Explain This Passage to Me, Please.

[yeshaberto]

Where else in the Gospels does Jesus imply that he is the only way to get saved?

Mt 11:27  "All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Ac 4:12  "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
(I know, not the gospels)

otherwise, the overarching theme of the new testament is this truth

[Dr. SeaWolf]

How literally SHOULD one take the Gospel of John?  I think I remember hearing in an interview with Bart Ehrmann that it's the most "suspect" of the gospels, from a scholarly perspective.

Well, I didn't say "literally."  I said "seriously."  But I can see where the confusion would arise.

Well then, how "seriously" should one take the Gospel of John?

[bosk1]

Are you asking Hef specifically, or anyone?

[Quadrochosis]

How literally SHOULD one take the Gospel of John?  I think I remember hearing in an interview with Bart Ehrmann that it's the most "suspect" of the gospels, from a scholarly perspective.

Well, I didn't say "literally."  I said "seriously."  But I can see where the confusion would arise.

Well then, how "seriously" should one take the Gospel of John?

It's the Gospel of Christ, so for me, a Christian, I take it as truth.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

Are you asking Hef specifically, or anyone?

Well, I'm aware that most Christians take it very seriously, and most non-Christians don't take it very serious at all.  I know Hef has unorthodox opinions regarding the Bible, so I was asking him I suppose.

[bosk1]

I thought you might be; that's why I asked.  FWIW, I've heard some arguments from more liberal scholars about why it is supposedly "questionable," such as John supposedly have Jesus' trial, crucifixion, and death on different days than in the other gospels, but on close examination, I don't find those arguments to hold much water.  That's my take, anyway.

[ZBomber]

Wasn't the gospel of John written LONG after the others?

[Quadrochosis]

Wasn't the gospel of John written LONG after the others?

I don't think so.

[ack44]

Wasn't the gospel of John written LONG after the others?

 Certainly the latest of the four.

[Quadrochosis]

Wasn't the gospel of John written LONG after the others?

 Certainly the latest of the four.

I think this is true, but it was still within like 50 or 70 years of Christ's death.

[ZBomber]

Wasn't the gospel of John written LONG after the others?

 Certainly the latest of the four.

I think this is true, but it was still within like 50 or 70 years of Christ's death.

That's still a really long time.

[Adami]

Wasn't the gospel of John written LONG after the others?

 Certainly the latest of the four.

I think this is true, but it was still within like 50 or 70 years of Christ's death.

Which would make the author between 80 and 100 years old.

[ZBomber]

Wasn't the gospel of John written LONG after the others?

 Certainly the latest of the four.

I think this is true, but it was still within like 50 or 70 years of Christ's death.

Which would make the author between 80 and 100 years old.

Or not even born yet in the time of Jesus.

[Adami]

Sure.

[ack44]

Wasn't the gospel of John written LONG after the others?

 Certainly the latest of the four.

I think this is true, but it was still within like 50 or 70 years of Christ's death.

Which would make the author between 80 and 100 years old.

 When they say such and such a book is how old they're usually talking about when the final editing stage was complete, so if 'the loved one' had a hand in writing this he wouldn't have to be that old.

[Adami]

A good point.

[hefdaddy42]

Personally, I don't hold the Gospel of John very highly.  It's just too different from the Synoptics, both in its historical details and its presentation of Jesus as a person, and his message.  It has a much more advanced Christology than the Synoptics, and appears to be a much later work.  I mean, sure, it's nice, and probably contains some truth, but I don't think it is The Truth.

But that's just me, and I realize that I'm in the minority, and I certainly don't expect anyone to change their minds based on my opinion.

[emindead]

To me, John is the most beautiful of the Gospels. Brilliantly well written.

[yeshaberto]

I love John because of it's simplicity...for one, as a fisherman, the uneducated side of John comes out in his multiple use of the same terms, his lack of varied vocabulary and his emphasis on simple themes (love, truth, etc).  and yet, despite its simplicity, it contains one of the most profound vss (IMO) in all of Scripture (John 1:1-18).

[Jamesman42]

Personally, I don't hold the Gospel of John very highly.  It's just too different from the Synoptics, both in its historical details and its presentation of Jesus as a person, and his message.  It has a much more advanced Christology than the Synoptics, and appears to be a much later work.  I mean, sure, it's nice, and probably contains some truth, but I don't think it is The Truth.

But that's just me, and I realize that I'm in the minority, and I certainly don't expect anyone to change their minds based on my opinion.

Why can't TGOJ be different and still be The Truth? Different perspectives and differences in time would definitely account for some variations. I'd expect it.

But is your main assumption in the details of events or what? I'm just wondering, because your opinion is such a minority.

[hefdaddy42]

To me, John is the most beautiful of the Gospels. Brilliantly well written.

I agree with you that it is the most beautiful, and brilliantly well-written.

Personally, I don't hold the Gospel of John very highly.  It's just too different from the Synoptics, both in its historical details and its presentation of Jesus as a person, and his message.  It has a much more advanced Christology than the Synoptics, and appears to be a much later work.  I mean, sure, it's nice, and probably contains some truth, but I don't think it is The Truth.

But that's just me, and I realize that I'm in the minority, and I certainly don't expect anyone to change their minds based on my opinion.

Why can't TGOJ be different and still be The Truth? Different perspectives and differences in time would definitely account for some variations. I'd expect it.

But is your main assumption in the details of events or what? I'm just wondering, because your opinion is such a minority.

It's not a minority among scholars.  It's just a minority among laypeople.

Basically, John presents a different Jesus than the Synoptics.  In the Synoptics, Jesus refuses to prove his identity by performing miracles, that is precisely the reason for his miracles in John (see 2:1-11; 4:46-54; 20:30).  In the Synoptics, Jesus's message revolves around the coming of the Kingdom of God, and rarely speaks about himself; in John, he speaks about nothing but himself, and barely mentions the Kingdom at all.  John is the only gospel to record Jesus's "I am" sayings ("I am the Light of the World;" "I am the Bread of Life;" and importantly "I and the Father are one." 

In John, Jesus is presented as a teacher, a prophet, and a messiah sent to die for the sins of the world, just as in the synoptics; however, in John he is also the one who reveals God, and he is the embodiment of God's very Word, through which the universe was created and by which all living things have life; those who believe in Jesus have eternal life, while those who reject Jesus come under God's judgement; those who see Jesus have seen the Father, and he is God's presence on Earth.  All of that is only found in John.

[Vivace]

bösk1 pointed out this in another thread and got me curious on something:

(...) Jesus and his Apostles preached that the only, exclusive way a person can be saved is through Jesus.  John 14:6:  "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (...).

1. There's no other way getting into Heaven if it is not by Jesus?
2. How literal must we take this passage then?

The Church believes the only way to Heaven is through the Son so yes the passage is correct. How literal? Well... it's pretty clear so there really isn't anything to point out but let's remember something here, The Church still believes that salvation can exist outside of the Church. Whether or not that means Christ is present in some form in all religions or there is some other explanation is beyond me, but the Church did excommunicate a priest back in '48 who taught that The Church is the ONLY place for salvation. But yes, the passage is basically what you see is what you get. There is no salvation except through Christ. Now let's not go and take that into the wrong context. What I just said is what the Church considered infallible dogma. We know this is infallible because as you pointed out, this is exactly what Christ said. So now we have to understand it.

[Philawallafox]

To me, John is the most beautiful of the Gospels. Brilliantly well written.

I agree with you that it is the most beautiful, and brilliantly well-written.

(I don't understand how quoting works on here yet so please bear with me if I screw this up.)

John is brilliantly written but so is the whole bible.

Personally, I don't hold the Gospel of John very highly.  It's just too different from the Synoptics, both in its historical details and its presentation of Jesus as a person, and his message.  It has a much more advanced Christology than the Synoptics, and appears to be a much later work.  I mean, sure, it's nice, and probably contains some truth, but I don't think it is The Truth.

But that's just me, and I realize that I'm in the minority, and I certainly don't expect anyone to change their minds based on my opinion.

You're right i does have a very specific focus of Jesus as God. because that's the purpose it was written for. Each of the Gospels have their own spin on them. They are none of them any less the word of God though. So remember that next time you read it and instead of criticising it for it's differences think along the lines of "What is John's purpose in doing things differently to the other gospels?" He was one of the 3 inner disciples after all.

Why can't TGOJ be different and still be The Truth? Different perspectives and differences in time would definitely account for some variations. I'd expect it.


But is your main assumption in the details of events or what? I'm just wondering, because your opinion is such a minority.

It's not a minority among scholars.  It's just a minority among laypeople. [proof please]

Basically, John presents a different Jesus than the Synoptics.  In the Synoptics, Jesus refuses to prove [proof please] his identity by performing miracles, that is precisely the reason for his miracles in John (see 2:1-11; 4:46-54; 20:30).[i'm inclined to disagree with you here but I'll wait for that]  In the Synoptics, Jesus's message revolves around the coming of the Kingdom of God, and rarely speaks about himself; [proof please] in John, he speaks about nothing but himself, and barely mentions the Kingdom at all.  John is the only gospel to record Jesus's "I am" sayings ("I am the Light of the World;" "I am the Bread of Life;" and importantly "I and the Father are one."

[or "I am before Abraham was"] - I don't see how that discounts it from canonicity. Each gospel has it's distinctives. Only Matthew has such a Jewish focus and the sermon on the Mount. should we disregard that passage from Matthew because it doesn't appear in Mark of Luke or John? Only Luke has medical language. Only Mark has some of Jesus Aramaic phrases in aramaic (Epphatha - Mk 7:34) and refers to the palace of Pilate as the "Praetorium" (Mk 15:16)

In John, Jesus is presented as a teacher (Mt 8:19, 9:11 Mk 4:38, 10:17 Lk 7:40, 10:45 for example), a prophet (where is he a "prophet" in John?), and a messiah (Mk 14:60)  sent to die for the sins of the world, just as in the synoptics; however, in John he is also the one who reveals God (let's ignore Mk's account of the transfiguration shall we? Mk 9:2-11), and he is the embodiment of God's very Word, through which the universe was created and by which all living things have life; those who believe in Jesus have eternal life, while those who reject Jesus come under God's judgement; those who see Jesus have seen the Father, and he is God's presence on Earth.  All of that is only found in John.
[/quote]

Well for starters, I'm not sure what to make of your statement of Jesus as the Embodiment of God's word. You're taking that from John 1:14? You're missing the third statement of vs 1 "and the word was God" this is John's way of telling us that Jesus is God. Mark does this in 2:28 and any time he quotes Jesus calling himself the "Son of Man" which is a refenece to Daniel 7. Matthew refers to Jesus as God whenever he says that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy (usually from Isaiah) Mt 12:17 for one example. Also Mk 14:61-2 is pretty explicit. And Mk 8:38.

i'm trying to find the passage reads from Isaiah on the scroll and says "today this scripture is fulfilled in your presence" or something like that. but at the moment I can't find it.

By the way. John was written about 30 years after Christ, before the temple was destroyed in AD 70

and in reply to the OP it's pretty explicit. no one can come to the father except through Jesus.

If I might expand on that for a second. Jesus is talking about how his righteousness (he never sinned and being God himself he didn't have original sin which we get through Adam) was transferred or "imputed" onto us. He's saying that without his death no one can have eternal life.

EDIT: Sorry about messing with the quote formatting... do you just have to wait until the end of the quote to talk to avoind looking like the person you're responding to wrote several essays?