Why do Evangelical tracts urge the new convert

[Elijah John]

Why do Evangelical tracts often urge the new convert to begin their Bible studies with the Gospel of John? (Bill Bright's Four Spiritual Laws pamphlet is an example).

Why not where the Bible begins, the book of Genesis?

Why not where the New Testament begins, the Gospel of Matthew?

Why not with the earliest Gospel, the Gospel of Mark?

Why begin with the latest Gospel, John?

Is there an agenda? What is it?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I do not think there is a calculated agenda.

Evangelists are indoctrinated to focus on making converts to Christ; not converts to Genesis, or to Matthew or Mark or 2 Chronicles or whatever. This is actually quite in line with Paul's own ministry: Christ, not Torah, was what he was pushing.

Thus to begin with Genesis in an evangelical encounter is rather daunting for both the hearer and the evangelist: hardly possible during a commute to work!

Of all the gospels, John is considered the most "personal". Jesus is found speaking not to "the crowds" but to individual persons or within intimate settings: he makes wine at a wedding at the behest of his mother; he speaks to a single woman at a well; a single Jewish leader meets him at night; a man healed from blindness finds Jesus in a one-on-one.

Our culture is, unlike any culture before it, highly individualized. John's gospel (I doubt the writer intended this) of all the gospels appeals the most to a "Just me and God" mentality.

So, no, I don't think there is any devious calculation at work. Modernors are highly individualistic; modern Evangelicals share this outlook; John is the gospel most susceptible to an individualistic reading; thus modern Evangelicals find it the most attractive to themselves, and so naturally assume it will be the most attractive to others.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by liamconnor]

Evangelicals are indoctrinated to focus on making converts to Christ: not converts to Genesis, or to Matthew or Mark or to 2 Chronicals or whatever. This is actually quite in line with Paul's own ministry: Christ, not Torah was what he was pushing.

So Christ is not found in Matthew or Mark, but only in John? I'm glad you mentioned Paul's purpose, because it is quite relevant. The tracts also rely heavily on verses from Paul's letters.

Yes, John is the most personal, and arguably the most lofty and beautifully written. But beauty does not always equal truth, in spite of what the poets may say. John is Gospel with the hightest Christology. Jesus is the rescuer (Savior) who "came down from Heaven". The one who was "with God, and was God". The only "way" to God, the "way, the Truth and the Life". The most exclusivist, divisive and exclusionary Gospel.

Could it be the Evangelical wants to make sure that all the previous Gospels, and yes, the "Old" Testament as well, are read though a Johannine and a Pauline lens?

Seems no accident... this is the effect, if not the intention. When I went through my Evangelical phase, that recomendation to start with the Gospel of John stuck in the back of my mind. And unquestioningly, I followed it.

Then I noticed the same recommendation in other Evangelical tracts, like one from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and others. And it made me wonder. Still does.

It took me a while to read the Synoptics with "fresh eyes". When I did, I saw no talk of being "born again", or "praying in Jesus name", that Jesus existed before Abraham, that Jesus was the "only way"...these are all Johannine notions.

Why put John, in effect, above Matthew, Mark and Luke?

By contrast, the Synotpic Jesus teaches that to "inherit eternal life, keep the Commandments". And describes salvation as a process...a path which leads to Life.

They Synoptic Jesus urges his disciples to let their light shine before men, so that they will see youir good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven.

The Johannine Jesus, by contrast, grasps for the Glory of God saying "Father glorify me with the glory we shared in Heaven", or words to that effect.

These are some of the things I learned when I shed my Johannine, Evangelical indoctrination.

But I think you are onto something, that the GoJ is about personal salvation moreso than the others. It does seem to contain a "plan" of salvation, though John really makes little mention of the role of Jesus blood, only in the importance of "believing in" Jesus.

Could it be that John is read with a Pauline lens? Paul is the one who preaches the blood, more than the others.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 2 by liamconnor]

Evangelicals are indoctrinated to focus on making converts to Christ: not converts to Genesis, or to Matthew or Mark or to 2 Chronicals or whatever. This is actually quite in line with Paul's own ministry: Christ, not Torah was what he was pushing.

So Christ is not found in Matthew or Mark, but only in John? I'm glad you mentioned Paul's purpose, because it is quite relevant. The tracts also rely heavily on verses from Paul's letters.

Yes, John is the most personal, and arguably the most lofty and beautifully written. But beauty does not always equal truth, in spite of what the poets may say. John is Gospel with the hightest Christology. Jesus is the rescuer (Savior) who "came down from Heaven". The one who was "with God, and was God". The only "way" to God, the "way, the Truth and the Life". The most exclusivist, divisive and exclusionary Gospel.

Could it be the Evangelical wants to make sure that all the previous Gospels, and yes, the "Old" Testament as well, are read though a Johannine and a Pauline lens?

Seems no accident... this is the effect, if not the intention. When I went through my Evangelical phase, that recomendation to start with the Gospel of John stuck in the back of my mind. And unquestioningly, I followed it.

Then I noticed the same recommendation in other Evangelical tracts, like one from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and others. And it made me wonder. Still does.

It took me a while to read the Synoptics with "fresh eyes". When I did, I saw no talk of being "born again", or "praying in Jesus name", that Jesus existed before Abraham, that Jesus was the "only way"...these are all Johannine notions.

Why put John, in effect, above Matthew, Mark and Luke?

By contrast, the Synotpic Jesus teaches that to "inherit eternal life, keep the Commandments". And describes salvation as a process...a path which leads to Life.

They Synoptic Jesus urges his disciples to let their light shine before men, so that they will see youir good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven.

The Johannine Jesus, by contrast, grasps for the Glory of God saying "Father glorify me with the glory we shared in Heaven", or words to that effect.

These are some of the things I learned when I shed my Johannine, Evangelical indoctrination.

But I think you are onto something, that the GoJ is about personal salvation moreso than the others. It does seem to contain a "plan" of salvation, though John really makes little mention of the role of Jesus blood, only in the importance of "believing in" Jesus.

Could it be that John is read with a Pauline lens? Paul is the one who preaches the blood, more than the others.

John's gospel is contrasted to the Synoptics in that divinity is shown in servitude and suffering. Jesus doesn't really have to grasp at divinity as he attains it through the crucifixion. It is in self denial that his glory is revealed. He is lifted up in glory on the cross itself. He reigns in and through what the other gospel writers would look at as defeat or failure. By identifying with John's Christ, those who are just getting their feet wet will be more likely to see what they're doing as success rather than failure, and perhaps more likely to jump in with a bit more zeal.

I also think you've hit something that has always kind of bothered me in your comments about him being more personal. While having a more personal relationship with God seems like a good thing, it can also be a problem for those who are wrapped up in themselves. I see a lot of people becoming more interested in their own persona than those they are interacting with. What was meant to bring people together seems to highlight their personal differences.

On some level I think this may be intentional in that all of this tension and controversy brings out the worst in people which allows them to either deal with it, or leave to try again another day. It separates the wheat from the chaff quite rapidly, and allows the wheat to see the difference while the chaff prances around pretending to be wheat until it just sluffs off.

At that point one can see that they're really a paper thin Christian and this is what compels them into the rest of the bible. So from that standpoint, I can see how John could have this tendency to inspire one to read the rest of the bible or repulse one to drop it altogether.

I found the seeds of anti semitism baked into the texts rather disturbing at first, but later was able to see that this is an incredibly useful literary device to show God's ability to transform through sacrifice and forgiveness.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I can't really say, I'd have to read the leaflet (possibly it presents reasons for recommeding the gospel of John to be read by its converts first). I will say that personally I find John's gospel to be the most beautifully written, poetic, personal and profound of the four gospels. It might be a little difficult for a new Christian to fully appreciate but there is no doubt in my mind that sitting down and reading or listening to the entire gospel as written by John is a very moving experience.

I don't think its a coincidence that John contains some of the most well known and well loved scriptures in the bible and I don't think one has to be a believer to feel mankind would definitely be worse off for not having such a beautiful piece of literature.

JW

JOHN 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

JOHN 13:34-35 (ESV)
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.�

JOHN 1:1 (NWT)
In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god

ps: oh yeah!

[steveb1]

Why do Evangelical tracts often urge the new convert to begin their Bible studies with the Gospel of John? (Bill Bright's Four Spiritual Laws pamphlet is an example).

Why not where the Bible begins, the book of Genesis?

Why not where the New Testament begins, the Gospel of Matthew?

Why not with the earliest Gospel, the Gospel of Mark?

Why begin with the latest Gospel, John?

Is there an agenda? What is it?

Yes: the agenda is to deceive the innocent into the false belief that "Jesus is God". It's an old trick, used by such differing catechists as Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis. Start 'em with John with its exalted Jesus and his "I am" claims, and they're well on the way to mainstream Trinitarianism.

One cannot afford to be naive about John's christological claims. Nowhere in John is Jesus claimed to be ontological God. The agenda preys on the public's ignorance, pointing to the "I am" texts and whispering, "See? This is where Jesus is making divine claims!" Of course, nothing of the sort is going on, but the Trinitarian agenda depends on public misconstruing of John's christology.

Start with John and you'll put other Gospels' "adoptionist" christologies on the back burner, as when Jesus is baptized by John and "becomes" God's beloved Son via the descent of the Holy Spirit, etc.

[Overcomer]

steveb1 wrote:

Yes: the agenda is to deceive the innocent into the false belief that "Jesus is God". It's an old trick, used by such differing catechists as Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis. Start 'em with John with its exalted Jesus and his "I am" claims, and they're well on the way to mainstream Trinitarianism

There's no deception involved. John presents Jesus Christ as God because he is. The "I AM" claims originate with Christ himself and he fully intended that people understand that he was claiming to be God.

Here is an article that addresses the JW's misinterpretation of Christ's statement "Before Abraham was, I AM", with "I AM' being a title of Yahweh that Jesus uses of himself -- a title that speaks to his eternal existence and his ontology:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/iamwhatiam.php

The Jews knew that Jesus was claiming to be God. That's why they accused him of blasphemy and wanted to stone him. Blasphemy = somebody claiming to be God. And stoning was the punishment according to Jewish law for somebody claiming to be God. So you can't say that Jesus never claimed to be God anywhere in the gospel of John, because he did, and his audience knew it. So if you're going to call anybody a liar or trickster, you're going to have call Jesus that.

See here:

https://www.gotquestions.org/I-AM.html

https://www.compellingtruth.org/Jesus-I-AM.html

John makes it very clear that Jesus is God in both his gospel and in the Book of Revelation:

https://carm.org/who-jesus-according-john-apostle

More on Jesus claiming to be God is here:

http://bibleprobe.com/jesus-is-God.htm

And here:

viewtopic.php?t=33892

And yes, it's good to start with the gospel of John because it does make it clear who Jesus is, what he has done, why he did it, and what it means for all of us. After that, read the gospels, then Acts and all the epistles. Then start at Genesis and read through the Old Testament which can only be fully understood from the foot of the cross. Lastly, read Revelation for the "end of the story".

Here is a good article for Jehovah's Witnesses to read for clarity:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jehovah-Wi ... stian.html

[shnarkle]

steveb1 wrote:

Yes: the agenda is to deceive the innocent into the false belief that "Jesus is God". It's an old trick, used by such differing catechists as Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis. Start 'em with John with its exalted Jesus and his "I am" claims, and they're well on the way to mainstream Trinitarianism

There's no deception involved. John presents Jesus Christ as God because he is. The "I AM" claims originate with Christ himself and he fully intended that people understand that he was claiming to be God.

Here is an article that addresses the JW's misinterpretation of Christ's statement "Before Abraham was, I AM", with "I AM' being a title of Yahweh that Jesus uses of himself -- a title that speaks to his eternal existence and his ontology:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/iamwhatiam.php

The Jews knew that Jesus was claiming to be God. That's why they accused him of blasphemy and wanted to stone him. Blasphemy = somebody claiming to be God. And stoning was the punishment according to Jewish law for somebody claiming to be God. So you can't say that Jesus never claimed to be God anywhere in the gospel of John, because he did, and his audience knew it. So if you're going to call anybody a liar or trickster, you're going to have call Jesus that.

See here:

https://www.gotquestions.org/I-AM.html

https://www.compellingtruth.org/Jesus-I-AM.html

John makes it very clear that Jesus is God in both his gospel and in the Book of Revelation:

https://carm.org/who-jesus-according-john-apostle

More on Jesus claiming to be God is here:

http://bibleprobe.com/jesus-is-God.htm

And here:

viewtopic.php?t=33892

And yes, it's good to start with the gospel of John because it does make it clear who Jesus is, what he has done, why he did it, and what it means for all of us. After that, read the gospels, then Acts and all the epistles. Then start at Genesis and read through the Old Testament which can only be fully understood from the foot of the cross. Lastly, read Revelation for the "end of the story".

Here is a good article for Jehovah's Witnesses to read for clarity:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jehovah-Wi ... stian.html

The problem with your argument is that it assumes as a given what the texts expliticly reject. Most, if not all would agree that to exist eternally is an attribute of God. Yet this isn't what is presented in the biblical texts. You are assuming this is referring to God BECAUSE it is what YOU believe.

Paul points out that the ORIGIN of existence is GOD, while the MEANS of existence is Christ. That is a given, and all of your assertions to the contrary are irrelevant when the texts themselves deny your claims.

Each and every passage must be interpreted in accordance with the divinely inspired claims of Paul.

John's introduction is clear in stating that everything that exists is created, so if you believe that God exists, then God is either created or God isn't a thing to begin with. If God isn't a thing, then God can't be what exists.

The fact is that the word exists, and is probably the ground of existence. IF existence is eternal and God is the origin of existence(the word), then one needs to understand the difference between existence and the origin of existence. To conflate the two is to wander into complete confusion.

[steveb1]

steveb1 wrote:

Yes: the agenda is to deceive the innocent into the false belief that "Jesus is God". It's an old trick, used by such differing catechists as Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis. Start 'em with John with its exalted Jesus and his "I am" claims, and they're well on the way to mainstream Trinitarianism

There's no deception involved. John presents Jesus Christ as God because he is. The "I AM" claims originate with Christ himself and he fully intended that people understand that he was claiming to be God.

Here is an article that addresses the JW's misinterpretation of Christ's statement "Before Abraham was, I AM", with "I AM' being a title of Yahweh that Jesus uses of himself -- a title that speaks to his eternal existence and his ontology:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/iamwhatiam.php

The Jews knew that Jesus was claiming to be God. That's why they accused him of blasphemy and wanted to stone him. Blasphemy = somebody claiming to be God. And stoning was the punishment according to Jewish law for somebody claiming to be God. So you can't say that Jesus never claimed to be God anywhere in the gospel of John, because he did, and his audience knew it. So if you're going to call anybody a liar or trickster, you're going to have call Jesus that.

See here:

https://www.gotquestions.org/I-AM.html

https://www.compellingtruth.org/Jesus-I-AM.html

John makes it very clear that Jesus is God in both his gospel and in the Book of Revelation:

https://carm.org/who-jesus-according-john-apostle

More on Jesus claiming to be God is here:

http://bibleprobe.com/jesus-is-God.htm

And here:

viewtopic.php?t=33892

And yes, it's good to start with the gospel of John because it does make it clear who Jesus is, what he has done, why he did it, and what it means for all of us. After that, read the gospels, then Acts and all the epistles. Then start at Genesis and read through the Old Testament which can only be fully understood from the foot of the cross. Lastly, read Revelation for the "end of the story".

Here is a good article for Jehovah's Witnesses to read for clarity:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jehovah-Wi ... stian.html

It's deception because John's Jesus never claimed to be God in the first place.

In fact, John's Jesus explicitly excluded himself from the Godhead when he said, in John 17:3, "You, [Father], are the only true God". Elsewhere John's Jesus tells Mary M. that he must ascend to "your God and my God". God does not have a God. Only creatures have a God. Another passage in John has Jesus insisting that "I am a man" (using the common Greek anthropos, meaning "man") who has heard / and/ obeys the will of God". A divine union mystic and/or a human prophet is a mere man who hears and obeys God. God does not hear and obey God. Jesus is not claiming to be God.

Nor do John's high Christology and "I am" statements indicate that Jesus is God:

"I return to the glory I had with the Father before the world was made" is a statement of pre-existence, not deity.

"Who sees me sees the Father" is not a statement of deity, but of union and communion with God, and such phrases are said by every divine union mystic since the world began. And so is the phrase, "The Father and I are one".

"Before Abraham came to be, I am" is, again, a claim to pre-existence, not to deity.

"you can't say that Jesus never claimed to be God anywhere in the gospel of John, because he did, and his audience knew it"

But I'm not the party who is saying it. John's Gospel itself says it:

The audience did not know what Jesus was actually claiming ("sonlike" intimacy with God, and Messiahship).
They mistakenly think he's either claiming to BE God, or to BE EQUAL with God, but according to John they are wrong, and Jesus corrects them.

Jesus corrects them by reminding them that they call mere men - Israel's ancient hero-judges - "gods". So he scolds them for condemning him for making the much less lofty claim of merely being God's Son - he's not calling himself "God". He's only calling himself God's "son".
So the crowd, like everyone else who thinks that Jesus is God, is completely mistaken, according to John and John's Jesus.

Moreover, the book of Revelation, although not written by "John" the evangelist, still has certain resonances with the Johannine literature, and Revelation explicitly denies deity to Jesus. As does Paul, for whom Jesus was a pre-existent heavenly angelic being, but not God.

The notion that Jesus is God is both unbiblical and post-biblical.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 9 by steveb1]

Jesus was a pre-existent heavenly angelic being, but not God.

Everything else in your post makes sense, but this idea that Jesus was "pre-existent" doesn't make sense to me, nor this idea that he was a heavenly angelic being. I don't see anything in the biblical texts to indicate anything that precise.

Jesus is the name given to a person who "was the word". The texts state that the word "became flesh", but there is nothing to indicate that what became flesh was named or could be identified as Jesus before then.

if the word "was" prior to becoming flesh, then it doesn't "pre-exist". The word exists, or perhaps more accurately is existence.

Heavenly angelic beings are created, and the introduction to John's gospel indicates that all things are created, yet the word is doing the creating, therefore it cannot be what it creates. If angelic beings are created then the word is not an angelic being.