Johns Gospel

[Steve Petersen]

In John's gospel, Jesus was amazed how Nicodemus, being a religious leader of his day, didn't know what he meant when He referred to being "born again" !

Because being 'reborn' is an idea that Judaism applied to Gentiles who converted to Judaism. They had to be immersed in a mikvah that contained 'living water.' When they emerged they were considered to have been reborn as new creatures.

Additionally, a Jew was reckoned as Jewish if their mother was a Jew.

I can imagine Nicodemus' confusion. 'How can I convert to Judaism? I am a Jew by maternal lineage!' 'Can I enter my mother's womb and be born again?'

 

[Zoe of Elyon]

Because being 'reborn' is an idea that Judaism applied to Gentiles who converted to Judaism. They had to be immersed in a mikvah that contained 'living water.' When they emerged they were considered to have been reborn as new creatures.

Additionally, a Jew was reckoned as Jewish if their mother was a Jew.

I can imagine Nicodemus' confusion. 'How can I convert to Judaism? I am a Jew by maternal lineage!' 'Can I enter my mother's womb and be born again?'

This is very interesting; I had never heard of this before (about the phrase "born again," that is; I did know that people who have a Jewish mother and Gentile father are considered Jewish). Do you have a source that could provide more information? What I read in Nicodemus' response doesn't seem to support this interpretation, since he responds not by asking why he should need to convert since he is a Jew by birth, but with questions that are purely natural: "how can a man be born when he is old?"

 

[boldlion]

Because being 'reborn' is an idea that Judaism applied to Gentiles who converted to Judaism. They had to be immersed in a mikvah that contained 'living water.' When they emerged they were considered to have been reborn as new creatures.

Additionally, a Jew was reckoned as Jewish if their mother was a Jew.

I can imagine Nicodemus' confusion. 'How can I convert to Judaism? I am a Jew by maternal lineage!' 'Can I enter my mother's womb and be born again?'

So how do you know that someone is 'born again' ?

 

[Steve Petersen]

This is very interesting; I had never heard of this before (about the phrase "born again," that is; I did know that people who have a Jewish mother and Gentile father are considered Jewish). Do you have a source that could provide more information? What I read in Nicodemus' response doesn't seem to support this interpretation, since he responds not by asking why he should need to convert since he is a Jew by birth, but with questions that are purely natural: "how can a man be born when he is old?"

From the Jewish Encyclopedia article Baptism:

The Baptism of the proselyte has for its purpose his cleansing from the impurity of idolatry, and the restoration to the purity of a new-born man. This may be learned from the Talmud (Soṭah 12b) in regard to Pharaoh's daughter, whose bathing in the Nile is explained by Simon b. Yoḥai to have been for that purpose. The bathing in the water is to constitute a rebirth, wherefore "the ger is like a child just born" (Yeb. 48b); and he must bathe "in the name of God"—"leshem shamayim"—that is, assume the yoke of Gcd's kingdom imposed upon him by the one who leads him to Baptism ("maṭbil"), or else he is not admitted into Judaism (Gerim. vii. 8). For this very reason the Israelites before the acceptance of the Law had, according to Philo on the Decalogue ("De Decalogo," ii., xi.), as well as according to rabbinical tradition, to undergo the rite of baptismal purification (compare I Cor. x. 2, "They were baptized unto Moses [the Law] in the clouds and in the sea").

 

[Zoe of Elyon]

Thanks for the quote and the link! That actually gave me some good insight on a completely different subject (not worth mentioning here). I knew of course that baptism was practiced by the ancient Jews but I didn't know to what extent, nor that the symbolism of the act for Jews and Christians is quite similar. It still doesn't fully explain Nicodemus' response to me, unless it simply demonstrates why Jesus asked how in the world Nicodemus could be so obtuse. Maybe that's it.

 

[mog144]

I was wondering why John's gospel was so different from the others, and why the gospel was included in the bible... with it being so different from the others...?

First of all, you ask a rhetorical question.
Who said John's gospel is different?
If somebody said it was, you should then know why,
and if they don't know, why do you ask?

You should visit the Gnostic Society Library online and read the missing gospels that were written by John and see what has been hidden and kept from us (the world) by conspiracy. The devil is concealing everything that he can to keep truth from us.
Don't be eager to receive what is popular but seek what is hidden.
God bless and guide you.

 

[granpa]

I was wondering why John's gospel was so different from the others, and why the gospel was included in the bible... with it being so different from the others...?

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis/Gospels

 

[hedrick]

Could do, although only John's gospel talks about being "born again" and receiving the Holy Spirit specifically (apart from the parable in Luke 11:5-13)

Of course. Anyone who is in Christ is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). And Jesus, and the entire NT, are clear that we are reborn of the Spirit. However that doesn't mean the speaking in tongues is essential. 2 Cor 12 mentions it on a list, but implies that it's not one of the most important gifts.

The Spirit is God's personal presence, uniting us to Christ.

 

[StormHawk]

Of course. Anyone who is in Christ is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). And Jesus, and the entire NT, are clear that we are reborn of the Spirit. However that doesn't mean the speaking in tongues is essential. 2 Cor 12 mentions it on a list, but implies that it's not one of the most important gifts.

The Spirit is God's personal presence, uniting us to Christ.

You have missed the context and therefore meaning of that list.

The context is (since chapter 11) what God wants in meetings, giving to the church in various ways, it is not about what different people get when they become Christians. This is obvious if you read the list and thing about it:

it says "to one is given... wisdom, to another ... knowledge ... faith ... tongues ... interpretation."

Do you really believe only one or even only some Christians have each of these attributes?

Many other verses say otherwise and in fact it is because all have these attributes that there needs to be limitation and order when all meet.

If only some could speak in tongues Paul would never have top reason with them not to all speak in tongues when they meet, the problem could never arise!

Acts details the born again experience (2:4, 33; 10:44-48, John 3:8), not 1 Corinthians 12. Until you see that you are wrong on salvation, and what God wants in meetings.

 

[Zoe of Elyon]

I still think this would be better in another thread, but if nobody minds staying off the original topic I'll weigh in.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You have missed the context and therefore meaning of that list.

The context is (since chapter 11) what God wants in meetings, giving to the church in various ways, it is not about what different people get when they become Christians. This is obvious if you read the list and thing about it:

it says "to one is given... wisdom, to another ... knowledge ... faith ... tongues ... interpretation."

Do you really believe only one or even only some Christians have each of these attributes?

Many other verses say otherwise and in fact it is because all have these attributes that there needs to be limitation and order when all meet.

If only some could speak in tongues Paul would never have top reason with them not to all speak in tongues when they meet, the problem could never arise!

Acts details the born again experience (2:4, 33; 10:44-48, John 3:8), not 1 Corinthians 12. Until you see that you are wrong on salvation, and what God wants in meetings.

"Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. ... Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away." - 1 Corinthians 12:29 - 13:2, 8

Since context was mentioned and all.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AHJE]

Dear Fiona01,

From what I understand, ... the 3 Holy Gospels according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke are a narrative account of the Life, Words, and Deeds of Jesus Christ, which is why they are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels.

It is said that they have 3 Distinct Audiences.
St. Matthew is writing with a Hebrew audience in mind. He's focused on Prophecies.
St. Mark with a Roman audience in mind. He's focused on the Power of Christ over evil.
St. Luke with a Greek audience in mind. He's focused on the Mercy and Compassion of Jesus.

(At least this is what I have picked up in my understanding)

St. John is definitely focused on elucidating the Divinity of Jesus Christ ... that He is God Himself, One with the Father, equal to the Father in all things, Eternal with the Father etc.

St. John too has an audience, ... the Church SENT from the Beginning, the Bride of Christ.

God bless you.

 

[Harry3142]

StormHawk-

Circa 1971 a friend and fellow member of the church I attended went to a meeting where he had been told he would hear 'speaking in tongues'. This was done out of curiosity. A 'roaming evangelist' got up, spoke in a language that the people didn't understand, and then sat down. Following this, another man got up and proceeded to 'interpret' what the man had said. His interpretation followed the lines of seeing the leadership of that denomination as being worthy of absolute obedience, seeing that denomination as over-and-above all other denominations, and seeing those in other denominations as being in danger of going to hell unless the members of that denomination convinced them that they were to accept it as their only means of salvation.

What none of them knew, including the ministers of that denomination, was that my friend was familiar with the Catholic Missal when it was still recited in Latin. As soon as the so-called evangelist had started to speak in his 'unknown tongue', he recognized it as being a direct quote from 2 or 3 pages of that Missal. He had memorized those pages, and then claimed that they were instead a direct message from the Spirit. My friend told me that he had a hard time leaving there without laughing out loud at their chicanery.

As for Pentecost, the only people who didn't unerstand the 'tongues' that were being spoken on that day were the apostles themselves. The people who heard their message understood every word of it:

Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard him speaking in his own language. Utterly amazed, they asked, "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene, visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs - we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?" (Acts 2:5-12,NIV)

The languages which the Holy Spirit had given the apostles the gift of speaking were not unknown tongues that needed to be interpreted by someone else. Instead, they were the native languages of those who were the intended hearers, but were unknown to the people who were the speakers.

I believe this was also the case with those who later in Scripture received either the ability to speak in tongues or the ablity to interpret. It wasn't a case of someone's getting up in front of others only to babble, then sitting down so that someone else could 'interpret' what this babbling meant. Instead, it was a person who found he had the gift of speaking in a tongue that was unknown to him, but was well-known to the people whom the Spirit wanted to hear that message. Likewise, the interpreters weren't interpreting nonsensical babbling, but instead were translating the questions and replies of another person whose language was different from the person he was conversing with.

 

[StormHawk]

...
I believe this was also the case with those who later in Scripture received either the ability to speak in tongues or the ablity to interpret. It wasn't a case of someone's getting up in front of others only to babble, then sitting down so that someone else could 'interpret' what this babbling meant. Instead, it was a person who found he had the gift of speaking in a tongue that was unknown to him, but was well-known to the people whom the Spirit wanted to hear that message. Likewise, the interpreters weren't interpreting nonsensical babbling, but instead were translating the questions and replies of another person whose language was different from the person he was conversing with.

1971, that's 41 years ago and you still havn't put together what the scriptures actually say!

In Acts 2, the hearers were all left in doubt and confusion - see v12-13.
i.e. tongues was never any good and communicating salvation, what it is & how to get it.
That's why Peter stood up, stopped speaking to God in tongues, and spoke to the assembled bi-lingual Jews in the common learned language (aramaic).
Then they understood and 3000 were added.
These 3000 then took the gospel back to their native countries without anyone having to receive a new language to speak to people in!

Here's an analogy that will help you understand: you are walking down the Champs Elyses in Paris, you over-hear 2 Americans talking, you understand the words - does that mean they are talking to you?
- No!

Later examples in Acts, people spoke in tongues even though there were no foreigners there to hear (Acts 10:44-46, 19:5-6), in fact they interrupted Peter who was preaching to them in Acts 10! Why? Because tongues is allowing God to lead you in prayer, according to his perfect will for you, as only the Spirit knows - Romans 8:26, 1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 14-18.

All these years you have been missing out on what ALL the disciples of Jesus and those they were sent to had!
Nevermind, today you are called, if today you hear his voice harden not your heart! Then you will receive the same.

p.s. "the gift" of tongues, like "gifts" of faith, discernment etc given "to one", "to another" refers specifically to the meetings-use, *giving* to the church, of what all Christians have for private use.

Sounds like you have never yet been to a church like the one Jesus set up (the type he is returning for), where all members pray in tongues privately, and where the gifts are used, in an orderly way, in meetings.