The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Gospel of John! Day 1 - Chapters 1 - 3
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 9th, 2020 3:59 PM Author: Username13729278 SUMMARY
The world of our experiences came into existence through a creative force that structured the laws, regularities and moral order we see today (Jn 1:3). That creative force is the Word of God (Jn 1:1).
The Word of God took the form of a man (Jn 1:9) called the Son of God (Jn 1:49) so that we could know God through him, live in accordance with his will and understand the meaning of life (Jn 1:13).
The Son of God tells us that to see God’s purpose for life we must be born again (Jn 3:3) and born of the Spirit (Jn 3:5). The Word of God has become a man to die and be raised, to show mankind what it means to be reborn (Jn 3:14-15).
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:15 PM Author: .,.,,..,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,.,:,.,.:.:.,:.::,. can I suggest we do a chapter a day? going to be hard to generate much discussion with 3 chapters in one of the NT's most theologically dense books (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575638) |
 |
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:21 PM Author: Username13729278 There’s no way we’re gonna keep this up for 21 days (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575675) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:31 PM Author: ;..;.;;;.;;.;.;.;;;.;;;.;.;;;....;. Isn't John the least accurate of the 4? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575712) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:40 PM Author: .,.,,..,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,.,:,.,.:.:.,:.::,. views on John's historicity changed a lot in light of the dead sea scrolls--turns out John's Jesus is a lot more similar in language and themes to Palestinian Judaism than was ever thought.
not that it means it's more "accurate" than the synoptics, but the old idea of a "metaphysical"/"hellenized" Jesus in John vs a historical and earthly Jesus in the synoptics is way too simplistic. John is way more deliberate in his selection and presentation of events though (hence it's way more a work of theology than the synoptics). |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:44 PM Author: ;..;.;;;.;;.;.;.;;;.;;;.;.;;;....;. Ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575801) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:49 PM Author: ...,,...,,....,.,.,.,.,...,,,,,,,........,.,.,.,. Agreed. It has been argued that without John, Christianity might have been dismissed as a fad by the intelligensia.
Though I would bat away your suggestion of John's Jesus being similar to the peoples of the Levant. Christ spoke harsh, nasty and disreputable words to the jews, he wasn't a prophet and didn't speak like one: he was bold, presumptous and utterly mystical to those who followed Him.
I don't like historically accurate renderings of Jesus for that reason. He was far more than His human background. |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:22 PM Author: Upset Jew POOP (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575676) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:31 PM Author: ...,,...,,....,.,.,.,.,...,,,,,,,........,.,.,.,. I do desire Jewish women. I fully admit that.
But I desire Christ most of all |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:32 PM Author: Upset Jew Sounds gay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575716) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:37 PM Author: ...,,...,,....,.,.,.,.,...,,,,,,,........,.,.,.,. There's something to be written about the fact that Christ was unlike any other prophet: He was there and yet he wasn't. He was flesh and blood and yet he was also God, who is supposedly incommunicable to humans.
As Christ was at a distance from his followers, so I too believe any righteous Christian should be. The holiest men, in my opinion, are reclusive monks. |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:38 PM Author: Upset Jew pee (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575763) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:42 PM Author: ...,,...,,....,.,.,.,.,...,,,,,,,........,.,.,.,. Desire heightens with reclusion from the tension of the physical world. I fully believe Jesus wanted that desire to remain unfulfilled, as the further it builds the more we make ourselves like Him rather than our fellow men. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575784) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:42 PM Author: Username13729278 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575792) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:43 PM Author: Upset Jew anal (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575797) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:46 PM Author: ...,,...,,....,.,.,.,.,...,,,,,,,........,.,.,.,. I know you will be in heaven, UJTP, some fateful day. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575815) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:52 PM Author: Upset Jew Penis (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575851) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:44 PM Author: .,.,,..,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,.,:,.,.:.:.,:.::,. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575803) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:53 PM Author: Raping Terry Gross (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575870) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:30 PM Author: ...,,...,,....,.,.,.,.,...,,,,,,,........,.,.,.,. The first exegesis (and, also, I think one of the most profound) was written by the infamous Origen, who is the sprout from which Christainity in general, and trinitarianism in specific, grew.
It was on the book of John. Be prepared to be mind fucked around chapters 13-14 and understand why Origen was, arguably, more influential than Paul in spreading The Word.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1015.htm
Edit: Read 1.6-16 if your time is limited |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:42 PM Author: .,.,,..,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,.,:,.,.:.:.,:.::,. i love Origen but this is a ludicrous assessment of his significance (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575787) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:45 PM Author: ...,,...,,....,.,.,.,.,...,,,,,,,........,.,.,.,. Origen was the one from whom Athanasius (and, well, Arius...) plucked ideas and strands of thought from. Many of Origen's teachings (particularly on the Book of John) are wholly original, the same cannot even be said for even Aquinas, who largely gave practical flesh to Pseudo-Dionysius and Aristotle. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575810) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:52 PM Author: .,.,,..,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,.,:,.,.:.:.,:.::,. well I agree with Origen's significance in terms of the development of Christian theology (and ultimately, by extension, the Church's dogmatic teaching on some fundamental matters, though I think it's a mistaken reading to view him as the source of trinitarian thinking), but I don't think the Church was languishing with an indecipherable and foreign gospel before Origen cleared it up. Comparing the missionary impact of Paul and Origen strikes me as absurd but perhaps this is just the protestant in me talking.
as an aside i've long found it hard to think through on terms i feel good about the importance medievals (east and west) placed on Pseudo-D (as they mistakenly thought he was the biblical Dionysius) having read the guy and sensed he's pretty much just a platonist mystic with a little dash of Christianity thrown in. |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 5:07 PM Author: ...,,...,,....,.,.,.,.,...,,,,,,,........,.,.,.,. ((but perhaps this is just the protestant in me talking.))
Somewhat yes, though Luther and John Calvin certainly made very cogent arguments about why Paul was significant and revived an interest in his biblical texts. Itinerant preaching was undoubtedly valuable, but I suppose I was speaking more in terms of giving Christianity its robust philosophical/intellectual content.
Psuedo-D was incredible. Read this quote:
"Timothy, my friend, my advice to you as you look for a sight of the mysterious things, is to leave behind you everything perceived and understood, everything perceptible and understandable, all that is not and all that is, and unknowingly strive upward as much as you can toward union with him who is beyond all being and knowledge.
By an undivided and Absolute abandonment of yourself and everything, shedding all and freed from all freed from all, you will be uplifted to the Ray of the Divine Shadow which is above everything that is."
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Platonism. |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:53 PM Author: Username13729278 I thought Origen was a heretic (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575867) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:56 PM Author: ...,,...,,....,.,.,.,.,...,,,,,,,........,.,.,.,. He was. He spoke of the preternatural existence of the human soul and plenty more. He is also the reason why you're a Christian (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575892) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:58 PM Author: Username13729278 Seems like theres more than1 reason I’m a Christian (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575900) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 5:10 PM Author: ...,,...,,....,.,.,.,.,...,,,,,,,........,.,.,.,. Well not you personally, but the world would not have developed the way it did without Origen. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575958) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:50 PM Author: Username13729278 We are all so tiny and yet we are found entirely complete in Christ. Absolutely incredible (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575841) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:57 PM Author: .,.,,..,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,.,:,.,.:.:.,:.::,. Something incredible about John throughout is that whereas in the synoptics Jesus addresses the crowd, in John he is almost always confronting the individual. Even the famous John 3:16 operates on an individualist basis: that every [_] one who believes, not that all who believe in him.
The individual's confrontation with Jesus is persistent throughout the entire gospel--this coming from a highly collectivist culture, much unlike our own. |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 4:58 PM Author: Username13729278 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575905) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 5:09 PM Author: ...,,...,,....,.,.,.,.,...,,,,,,,........,.,.,.,. 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575951) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 5:29 PM Author: .,.,,..,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,.,:,.,.:.:.,:.::,. John 1 in general is one of my favorite passages of scripture but I'll just focus on a couple verses that I have something to say about (there's a lot going on here though).
1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
- "dwelt among us" is more literally "pitched a tent among us" (David Bentley Hart's recent "pitilessly literal" translation does this), i.e. "tabernacled" among us. It's pretty clear that John 1 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1; some (NT Wright claims this, though I don't know how much support he's got) say Genesis 1 describes the creation of the world as the creation of a temple (intersecting heaven+world). Perhaps the logos's "tabernacling" hints at a new temple theology for the gospel where we enter into the divine presence through [faith in?] Christ's incarnate life. (cf. Ezekiel 43:7?)
- "full of grace and truth" - echoes God's abundance of חֶסֶד and אֶמֶת (i.e., echoes Exodus 34:6). already in the first chapter we have hints that Christ will fulfill the promise of creation found in Genesis and promise of salvation in Exodus |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 5:34 PM Author: .,.,,..,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,.,:,.,.:.:.,:.::,. ok, and the other thing about John 1 that I only recently learned: in the first verse, where we learn that here was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos "was God," the Greek is more ambiguous--it's more like the Logos "was god," and in v.18 it's clear that the son's designation as "god" lacks the definitive modifier (so the son was "a god", not The God).
which is a little confusing and ambiguous but appears intentional as a literary matter: not to get to the punch line too quickly, but Thomas's post-resurrection statement of faith is unambiguous in its proclamation that Christ is both lord and [the] God. |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 5:38 PM Author: ...,,...,,....,.,.,.,.,...,,,,,,,........,.,.,.,. 180000000000000000000000 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40576079) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 5:43 PM Author: Username13729278 i heard something about this once and ignored it because polytheism (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40576096) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 5:46 PM Author: Username13729278 for reference see our jewish bros in their own lively discussion here: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580238&mc=56&forum_id=2#top (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40576111) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 5:53 PM Author: .,.,,..,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,.,:,.,.:.:.,:.::,. i generally like UJTP's willingness to be the antagonist around here and generate inflammatory discussions so I don't mean to harass him but wow. i don't think i've ever seen him so upset. i genuinely wonder if he's had some really terrible experience(s) with christians or the church that have left him MAF.
brother Upset Jew, whatever it is, i am sorry and Christ loves you |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 5:55 PM Author: Username13729278 being rejected by orthos and rejecting the fulfillment of the law must be a very delicate place to balance (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40576155) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 9:13 PM Author: Username13729278 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40577115) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 9:39 PM Author: .,.,,..,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,.,:,.,.:.:.,:.::,. Subject: John 2 The water into wine story is great. I don't want to give it undue seriousness I guess but I've always sensed some profundity to it. You have John 1, this dense theological poetry about the logos rich in allusion to OT theology, and then you have Jesus's first Johannine miracle (/"sign," σημεῖον; John doesn't prefer to talk about "miracles"), then some more theologically significant narrative starting in 2:13 about Jesus and the temple--you'd expect that miracle story to be something expressly theological, but instead it's Jesus restocking the booze at a friend's wedding. John is very judicious in his selection of Jesus's "signs"--there are 7 of them, all contained in chs 2-12.
2:11 closes the story with commentary--that it revealed (ἐφανέρωσεν) Jesus's glory (ἐφανέρωσεν occurs again in John in the final chapter for the resurrected/glorified Jesus's revealing himself) and that as a result his disciples believed (side note that I'll probably mention again--John never talks about "faith," it's always verbed, believe).
What happens in between is poetic in its simplicity. The man may have been Jesus's personal friend (his family is there, as are the 5 followers introduced in ch 1). Wine at weddings was particularly important (of course, it still is now): "gifts" were not the gratuitous thing that we have in our culture, they were part of a web of social obligation (I mean, you could say the same thing about our gifts--but a gift to us need not be reciprocal; indeed, an un-reciprocated gift is a more perfected gift than a reciprocated one). A gift required a responsive gift; one commentator I have open claims wedding gifts had the status of loans that could be recovered in court. The groom's reciprocation was bountiful wine. This guy--maybe he overstretched himself financially, maybe he didn't plan well, maybe Jesus's crew were insane drinkers, whatever--was about to run out. So Jesus changes water into wine; some realize what's going on, some don't, but Jesus's friend is spared major embarrassment and the wedding is able to continue on as a joyous celebration.
Christ's gift is not likes ours; there is no reciprocity and it is found even (or perhaps especially) in the mundane.
(Of course, there's more to the story--Eucharistic overtones, perhaps, and there's perhaps an antitype thing with Moses changing water to blood and salvation happening through destruction while Jesus brings salvation through joy; but I like what's right there in the story: Jesus kicks off his ministry by helping his friend.) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 9:45 PM Author: Username13729278 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40577299) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 9:46 PM Author: .,.,,..,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,.,:,.,.:.:.,:.::,. i hope our Catholic friends can be bothered to join us and read some scripture haha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40577312) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 9:47 PM Author: Username13729278 Haha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40577316) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 10:11 PM Author: gridleysecure Catholics love the Wedding at Cana (a Luminous Mystery). After all, it features our Blessed Mother: “Do whatever He tells you”
And drinking is celebrated. |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 10:15 PM Author: .,.,,..,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,.,:,.,.:.:.,:.::,. Catholics do well with John in general.
i just meant our catholic friends like GJR who proposed this whole bible study thing and now are doing gay shit like "spending time" with their "friends" or something |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 9:52 PM Author: Username13729278 There’s a sense where the historical context can feel like it’s taking away from the miracle, almost like not understanding why the wine is important gives you the sense of wonder youd feel if you saw the miracle itself, or that it narrows the applicability. Although in this case there is a very deep correlation between the free gift of wine from Christ to the desperate and the free gift of gods grace and salvation through Christ.
Regarding the former sense for example I found recently that there is some scholarship that turning the other cheek was a quasi political move having to do with Roman rules about the way to hit someone. I’d have to look, but it was something like if they back hand slapped you it was a sign of disrespect, and if you turned your cheek they then have to slap with their forehand, which was a sign of equality. So the notion that Christ was compelling us towards suffering for the purpose of nonviolent acceptance would miss the more strategic rationale.
That theory was put forward by a shitlib though so who knows, he may be reading into it too critically. |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 10:00 PM Author: .,.,,..,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,.,.,:,.,.:.:.,:.::,. interesting. i hear you in general. commentaries are useful and often essential but too much socio-historical speculation (or even just detail, needn't be speculative) can actually undermine the text. (re: sermon on the mount, that doesn't sound plausible textually to me--i think the whole nonviolent suffering as a means of kingdom-building thing is pretty unavoidable--but someday i'll probably look into it.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40577388) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 10:03 PM Author: Username13729278 Ty for your comments friend very enriching (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40577402) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 10:38 PM Author: gridleysecure But why did He not world the miracle before they had filled the water pots, which would have been much more wonderful; inasmuch as it is one thing to change the quality of some existing substance, another to make it that substance out of nothing? The latter miracle would be the more wonderful, but the former would be the more easy of belief. And this principle often acts as a check, to moderate the greatness of our Lord’s miracles: He wishes to make them more credible, therefore He makes them less marvelous; a refutation this of the perverse doctrine of some, that He was a different Being from the Maker of the world. For wesee He performs most of His miracles upon subject-matter already existing, whereas were He contrary to the Creator of the world, He would not use a material thus alien, to demonstrate His own power. He did not draw out the water Himself which He made wine, but ordered the servants to do so. This was for the sake of having witnesses of the miracle; And He said to the m, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. Or thus; It might be said that the guests were drunken, and could not, in the confusion of their senses, tell whether it were water or wine. But this objection could not be brought against the attendants, who must have been sober, being occupied wholly in performing the duties of their service gracefully and in order. Our Lord therefore bid the attendants bear to the governor of the feast; who again would of course be perfectly sober. He did not say, Give to the guests to drink. Our Lord wished the power of His miracles to be seen gradually; and therefore Hedid not reveal what He had done Himself, nor did the ruler of the feast call upon the servants to do so; (for no credit would have been given to such testimony concerning a mere man, asour Lord was supposed to be,) but He called the bridegroom, who was best able to see what was done. Christ moreover did not only make wine, but the best wine. And (the ruler of the feast) said to him, Every man at the beginning does set forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but you have kept the good wine until now. The effects of the miracles of Christ are more beautiful and better than the productions of nature. So then that the water was made wine, the servants could testify; that it was made good wine, the ruler of the feast and the bridegroom. It is probable that the bridegroom made some answer; but the Evangelist omits it, only mentioning what it was necessary for us to know, viz. the water being made wine. He adds, This beginning of of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee. It was very necessary to work miracles just then, when His devoted disciples were all collected, and present at the place, attending to what was going on. ID. Should any say that there is notsufficient proof of this being the beginning of miracles, because it is added, in Cana of Galilee, as if some had been preferred elsewhere: we answer, as we did before, that John says below, That He might be made manifest to Israel, therefore have I come baptizing. Now if Hehad performed miracles in the earlier part of His life, the Jews would not have wanted another person to point Him out. If our Lord in a short time became so distinguished for the number of His miracles, that His Name was known to every one, would He not have been much moreso, had He worked miracles from His earliest years? for the things themselves would have been the more extraordinary, being performed by a Child, and in so long a time must have become notorious. It was fit and proper however that He should not begin to work miracles atso early an age: for men would have thought the Incarnation a fantasy, and in the extremity of envy would have delivered Him to be crucified before the appointed time.
-John Chrysostom |
|
Date: July 9th, 2020 10:34 PM Author: gridleysecure As if she said, Though He appear to refuse, He will do it nevertheless. She knew His pity and mercifulness. And there were set there six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Hydriae are vessels to hold water: hydor being the Greek for water.
At the time of our Lord’s appearing in the flesh, the sweet vinous taste of the law had been weakened by the carnal interpretations of the Pharisees.
-Bede |
|
Date: July 10th, 2020 10:16 AM Author: Username13729278 Just to wrap up with Chapter 3 - maybe we should slow down if potluck is going to drop chapter specific bombs - it might be worth mentioning the importance of being "born again" of the "spirit" (Jn 3:3-5)
In many traditions and most notably evangelicalism being born again is a dramatic event in which the believer, in prayer, repents and put faith in Christ for their salvation. In the order of salvation, this takes place (for reformed evangelicals) after God's unilateral work of regenerating the unbeliever's heart.
In some traditions, most notably the Wesleyan and Pentecostal traditions, baptism by the holy spirit is a important and distinct concept. In both the concept corresponds to a second event in a believer's life - a "second blessing" - after having been born again. This is another dramatic event in which the holy spirit descends on the believer in prayer and, secondarily, seals the believer's heart. This spiritual (perhaps mystical) event is also associated with equipping the believer with spiritual gifts that enable subsequent acts of christian ministry. |