In John 2:19–21, Jesus says: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jewish leaders understood Him to mean the literal temple in Jerusalem, but the passage notes that He was speaking of “the temple of His body.” How is this understood in Christian theology? Was Jesus explicitly referring to His physical body as the “temple,” and if so, what is the significance of this metaphor?

In John 18:37–38, Jesus says He came into the world *“to testify to the truth,”* and Pilate responds, *“What is truth?”* In Christian theology, “truth” is often associated with God’s nature, His Word, and the person of Jesus Christ (John 14:6). Jesus also says in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit “will guide you into all truth.” However, does this theological concept of truth also encompass factual truths about the created world (e.g., the shape of the earth, historical facts, scientific realities), or is it limited to spiritual and moral truths revealed by God? How have Christian theologians understood the scope of “truth” in Scripture?

This question was prompted by these verses surrounding Jesus' cleansing of the temple of the money-changers: **John 2:18-19** (NKJV): > So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, > since You do these things?” > > Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three > days I will raise it up.” On what basis could Jews demand a sign from someone?

In the following verse, did Jesus in fact say the word, the name of God, that no Jew would dare to say aloud at that time? > As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, > and fell to the ground (John 18:6) If yes, why was He not tried for that before the high priest (there were so many witnesses after all)? If not, why then so many say that here He was quoting Exodus 3:14 (which means He DID pronounce the forbidden word)?

We read in John 1:1-2: > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Clearly, John means The Son of God for “the Word who was with God”, as is evident from Vs 1:2. No other Evangelist uses the concept of "The Word was God "; neither do we hear Jesus referring to himself as "The Word". Of course, he speaks of the words from the mouth of God, as in Matthew 4:4: > But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Now, there is a difference between Word that proceeds from God' and Word that was God'. Is it possible that John sourced the concept from an ancient Jewish text, or from Greek philosophy? My question therefore is: **According to Catholic Church, what was the source of the concept "The Word was God " that John the Evangelist introduced in Jn 1: 1?**

In John 21:9-14, after His resurrection, Jesus prepares a meal of fish and bread for His disciples by the Sea of Galilee. This moment is both intimate and practical, showing Jesus serving His followers with a simple act of hospitality. Does this scene offer any theological or moral encouragement for Christians today to develop practical life skills like cooking and serving others, especially within the context of ministry, hospitality, or daily Christian living? How have different Christian traditions interpreted this act?

Unity Church often refers to the Holy Spirit in feminine terms, a view that contrasts with traditional Christian doctrine. This raises the question of whether their belief is tied to certain biblical wordings. In Genesis 2:18 (ESV), Eve is introduced with: > “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’” In the Gospel of John, the Holy Spirit is called a helper multiple times. For example, John 14:16 (ESV) says: > “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever.” Other similar references include John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:7, all using the Greek term paraklētos (translated as Helper, Comforter, or Advocate). Is Unity Church’s feminine understanding of the Holy Spirit based on this shared role/title of “helper” between Eve and the Spirit? Or is their interpretation shaped more by metaphysical symbolism or other theological influences?

Genesis 2:2 says God rested on the seventh day after finishing His work, and Hebrews 4:9–11 speaks of a Sabbath rest for the people of God. Meanwhile, Jesus says in John 9:4, *“We must work the works of Him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.”* How do these concepts relate? Is “rest” purely eschatological, or is there a present spiritual rest for believers? And how should this impact how we understand the timing and urgency of Christian labor?

In the story of the woman caught in adultery, John indicates that the question of the Pharisees was a "trap". > 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people > gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of > the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They > made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this > woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded > us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 **They were using this > question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.**
> [John 8:2-6 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:2-6&version=NIV) What specifically was the trap they were trying to get Jesus to fall into?

John 17:15 >I pray NOT that thou shouldest take them out of this world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. >Vs 20) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; This prayer followed Jesus' declaration in the previous chapter of this. John 16:33 >These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. How do pretrib rapture proponents interpret and reconcil these verses being compatible with their eschatology?

In John 20:27, after His resurrection, Jesus invites Thomas to touch the wounds in His hands and side. That detail has always struck me — if Jesus was raised in a glorified body, why were the wounds from His crucifixion still visible? Paul describes the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15 as imperishable and glorious, which makes me wonder: shouldn’t that mean it would be healed or perfected, without any remaining scars? I’m curious how Christians understand this. Is there a theological reason why Jesus kept the marks of His suffering? And what does that say about the nature of the resurrection body, or about His mission?

In the Gospel of John, the term "Jews" appears significantly more often than in the Synoptic Gospels — 66 times in John compared to 5 in Matthew, 6 in Mark, and 4 in Luke. In the Gospel of John, there are about 31 verses in which Jews are portrayed in a negative light, such as in John 8:42-56: > 42 Jesus said unto them, **If God were your Father**, ye would love > me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, > but he sent me. > > 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my > word. > > 44 **Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye > will do.** He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the > truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he > speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. > > 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. > > 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do > ye not believe me? > > 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, > because **ye are not of God**. > > 48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that > thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? > > 49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and > **ye do dishonour me**. > > 50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and > judgeth. > > 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall > never see death. > > 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. > Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my > saying, he shall never taste of death. > > 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the > prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? > > 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my > Father that honoureth me; **of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 > Yet ye have not known him;** but I know him: and if I should say, I > know him not, I shall be a **liar like unto you**: but I know him, and > keep his saying. > > 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was > glad. The occurrences are detailed below: Note: If you edit the question, please keep the numbered list Matthew 1) Matthew 2:2 2) Matthew 27:11 3) Matthew 27:29 4) Matthew 27:37 5) Matthew 28:15 Mark 1) Mark 7:3 2) Mark 15:2 3) Mark 15:9 4) Mark 15:12 5) Mark 15:18 6) Mark 15:26 Luke 1) Luke 7:3 2) Luke 23:3 3) Luke 23:37 4) Luke 23:38 John Note: Negative verses are reproduced 1) John 1:19 2) John 2:6 3) John 2:13 4) John 2:18 5) John 2:20 6) John 3:1 7) John 3:25 8) John 4:9 9) John 4:22 10) John 5:1 11) John 5:10 12) John 5:15 13-n1) John 5:16 "And therefore did **the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him**, because he had done these things on the sabbath day" 14-n2) John 5:18 "Therefore **the Jews sought the more to kill him**, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." 15) John 6:4 16-n3) John 6:41 "**The Jews then murmured at him**, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven." 17) John 6:52 18-n4) John 7:1 "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because **the Jews sought to kill him**." 19) John 7:2 20) John 7:11 21-n5) John 7:13 "Howbeit **no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.**" 22) John 7:15 23) John 7:35 24) John 8:22 25) John 8:31 26-n6-n11) John 8:42-48 "Jesus said unto them, **If God were your Father**, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. **Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.** He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, **ye believe me not**. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, **why do ye not believe me?** He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because **ye are not of God**. Then **answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?**" 27-n12) John 8:52 "**Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil.** Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death." 28-n13) John 8:57-59 "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. **Then took they up stones to cast at him**: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." 29-n14) John 9:18 "**But the Jews did not believe concerning him**, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight." 30-n15) John 9:22 " These words spake his parents, **because they feared the Jew: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue**." 31) John 10:19 32) John 10:24 33-n16) John 10:31 "Then **the Jews took up stones again to stone him**." 34-n17) John 10:33 " **The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy**; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." 35-n18) John 11:8 "His disciples say unto him, Master, **the Jews of late sought to stone thee**; and goest thou thither again?" 36) John 11:19 37) John 11:31 38) John 11:33 39) John 11:36 40) John 11:45 41-n19) John 11:53-54 " **Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews**; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples." 42) John 11:55 43) John 12:9 44) John 12:11 45) John 13:33 46-n20) John 18:12 "**Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him**," 47-n21) John 18:14 "Now Caiaphas was he, **which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people**." 48) John 18:20 49-n22) John 18:31 "Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. **The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death**:" 50) John 18:33 51-n23) John 18:35 "Pilate answered, **Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me**: what hast thou done?" 52-n24) John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, **then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews**: but now is my kingdom not from hence." 53-54-n25) John 18:38-40 "Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, **he went out again unto the Jews**, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. But ye have a custom, that **I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?** **Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas**. Now Barabbas was a robber." 55) John 19:3 56-n26) John 19:7 "**The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die**, because he made himself the Son of God." 57-n27) John 19:12 "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: **but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend**: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." 58) John 19:14 59) John 19:19 60) John 19:20 61-n28) John 19:21 "**Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews**." 62-n29) John 19:31 "**The Jews therefore**, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) **besought Pilate that their legs might be broken**, and that they might be taken away." 63-n30) John 19:38 "**And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews**, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus." 64) John 19:40 65) John 19:42 66-n31) John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when **the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews**, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

In John 8:1-11, Jesus forgives the women who was taken in adultery, but critical scholars, such as Dr. Bart Erhman, claim that no early or reliable manuscripts contain John 8:1-11, and that, thus, it was probably a later addition. How would you respond to this claim? I have included quotes from Erhman below: > "The story of the woman caught in adultery is not found in the > earliest and most reliable manuscripts of the Gospel of John, nor in > many of the important versions of the text... It appears to have been > added later, perhaps to fill in a gap in the narrative." (Misquoting Jesus) > > "The story, even though it may have been part of the oral tradition, > is not originally part of the Gospel of John, but rather was added > later by a scribe, perhaps because the story was well known in > Christian tradition and fit well with the themes of the Gospel." (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) > > "The story was eventually included in some versions of the Gospel, > likely because it was seen as a powerful teaching of Jesus’ mercy, but > its late inclusion suggests it was not part of the original Gospel." (A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings)

Bishop Josephus Meile (†1957) claims in *Die jungfräulichen Seelen in der Welt* (*The Virgin Souls in the World* ) p. 28 that >At the time of the *wedding at Cana*, as the Fathers of the Church testify, Mary was married as the new Eve to Christ as the New Adam. The new wine of Cana symbolizes the love that unites the King and the Queen.
Bei der *Hochzeit zu Kana*, so bezeugen uns die Kirchenväter, ist Maria als neue Eva mit Christus als neuem Adam vermählt worden. Durch den neuen Wein von Kana wird die Liebe versinnbildet, welche den König und die Königin verbindet. Which "Fathers of the Church" say the **wedding at Cana** was that of the **New Eve marrying the New Adam?**

Was John 13:9 ("Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.") ever used to justify baptism by effusion on other body parts than the head?

I've read in Ellicott's commentary that the "other" disciple of John 18:15 might be James, for it stands in contrast to John's supposed self-designation as "the beloved disciple". But that got me wondering: why did John not directly name himself or his brother within the entire gospel? Is there any church traditions or research out the that disseminates why John may have not wanted to name himself or James within his own gospel?

From this answer it is stated "Peter, James, John (the twelve) were followers of Christ's earthly ministry to Israel (the circumcision)." and from a comment there given for clarity, "The gospels were directly to Israel regarding the coming kingdom of heaven and 'prophecy' that was revealed to Israel's prophets "since the world began" (Luke 1:70).". The answer states that, while all of the New Testament is profitable for those in the Church it is the Apostle Paul's writings that are specifically to and for the Church with the rest (especially the Gospels) specifically to and for the nation of Israel. The twelve Apostles were Christ's ministers to Israel and Paul was Christ's minister to Gentiles. The Dispensationalist view seems to be that Jesus is building His Church now and **some Jews** believe and are added to the Church. At some point the Church will be removed from earth and then **lots of Jews** will believe but they will not be part of the Church (because the Church age is over). > And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. - John 10:16 (KJV) In this passage John records Jesus saying **to the Jews** that there is one sheepfold of His sheep into which "other sheep" will be brought. The natural reading of this seems to be that Jesus' sheep are the believing Jews and the "other sheep" who are not of this fold that will be brought in are the Gentiles. This appears on the surface to be the exact opposite of dispensational thought wherein Jews believe in Jesus and are added to the Church and where there are two "sheepfolds", Israel and the Church. Parenthetic: A similar difficulty arises in Romans 11:11-24 where the wild olive branches (Gentiles) are grafted into the good olive tree (Israel) so that there will be just one olive tree. My question for Dispensationalists regarding John 10:16 is: How is the plain reading of this passage overcome?

We read in Jn 8:2-6 : > 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them 3 And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst 4 And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou 6 And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. We generally see images of Jesus sitting on a raised platform say, a rock, to teach so that he is audible to maximum number of people. The Temple courtyard may have had benches of wood or stone. But in John 8:6 we see Jesus writing on the ground . The ground must have had a layer of loose sand where he wrote ( just as children writing their name on beach sand and watching the waves obliterating it ). That implies Jesus was squatting on the ground when the adulterous woman was brought to him for judgement. And the Jews address him as Teacher. In fact, there was a tradition in the Orient, of teachers squatting on the ground along with their disciples . Taking a cue from Jn 8, a few churches in India have images of Jesus squatting on the ground. My question is : Does any Catholic Church in the West have image of Jesus squatting on the ground in a posture of deep meditation.

It's interesting that a person will claim passages were added at a later date without considering the textual evidence. A fragment of the Gospel of John dates in the first half of the second century. We have complete copies of John in the fourth century codices. My concern is answering arguments for parts of John being later additions before the fourth century. An example of evidence, Irenaeus of Lyons, in the late second century, quotes parts of the prolegomena that some question it being part of the original Gospel. >But what John really does say is this: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." *Irenaeus - Against Heresies book 1* http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book1.html >John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, "He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not." ... For when he had spoken of the Word of God as having been in the Father, he added, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made." ... For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Irenaeus - *Against Heresies book 3* http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html I'm not concerned with John 7:53–8:11, which is not in the earliest manuscripts. The rest of the Gospel is consistent in language and subject matter. It does appear that John added chapter 21 as a postscript. Has someone already compiled this information for the Gospel of John?

Ireneaus offers the following interpretation of Proverbs 8, > I have also largely demonstrated, that the Word, namely the Son, was > always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was > present with Him, anterior to all creation. He declares by Solomon : > "God by Wisdom founded the earth, and by understanding hath He > established the heaven. By His knowledge the depths burst forth, and > the clouds dropped down the dew." And again: "The Lord created me the > beginning of His ways in His work: He set me up from everlasting, in > the beginning, before He made the earth, before He established the > depths, and before the fountains of waters gushed forth; before the > mountains were made strong, and before all the hills, He brought me > forth." And again: "When He prepared the heaven, I was with Him, and > when He established the fountains of the deep; when He made the > foundations of the earth strong, I was with Him preparing [them]. I > was He in whom He rejoiced, and throughout all time I was daily glad > before His face, when He rejoiced at the completion of the world, and > was delighted in the sons of men." (Against Heresies, 4:20:3 - ANF > 1:488) If Ireneaus was a student of Polycarp (a student of John the Apostle), why doesn't he (Ireneaus) interpret Prov. 8 as a reference to Christ, especially if we are to believe that Prov. 8 influenced Jn. 1:1? Wasn't Ireneaus from the Johannine school of thought? Why doesn't his interpretation align with what is supposed to be the "Johannine tradition," if Prov. 8 was really the influence for Jn. 1:1?