    Lamb.  Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians, "Christ our passover is sacrificed
    for us.  Therefore let us keep the feast."  In the account of the first
    Passover, you may recall, the final plague was being unleashed by God. 
    Unlike the previous plagues which did not effect the Israelites, this
    one required a specific action on the part of the Israelites to
    sanctify them from the Egyptians, the application of the blood to the
    door of the home (it was applied to both sides and the top).  If the
    Israelite left the home then he was effectively stepping outside of the
    protective covenant and without protection from the death angel. 
    Jesus Christ is the Paschal Lamb.
    
    Was a human sacrifice require to appease God?  I don't think that I
    would phrase it that way but I can understand the thought process. 
    Because of sin, man is separated from God.  A lot has been said in this
    conference about the "All-Lovingness" of God but God is also holy and
    just and, I think it's in Malachi, where it is said that God can not
    abide in the presence of sin, it is repulsive to Him.  God instituted
    the sacrificial system as a means of reconciliation between man and God
    but it was never intended as a permanent system (meaning the
    sacrificing of animals).  When Jesus Christ came and offered Himself as
    a perfect sacrifice, the writer of Hebrews tells us that, it was once
    and for all, final.  As Jesus said, "Tetelestai", translated in the AV,
    "It is finished", it was more commonly used in commercial circles to
    mean, "Paid in full".  Was sacrifice required?  Yes, but not as an
    appeasement but for an atonement and for reconciliation.  Did it have
    to be a human sacrifice?  Again, Hebrews says that the blood of bulls
    and goats were inneffective and temporary.  The sacrifice of the Lord
    Jesus Christ was both fully effective and permanent.
    
    Not having my Bible with me I can not verify where else the term might
    be used.  I hope I have been helpful.  I will now retreat back to my
    hole.
    
    Kent
    

    Patricia, this is in addition to what Kent stated.
    
>    John 1 uses the term "Lamb of God" twice.  Is this term used elsewhere
>    in the Bible?
    
Genesis 22:8
And Abraham said, my son, GOD will provide himself a *Lamb* for a burnt
offering: so they went both of them together.

Genesis 22:13
And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a *Ram* caught
in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him
up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

    It is obvious from what Abraham is saying that he knew God would
    provide a Lamb to atone for our sins.  This wasn't fulfilled by verse
    13 since that is a Ram.
    
Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is
brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb,
so he openeth not his mouth.
    
    The entire 53rd chapter of Isaiah is Messianic.  This was also
    referenced in Acts 8:32.
    
I Peter 1:19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without
spot:

    There are several passages in Revelation that refer to Christ as "The
    Lamb," always with uppercase L too.  Chapters 5-7 have many references,
    a few I've provided here.
    
Revelation 5:6
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and
in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven
horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all
the earth.

Revelation 5:8
And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell
down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of
odours, which are the prayers of saints.

Revelation 5:12
Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power,
and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

Revelation 5:13
And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth,
and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing,
and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and
unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Revelation 7:10
And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon
the throne, and unto the Lamb.

Revelation 19:7
Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the
Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

Revelation 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither
whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in
the Lamb's book of life.

Revelation 22:1
AND he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding
out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Revelation 22:3
And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall
be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

>    What does this term imply?
    
    Like Kent stated, it refers to the perfect, unblemished, Passover Lamb,
    which God provided per Genesis 22:8, who's blood was shed to cover and 
    atone for our sin.  There was no other worthy alternative.
    
>    Was a human sacrifice required to appease God?
    
Hebrews 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of
blood is no remission.

Hebrews 10:18
Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

    It is no accident that the OT sacrificial system disappeared after the
    resurrection of Christ.  There is no need for it now.  "Paid in Full"
    has been stamped by God.  Interestingly enough, the OT sacrificial
    system is a wonderful picture of God's love and grace in that He
    temporarily allowed animal's blood to cover our sin.  This happened
    once a year on Yom Kippur.  God Himself took care of it so that the sin
    was removed, not just covered.
    
>    Is Christ identified as  "The lamb of God"  essential to Christianity?
    
    I believe it is as important as the price paid on the Cross itself
    since you can't really separate the two.  All the Passover lambs were
    raised in Bethlehem, which is where the Lamb of God was born.  When
    Christ entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, the palms and robes were used
    to cover the road because this is the same exact road the Passover
    lambs were brought into Jerusalem from Bethlehem.  The Lamb of God
    spent the next few days with His disciples as the Passover lambs were
    being used as a pet to the Hebrew families.  The Lamb of God was slain
    and His blood shed at the same time Hebrew families sacrificed their
    lambs to celebrate Passover.  
    
    Finally, but just as important, Jesus died on Calvary, which is on the
    same mountain ridge (overlooking the Kidron Valley) in Jerusalem where 
    Abraham was going to sacrifice his only begotten son Isaac.  This is
    the same mountain ridge where God promised He would provide Himself the
    Lamb.  All of these beautiful facts are powerful in both the literal
    and figurative sense.  Christ fulfilled His role as the Lamb of God 
    perfectly.
    
    Mike

    This is a test on the Gospel of John,
    
    Who was the first disciple called by Jesus?
    
    Who was the first disciple to reach Jesus' tomb after the resurrection?
    
    Who was the first disciple to see the empty tomb and state his Belief?
    
    Which disciple was rumored would live forever based on Jesus' remarks?
    
    Who were the disciples at the transfiguration?
    
    How do these answers differ from the 'orthordox' tradition?
    
    
                                       Patricia

    By the way,  I had a great class on John last night.
    
    
    Try answering the questions from memory before looking up the answers
    in John.  You may be surprised!  The class was last night!
    
    
                                      Patricia
    
    

Orthodox tradition agrees with the Gospel of John, that Andrew was the
first Apostle and the first Evangelist, having been called first and
bringing his brother, Simon Peter.

/john

    Bzzzz.
    
    Wrong answer! 
    
    Read again carefully and tell me how you come to your conclusions?  (:-)

These verses from John 1 seem to support Andrew as being the first disciple.




John 1:37  And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 



John 1:40  One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was 
Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. 



John 1:41  He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We 
have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 

    
    So from those versus we know that the First disciple was either Andrew
    or the unnamed disciple.  We know that the unnamed disciple was not
    Peter.
    
    Patricia
    

Note 793.20
    
I'm afraid I know the answer to any of them from memory.

According to John, as I recall, Mary Magdalene was the first to whom
the Risen Christ appeared.  Does she count as a disciple even though
she wasn't one of the twelve?

Shalom,
Richard

re .25

Yes, so what's the problem?  What is wrong about the answer?

Andrew was the first.  Did John follow Christ at the point he first
heard him, or was he called later?  He does not say.

/john

    Who said anything about John?
    
    Are you assuming that John is the unnamed Disciple?
    
    The point is the apostolic church called Peter as its Leader and the
    Johanine Church called the unknown disciple whom tradition has later
    named John as the leader.
    
    Now, Richard, I would love to make the case the Mary of Magdelon was
    the unknown disciple, whom Jesus loved, but even I couldn't make that
    argument.
    
    I do recognize that it is pretty unanimous in the Gospels that the
    women including Mary Magdelon were the first witnesses to the
    resurrection.
    
    In most of the gospels the Women are the only disciples that do not
    desert him at the cross.
    
    Of course in John, guess what Male disciple is at the Cross with Jesus?
    
    And in John, guess which disciple accompanies Jesus to the High Priest
    as Peter wimps out?
    
    This unnamed disciple, the one whom Jesus Loved is the clear leader in
    the Gospel of John.  His leadership established in the Gospel of John,
    clearly conflicts with the Orthordox view that Peter was the leader.
    
    The orthordox view has dominated so well, that many of us read John
    without even being aware of contradiction.
    
                                     Patricia          
    

>    I do recognize that it is pretty unanimous in the Gospels that the
>    women including Mary Magdelon were the first witnesses to the
>    resurrection.
    
    which makes the resurrection even more believable.  The testimony of
    women weren't acknowledged in any form in the courts of those days.  If
    you made up the story of the resurrection, you certainly wouldn't have
    women as your primary witnesses to convince people of its truth.
    
    Mike

    Which is potrayed in the gospels.  The real witnesses had to bring in
    the men to acknowledge the event.
    
    

John was the leader of the Johanine community, just as others were
leaders of their local communities.

But the Gospel of John clearly shows the primacy of Peter.  For example,
see John 21:15-19.

/john

        John,

    Do you mean Johannine?  (You made me learn how to spell Isaiah remember!)

    Chapter 21 is a late addition to the Gospel of John to make it more
    acceptable to the apostolic community.  The Gospel of John in no way
    shows the primacy of Peter but the primacy of the unknown disciple whom
    Jesus Loved!
    
    Patricia