All this wisdom is a mixture of Jewish religious and Hellenic philosophical ideas in the name of the Teachings of Jesus to pass more easily so that new converts do not choke on what is for the Jews it is a temptation, for the Hellenes it is madness. This is the usual propaganda of religious innovation.
Lets read on.
35 Everything through Him began to be, and without Him nothing began to be that began to be. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. This is philosophical poetry, on which hundreds of books have been written. But God is still the same Jewish one.
6 There was a man sent from God; his name is John. 7 He came for a testimony, to testify of the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not a light, but was sent to testify of the Light. 9 There was a true light that enlightens every person who comes into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own did not accept him. 12 But to those who accepted him, believing in his name, he gave authority to be children of God, 13 who neither of blood, nor of the desire of the flesh, nor of the desire of a husband, but of God they were born. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father
From which God? All the same, from the Jewish Yahweh, (in Judaism of Jesus times the difference sin interpretations was already explained by the fact that the God in the Bible is the same, only the names are different). And here suddenly the Light appears, which is: true in what sense? Light is matter, now we know this, but the evangelist did not. And therefore he gets confused in the matter: he speaks of light sometimes as the actual light, sometimes light in a figurative sense, and the light is starting to assume the mystical meaning of divine origins. If we mean the light of reason, then those who come into the world will not reach the reason to soon, and it is mainly those around them that enlighten them. Let us recall the Mowgli found in India it remained a beast, since the light of reason did not touch him outside of human society, in the absence of human communication. If, however, Light is the Creative Power of God (the world began to be through Him), then there are already two Creative Powers, and even three, or even four: besides the Word and Light, there is also Spirit and Wisdom mentioned elsewhere. But the key to this is simple all this is a reference to the secret knowledge of the Gnostic doctrine. That is, in addition to the religious Jew and the Hellenic philosopher, the Gnostic also had a hand in the Prologue. Then he came to his own and his own did not accept him a return to Judaism, his own these are Gods chosen Jews, who else? And to those who accepted here is the beginning of the theology of replacement developed and preached by Paul: the Jews killed the Messiah in the person of Jesus, and therefore Jehovahs Choice passed to those who believed that Jesus is the very Messiah, the Anointed One, the King Jewish.
He gave the power to be children of God, who were born of God and only here is the speech of Jesus about the Beginning from Above, about the Son of God of all who believed in the Heavenly Father and His Son of God Jesus Christ (the good). And then again a rollback to Judaism-Hellenism-Gnosticism in verse 14. The only begotten of the Father what is that? These are religious and philosophical disputes that lasted until the 4th century of the only begotten or consubstantial type, and have not been completely resolved to this day. In the Greek text, μονογενής is the only begotten, the only one. That is, the old pompous word confuses and hides the true meaning: the only son of his father, He is the only son of the Father, born by the Father Himself, nothing unusual. Here is just one question: how would a mortal person who wrote the Prologue know about the family circumstances of God Himself? Moreover, to dare to tell these Gods family details in a completely earthly way, describing the relationship between fathers and children? From this point of view, such statements look like unscientific fantasy: why would God reveal his family secrets to mere mortals? Thus, it turns out that from the Teachings of Jesus here there is only, for the first time, the definition of God: not just an impersonal collective name for the Jewish names of God, but by the name revealed to us by Jesus. It is this line that most vividly indicates the late editing of the text dating back to the beginning of the theological battles waged by the Orthodox with the Gnostics from the second century.
Lets proceed.
15 John testifies of Him, and, exclaiming, says: This was the One about whom I said that He who followed me stood in front of me, because he was before me.
Where did he say, to whom did he say and when? Well, in the following story about the visit of John by the Pharisees. The author of the Prologue reveals himself: he first read the Gospel of John, and then wrote the prologue to it. That is, he put the cart in front of the horse.
16 And from His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace, of whose fullness, Jesus fullness? What is meant by fullness? In the church teaching there is the concept of the Fullness of the Holy Spirit, which the Church possesses, But grace upon grace draws more attention. That is, it turns out, you can add a little more Spirit to the Spirit of God, strengthen God, multiply Him, increase Him? Since God is the Spirit, then either he is present in all his Fullness or not at all, the Spirit is not divided into parts. But, in any case, this is the subject of theological controversy much later than the supposed time of the writing of the gospel at the end of the first century.
17 for the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ " ah!, thats the point: after all, some implicit, but certainly saving part of grace, it turns out, was contained in the Jewish Law given by Moses, and Jesus added to it his grace-truth, and then the graceful grace happened: the Old Testament merged with the New one. On this basis, today an idea is being carried out and a new, revolutionary idea is being put forward about the equal salvation capability of the New and Old Testaments: for Christians, Salvation is in Jesus, and for the Jews in the Torah..
To the obvious absurdity of this multi-storey religious structure, it remains for fullness to add that, according to modern scientific views, biblical heroes, including the above-mentioned Moses and the Jewish ancestral god Yahweh-Jehovah himself, are fictional heroes, and the entire biblical history of the Jewish people a collection of folk tales and, of course, a fantasy. As for through Jesus Christ, the very attachment: Christ = Mashiach = King of the Jews, which is expected by the Jews according to the biblical OT-prophecies, to the Name of Jesus, reveals that the author of the Prologue a Messianic Jew.
18 No one has seen God at any time; The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed " and how can this true statement be combined with all the previous? And how can this be Jehovah, whom so many had seen already: Adam and Eve, Abraham with Sarah, and Moses (from behind) and even Elijah the prophet, and who appeared to many biblical characters from behind, from the front, or even sideways, and even in the form of pillars and other horror stories, and more than once arranged personal beatings with or without reason. And again, editorial interference in the text: the Only Begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father all this, I dare to insist, is a reflection of much later theological disputes that theologically, have never been completely resolved. And the victors, the Orthodox (church orthodox) prevailed only exclusively by police measures as always. I am the Father in the bosom is lost in translation, hinting both at Jehovah and at the pregnancy of God with his Son. But in fact ὁ κόλπος πατήρ literally means the one who is on the fathers chest, that is, simply beloved. He revealed: ἐκεῖνος he who; ἐξηγέομαι to tell, show. So, in sum: No one has ever seen God; the only beloved son told about Him.
Whoever the author of the Prologue was, he was definitely not a disciple of Jesus.
John Chapter 1, continued
Well, let us pass, however, to ev. John from verse 19, what do we see? Priests and Pharisees came to John from Jerusalem to find out who he is. So what? He announced to them that he was not Christ (Messiah-Messiah-Anointed-King of the Jews), neither Elijah, nor a prophet but who are you? Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness: Correct Gods Ways Like Isaiah the Prophet[37]said. About Isaiah and his sophisticated prophecies suddenly recalls the one who appeared from the wilderness, where he was, according to Luke, from infancy (Luke 1.80: 80 But the baby grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts until the day of his appearance to Israel this is all about him), overgrown with wild hair and never washed in life, a prophet, a savage, illiterate.
Does God need to clear the road?
And then a question to him from the sent priests and Pharisees: why do you baptize?
From the point of view of the Jews, the question is meaningless and insane what kind of baptism by washing with water from a river for the remission of sins? Sin is forgiven only by a bloody life-for-life sacrifice and nothing else. If they were sent to John, it was only for the purpose of arrest, trial and execution for blasphemy: who can forgive sins, except God?
Further, John elaborates before the Pharisees about going in front to baptize with the Spirit who would listen to him. But the most interesting is yet to come. 28 This took place at Bethabar near Jordan, where John baptized in the ancient codes it is written in Bethany [38], and later converted to Bethavar, that is, river crossing or ferry lets remember this. Bethany is located three kilometers from Jerusalem, and thirty to fifty kilometers from Jordan, so John could hardly baptize in Jordan in Bethany, and therefore pious editors in later lists transported the obviously impossible Bethany to some faceless ferry (through Jordan, of course), which must have been on the Jewish side somewhere opposite Jerusalem, in the Jericho area in general, no matter, geography is not a masters science, and the authors of the Gospel are clearly at odds with it. This is followed by a whole speech, addressed to an unknown person, very pathetic: when the Jewish inspectors left, literally the next day, John suddenly sees Jesus (walking towards him) and speaks about Him to someone undefined,: Behold the Lamb of God.
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God who takes on himself the sin of the world.
29 firstly, he sees Jesus coming to him and immediately recognizes in Him the one who was predicted to him but how? Second, in what sense is he the lamb that takes away the sins of the world? Only in one way: the lamb was slaughtered and burned in the Jewish ritual sacrifice for the atonement of sins, and it turns out that Jesus was by his Father-God intended for the atonement of sins as a sacrifice to Himself? Whatever Heavenly Father, sounds like Ivan the Terrible, killing his own son. And thirdly, it is strange to hear about the Jewish sacrifice from exactly the man who himself canceled this sacrifice, replacing it with penitential washing for the remission of sins.
30 This is he of whom I said, After me comes a man who was ahead of me because he was before me the very thing that the author of the Prologue could not avoid mentioning before (see John 1, 15) that is, the idea of the eternal existence of Jesus as the Word of God is being imposed.
31 I Didnt Know Him; but for this he came to baptize in water, so that He might be revealed to Israel. 32 And John testified, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and staying on Him. 33 I did not know Him; but he who sent me to baptize in water said to me: on whom you will see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. 34 And I saw and testified that this is the Son of God.
Long explanation by John as to why when he saw Jesus, he said, that he is the Lamb of God. That is he sees the Spirit upon Him in the form of a dove, although Jesus has not even approached him yet, let alone has not been baptized? Then why does he speak about it in the past tense, if he saw it right now? If one saw such a thing, he would not testify, but, probably, would have yelled and jumped from a happy shock. Another cart ahead of the horse: he had just seen him walking, but had already seen the Spirit in the form of a dove descending on Him when and where? But again not a word about the baptism of Jesus: just on whom you see the Spirit in the form of a dove, that is the One.
35 The next day John stood again and two of his disciples.36 And when he saw Jesus walking, he said, Behold the Lamb of God.
Déjà vu, the return of the story to the same place, only as if again the next day.
All this, of course, is good but where is the very Baptism of Jesus by John? There is none, because there was none!
Many generations of interpreters asked the question: why should Jesus, the sinless Son of God, God Himself, the Word and the Light, described a couple of lines above, be baptized for the remission of sins? Even the authors of the synoptic gospels, who thoughtlessly copied from John what was not there at all about the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove on Jesus baptized by John during baptism were also embarrassed. And Mathew even came up with the formula for this is how we must make all righteousness (Mathew 3, 15) what righteousness of baptism for the remission of sins can there be, if the Son of Man is without sin?
I would like to declare there was no righteousness in the Baptism of Jesus for the remission of sins, which in itself is already a lie. As there was neither this baptism itself, nor the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove, nor the Lamb of God all this is a big bunch of lies, lies for salvation from I dont know what.
What happened? It is deducted from the gospel like two and two.
Jesus had come to John the day before to denounce him as a false prophet of the Gnostic Mandean-Nazarene teaching, seducing the people by faith in a false God, and pointed him to the True God, the Heavenly Father and Himself as the Son of God. But John did not believe Him he had too much to lose: the Nazarene prophet at the zenith of glory and veneration, the Baptist of the people for the remission of sins, tens and hundreds of disciples, crowds of adorers it was difficult to give up all this, declare it a delusion and false teaching, and follow Jesus, become His disciple. But this is precisely what can be traced in all his previous assurances: the one who has stood in front of me is following me, I am not worthy to untie his shoes, He baptizes with the Spirit, He is the Lamb of God having met such, it would be time for John to drop everything and go to him as a disciple. However, as we can see, this is not happening. Why?
He didnt believe it thats why. Because he was a Nazirite, a Manda teacher and prophet who preached another, non-Jewish, god of pre-Christian Nazarene Gnosticism, the Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda, whom he was taught in the family of a Nazarene teacher, and not at all in the family of a Jewish priest (who came from where in pagan Galilee is a big question). And then it is understandable why the next day they disperse like strangers: Jesus walks by and does not even greet him, and John does not greet Him either. But he sends two closest students. Pointing to the Lamb of God? Oh no, sir. He sends them to convince Jesus, to prove that the real prophet and teacher is himself, John. And they go obediently. But the result surpassed the intentions