John 15.10

[Elijah John]

“If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.�

John's Jesus speaks as though the Father's commandments were not given directly to the people but only directly to Jesus.

In the Synoptics, Jesus, by contrast said "if you would enter life, keep the commandments".

This is not the only place where John's Jesus is at odds with Jesus as presented in the Synoptics.

John's Jesus teaches the disciples to pray in Jesus name. The Synoptic Jesus, by contrast, only teaches to hallow the Father's name when praying.

For debate. In light of the above examples, do you believe the real Jesus taught direct access to God, as suggested in the Synoptics, or mediated access to God as suggested in the Gospel of John?

Also, I do believe there are other problems with harmonizing John 15.10 to other Bible teachings, namely the teachings of Paul. Can you detect these or other problems with John 15.10 as well?

[dio9]

“If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.�

John's Jesus speaks as though the Father's commandments were not given directly to the people but only directly to Jesus.

In the Synoptics, Jesus, by contrast said "if you would enter life, keep the commandments".

This is not the only place where John's Jesus is at odds with Jesus as presented in the Synoptics.

John's Jesus teaches the disciples to pray in Jesus name. The Synoptic Jesus, by contrast, only teaches to hallow the Father's name when praying.

For debate. In light of the above examples, do you believe the real Jesus taught direct access to God, as suggested in the Synoptics, or mediated access to God as suggested in the Gospel of John?

Also, I do believe there are other problems with harmonizing John 15.10 to other Bible teachings, namely the teachings of Paul. Can you detect these or other problems with John 15.10 as well?

Good topic. John's Gospel focuses on Jesus as the only son of God. John makes Jesus God himself. Jesus' word is God's word. Jesus is the word of God. This is how Christian thought developed in the 50 or so years after Jesus' passion occurred. Who was Jesus was an issue , Was he God or Man? John says he was divine. Synoptics say he was Man. Patristics say he was both God and Man.
Good compromise. Deal with it , the logical impossibility of one Being God and Man. So we have both direct access and mediated access. I know I have experienced both. There is nothing less about mediated access through Jesus and the saints.
Mediated access is just more personal.

[Elijah John]

Good topic. John's Gospel focuses on Jesus as the only son of God. John makes Jesus God himself. Jesus' word is God's word. Jesus is the word of God. This is how Christian thought developed in the 50 or so years after Jesus' passion occurred. Who was Jesus was an issue , Was he God or Man? John says he was divine. Synoptics say he was Man. Patristics say he was both God and Man.
Good compromise. Deal with it , the logical impossibility of one Being God and Man. So we have both direct access and mediated access. I know I have experienced both. There is nothing less about mediated access through Jesus and the saints.
Mediated access is just more personal.

I't's almost as though John's Jesus is saying "go through me from now on, I will be your filter for the Commandments of the Father, then pass them on to you as my own."

Direct or mediated access? Either seems to work for people. I have seen wise and observant Jews and Muslms experiencing the fruits of the Holy Spirit in their lives. I have also seen wise and observent Trinitarians doing the same. For the former, direct access seems to work, for the latter, mediated. It's almost as though the Creator does not care so much that we get our theology exactly "right" but cares more about the love and devotion of our hearts.

[brianbbs67]

I read that verse to say Christ is telling them to do as he has told them to do. What did he tell them to do?To have life? Follow God's commandments.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 4 by brianbbs67]

I agree Jesus taught based on the commandments. His difference is he softened them smoothed off the sharp edges. Healing on the sabbath, forgiving the adulteress, picking grain on the sabbath. Jesus put his spin on them, he said it was God's truth it was new understanding and Jesus was the only one saying it , the only one teaching it. For those who believed it was world changing insight. So much so that John called Jesus one with God.

[101G]

“If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.�

John's Jesus speaks as though the Father's commandments were not given directly to the people but only directly to Jesus.

In the Synoptics, Jesus, by contrast said "if you would enter life, keep the commandments".

This is not the only place where John's Jesus is at odds with Jesus as presented in the Synoptics.

John's Jesus teaches the disciples to pray in Jesus name. The Synoptic Jesus, by contrast, only teaches to hallow the Father's name when praying.

For debate. In light of the above examples, do you believe the real Jesus taught direct access to God, as suggested in the Synoptics, or mediated access to God as suggested in the Gospel of John?

Also, I do believe there are other problems with harmonizing John 15.10 to other Bible teachings, namely the teachings of Paul. Can you detect these or other problems with John 15.10 as well?

Addressing the OP only. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

the Title "Father" is just that, ..... a title. the name of God is "JESUS", Hebrew, "YESHUA".

the titles are only given because of God's diversity in flesh as the offspring, hence the titles, "Last", "Omega", or the "End" .... the Son. who is the SAME person without flesh, that is the "First", the " Alpha", and the "beginning"... the Father.

[Elijah John]

In reply to 101G

The name of God is "YHVH" sometimes pronounced "Yahweh" sometimes "Jehovah".

"Jesus" or "Yahshua" is a theophonic name, which incorporates the name of God, but is not equivelient to the name of God. Any more than "Joshua" "Isaiah" "Jeremiah" "Elijah" etc are the names of God. But they too, all incorporate the name of God.

[shnarkle]

“If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.�

John's Jesus speaks as though the Father's commandments were not given directly to the people but only directly to Jesus.

The problem I see with this is that when God gave the children of Israel his commandments directly, they balked and pleaded with Moses to mediate God's law for them.

In the Synoptics, Jesus, by contrast said "if you would enter life, keep the commandments".

This is not the only place where John's Jesus is at odds with Jesus as presented in the Synoptics.

Dealing with the one you have presented, I would say that when you keep God's commandments, you are keeping your God's commandments, no? We are told that when the commandmetns are kept, "I will be your God and you will be my people". I keep my God's commandments. They are for me, therefore they are my commandments. Jesus makes this same point with regards to the sabbath when he points out (from the synoptic Mark 2:27) that "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath".

John was a mystic, he is pointing out that "the word" is the mediator, and when we read through the entire old testament, we see the word coming to the prophets. The word of God has always been God's mediator. God's word is the direct path to God.

John's Jesus teaches the disciples to pray in Jesus name. The Synoptic Jesus, by contrast, only teaches to hallow the Father's name when praying.

If you keep God's commandments according to God's will and authority, you are not just under God's authority but in line with God's authority. You are operating in line with God's authority to love God, sanctify his name, his Sabbaths, honor your parents, refrain from stealing, cheating, adultery etc. When you teach your children to pray they are praying according to your direct authority because you have been given this authority by God. That's what "praying in your name" means.

For debate. In light of the above examples, do you believe the real Jesus taught direct access to God, as suggested in the Synoptics, or mediated access to God as suggested in the Gospel of John?

There is no effective difference. One can't gain direct access to transcendence. The only access is immanent within, and therefore must be mediated by the immanence of God's spirit.

Also, I do believe there are other problems with harmonizing John 15.10 to other Bible teachings, namely the teachings of Paul. Can you detect these or other problems with John 15.10 as well?

I can't think of anything Paul says that is contradictory, or in need of harminization.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 4 by brianbbs67]

I agree Jesus taught based on the commandments. His difference is he softened them smoothed off the sharp edges. Healing on the sabbath, forgiving the adulteress, picking grain on the sabbath. Jesus put his spin on them, he said it was God's truth it was new understanding and Jesus was the only one saying it , the only one teaching it. For those who believed it was world changing insight. So much so that John called Jesus one with God.

Jesus didn't soften the commandments. Healing on the Sabbath was a non starter acording to the Mosaic law. Jesus even points out that the Mosaic law stipulates one may help one's enemy with their ox in a ditch. Forgiveness is also condoned in the old testament as well as picking grain on the Sabbath. There is no spin whatsoever, in fact most of what Jesus says in the gospel narratives can be found in the Talmud. So much so that scholars quite frequently believe Jesus to have been a Pharisee. Everything Jesus says can be found in the Old Testament and the Talmud. He came to "magnify the law"

[101G]

In reply to 101G

The name of God is "YHVH" sometimes pronounced "Yahweh" sometimes "Jehovah".

"Jesus" or "Yahshua" is a theophonic name, which incorporates the name of God, but is not equivelient to the name of God. Any more than "Joshua" "Isaiah" "Jeremiah" "Elijah" etc are the names of God. But they too, all incorporate the name of God.

first thanks for the response, but NO, YHWH or YHVH is what he is and not who he is.

let me give an example to settle this now.

If i would ask you "WHAT" is the first woman NAME?"
if you answer "Eve" you would be in ERROR. and here's why. I asked "WHAT" is the name of the first woman, not "WHO" she is in Name. supportive scripture, Genesis 5:1 "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Genesis 5:2 "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created". see, what she is a "Adam", now if i would have asked "Who" was the first woman in name". the correct answer is Eve.

knowing this YHWH or YHVH is what God is name, I AM the King, I AM the Redeemer, I AM, the savior, ect.... that's "WHAT" God is and not his name. but when one say "WHO" are you in name then then we know him by name as "WHO" God is JESUS.

so the man made name Jehovah is not God personal name as to "WHO" he is but what he is.

Even the bible bare this out.