Matthew, Mark, Luke Vs the Gospel of John

[muhammad_isa]

I agree John sounds Gnostic, yet it also doesn't actually fit with many of their beliefs; just like John sounds like it came from the Tanakh, yet it also doesn't fit with the beliefs...

I'd say for this reason it was purposely created to put off the real followers of Christ in early Judea, as it misaligns things making him defile certain prophecies on purpose.

In my opinion.

It really doesn't matter why it was written..

The point is, that "the church" chose 4 Gospels with a certain agenda.
There were many, many Gospels.

 

[wizanda]

It really doesn't matter why it was written..

The point is, that "the church" chose 4 Gospels with a certain agenda.
There were many, many Gospels.

Sorry from an Islamic perspective I believe it really does matter why the Gospel of John was fabricated; as if it was purposely meant to discredit the Messiah, and to make him seem like he was claiming to be God Almighty ("I Am"), when he didn't speak that way - This is what the Quran says needs fixing.

In a careful analysis of these things, it is possible to then fix where religion became corrupted, and show people that God has purposely allowed it.

As we can show it is like a morality IQ test, as the Synoptic Gospels are a series of three patterns matching, and then we have the false Gospel of John contradicting the standards we can see prior.

I believe it would be possible for people to be educated to understand how this has happened, and this would mean religious people would have to become smarter to understand theology properly.

I've read many of the early church writings; yet I'd say the required components to understand the case are already supplied, and we can show God has made sure of that - Where many of the other Gospels are not as comprehensive.

In my opinion.

 

[metis]

John's Gospel was written significantly later [just prior to 100 c.e.] than the Synoptics, and it came at a time whereas it was clear that most Jews were not to convert, thus some very harsh words about them.

 

[pearl]

In a careful analysis of these things, it is possible to then fix where religion became corrupted, and show people that God has purposely allowed it.

The corruption you speak of is formally known as the theology/christology of the Gospel authors themselves. In the historical setting of this Gospel, Christians have been expelled from the temple and declared heretics, so yes, they are hostile to the Jews.

 

[wizanda]

John's Gospel was written significantly later [just prior to 100 c.e.] than the Synoptics

We only have guestimates of dates, as we can not be sure; the date when they were originally discovered, could be that they were already passed down as copies for some time.

There doesn't seem much point in creating a manuscript contrary to Yeshua's own statements, exaggerating him to look bad at the time of the Roman Occupation, and it to be made up so much longer after.

In my opinion.

 

[metis]

There doesn't seem much point in creating a manuscript contrary to Yeshua's own statements, exaggerating him to look bad at the time of the Roman Occupation, and it to be made up so much longer after.

There are numerous areas of disagreement between the Gospels, and one example is the women's visitation to Jesus' tomb whereas no two agree. IMO, that's one of the strengths, as there was no attempt to try and change the wording by the Christian scribes so as they all match.

 

[Muffled]

my copy reads.....John Chapter Two....verse one

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana in Galilee......

I believe John does not provide us a context to know when those days occurred in the timeline. If I had to guess it would be three days after Jesus met Nathaniel.

 

[Muffled]

It really doesn't matter why it was written..

The point is, that "the church" chose 4 Gospels with a certain agenda.
There were many, many Gospels.

I believe the church was guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I believe the church was guided by the Holy Spirit.

OK .. but they still voted at ecumenical councils.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe the church was guided by the Holy Spirit.

You can believe that if you wish. It doesn't change history. Canon was set by ecumenical councils. IOW it was the church that determined which books would be in your bible. Some of the books had no controversy, such as the four gospels. Other books were hotly debated, such as Hebrews, Revelation, Shepherd of Hermes, the gospel of Peter, etc. Some of those which were debated made it into the final cut, and others were ultimately not included.

 

[gnostic]

It really doesn't matter why it was written..

The point is, that "the church" chose 4 Gospels with a certain agenda.
There were many, many Gospels.

While I would agree that there are many gospels, those many weren’t written in the same century as when Jesus’ apostles and disciples.

Many of were composed in the 2nd century CE and some even later that.

The names attributed to these later gospels, were “attributed to” these people, but they do not mean attributions were the actual authors to these gospels.

The real authors are unknown.

Those four gospels accepted in the New Testament, are also anonymously written, but the names of the evangelists were ascribed around the earlier 2nd century CE.

But these 4 accepted gospels are among the oldest gospels, and “fairly reliably” dated to the 2nd half of the 1st century CE.

Among the non-canonical gospel that “may” be dated to the century as the canonical gospels, is possibly the gospel of Thomas.

I must stress the word that I quoted “may”.

Scholarly, the gospel of Thomas appeared to 1st century gospel, but the extant source is actually an early 2nd century CE “copy”.

So if it is copy, then the original is lost. And if there were an original gospel of Thomas, then it could be as old as the gospel of Mark (the Mark gospel has been dated between 65 and 75 CE).

There are numbers of copies of gospel of Thomas discovered in Egypt.

Several were found in Nag Hammadi. A whole bunch of Gnostic codices were hidden at Nag Hammadi, to hide it from the Orthodox Christians (Pauline Christians), who were burning Gnostic texts during the 3rd-4th centuries CE. Here, the copies were written in Coptic.

But older fragments made from papyrus (written in Greek) was discovered at Oxyrhynchus.

The Greek copy has been dated to the 2nd century, while the Coptic version some where between mid-3rd to mid-4th centuries CE.

Like I said, even the Oxyrhynchus fragments are copies, so there must be earlier version, perhaps an original.

The rest of the Apocryphal gospels as well as the Gnostic gospels are clearly dated later than the 1st century CE, so their authenticity are surely not reliable. The gospel of Thomas is the only gospel that an open question mark.

PS

Do I think the gospel of Thomas was written by apostle Thomas?

Well, my answer would be “no”.

Thomas didn’t write this gospel any more than Matthew and John wrote the respective gospels that were ascribed with their names.

 

[muhammad_isa]

A whole bunch of Gnostic codices were hidden at Nag Hammadi, to hide it from the Orthodox Christians (Pauline Christians), who were burning Gnostic texts during the 3rd-4th centuries CE.

Yes, I know..
I don't think that it was the so-called Arians that were so viscious towards their fellow Christians .. it was those that insisted that "Jesus is God".
They burnt everything that implied otherwise.

 

[Muffled]

OK .. but they still voted at ecumenical councils.

I believe not everyone is guided by the Holy Spirit and somehow the Roman Catholic church wandered away from that. The thing is that the Holy Spirit in me confirms their decision.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, I know..
I don't think that it was the so-called Arians that were so viscious towards their fellow Christians .. it was those that insisted that "Jesus is God".
They burnt everything that implied otherwise.

Arians and Trinitarians were both pretty nasty to each other.

 

[Muffled]

You can believe that if you wish. It doesn't change history. Canon was set by ecumenical councils. IOW it was the church that determined which books would be in your bible. Some of the books had no controversy, such as the four gospels. Other books were hotly debated, such as Hebrews, Revelation, Shepherd of Hermes, the gospel of Peter, etc. Some of those which were debated made it into the final cut, and others were ultimately not included.

I believe when the Protestants sought to reform the church, they addressed the Canon anew and dropped the Apocrypha. I believe the Roman Catholic Church has a standard of keeping tradition as well as God's word. People make mistakes but the Holy Spirit will correct those.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe when the Protestants sought to reform the church, they addressed the Canon anew and dropped the Apocrypha. I believe the Roman Catholic Church has a standard of keeping tradition as well as God's word. People make mistakes but the Holy Spirit will correct those.

And with what authority did they change the canon? Unlike the bishops who can at least claim the unbroken chain of laying on of hands, Protestants have no authority whatsoever.

And by the way, it was only the Old Testament they edited. They do use the identical NT that the catholic church put together and canonized.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe when the Protestants sought to reform the church, they addressed the Canon anew and dropped the Apocrypha. I believe the Roman Catholic Church has a standard of keeping tradition as well as God's word. People make mistakes but the Holy Spirit will correct those.

Did Protestants have a right to leave the church and start a new church of their own? Look, I'm not a Christian. This is not my fight. But from the outside, Protestantism doesn't look like it has a leg to stand on.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Did Protestants have a right to leave the church and start a new church of their own?

If they didn't agree with the Pope on doctrine / practice, why not?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If they didn't agree with the Pope on doctrine / practice, why not?

Well, supposedly the church is supposed to be the one set up by Jesus and the apostles. If you suddenly set up your own church 1500 years later, you don't really qualify to being that original church.

 

[metis]

I believe not everyone is guided by the Holy Spirit and somehow the Roman Catholic church wandered away from that.

Ever gone to mass?

Yes, the Church has made some mistakes and some of them were serious mistakes, but these were largely at the mega level. Most Catholics deal with mainly what goes in their local parish.