The uniqueness of John's Gospel

The style of John's Gospel, John's Epistles and Revelation are similar.

EXACTLY!! Well said Simona

Rather than sanctioning suicide attacks for religious causes, the verse exemplifies what the Lord Jesus did when He went to the Cross to die there for sinners; He is the 'Friend of publicans and sinners'.

Yes, the one that puts His life for his friends is Jesus Christ. And just like Jesus Christ died for us, a lot of christians died and were persecuted because of Him.

However, I still hang on my interpretation of the verse (that has nothing to do with suicide attacks for religious causes) because sometimes, we tend to become selfish and obsessed in our quest for heaven. Like, for example, there are cases when in a married couple, one of the spouse is or become an unbeliever and the other one, the good christian, is so willing to live a godly life and to get heaven that he/she choses to divorce him/her on the basis that the unbeliever slows the christian down in his pilgrim to heaven. I believe that true love is sacrificial and if my husband is an unbeliever, I must fight for his salvation with more energy than I fight for my own.

There is also an example in the litterature about a woman who gave up her soul and happyness, so that her lover can be happy, even if that ment that she would never see him again (I reffer to Margareta from the book The Master and Margareta, by Mikhail Bulgakov).

Sorry, but this does seem a rather bizarre way to express Godly love. Dumping one's husband or wife out of supposed love for God, who says He hates divorce, doesn't seem to make too much sense, with respect.

I think we are moving away from John's Gospel, anyway.

But I said exactly the opposite! Divorce in the case I presented is selfish, a consequence of bigotry, while true love means to sacrifice yourself and to love your husband/wife no matter what (so, no, we don't have to get divorce or to look at our atheist wives/husbands as if they were satan's agents undercover, but do our best to bring them to the light).
I hope that now I managed to make myself understood.

Okay, well, let's move on.

Just one more thing, Farouk.
This idea of sacrificing your happyness does not mean that you become solidary with the hell that the other one lives (or that you go in hell with your friends, rather than alone in Heaven; you alone go in hell, so that all the others go in heaven). It means that you take the hell off from his shoulders, carry the hell yourself and try your best to make him happy. There is no greater love than that love. This is what Jesus Christ did for us.

Philippians 2,7-8: He made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

God gave up his glory to serve us. Imagine that! So, we should do the same with the other one. Give up ourselves, forgive, humble ourselves and love the other one so much that we not only put our lives for them, but even our souls, our heaven.

The new birth is such an essential Biblical truth.

The 18th century preacher George Whitfield often preached on 'Ye must be born again'.

One day someone asked him: 'Mr. Whitfield, why is it that you keep preaching on "Ye must be born again" ?'

He replied: 'It's because ye must be born again!'

Blessings.

Okay, this needs some looking into.

The Greek word used in Jn 15:13 is psuche, meaning "breath; the breath of life; the soul."

Among others, the NT uses it of
1) the life of the body - Mt 2:20; Lk 12:22; Ac 20:10, etc.,
2) the immaterial, invisible part of man - Mt 10:28; Ac 2:27,
3) the disembodied ("unclothed" or "naked) man - 2Co 5:3, 4; Rev 6:9,
4) the seat of personality - Lk 9:24 ("own self" in v.25); Heb 6:19, 10:39, etc.
5) the seat of the sentient, by which one perceives, reflects, feels, desires - Mt 11:29; Lk 1:46, 2:35; Ac14:2, 22,
6) the seat of will and purpose - Mt 22:37; Ac 4:32; Eph 6:6; Php 1:27; Heb 12:3,
7) persons, individuals - Ac 2:41, 43; Ro 2:9; Jas 5:20; 1Pe 3:20; 2Pe 2:14,
8) the equivalent of the personal pronoun - Jn 10:24 ("us"); 2Co 12:15 ("you"), 2Pe 2:8 ("them"), etc.,
9) an animate creature, human or other - 1Co 15:45; Rev 16:3,
10) the "inward man," the seat of new life - Lk 21:19; Mt 10:39; 1Pe 2:11; 3Jn 2

The meaning of Jn 15:13 is #1, not #10.

We see that illustrated in Ro 9:1-3, where Paul states "he could wish" to give up his salvation
for the sake of those of his own race.

Paul says "I could wish," not "I do wish," because it is impossible to give up one's salvation.

So Jn 15:3 does not state that we should be willing to give up our salvation for anyone.

It's talking about giving up one's life, not one's salvation.

Interesting; yes, Paul says, 'could' wish.

'What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?' also comes to mind.

Blessings.

When you really look at it, it's a rhetorical question, with the same answer as Ro 9:1-3 ("you can't").

Having stated that the loss of the soul is so great a loss that so great a gain as the whole world
cannot make it up,
that the gain of the whole world profits nothing if one's soul is lost in the bargain,
Christ points out that if the soul is lost, it is lost forever.
There is no price which can buy it back.

Just as it is impossible to give away one's salvation (Ro 9:1-3),
so it is impossible to buy back one's lost soul (Mt 16:26).

Yes, this seems a sensible way of looking at the structure of the passage.

Blessings.

When it comes to love, words like "must" and "should" seem redundant and even constrainting to me. I know very well what I ment to say, as well as I know what the verse primarily reffer to: it reffers to Jesus Christ giving His life for His friends (us).
The fact that I look at the verse in my way and that I believe it can mean even what I said, gives me a whole different perspective on love. Moses also said something of that kind in Exodus 32,32: "But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.” Moses asks God to rather blot him out of the book of life, instead of the people.

I understand.

I was pointing out two things:
1) Jesus does not advocate giving up one's soul.

2) It is impossible to give up one's salvation.

I am encouraging a Biblical perspective, rather than our own perspective, on love.

However, keeping in mind that in the OT they did not have God's complete revelation.

Its completion came from the Son (Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers,
and we learn there that it is not possible to be removed from the book of life.

Think about what it means.

After so great a price which Christ paid to redeem you,
you are willing to just give it away,
and without necessity, for it is already available to everyone who will come.

There is no reason to give them yours, their own is available.

Don't you think the Biblical perspective on love is perfect and cannot be improved upon (1Co 4:6)?

1. I did not say that Jesus was asking that. Jesus asks us to love. We understand love differently. I was talking about being more focus on the other one's heaven than on your own. Since I believe that the ontological purpose of man is to unite with Jesus Christ, a purpose that comprise heaven, but also goes beyond heaven, I think that when someone has that love, he wishes for everyone to be saved and would pray like the greek monk who asked God to give him hell and give the unbelievers (who came to see him) heaven so that they believe.

2. Salvation is not our property to gain it or give it away. Salvation is not something that we own. So, yes, it's improper to say you give up your salvation (how can you give up something that you don't even have?). I ment to say you give up your happyness for the other one. You fight with all your heart and your being for the other one's heaven.

We have different understanding about what salvation means. There is an objective salvation (Jesus Christ died for everybody; everyone is potentially saved) and a subjective one (we must follow Jesus Christ and let Him work our hearts and deliver us from sin, definitively). In my church, believeing that you are already saved means to believe that you no longer sin. Which is why, we do not consider ourselves already saved; but we do try to stop sinning and to dedicate ourselves to God. However, if our motivations are not influenced by love (pure love), but only by heaven (or fear for hell), that can turn us selfish and proudful.

I believe that since God is infinite, so it's love. You can not define love, just like you can not define God.

Yes, I agree. . .we have fundamental differences on the basics of NT Scripture
which leaves us with much uncommon ground for discussion.

I have found that each gospel has a symbol:

The angel is the symbol of Saint Matthew's gospel because this gospel starts with the genealogy of Jesus Christ and it wants to show that the birth of Jesus Christ was supranatural and announced by the Saint Archangel Gabriel. Or, it can mean, like some other church writers say, that the angel inspired the gospel.

The Lion symbolizes the Saint Evangelist Mark because he begins the gospel with the preaching of St. John the Baptist that is roaring in the wilderness like a lion. The lion also symbolizes the work and the power of Jesus Christ (the supreme king).

The ox is the symbol of Saint Luke's gospel because it begins with the story of Zechariah who was priest at the temple (where animals, like ox, would be brought to sacrifice), but it also shows the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ and His priesthood.

And the eagle is the symbol of Saint John's gospel because, as you have shown in your first post, the spirituality, the thinking and the style that characterize the gospel are high and sublime, just like the flying of the eagle that rises to great heights. It also points to the Holy Spirit, the deity of Jesus Christ.