This may get me branded a heretic, but ...
I'm beginning to have "difficulties" with the writings of the disciple John. Or, rather, I'm beginning to have more articulate difficulties with his writings.
I've always been annoyed by that whole "the disciple whom Jesus loved" thing, and I never bought into the book of Revelation. But the Gospel of John was always my favorite. I'm now calling that into question as well.
Not too long ago, I read Beyond Belief by Elaine Pagels. It's focus is on the Gospel of Thomas, but the primary mechanism of that analysis is a comparison to John's Gospel. While I don't really know where I stand on the authenticity of the Gospel of Thomas, I do think she made some interesting contextual points about John's writings. She shows how he was writing to oppose specific people and movements in the early church. I guess I read John with a more jaded eye now.
I've started participating in a daily bible reading program online (I may get "evicted" from that bible reading program if/when the other participants read this post), and the reading for December 3 included 1 John 3:9, which reads (NRSV) "Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God's seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God." The commentator for this series said something about this not meaning that Christians don't sin. But how can it mean otherwise? And, if it does mean the Christians cannot sin, then none of us are Christians. I don't believe that we are prevented from sinning. Rather, we are forgiven when we repent of sin.
I'm also reminded of a book I read back in high school (yes, I know - long time ago): The Passover Plot by Hugh J. Schonfield. The book's primary aim was to claim that the ressurection never happened, but that's not why I bring it up. One of the claims the author made was that Jesus himself would have been appauled by John's Gospel - it was much to airy and other-worldly to match up with Jesus' down-to-earth preaching. I dismissed it at the time, because, as I said, I liked John. Now I'm wondering about it. I'm sure some would say I shouldn't be reading such heretical works in the first place, but I don't believe that.
I don't have any answers. I've just been thinking about these questions, and thought I'd post them for comments.
- Log in to post comments
Comments
That's interesting. Sadly, I don't think I know enough about it to really comment on the Gospel according to John (Luke has always been my favourite), but I've always (somewhat secretly) eyed askance the Revelation. I agree with Luther that it seems a bit dodgy.Somewhere in my free time (right), I'll have to read at least a couple of the books you have listed there. I am taking a New Testament course next spring, so I'm sure the subject will come up.As for heresy...after my class (Western Religions) this semester, I don't feel like questioning the written words included in the Bible is questioning God, or being heretical. The Bible went through about seven bazillion incarnations and rhetorical wars were fought within the church to decide what would and would not be included in the Bible. But then, I'm going to be burnt at the stake anyway.At any rate, I think you raise a good point, and as I said, I will attempt to research that I might make a more intelligent response to it in the future.--Ivy
This all very interesting. I also don't know enough to know where to begin with a reply. I have often wonder all about the resurrection myself. I have questioned it was more of a metaphysical occasion than an actual physical embodiment of ressurection. It's interesting. Sparks some thoughts.
Please refer to my e-mail of 1st January. This is my first visit to the site and I am already facinated.Guy in KentI read your (dbcollies) comments about John's Gospel published in early December. I am al old guy of 60 but my son of 27 is a Biblical Scholar who came out with a first from Sheffield in Biblical Studies in 2001. He was going to be a missionary but instead has just become a barrister. I am but an accountant and therefore not quite in the same league of intellectuals but never mind that. I can hold my own.Now the crunch, my son said to me yesterday that John's Gospel is all lies. This took me back a bit as I quite like such phrases as "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us". I see a wonderful God behind these words.My son claims about himself: "I am no longer a christian". He can therefore think what he likes about the bible and its lack of authenticity particularly John's Gospel but it has thrown me for a bit of a loop calling it all lies.What would your reaction be if your son said this to you?I don't mind anyone seeing my name.RegardsGuy in Kent UK
1john 3:9
The Greek verb tense here (present) indicates "habitual or continuous" sin. I believe the oldest Greek manuscripts are without error, but often translations take some liberties that do not accurately present the message. When we do not "get" the Bible, or think it in contradiction - it is the fault of the reader, not God's message :)
==================================================
http://gospelhour.net/1635.html
(There are a plethora of other sites that list this viewpoint of "present tense". Above is one such site.)
Excerpts:
"Dr. A. T. Robertson, one of America's greatest Greek scholars, calls the tense of the very, "does not sin," linear present active indicative and insists that it should be rendered "does not have the habit of sin." "
from:
Our second question today concerns the meaning of the term, "commits sin†or its opposite, "cannot sin." Do these biblical expressions mean that a child of God cannot sin at all? Let us for a moment analyze the grammar of the terms and then we shall turn to the various passages to ascertain what God has spoken on the matter of a child of God's sinning. Hugo McCord translates 1 John 3:9 as follows: "No one who has been born of God continues to practice sin, because his seed abides in him, and he cannot practice sin." Dr. Charles B. Williams translated this verse as follows: No one who is born of God makes a practice of sinning, because the God-given principle continues to live in him, and so he cannot practice sinning, because he is born of God." Dr. Williams' translation has the explicit endorsement of Dr. Edward A. McDowell, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, of Dr. Julius Montey of Northern Baptist Theological Seminary and of Dr. John Mostert of Moody Bible Institute.
Dr. A. T. Robertson, one of America's greatest Greek scholars, calls the tense of the very, "does not sin," linear present active indicative and insists that it should be rendered "does not have the habit of sin." Perhaps the best summary of this passage is in Alexander Ross's commentary on The Epistles of James and John. Dr. Ross was actually commenting on verse six, but please listen to his observations. The apostle John says very plainly that a child of God may commit an act of sin (1 John 2:1). But the child of God does not sin habitually and deliberately. He quotes Dr. A. T. Robertson as saying, "There is a world of difference between one sin in a struggle against sin and the habit of sin which is what John is seeking to prevent."