/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16265549]

How come the gospel of John contains no parables? Are parables something "Mark" just made up?

[Anonymous No.16265561]

>>16265549
Out of the four, John was well known to be the weird one, and out of the four gospels, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke are relatively similar, John is way out there in terms of how different his gospel is compared to the others

[Anonymous No.16265755]

>>16265549
John was the last (true) Gospel written, so he left out a lot of the things that were in the Synoptic Gospels because he knew that they were already written

[Anonymous No.16266776]

>>16265549
Mark is considered the earliest (If you don't consider Thomas to be) and most historically reliable of the Gospels, and a lot of it was borrowed by the authors of Mathew and Luke. John was rather late and I can't remember if it used Mark, Matt, or Luke as its source. Either way it's more likely John has made up aspects to it.

[Anonymous No.16266815]

>>16266776
Thomas is heresy. Matthew was one of Jesus's Apostles, so that's his source for his Gospel. The same is with John and his Gospel. Luke got his Gospel from what he learned about Jesus through Paul.

[Anonymous No.16266897]

>>16265549
The purpose of John is not so much to teach us about Jesus’s teaching or how he taught his disciples. John himself states near the end that his purpose for writing his gospel was to give a first hand account of Jesus’s miracles so that people would believe that he is the Messiah and God himself.

Ironically, Jesus feels also the most human in John because he’s talking like anyone else would, whereas his parable discourses in the other gospels, although also important, are mainly there for teaching aspects, but when Jesus wasn’t teaching, he talked like you would expect him to as in John. It’s kind of like how a college professor will speak academically during a lecture, but then talks casually outside of class. So you feel like you can relate more to Jesus in John which is of course what Jesus wanted in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16266949]

>>16266897
imo, Jesus sounds almost autistic in John. Especially in chapter 8 with his whole exchange with the Jews. Socratically autistic. But I guess that's just really the gnostic aspect seeping in. He really seems to be talking about the father of the Jews as though the OT God is in fact a lesser being, a mere demiurge.

[Anonymous No.16267003]

>>16266949
>gnostic

See John 18:20
> Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
>and in secret have I said nothing.

Gnosticism was all about secret teachings only available to a select few. Not to mention that gnostic doctrines contradicts biblical doctrines, neither of which John does.

[Anonymous No.16267146]

>>16266949
Gospel of John's Jesus is the GOAT, all his I AM passages are fire

[Anonymous No.16267187]

>>16265549
The Gospel of John contains many parables. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.16267204]

>>16266815
Not even fundamentalist theologians believe that.

[Anonymous No.16267254]

>>16267204
I don't care what fundamentalists believe. The Catholic church teaches that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Matthew and John were Apostles, Mark wrote his Gospel after hearing Peter's speeches, and Luke wrote his after traveling sometime with Paul

[Anonymous No.16267275]

>>16267254
>The Catholic church teaches that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
False.

[Anonymous No.16267297]

>>16267275
You can argue that they weren't written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but that is what the Catholic stance is

[Anonymous No.16268612]

I was told an interesting perspective when I asked the deacon about who the target audiences were for the Gospels and he said that the Gospel of John is advanced Christianity.