Similiarities to Jesus - very misguided?

[deltasigma]

…

[deltasigma]

@Steken

I haven’t paid much attention to recent scholarship on Gnosticism and Gnostic themes etc. (haven’t read the new Van Den Broek book, for one thing) but my understanding was that the scholarly consensus these days is that the Gospel of John is not a Gnostic text. Am I wrong here?

And what’s this about it almost not making it into the canon? This, too, is new to me.

I think there is still an ongoing debate about that but I defer to others who are more erudite in these matters. I can refer you to this quote in wikipediaan its links.

Though not commonly understood as Gnostic, many scholars, perhaps most notably, Rudolf Bultmann, have forcefully argued that the Gospel of John has elements in common with Gnosticism.[7] Christian Gnosticism did not fully develop until the mid-2nd century, and so 2nd-century Proto-Orthodox Christians concentrated much effort in examining and refuting it.[87] To say John’s Gospel contained elements of Gnosticism is to assume that Gnosticism had developed to a level that required the author to respond to it.[88] Bultmann, for example, argued that the opening theme of the Gospel of John, the pre-existing Logos, was actually a Gnostic theme. Other scholars, e.g. Raymond E. Brown have convincingly argued that the pre-existing Logos theme arises from the more ancient Jewish writings in the eighth chapter of the Book of Proverbs, and was fully developed as a theme in Hellenistic Judaism by Philo Judaeus.
Comparisons to Gnosticism are based not in what the author says, but in the language he uses to say it, notably, use of the concepts of Logos and Light.[89] Other scholars, e.g. Raymond E. Brown have argued that the ancient Jewish Qumran community also used the concept of Light versus Darkness. The arguments of Bultmann and his school were seriously compromised by the mid-20th century discoveries of the Nag Hammadi library of genuine Gnostic writings (which are dissimilar to the Gospel of John) as well as the Qumran library of Jewish writings (which are often similar to the Gospel of John).
Gnostics read John but interpreted it differently than non-Gnostics.[90] Gnosticism taught that salvation came from gnosis, secret knowledge, and Gnostics did not see Jesus as a savior but a revealer of knowledge.[91] Lindars asserts that the gospel teaches that salvation can only be achieved through revealed wisdom, specifically belief in (literally belief into) Jesus.[92]
Raymond Brown contends that “The Johannine picture of a savior who came from an alien world above, who said that neither he nor those who accepted him were of this world,[[17:14]] and who promised to return to take them to a heavenly dwelling[[14:2–3]] could be fitted into the gnostic world picture (even if God’s love for the world in 3:16 could not).”[93] It has been suggested that similarities between John’s Gospel and Gnosticism may spring from common roots in Jewish Apocalyptic literature.[94]
](Gnosticism - Wikipedia)

When I was in school, which was quite a while ago, it was pretty well accepted by the non-sectarian faculty there that John had gnostic influences. It was not considered a gnostic work though or it never would have been canonized. But I believe there was controversy about its being accepted into the canon.

[deltasigma]

As to the canonization, there was a huge struggle against gnosticism in the early church by church fathers like Irenaeus, Athanasius and others. That’s probably why the books of the Nag Hamadhi library were buried - to save them from being destroyed. So anything that even hinted at being gnostic in origin was likely to be purged. That’s why it’s something of a miracle that the Johannine writings made it into the canon - since IIRC they all seem to share this gnostic flavor. But I’m honestly not sure about the epistles. I think that’s true of Revelation though.

[Steken]

@deltasigma

As to the canonization, there was a huge struggle against gnosticism in the early church by church fathers like Irenaeus, Athanasius and others. That’s probably why the books of the Nag Hamadhi library were buried - to save them from being destroyed. So anything that even hinted at being gnostic in origin was likely to be purged. That’s why it’s something of a miracle that the Johannine writings made it into the canon - since IIRC they all seem to share this gnostic flavor. But I’m honestly not sure about the epistles. I think that’s true of Revelation though.

With respect, though, my understanding is that Irenaeus fought like an animal for the inclusion of The Gospel Of John in the canon!

So considering that, as you say, “anything that even hinted at being gnostic in origin was likely to be purged,” this seems to indicate that The Gospel Of John was seen as solidly, uncontroversially non-Gnostic even by the fellas in charge way back then.

But like I said, I haven’t read up on the recent scholarship.

[deltasigma]

I do tend to exaggerate and its been decades since I’ve studied this stuff so all of this is mostly from memory. Please feel free to critique and criticize. As long as you’re not abusive or condescending, I won’t take it personally. I’m happy to have an open discussion with people as long as I know they’re not treating me as if I’m a moron.

If Irenaeus did in fact fight for the inclusion of John, and I don’t doubt you on that, then clearly he was convinced that it was NOT a gnostic work, which is pretty much what I think I’ve stated. Having a gnostic influence or flavor however may not have been something that was necessarily anathema to the church father though. I don’t really know.

After all, gnosticism was a very popular movement at the time so for all know maybe there were political considerations involved. Perhaps even theological ones. It’s not beyond imagining that the church sympathized with some of the ideas of gnosticism but the gnostics simply took it too far. I’m simply not well versed enough in early church history to be able to say.

edit: I will however say that if you ever read only one book in the new testament, it should be the gospel of john. It is certainly the most beautiful book in the new testment, imho.

[monavis]

@deltasigma

Are you deliberately taking this out of context? I don’t want to get into Christian theology but I will if necessary. Are you quoting that passage to say that Jesus thought the Jews were gods of some kind? Because that is most certainly not the point being made there.

I would also point out that John has some very obvious gnostic influences and for that reason almost didn’t make it into the canon, and that is a perfect example of what I mean. Something you might want to consider before relying exclusively on that particular gospel for making your case.

To me, Jesus was not considering himself the creator of the earth or anymore god than the men the psalmist was talking to. It was John that called God Love.

[deltasigma]

The History Channel has a new series that I just heard about called Bible Secrets Revealed. They have some of the commentators from their previous documentaries but several new people as well. The narration is a little over-the-top but not really misleading if you pay attention.

I watched the first three episodes last night. They’re available on demand if you have cable. There’s a lot of good information in the shows but you have to keep in mind that these are geared to a lay audience so there is a certain amount of filler and puffery. But over all I think they’re quite well done.

[monavis]

@deltasigma

The History Channel has a new series that I just heard about called Bible Secrets Revealed. They have some of the commentators from their previous documentaries but several new people as well. The narration is a little over-the-top but not really misleading if you pay attention.

I watched the first three episodes last night. They’re available on demand if you have cable. There’s a lot of good information in the shows but you have to keep in mind that these are geared to a lay audience so there is a certain amount of filler and puffery. But over all I think they’re quite well done.

I have also watched the History channel, They raise more questions than the solve.

To me even the fact that Jesus close followers went to the grave and were surprised that he had resurrected shows they didn’t expect a resurrection Jesus had been quoted as saying he would do.

[deltasigma]

Not to be disrespectful but that IS sort of the nature of most intellectual inquiry. Personally I think it’s fascinating that we can answer any questions at all after 2000+ years, especially when you start talking about the Old Testament and Egypt.

Watching the show one interesting parallel occurred to me that was the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. It had a holy of holies which was similar to how Egyptian temples were laid out. IIRC they also had an inner sanctum that held an idol or some image of the god that was only taken out on special feast days. But this may have been common in the ancient near east. I don’t know how the temples of Assyria, Babylonia, the Hittites, Canaanites, etc. were constructed.

But getting back on topic, I really don’t think you’ve done much to make your case for much in the way of even very superficial similarities between Jesus and any Egyptian gods beyond the fact that some of Jesus’ miracles were obviously intended to imply his divinity. In terms of the theology of the early church, whether you look at the traditional versions or what are considered the more heretical strains like gnosticism, Egyptian religion and Christianity are simply in different universes.

If anything, the best case you can make is for some similarities between gnosticism and maybe Buddhism or Hinduism. You would have a much better argument there.

[MrDibble]

@deltasigma

I don’t know how the temples of Assyria, Babylonia, the Hittites, Canaanites, etc. were constructed.

Assyrian and Babylonian temples weren’t constructed the same way, but Canaanite temples seeminglymight have been.

[shortygee]

@monavis

Yes, and it is 2 volumes. Osiris was called God and Son of God, the Good shepherd. He walked on water, Read the book your self. I got it years ago in DC n one of the museums Osiris was resurrected even after he was cut to pieces.

The way Jesus was said to resurrect was different but he had come back from the dead. I can look up more passages but the story of Jesus wasn’t much different than other myths. Of course all the details of Jesus were not all from one myth but from several. There are also contradictions of quotes Jesus has been said to have said in the NT. some people only take the things they agree on. That is their right to believe as they wish but if one thinks about what is read they can see it can’t be two ways. Most Christians believe Jesus came to save the world, but Jesus is quoted as saying he only came for the lost sheep of Israel, and spoke in parables so some wouldn’t understand and be saved!

Jesus was sent for everyone , but his ministry was for Israel. Paul’s ministry was for the gentiles. Understanding the parables in not a requirement to be saved. Christianity does not hinge on having the same interpretation of every scripture. Only that you accepted Jesus as our savior.Everyone has a choice to be with God or not.