Failure to communicate?

[Desert Snake]

Are you suggesting that perhaps these words were in the first three Gospels, but some latter scribe edited them out? Is that what you are suggesting?

I have no idea. I do know that it can't really be 'both' however. One would not make sense if left out, too important, but the other....it's not a direct enough statement to look like a complete add-on.

 

[Amechania]

That is the thing, though. If we are assuming some type of revisionism, editing etc. of Scripture, we can't easily tell which 'way' it was going...perhaps Jesus did emphatically state that.

I think the Gospel reflect an evolution of both theology and Christology. Mark is very simple by comparison to John, reading more as a narrative or perhaps a stage play. There is great enthusiasm in Mark but little comprehensive form. John is the opposite: a treatise years in the making, with the protagonist making lengthy philosophical speeches, and organized around the waters of baptism. One represents a church in it's infancy, the other a church in adolescence.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think the Gospel reflect an evolution of both theology and Christology.

Also, something I find...intriguing...is that the epistles seem...so definite at times..almost as if Paul was really trying to make up for...lost Gospel perhaps. ,idk just musing.

 

[Amechania]

Paul wrote his letters prior to John. They heavily influence this Gospel. Paul's letters are the fifth Gospel, INMO. Certainly there must have been other accounts of the life of Jesus. Sadly all we have left of these are scraps.

 

[Desert Snake]

Paul wrote his letters prior to John. They heavily influence this Gospel. Paul's letters are the fifth Gospel, INMO. Certainly there must have been other accounts of the life of Jesus. Sadly all we have left of these are scraps.

I enjoy some parts of the Scripture., some, just can't get my head around.
Yeah I agree, there must have been more writings, I'm convinced of it.

 

[fantome profane]

I have no idea. I do know that it can't really be 'both' however. One would not make sense if left out, too important, but the other....it's not a direct enough statement to look like a complete add-on.

But going back to the OP, you say it is a clear statement, but somehow it is not a direct enough statement to be a complete add-on. Very strange.

It is very tricky to try to reconcile the Gospels on this point by trying to guess which one was altered. It could be either, and in fact it could be both, or neither. It is possible that the reason the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John seem to have different theological viewpoints is because the author of John really did have a different theology than the others.

But I think this answers the question in the OP. When we are trying to understand the meaning behind Gospels written 2000 years ago, when we don't know who wrote them, when there is contradiction between them, when we don't have the originals and have to consider the possibility that they have been altered, it is understandable that there would be a failure in communication.

 

[Desert Snake]

But going back to the OP, you say it is a clear statement, but somehow it is not a direct enough statement to be a complete add-on. Very strange.

Not so strange if we 'reconcile' Scriptural meaning with epistles etc. In this specific instance, though, I'm limiting the amount of 'information' we get from the Gospels to say that it is not direct enough for an add-on. Just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not so strange if we 'reconcile' Scriptural meaning with epistles etc.

Why would we try to reconcile John with the Pauline epistles? The epistles were written first, so Paul wouldn't have been trying to take them into account. And if John is supposed to be a faithful account of real events, it would be based on those events, not on the epistles.

 

[fantome profane]

Not so strange if we 'reconcile' Scriptural meaning with epistles etc. In this specific instance, though, I'm limiting the amount of 'information' we get from the Gospels to say that it is not direct enough for an add-on. Just doesn't make sense to me.

No, I don't believe there was an add-on in this case. But nor do I believe there is any reason to think that this idea as edited out of the other Gospels.

It does seem as if the author of the Gospel of John had a different Christology. And I think the simpliest way to explain why it appears this way is because the author of John really did have different Christological beliefs.

 

[Ouroboros]

Jesus said in no uncertain terms, that HE is the way to salvation, in fact we HAVE to go through Him to be saved, it seems there is a constant banter/opinion of somehow, Jesus is not the Prime Deity. He clearly is stating He is. What is the communication breakdown here?

The communication breakdown here is that it's hard to know how far you should take the literal interpretation there.

Are we supposed to physically, literally, in body walk through Jesus body? I'm sure your answer is "no". Which means, it's not 100% absolutely literal here, but some level of interpretation. What exactly does it mean to "go through Jesus"? What does it exactly mean that "He's the way"? He's not a paved road, is he? Is he a gravel road? Or just tire tracks in the woods? Or is it metaphorically?

 

[Alceste]

Jesus said in no uncertain terms, that HE is the way to salvation, in fact we HAVE to go through Him to be saved, it seems there is a constant banter/opinion of somehow, Jesus is not the Prime Deity. He clearly is stating He is. What is the communication breakdown here?

His meaning is clear, but it seems likely that he was mistaken.

 

[idav]

Jesus said in no uncertain terms, that HE is the way to salvation, in fact we HAVE to go through Him to be saved, it seems there is a constant banter/opinion of somehow, Jesus is not the Prime Deity. He clearly is stating He is. What is the communication breakdown here?

The way is a path and we all have our own. The way has to do with a destination which is god. Jesus is also described as a gate which is to lead to salvation. Does that mean we literally go through him, is he literally a gate? Believing means to pick up the cross and follow, it isnt a message to condemn everyone without a particular religion. Being christ like spans many religions especially since being christian doesn't always mean being christ like.

 

[Desert Snake]

The way is a path and we all have our own. The way has to do with a destination which is god. Jesus is also described as a gate which is to lead to salvation. Does that mean we literally go through him, is he literally a gate? Believing means to pick up the cross and follow, it isnt a message to condemn everyone without a particular religion. Being christ like spans many religions especially since being christian doesn't always mean being christ like.

So, pretty vague then. Read that way it doesn't mean much.

 

[Desert Snake]

His meaning is clear, but it seems likely that he was mistaken.

No idea what this is supposed to mean.

 

[Desert Snake]

The communication breakdown here is that it's hard to know how far you should take the literal interpretation there.

Are we supposed to physically, literally, in body walk through Jesus body? I'm sure your answer is "no". Which means, it's not 100% absolutely literal here, but some level of interpretation. What exactly does it mean to "go through Jesus"? What does it exactly mean that "He's the way"? He's not a paved road, is he? Is he a gravel road? Or just tire tracks in the woods? Or is it metaphorically?

So, read that way, vague statement.

 

[idav]

So, pretty vague then. Read that way it doesn't mean much.

He spoke like that, in parable and metaphor. Since when do we take Jesus literally, are we to literally eat his flesh while we are at it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why would we try to reconcile John with the Pauline epistles? The epistles were written first, so Paul wouldn't have been trying to take them into account. And if John is supposed to be a faithful account of real events, it would be based on those events, not on the epistles.

Uh, yeah, but Xians read the entire Bible, not just the Gospels, usually, why wouldn't the books be compared for meaning., anyways, that was my point for discerning meaning there, if we read the epistles it becomes clearer what the nature of Christ is, in theory.

 

[Desert Snake]

He spoke like that, in parable and metaphor. Since when do we take Jesus literally, are we to literally eat his flesh while we are at it.

If everything is metaphor then vagueness is the name of the game, I may not agree with your interpretations.

 

[Ouroboros]

So, read that way, vague statement.

So why the question?

Vague interpretations mean confusion in communication.

That's the answer. The vagueness and openness for interpretation means there's alternative ways of reading it, which tends to confuse the literalists quite a bit (since literalists tends to want to have exclusive rights to the "true" interpretation and can't see beyond their own ideas).

 

[Desert Snake]

So why the question?

Vague interpretations mean confusion in communication.

That's the answer. The vagueness and openness for interpretation means there's alternative ways of reading it, which tends to confuse the literalists quite a bit (since literalists tends to want to have exclusive rights to the "true" interpretation and can't see beyond their own ideas).

Uh, I'm not into reading vague texts for religious meaning.