|
| search=no
| noarchive=yes}}
{{vital article|topic=Philosophy|level=5|class=GA}}
{{Warning
|1= This page has two sets of archives, one enumerated 1–4, the other monthly beginning November 2010. This is due to the old archive bot kicking the bucket and needing replacement after 6 years of no archiving. You can see both of the archive search boxes (<nowiki>{{archived}} and {{MonthlyArchive}}</nowiki>) below as of the time this warning was posted. <fontspan colorstyle="color:red;"><big>'''''PLEASE'''''</big></fontspan> do not remove either of them, or those archives will be effectively lost. Thank you. '''''[[User:Jujutsuan|<fontspan colorstyle="color:green;">Jujutsuan</fontspan>]]''''' (<small>Please notify with {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> | [[User talk:Jujutsuan|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jujutsuan|contribs]]) 00:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action3oldid=938492069
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=GA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Religious texts|class=GA|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Bible|class=GA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|class=GA|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Books}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gospel_of_John/archive1}}
== "[[:Theology of John]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
== Please rewrite this article - it damages the credibility of WIkipedia ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theology_of_John&redirect=no Theology of John]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11#Theology of John}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 07:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
== Jesus Seminar ==
This article is one of the worst that I have seen in Wikipedia for quite some time. It omits almost everything that might rationally be said about the subject; instead it includes every extreme theory tending to debunk the text, referenced to scholars whom few will have heard of, and whose views may or may not be reflective of the consensus of scholarship. They are certainly not reflective of the content of the historical record.
The Jesus Seminar is [[WP:FRINGE]] (it was designed as the opposite pole of Christian fundamentalists). But I think it is true that John the Baptist was famous during his life, which wasn't the case for Jesus. There were plenty of miracle workers, Jesus was by no means special (when alive). [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 21:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
It is a serious mistake for Wikipedians to produce articles that make people laugh. When the second sentence is that the gospel is anonymous, that instantly discredits the article. The gospel is not anonymous in any publication that has ever happened on the history of the planet! Each and every one of them gives an author. What the writer actually meant was something different - that he did not believe that the apostle John was the author. Yes, lots of atheists and some scholars hold this view. It was generally held, indeed, in the early 20th century. But to state this as fact, baldly, as the second sentence ... no. This is abuse of editorial position.
== Why they are so sure of that there was a final form ==
The proper approach would be to avoid the question in the lead altogether, and instead have a section on authorship. This would contain the scholarship on the author, both for and against the authorship of John, and referencing the ancient testimony. It would also explain the historiography of the question. But of course that would involve some actual work.
Since they obviously lack evidence in the first century. [[User:Tanengtiong0918|Tanengtiong0918]] ([[User talk:Tanengtiong0918|talk]]) 20:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if this article is one of those where a single manipulative individual is controlling it, backed by a gang of allies. I write this in case it is being maintained by someone honest. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.189.206.122|80.189.206.122]] ([[User talk:80.189.206.122#top|talk]]) 21:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Dubious section on gnosticism ==
{{quote|Thank you, Captain Obvious, but if top 100 US universities don't teach that the plagues are historical, neither do we. If none of those 100 universities teaches that those plagues were historical, then for Wikipedia it is holy writ that those plagues are unhistorical.|Tgeorgescu|[[Talk:Plagues of Egypt]]}}
The section of gnosticism feels weird in places. What does it mean to "forcefully argue" for example, and is this phrasing that satisfies NPOV? The whole section feels written as if its purpose were to argue against any connection to gnosticism. Not going to change it because maybe there's a good reason for these things, but I'd appreciate a second opinion. [[User:Not alexand|Not alexand]] ([[User talk:Not alexand|talk]]) 18:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
:Quoted myself. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 21:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
"It is a serious mistake for Wikipedians to produce articles that make people laugh." Which is why we state that all four Gospels are anonymous. It would be laughabnle to state that the evangelists are historical figures. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 21:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
== Help with Gospel ==
The article at [[Gospel]] could do with more people to come and help it out please. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] ([[User talk:DJ Clayworth|talk]]) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
==Dead Sea Scrolls and multiple Passovers==
A major discovery regarding the Gospel of John which harmonises a one year ministry of Jesus Christ to the synoptics has been deleted. The book Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered by Eisenman and Wise page 192 reveals the Jewish Essene calendar having 2 Passovers on consecutive months both on the 14th one a major and the other a minor but recorded as Passovers on the calendar, this is what John recorded and has mistakingly been assumed by denominational Christianity to show a 3 and a half year ministry which was wrong. In light of this new evidence from the DSS we can now verify that John recorded correctly and Jesus ministry was indeed just over a year, this must be included in the article thankyou <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:2E00:3600:511A:4E9C:A339:C156|2001:8003:2E00:3600:511A:4E9C:A339:C156]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:2E00:3600:511A:4E9C:A339:C156#top|talk]]) 12:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:In Wikipedia articles, most information should be accompanied by references to [[WP:RS|reliable, secondary sources]]. There is 'markup' to do this, which can be seen in lots of examples within most articles, including this one. Wikipedia editors (contributors such as you and I) need to be familiar with the basics writing of contributions in this manner. Additionally it is also important to stick to the facts, and to be conscious of, and avoid, any tendency to add our own opinion (a poor practice, known on WP as [[WP:OR|original research]]). You might also wish to create a proper account for your ongoing work in Wikipedia. It can also help if one's first few edits are simple things like obvious typos (which is an objective act) rather than launching in deep with something to which one has a deep, subjective attachment. I hope all that helps. [[User:Feline Hymnic|Feline Hymnic]] ([[User talk:Feline Hymnic|talk]]) 12:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC) This is not WP or my own opinion as stated here, the Dead Sea Scrolls calendar shows 2 Passovers one on the 14th Nisan Aviv and the second the following month also on the 14th page 192 book Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered by Eisenman and Wise
== Doctrine of the Trinity ==
{{ping|BatmanWGD}} I don't understand why talk about the doctrine of the Trinity belongs in this article. That doctrine was a much later development than the Gospel of John. Whoever wrote that gospel knew nothing of the Trinity. It is simply an anachronism. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 14:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|Tgeorgescu}} On the basis of the "logos" being used to formulate the ideas of the trinity, partnered with the idea that Jesus claimed to be G-D at one point in his life/ministry, and then claimed to offer a "Holy spirit" entity to his followers upon his death, all within the same text. Perhaps an addendum can be added to mention the fact that the "trinitarian doctrine" was added much later, but when people are reading this article for information, they are expecting to see the historical application of these ideas, less they resolve to another source that is impregnated with beliefs of the Catholic church/organization.
:[[User:BatmanWGD|BatmanWGD]] ([[User talk:BatmanWGD|talk]]) 07:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
::{{re|BatmanWGD}} There remains a question of ''where'' do you state in the article and ''how'' do you properly convey the information. Your previous edit was wanting on both points. The information that the doctrine of the Trinity owes much to the Gospel of John could be stated if properly sourced ([[WP:MAINSTREAM]] [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]]), properly conveyed and mentioned in its proper place inside the article. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 21:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
== Baptism of Jesus ==
In the ‘Structure and content’ section of the article, it says that Jesus is baptised. This is not the case (despite what the cited source says). Elsewhere in the article, it says that Jesus’s baptism is absent from John, and sources are given that support this.
I removed the statement that Jesus was baptised, but my edit was reverted with the comment, ‘Check the source.’ I’m aware of the source, but I’m also aware of what the gospel actually says and the sources elsewhere in the article that refute the single source that says he was baptised.—[[User:Jcvamp|Jcvamp]] ([[User talk:Jcvamp|talk]]) 02:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Achar Sva}} what do you say? [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 03:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
:: Thanks for the ping. I think [[User:Jcvamp|Jcvamp]] has a point - John refers to the baptism described in Mark, but doesn't describe it. There's a discussion in Barrett, page 52 (the book is in the bibliography). Barrett says that John's refusal to endorse the baptism was theological, in that it implied that Jesus was a man who became the son of God only at that point - for John, he was with God from the beginning, co-eternal. [[User:Achar Sva|Achar Sva]] ([[User talk:Achar Sva|talk]]) 06:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I’m not sure what the note on the reversion, ‘Those information need to b source,’ means. If it means that I need to cite sources to remove the erroneous information, generally, citations are only added to support what is present rather than what has been removed. Despite that, I did cite sources to support my edit.
John 1 mentions the dove alighting on Jesus, which happens after the baptism in other gospels, but doesn’t mention the baptism itself. It can only be inferred that the dove relates to Jesus’s baptism because of the other gospels. If John were the only text we had, we couldn’t conclude that Jesus was baptised.
Regardless, elsewhere in the article, it mentions that the baptism is absent from John, and there are sources to substantiate that.—[[User:Jcvamp|Jcvamp]] ([[User talk:Jcvamp|talk]]) 22:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, thank you Achar Sva for your input.—[[User:Jcvamp|Jcvamp]] ([[User talk:Jcvamp|talk]]) 22:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
| 