“BTW, verse 6:63, which you quote, is profoundly Gnostic, and contrary to the Christian belief that God created natural man as body and soul. Whereas Gnostics held that only the spirit is pure; the body, in fact, was our prison where pre existing souls have been sent as punishment. It is therefore not surprising that the oldest sources that quote John are Gnostic.”
The very first chapter of John “the Word became flesh” and in the 20th chapter John’s report of Jesus’ invitation to Thomas to touch His wounded flesh dispels any notion that John’s gospel was influenced by incipient gnosticism.
Bultmann had a very low view of the scriptures and his gnostic ideas of Jesus, he stated, “it is not the historical Jesus, but Jesus the Preached One, who is Lord” colors his interpretation of John’s gospel.
So what is your point? Should I discard your opinion simply because you have low opinion of the Koran? Show me where Bultmann is wrong, not whether you hold his opinions in low esteem. I quotes him using very precise and verifiable statements. Why don't you simply refute them with equal validity? Why don't you show me that chapter 5 and 6 of John's Gospel are not out of order, or that Chapter 21 is not an addition tot the last chapter?
The very first chapter of John “the Word became flesh” and in the 20th chapter John’s report of Jesus’ invitation to Thomas to touch His wounded flesh dispels any notion that John’s gospel was influenced by incipient gnosticism
No sir. Jesus became flesh so he can suffer. Wasn't that the idea for Incarnation? It is only in his body that he could become subject to passions, and death. John still maintains that flesh counts for nothing, and that only the spirit is pure. That is Gnostic. Agian, if Gnostics didn't find him appelaing they would't have used him before Christians did.
As for Thomas, I suppose God could have just given him the faith without the theatrics, don't you think so?