|
| 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]] ==
==Dead Sea Scrolls and multiple Passovers==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
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-->
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)
: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
== DoctrineJesus of the TrinitySeminar ==
{{ping|BatmanWGD}}The IJesus don'tSeminar understandis why[[WP:FRINGE]] talk(it aboutwas designed as the doctrineopposite pole of theChristian Trinityfundamentalists). belongsBut inI thisthink article.it Thatis true that John the doctrineBaptist was afamous muchduring laterhis developmentlife, thanwhich wasn't the Gospelcase offor JohnJesus. WhoeverThere wrotewere thatplenty gospelof knewmiracle nothingworkers, ofJesus thewas Trinity.by Itno ismeans simplyspecial an(when anachronismalive). [[User:Tgeorgescutgeorgescu|Tgeorgescutgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescutgeorgescu|talk]]) 14 21:1610, 1828 MarchOctober 20202023 (UTC)
== Why they are so sure of that there was a final form ==
:{{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.
:Since they obviously lack evidence in the first century. [[User:BatmanWGDTanengtiong0918|BatmanWGDTanengtiong0918]] ([[User talk:BatmanWGDTanengtiong0918|talk]]) 0720:0253, 291 MarchFebruary 20202024 (UTC)
== Dubious section on gnosticism ==
::{{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)
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)
== 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)
Additionally, even if John did include the baptism of Jesus, saying that Jesus visited John would still be accurate. In the 'Comparison with other writings' section, it says, 'While John makes no direct mention of Jesus' baptism, he does quote John the Baptist's description of the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove, as happens at Jesus' baptism in the Synoptics.' What do you think {{ping|Veverve}}?—[[User:Jcvamp|Jcvamp]] ([[User talk:Jcvamp|talk]]) 16:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
<br>{{ping|Jcvamp}} you can add the information with ref that other scolars think Jesus was not baptised in the gospel of John. [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 16:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
:I don't know how well that sits with your last edit. The purpose of that bullet point is to provide a summary of the section of the Gospel of John referred to as the Book of Signs. I don't think discussing debate over whether Jesus was baptised is appropriate. If you think it's vital that people know one scholar thinks Jesus was baptised in the narrative (despite the fact that it doesn't say so in the text of John), you could add it in the 'Comparison with other writings' section. Either way, saying that Jesus visited John would be a more neutral way to write the summary.--[[User:Jcvamp|Jcvamp]] ([[User talk:Jcvamp|talk]]) 17:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
::I took the reference to baptism out, because so far as I can see van der Watt is simply and demonstrably wrong.
:::If Watt was simply that inaccurate (which would be extraordinary) then the text should be removed; but from the source what he is actually saying is that John includes the (implied) baptism at this point. So I have had a go at reflecting what Watt actually does say. [[User:Springnuts|Springnuts]] ([[User talk:Springnuts|talk]]) 12:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
:::: I did not see this as an accurate statement based on van der Watt's text, so I took the phrase out again. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
| 