[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.45 MB, 1800x2697, Gospel_John.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18693660 No.18693660 [Reply] [Original]

>read the synoptic gospels
>feels like I'm reading jewish scripture, some parts are interesting but I'm mostly underwhelmed, bored even
>read pic related
>feel genuinely moved
John was based. Reading the Apocalypse next.

>> No.18693917

It's basically just Greek philosophy with Jesus. I'm surprised Luther didn't ban it.

>> No.18693933

>>18693917
Doesn't it encapsulate Jesus' message accurately though? After all John wouldn't be the "beloved" apostle if he wasn't particularly close to Jesus and his teachings.

>> No.18693948

>>18693933
Jews were very hellenized at this point.

>> No.18693959

>>18693948
Just that the composers of the Bible were elite jews trained in greek tradition, probably didnt even live in Palestine

>> No.18694264
File: 960 KB, 800x565, 1615825583971.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18694264

>>18693959
Are there any books on such a theory? Sounds interesting and plausible

>> No.18694643
File: 29 KB, 333x499, C853DBAB-3742-4D3C-A9A6-544CB1416A95.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18694643

>>18693959
Exactly

>> No.18694676

>>18694643
retard

>> No.18695564

John is a Gnostic Gospel but was kept in the Canon. Read the other Gnostics.

>> No.18695592

>>18695564
>John is a Gnostic Gospel
Marcion didn't even include it in his canon, what makes you say that?

>> No.18695770

>>18695592
bump

>> No.18695792

>>18695592
Gnostic themes and tropes throughout.

>> No.18695809

>>18695792
It goes against docetism which as I understand is prevalent throughout gnostic doctrine. Although it's less focused on Jesus' fulfillment of the law compared to the synoptic gospels, I believe that is still mentioned during Jesus' dialogues with the Pharisees. If we're talking about gnostic tropes, there are no references to hidden knowledge either, and John makes a point of reaffirming the importance of faith (rather than knowledge as you'd expect from a gnostic gospel) in some of the most commonly quoted passages.

>> No.18696061

>>18693660
You have to remember that they were writing to different audiences, with different emphases. I would suggest going back to the other ones, especially Matthew, and trying to see the same Christ throughout each one. It creates a really fascinating interplay.

For example, in Luke when Jesus says
>Now this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing
After reading John it just hits so much harder. The God-man is really right there. Everything has changed.

>> No.18696065

>>18695792
Gnosticism is a later invention.

>> No.18696090
File: 1006 KB, 247x185, 94982717-0C19-4FD2-A5D6-0C80E37FACD1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18696090

>>18696065
Hahahhah aahhh. Heh
A later term

>> No.18696371

>>18695564
If it were ever a Gnostic gospel (Cerinthus'?) it has been thoroughly worked over by another hand to keep it orthodox. But see Pagels' The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis where she provides a plausible Gnostic interpretation of the text.

>> No.18696517

>>18696065
"Gnosticism" is original Christianity.

>> No.18696560

>>18696517
Thats totally false, none of the dyadic philosophy or identification of YHWH with an evil, idiotic creator was original to Christianity, and Christ never taught it. It doesn't show up in the Shepherd or the Didache, it doesn't show up in the canons, and the later "Gospels" that support these views clearly contradict the writings of the Apostle Paul.

>> No.18697093

>>18695809
Probably the best defence of anon's post is that John represents a growth toward themes that would later reach their fulfillment in Thomas and the later Gnostic gospels. Bart Ehrman takes this stance in "Heaven and Hell."

>> No.18697121
File: 154 KB, 698x900, crucifixion-gabriel-metsu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18697121

Reminder that John's account of the Passion is likely to be highly accurate since John himself was actually there.

There's a reason the Church has always given it pride of place on Good Friday.

>> No.18697126

Joyce said his spiritual food was all found in St. John's gospel. To be sure, St. John does seem to have the same general beliefs as the three synoptics, but no one else had written the gospel with such a pure ascendant spirit, combined with Greek intellectual thought.

>> No.18697144

>>18697093
>Probably the best defence of anon's post is that John represents a growth toward themes that would later reach their fulfillment in Thomas and the later Gnostic gospels.
That has to be wrong because John seems to have had a particular theological purpose in mind when composing his gospel. It seems that he was actually trying to refute proto gnosticism. Hence doubting Thomas feels the Corpus Christi, and you see the water spill out of the side wound, to say that the weapon really did pierce him, as flesh.

>> No.18697166

>>18696560
>Christ never taught it
You funny guy. It was envisioned as a mysteries cult. The authors where Greek and Greek influenced. Left the way it is leaves open huge gaps and contradictions. As one studies to become a priest, one is introduced to its higher truths.

On the one hand (in Rome) it was inclusive with women, as inclusive as Roman women get anyway. On the other (in Greece) it was elitist because of the mysteries cult aspect. Too confusing for some of the later church “fathers”, actually second generation children who didn’t like the complexity of the first draft. (And the more inclusiveness of women) so they denounced it and censored it into near oblivion. Exactly the way they’d forge accounts of the messianics in Nero’s time. “Ah, well they mean us, of course!”

>> No.18697974

Mathew was written to the jews, and John to the Greeks. Luke was inspired by Mark not being thorough enough so he did his own research and wrote down what he found out.

>> No.18698180

>>18696560
Paul was a grifter.
These views existed at the same time as Christ himself.

>> No.18698314
File: 72 KB, 418x640, ErjqDrtW4Ag45Ex.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18698314

>>18697974
The real fun comes when you dig into the theory that one of Luke's sources was Mary herself. That's why Luke is the only Gospel with the stories of the Annunciaton and the Visitation, and why it's the only Gospel with a story of Jesus as a child. Who could have related those stories if not for Mary? Joseph was long dead.

It's also why Luke's account of the Penitent Thief merits consideration. If Mary was a source of Luke's Gospel, then she, too, was at the foot of the Cross, and could have heard the Good Thief's confession.

>> No.18698342

>>18695564
It really isn't, God is the God of the Old Testament in it. It is more overtly influenced by Greek philosophy than the synoptics which is why there is more overlap with gnosticism which was also heavily Greek-influenced.

>> No.18698856

>>18696517
A lesser divinity who is malevolent or opposed to Jesus can be found in early Christianity, but it isn't YHWH. Ceritnus is one example of a (Torah observant) Gnostic who held such views.

>> No.18698860

>>18698856
*Cerinthus