[size=8pt][/size]In the Gospel of John in the Bible, we see a departure from the traditional norms of the synoptics, in fact we see a transformation of Christ.  This transformation takes us from the Judaic idea of a chosen people's messiah, to a Wisdom, that pervades all things and all people.  Like other Greek philosophical constructs: beauty, wisdom, and truth, Christ, as the Logos, becomes God.

By the early second century it became clear that for Christianity to expand and gain acceptance, it needed to appeal to the Greek speaking world. To meet the needs of the Greek public some adjustment had to be made. Christianity was addressing itself in Jewish terms. A Greek who felt like becoming a Christian was called upon to accept Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah. He would naturally ask what this meant and would have to be given a short course in Jewish apocalyptic messianic thought. Was there no way in which he might be introduced directly to the values of the Christian salvation without being forever routed through Judaism? Must Christianity always speak in a Jewish vocabulary? What then was to be the approach?

We see in John a desire to use Greek pagan concepts and philosophies as a tool for communicating to a Christianized Gentile audience. The Gospel of John would not be understood by Jews and his book would only be familiar to someone familiar with the pagan cults that flourished in the Hellenistic world. Heraclitus of Ephesus used the word Logos around 500 BCE to describe his concept of the regularity with which the universe seemed to operate. The universe was a divine machine and Heraclitus credited the Logos (literally the reason) as the ultimate rationale which secretly operated the universe and the heavens above.
The writer of John (who was almost certainly Greek and clearly despised the Jews) needed a ‘’big bang’’ therefore we see the introduction of the philosophy of the Logos in the prologue of the Gospel of John which begins by proclaiming Philo's triumphant ditty:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ,  The same was in the beginning with God ,  and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father [God]." (John 1:1-14)

The Jews would not have had a clue what he meant but his Greek audience understood him perfectly.

Throughout the Gospel we see the author’s use of imaginary conversations to appeal directly to his audience, for instance, Nicodemus misunderstands the teaching of Christ that one must be "born from above" or again to enter the kingdom of God. Taking Jesus quite literally, Nicodemus asks, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (3:4). As with the conversation with the woman of Samaria by Jacob’s well,  the allegorist-minded reader can smile along with the author of John and rest assured that as one "chosen" they can understand the message of Jesus although Nicodemus does not. These concepts, deeply rooted in Greek Philosophical thoughts and pagan religion were crystal clear to the Greek audience.

John was written for the Greek Christian of the beginning of the second century. Those recent converts were more educated, wealthy, and despised the Diaspora Jews who resided in their cities. John removes the offensive references to Jesus as a Jewish Messiah that are particular to the earlier gospels in order to present the Logos in more palatable form. In so doing, John creates a simulacrum that is barely human. The earlier Synoptic traditions are emphatic in presenting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, descendent of David, and eschatological messenger of the end of the world where God collects his Chosen People. John removes the unpleasantness of Jewish geneaology as well as all references to Palestinian and Davidic descent.
As for Heraclitus, who propounded the thoughts of ‘’Panta rei,’’ ’’ everything flows’’, and the’’ Logos’’, once the Church had succeeded in adapting the concept of the ‘’Logos’’ or ‘’Word’’ to mean Christ, he was promptly declared a heretic….for his troubles.

John ,unlike other disciples didn't focus on the glamour and story and deed of Jesus . His focus was on the revelations of truth that Jesus taught . He knew the doctrine of Jesus .no wonder he was jesus's best friend .

Ansel1:

[size=8pt][/size]In the Gospel of John in the Bible, we see a departure from the traditional norms of the synoptics, in fact we see a transformation of Christ.  This transformation takes us from the Judaic idea of a chosen people's messiah, to a Wisdom, that pervades all things and all people.  Like other Greek philosophical constructs: beauty, wisdom, and truth, Christ, as the Logos, becomes God.

By the early second century it became clear that for Christianity to expand and gain acceptance, it needed to appeal to the Greek speaking world. To meet the needs of the Greek public some adjustment had to be made. Christianity was addressing itself in Jewish terms. A Greek who felt like becoming a Christian was called upon to accept Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah. He would naturally ask what this meant and would have to be given a short course in Jewish apocalyptic messianic thought. Was there no way in which he might be introduced directly to the values of the Christian salvation without being forever routed through Judaism? Must Christianity always speak in a Jewish vocabulary? What then was to be the approach?

We see in John a desire to use Greek pagan concepts and philosophies as a tool for communicating to a Christianized Gentile audience. The Gospel of John would not be understood by Jews and his book would only be familiar to someone familiar with the pagan cults that flourished in the Hellenistic world. Heraclitus of Ephesus used the word Logos around 500 BCE to describe his concept of the regularity with which the universe seemed to operate. The universe was a divine machine and Heraclitus credited the Logos (literally the reason) as the ultimate rationale which secretly operated the universe and the heavens above.
The writer of John (who was almost certainly Greek and clearly despised the Jews) needed a ‘’big slam’’ therefore we see the introduction of the philosophy of the Logos in the prologue of the Gospel of John which begins by proclaiming Philo's triumphant ditty:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ,  The same was in the beginning with God ,  and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father [God]." (John 1:1-14)

The Jews would not have had a clue what he meant but his Greek audience understood him perfectly.

Throughout the Gospel we see the author’s use of imaginary conversations to appeal directly to his audience, for instance, Nicodemus misunderstands the teaching of Christ that one must be "born from above" or again to enter the kingdom of God. Taking Jesus quite literally, Nicodemus asks, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (3:4). As with the conversation with the woman of Samaria by Jacob’s well,  the allegorist-minded reader can smile along with the author of John and rest assured that as one "chosen" they can understand the message of Jesus although Nicodemus does not. These concepts, deeply rooted in Greek Philosophical thoughts and pagan religion were crystal clear to the Greek audience.

John was written for the Greek Christian of the beginning of the second century. Those recent converts were more educated, wealthy, and despised the Diaspora Jews who resided in their cities. John removes the offensive references to Jesus as a Jewish Messiah that are particular to the earlier gospels in order to present the Logos in more palatable form. In so doing, John creates a simulacrum that is barely human. The earlier Synoptic traditions are emphatic in presenting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, descendent of David, and eschatological messenger of the end of the world where God collects his Chosen People. John removes the unpleasantness of Jewish geneaology as well as all references to Palestinian and Davidic descent.
As for Heraclitus, who propounded the thoughts of ‘’Panta rei,’’ ’’ everything flows’’, and the’’ Logos’’, once the Church had succeeded in adapting the concept of the ‘’Logos’’ or ‘’Word’’ to mean Christ, he was promptly declared a heretic….for his troubles.

whats all this gibberish about !!!!

whats all this gibberish about !!!!

Gibberish indeed, Clearly its over your head, just move on i'd like to keep this thread a muppet free zone !

The FOOL says in his heart there is no GOD !!

Joagbaje:

John ,unlike other disciples didn't focus on the glamour and story and deed of Jesus . His focus was on the revelations of truth that Jesus taught . He knew the doctrine of Jesus .no wonder he was jesus's best friend .

I am not at all sure the writer of John's Gospel was Jesus' best friend athough he uses the word ''beloved'' several times. In the first instance the book is dated to around 140AD which timeframe takes him out of the lifetime of Christ. The clues are in the actual Greek texts he wrote, he knows very little about semitic culture and values and his use of Greek colloqualisms indicate the writer was Greek. What we do know is that he had access to Paul's letters. You are right though, he focused mainly on the message of Christ, his Gospel is a leaner and meaner version of the synoptics (keeping his audience in mind) Theologically, along with Paul's letters it forms the basis for the worship of Christ as practised today.

Joagbaje:

John ,unlike other disciples didn't focus on the glamour and story and deed of Jesus . His focus was on the revelations of truth that Jesus taught . He knew the doctrine of Jesus .no wonder he was jesus's best friend .

Stop wasting your time with these conceited haughty souls , walking about as blind as bats in utter darkness.

They deserve no answers but prayer , because Satan has already hardened their foolish minds with mutual consent.

^^^

<sigh> And there i was thinking that mongols had a complete monopoly over idiocy.

@ansel
You are very knowledgeable and very articulate in your presentation. Please try to publish a book on this subject. Our people have nothing to elevate their minds.

frosbel:

whats all this gibberish about !!!!

As expected.You are well known. We know that you are allergic to any sort of uplifting knowledge. This is way above your little foggy hatred-filled brain.POOR YOU.

^^

What a wonderful response

@ansel

u re wrong 2 say the gospel of John was written in 140CE ,d gospel was actually written in 98 CE.

the gospels written in the second century were mostly gnostic gospels like the gospel of truth,gospel of marcion e.t.c St Ireneaus of Lyons n 180 CE in his classic treatise 'against heresies defined the authentic four gospels while at the same time anathemised the spurious gospels.The final books of the bible was finally decided by the synod of Hippo in 393 CE and further ratified by the council of carthage in 397CE

u re wrong 2 say the gospel of John was written in 140CE ,d gospel was actually written in 98 CE.

You could well be right, it is a matter of conjecture depending on your source. What we do know is that none of the evangelists was a contemporary of Jesus and no contemporary wrote an eyewitness account. Little of significance was written down about Jesus and his followers until after the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 and if the year 30 is accepted for the death of the son of God, then Mark, the first author of the Gospels wrote his book at a minimum of 40 years after the crucifixion of Christ, likely later. Ireneaus (c115-202) wrote that he obtained information from people who knew John, indicating he would have been a contemporary of the writer.

.The final books of the bible was finally decided by the synod of Hippo in 393 CE and further ratified by the council of carthage in 397CE

The final book being the Book of Revelations, a cornucopia of prose, verse and imagery, on a purely literary basis probably the most beautifully written book of the scriptures. It was considered so outlandish it only just made it by the skin of its teeth !

@ansel
You are very knowledgeable and very articulate in your presentation. Please try to publish a book on this subject. Our people have nothing to elevate their minds.

Many thanks

frosbel:

Stop wasting your time with these conceited haughty souls , walking about as blind as bats in utter darkness.

Bats get around alright in utter darkness. Better that some people in full daylight.

globexl:

@ansel
You are very knowledgeable and very articulate in your presentation.

Actually I was a bit disappointed. His post was full of claims without back up.

Ansel1:

I am not at all sure the writer of John's Gospel was Jesus' best friend athough he uses the word ''beloved'' several times. In the first instance the book is dated to around 140AD which timeframe takes him out of the lifetime of Christ. The clues are in the actual Greek texts he wrote, he knows very little about semitic culture and values and his use of Greek colloqualisms indicate the writer was Greek. What we do know is that he had access to Paul's letters. You are right though, he focused mainly on the message of Christ, his Gospel is a leaner and meaner version of the synoptics (keeping his audience in mind) Theologically, along with Paul's letters it forms the basis for the worship of Christ as practised today.

What is the evidence for John's gospel being written around 140AD? or where did you hear it?

What greeks text did he write that demonstrated a lack of knowledge of semitic culture?

Which were the greek colloquialism that point to his being greek?

How do we know that he had access to Paul's letters?

The OP is to a considerable extent a copy and paste job anyway.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/gospel_john.html


http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=584&C=819


etc etc etc actually

Ansel1:

The final book being the Book of Revelations, a cornucopia of prose, verse and imagery, on a purely literary basis probably the most beautifully written book of the scriptures. It was considered so outlandish it only just made it by the skin of its teeth !

Revelation is great but on a purely literary basis I would pick the poetic books for most beautifully written. Feel free to deem these easy nominations, though. Now, it would be hard to pick one but in terms of poetry, elevated language, imagery, high drama and exquisite prose, I think Job is in a class of its own. Aristotle won't buy the ending but I will say the writers had it all laid out right from the prologue, such that the audience or reader is not left asking "hee, jus now?" the way a typical Yoruba movie leaves you. And not in outlandishness can even the Revelation compete.

[Quote]« #4 on: Yesterday at 01:40:33 PM »

Grin

The FOOL says in his heart there is no GOD !!
[/Quote]And the most foolish say God is more than 1 or that God is human or God is an idol.

Copy and paste ideas. Anywhich way you look at any of God's Word, God is preached. The gospel is for the whole earth/world.

Image123:

Copy and paste ideas. Anywhich way you look at any of God's Word, God is preached. The gospel is for the whole earth/world.

It sure is a bad thing to be copying and pasting without acknowledging your sources. But that does not on its own vacate op's ideas, does it? I have learnt some things from those who have addressed the ISSUES in op. So what do you think of this idea that the gospel accounts in the Bible were third-party accounts?

Copying and poasting other people's ideas and passing them off as your own and even accepting praise and adulation for them is fraud!

Here, the story about one of the evangelical atheists' (and anti-Christians') fancy boys and his plagiarism (though he does write some decent stuff on some issues to be fair).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/14/johann-hari-apologises-orwell-prize

MyJoe:

It sure is a bad thing to be copying and pasting without acknowledging your sources. But that does not on its own vacate op's ideas, does it? I have learnt some things from those who have addressed the ISSUES in op. So what do you think of this idea that the gospel accounts in the Bible were third-party accounts?

To be sincere MyJoe, i don't think of this idea. i already have what i need, plus you've already read from the thinkers and 'i think' they've done an ok job.

Enigma:

Copying and poasting other people's ideas and passing them off as your own and even accepting praise and adulation for them is fraud!

Yeah. You repeated what I already said. By the way, I wasn't referring to your post, since I think it is good you exposed plagiarism as you have apparently done. ("Apparently" because I have not clicked on the links to confirm for myself.) But once that was done there was hardly any need for re-revealing it without contributing anything to the thread. And in no way does the apparent plagiarism here vacate the issues raised, which Joagbaje, Chukwudi44 and Pastor AIO have faced squarely.

Image123:

To be sincere MyJoe, i don't think of this idea. i already have what i need, plus you've already read from the thinkers and 'i think' they've done an ok job.

@bolded
Fair enough.

MyJoe:

Yeah. You repeated what I already said. By the way, I wasn't referring to your post, since I think it is good you exposed plagiarism as you have apparently done. ("Apparently" because I have not clicked on the links to confirm for myself.) But once that was done there was hardly any need for re-revealing it without contributing anything to the thread. And in no way does the apparent plagiarism here vacate the issues raised, which Joagbaje, Chukwudi44 and Pastor AIO have faced squarely.

I don't have any problems with the people who want to discuss the "issues" doing so and I have not stopped anyone doing so. For me personally, the OP simply induces one big fat yawn as there is nothing new to me in it. In fact, after reading only a few words of the OP I knew straightaway that it was lifted; reading further revealed that it was a patchwork of copy and paste. The poster simply re-ordered paragraphs from the materials plagiarised and changed one or two words here and there e.g. "shift" and "transformation".

Irrespective of any discussion of the "issues" the question of plagiarism is very pertinent on the thread and the credibility of the poster is shot to smithereens.

For one blogger's perspectives on plagiarism in the Johann Hari case, here is a piece in which the writer even goes as far as describing such actions as stealing.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/09/unethical-journalism

MyJoe:

Yeah. You repeated what I already said. By the way, I wasn't referring to your post, since I think it is good you exposed plagiarism as you have apparently done. ("Apparently" because I have not clicked on the links to confirm for myself.) But once that was done there was hardly any need for re-revealing it without contributing anything to the thread. And in no way does the apparent plagiarism here vacate the issues raised, which Joagbaje, Chukwudi44 and Pastor AIO have faced squarely.

So you're talking to me ke e?
Anywhich way you look at any of God's Word, God is preached. The gospel is for the whole earth/world.
That's a contribution na. There has to be re-revealing so that defaultees will tremble and run. It's like one person shouting thief to a whole street shouting thief, there's a cooler effect in the later.

^^^Ok, brother. I guess that's a way of looking at things.

For cross-reference: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-751299.32.html#msg9157536