Matthew, Mark, Luke Vs the Gospel of John

[wizanda]

Taking what from them? Taking their belief? And why such a huge penalty for those who offend those that believe in him if believing in him is not necessary for eternal life. Remember what is not necessary for eternal life is meaningless to God. So why does he care about those who believe in him?

According to Yeshua in the synoptic gospels, we're to follow the commandments, give up wealth and follow him (doing the work of God) to gain eternal life.

It isn't just about believing in him, as John has simplified it to; it is about those who accept Yeshua's teachings, and then the one who causes the offense (scandal, snare), where they've led people away from his message. So for instance, Paul, John and Simon the stone (petros), have led people away from believing in Yeshua's teachings, and have helped create the mother of all harlots.

 

[Thanda]

According to Yeshua in the synoptic gospels, we're to follow the commandments, give up wealth and follow him (doing the work of God) to gain eternal life.

It isn't just about believing in him, as John has simplified it to; it is about those who accept Yeshua's teachings, and then the one who causes the offense (scandal, snare), where they've led people away from his message. So for instance, Paul, John and Simon the stone (petros), have led people away from believing in Yeshua's teachings, and have helped create the mother of all harlots.

John most certainly didn't simplify God's message to being just belief. I have already quoted you John 7. I will now quote from John 14: 15. If ye love me, keep my commandments. 21. He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 23. Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
And from John 15: 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

I still maintain that you have something against John. What it is will be one of the first questions I ask God when I get to heaven.

 

[wizanda]

John most certainly didn't simplify God's message to being just belief.

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

That is very simplified. Now you don't need to do works, just believe; Yeshua never said this.

John 14: 15 John 15: 10

Yeshua didn't replace the commandments with his own.
If Yeshua didn't say the things in John, then people aren't keeping his sayings anyway.
Evil spiteful people can love jesus; yet that doesn't make God and Yeshua love or hate anyone, as John portrays...It is by their character, action and intentions i.e. righteousness.

I still maintain that you have something against John. What it is will be one of the first questions I ask God when I get to heaven.

Will answer it for you again....Save you waiting:

• It sounds nothing like Yeshua in the synoptic gospels, and falsely claims to be his words.
  
• It says he came as a sin offering, i.e. a lamb; that is stating something evil, human sacrifice isn't kosher in Judaism.
• It claims God arranged a human sacrifice, when in the other gospels, it states the Pharisees consorted to put him to death; thus changing the reason Yeshua came, which was to cut off Israel, due to them making that decision.
• It has statements that encourage worship of jesus.
• It has jesus endorsing alcohol (wedding wine); when in the other gospels his disciples should only drink water.
• That instead of us all being the light of the world, if we serve God; thus making the world a better place. John turns it into something sinister, the world is evil and can not understand light.
• It coming out with silly spiteful things like the world hated jesus; no it didn't hate Yeshua, 5000 people sat gathered without food to hear him. Instead it is the church/synagogue who hated him, for trying to set them on the right path; so they murdered him, rather than listen (and still do)
• That it is like a free golden ticket into charlies chocolate factory; yet people haven't read the small print, that it defiles the law, and the ticket is forged.
  
• Think the main reason is instead of Yeshua being brutally murdered; it portrays it he chose to commit suicide/self sacrifice.
• So instead of mourning for the one whom was pierced, John helps to make it people rejoice.
• Plus loads more points....

 

[Muffled]

Yes your jesus in the gospel of John told people to 'believe in him'; the real Yeshua in Matthew, Mark and Luke told people to have faith in God.

If people want to argue because they really can't spot the differences in character, between Yeshua and the made up jesus; it just goes to show they had no interest in knowing him in the first place, let alone believing in him.

Mr 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

There are probably other references but I believe this should suffice for now.

 

[wizanda]

Mr 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

Sorry, you are right in away, suppose should rephrase the point better.... Lets ask a few questions based on the differences between the gospels:

• Do you get eternal life from believing in Yeshua? No, not according to the synoptic gospels; only in John is that found. Instead what are we meant to do? Follow the commandments, give up wealth, give to the poor, heal the sick, etc and do what Yeshua was teaching.
• Can you be condemned for not believing in Yeshua? John says you will; yet the synoptic gospels say that you can be condemned for taking from those who do, and for not following what he taught. Thus people who have never read the Bible, yet are doing the work of the father, can still be saved.

So i admit i was slightly wrong, and a better rephrasing would be....
'jesus in the gospel of John told people that if they 'believe in him', they'd get eternal life, otherwise they are condemned. The real Yeshua in Matthew, Mark and Luke told people to do the work of God, and follow his ways to gain eternal life.'

So a summary would be 'you don't get anything for free'; thus John with it's free golden ticket to heaven, simply by believing in his name doesn't work, and people get nothing.

Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name, drove out demons in your name, and performed many miracles in your name, didn't we?' (23) Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who practice evil!'"

 

[Muffled]

Sorry, you are right in away, suppose should rephrase the point better.... Lets ask a few questions based on the differences between the gospels:

• Do you get eternal life from believing in Yeshua? No, not according to the synoptic gospels; only in John is that found. Instead what are we meant to do? Follow the commandments, give up wealth, give to the poor, heal the sick, etc and do what Yeshua was teaching.
• Can you be condemned for not believing in Yeshua? John says you will; yet the synoptic gospels say that you can be condemned for taking from those who do, and for not following what he taught. Thus people who have never read the Bible, yet are doing the work of the father, can still be saved.

So i admit i was slightly wrong, and a better rephrasing would be....
'jesus in the gospel of John told people that if they 'believe in him', they'd get eternal life, otherwise they are condemned. The real Yeshua in Matthew, Mark and Luke told people to do the work of God, and follow his ways to gain eternal life.'

So a summary would be 'you don't get anything for free'; thus John with it's free golden ticket to heaven, simply by believing in his name doesn't work, and people get nothing.

I believe, Yes, because now we have a Savior who keeps us from comitting sin. In fact it is a more reliable way of avoiding sin than trying hard to avoid it.

The rich man was commended for keeping the commandments but was still found lacking:
Luke 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother.
21 And he said, All these things have I observed from my youth up.
22 And when Jesus heard it, he said unto him, One thing thou lackest yet: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

I believe this is relative ie a person could be saved from a particular sin by working hard to avoid it. For instance I never smoked because my church said my body was a temple of God and I could not reasonably defile it with smoke. I didn't know enough of the Bible to know this but obiously my teachers did know the Bible and interpreted it correctly. However knowing the Bible , attending church or any other source of knowledge will not save a person from every sin amd Jesus can.

I beleive your conclusions do not follow from the premises because the premises are false.

 

[wizanda]

because now we have a Savior who keeps us from comitting sin.

Jesus doesn't stop you sinning according to Christianity, just it removes it from you, by you using his blood.... i.e. cleansed by the blood of jesus.

but was still found lacking:

This isn't the only time Yeshua states about healing the sick, giving to the poor, etc.... When the son of man separates the sheep and goats, again it is repeated. Really the whole summary of Yeshua's life, was to be a servant unto many; yet people have taken this to mean, he came as a human sacrifice.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus doesn't stop you sinning according to Christianity, just it removes it from you, by you using his blood.... i.e. cleansed by the blood of jesus.

This isn't the only time Yeshua states about healing the sick, giving to the poor, etc.... When the son of man separates the sheep and goats, again it is repeated. Really the whole summary of Yeshua's life, was to be a servant unto many; yet people have taken this to mean, he came as a human sacrifice.

I believe you have a false perception of Christianity.

I don't believe this is germaine to what I said.

I believe you are viewing the vent as a human sacrifice. There is no evidence that the Jews viewed it as such. Jesus did come to die as He stated. The idea of sacrifice was to convince people that their sins were forgiven but nothing is more convincing than God himself dieing for our sins.

 

[wizanda]

I believe you are viewing the vent as a human sacrifice. There is no evidence that the Jews viewed it as such.

Paul (Pharisee Jew) states he gave himself as a sacrifice, John (Pharisee Jew) states he came to die.... Yeshua and the synoptic gospels, state the Sanhedrin were going to murder him.

Jesus did come to die as He stated.

Where in the synoptic gospels? He said he came to teach, giving his life as a ransom for many...Your interpreting that to mean his death, based on Paul's, John's and Simon the stone's teachings.

 

[sojourner]

With a careful examination of Yeshua's character within Matthew, Mark and Luke, we can clearly see an overall matching concept within the first 3; yet on examining John it is a completely different character, with numerous contradictions in theology and testimony overall.

• Yeshua answered in parables, there are no real parables within the gospel of John.
• The destroying of the temple, and then the bit about 'it being rebuilt in 3 days' is a lie, made up by false witnesses, according to both Matthew and Mark; whereas in John it is told as truth, and claimed to be in reference to the body. When it is entirely clear from the witness statements, that Yeshua stated: "not one brick shall stand on top of another." Clearly he didn't say 3 days, as the temple still hasn't been rebuilt.
  
• Within the synoptic gospels, we find Yeshua turning over the money tables, and quoting scripture at them. Within John we find jesus being accused of tying knots at the end of a chord, thus making a whip, and then driving them out; this is used to portray Yeshua as being violent.
  
• jesus in the gospel of John is said to be asked to a party by his disciples, which he answers no to; he then goes to the party secretly; this is used to say that he lied.
• When asked about eternal life, Yeshua stated to follow the commandments and what's more to give up wealth and follow him. In John all you need to do is believe in his name, and that God sent him to the Jews.
• Yeshua stated to receive grace, you should give grace, and should do good works without questioning reward. John creates the statement the lamb of God, which people then think overall implies you get grace from a human sacrifice.
• Where as Yeshua sent his disciples out into the lost sheep of Israel; in John they are sent out into the world.
• Where as within the synoptic gospels and in prophecy, 'he was lead up silently' to Pilate and spoke a word in response. In John there is a long conversation about being 'the king of Israel, thus giving Pilate reason to kill him'.
• Yeshua warns against those that would come after in all 3 gospels, and use the term "ego i-mee" (I Am) to deceive many; which is used 7x (+1) within John. These statements are then used to portray jesus as claiming himself to be God. If we examine the synoptic gospels in Greek, we can see that Yeshua used that term for God.
• Yeshua said 'call no man on this earth your father'; whereas in John we find 'i, and the father are one' and 'that he whom has seen me, has seen the father'.
• Throughout the Tanakh, and then in the synoptic gospels, the holy spirit existed; why would jesus then need to send it in the gospel of John.
  
• Yeshua relates all doing the work of God (peacemakers), can become children of God; we find the term 'the only begotten son' used only within John.

This is still only a start to the many contradictions within John, as clearly there are numerous errors in theology throughout....
Take into account, that who ever wrote the gospel of John, had a good knowledge of everything spoken behind closed doors of the pharisees and high council; as it records word for word, conversations that were private.
It also is only found within the gospel of John, about a private meeting between Nicodemus the pharisee, and jesus at night. It is not even mentioned in the synoptic gospels about being 'born again'; so the only person likely able to record the conversations found within the gospel of John, would be Nicodemus.

I don't see how any of this makes John a "false" gospel. What defines a gospel as "false," anyway?

 

[metis]

I don't see how any of this makes John a "false" gospel. What defines a gospel as "false," anyway?

Exactly, but those who use pick & choose "theology" tend to say such things as they vacillate between "true" and "false" with no realistic objective criteria. In my experience, typically it boils down to that which they want to believe being the determiner-- namely "confirmation bias".

Also, and I'm pretty sure you'll agree with me on this, and that is using "false" in this context is rather silly since all scriptures are subjective in nature, thus "poetic license" typically is involved to a large extent. Certainly John's gospel has somewhat of a different tone to it, but that doesn't make it "false".

 

[sojourner]

Exactly, but those who use pick & choose "theology" tend to say such things as they vacillate between "true" and "false" with no realistic objective criteria. In my experience, typically it boils down to that which they want to believe being the determiner-- namely "confirmation bias".

Also, and I'm pretty sure you'll agree with me on this, and that is using "false" in this context is rather silly since all scriptures are subjective in nature, thus "poetic license" typically is involved to a large extent. Certainly John's gospel has somewhat of a different tone to it, but that doesn't make it "false".

Indeed. Well said.

 

[wizanda]

I don't see how any of this makes John a "false" gospel. What defines a gospel as "false," anyway?

Will try to make it even more simple for you; yet if you read through some of the points in this thread, tried to explain it already.... If the gospel of John is written from a Pharisee's perspective, completely contradicting Yeshua and doesn't sound like him; with made up testimony told as truth...Then it is false.

Exactly, but those who use pick & choose "theology"

Didn't get my theology from a book; when have had first hand experience.

"poetic license"

Though i would tend to agree that could be a possibility in overall authors writing styles, this isn't the case with the testimony in John; we have clear cases of misrepresentation of information (perjury).... So clearly you've not investigated the case; which is a shame that so many Jews just take a Christian perspective of the events recorded.

 

[metis]

So clearly you've not investigated the case; which is a shame that so many Jews just take a Christian perspective of the events recorded.

Well, let's see, I taught Christian theology for 14 years, as well as an additional two years teaching comparative religions. So, your pathetic little bigoted stereotype does not apply. But I'm really not at all surprised as I've seen enough of your posts get a pretty good picture of you. My biggest problem, however, is why do I waste time on someone like you?


Added: Ya, the more I thought about this, time to use the "ignore" option.

 

[wizanda]

Well, let's see, I taught Christian theology for 14 years, as well as an additional two years teaching comparative religions. So, your pathetic little bigoted stereotype does not apply. But I'm really not at all surprised as I've seen enough of your posts get a pretty good picture of you. My biggest problem, however, is why do I waste time on someone like you?

LOL, I'm partially Jewish; so it wasn't an attack, it was a call to question it all again in a different light... You're accusative nature is why you waste time.

As for summarizing anyone via forum posts, it is hard enough getting to know someone in person, and then in text even between two people who know and love each other, a lot is misunderstood....So you don't know me.

Anyways back on topic... Within the years you taught then:

1. Didn't you notice that most of the Christian tenets, are established via the gospel of John (+Paul), and not the other gospels?
2. That the case for jesus being God comes mainly from there?
3. Didn't you notice that the destroying of the temple, and it being rebuilt is false in Matt and Mark; yet true in John?
4. Didn't you notice the totally different character and vocabulary of Yeshua?
5. Plus didn't you notice the many other points listed in the thread?

 

[sojourner]

If the gospel of John is written from a Pharisee's perspective, completely contradicting Yeshua and doesn't sound like him;

1) We don't really know what Jesus "sounded like." All we know is what the gospel writers "sounded like."
2) There's little indication (if any) that John is written from a "Pharisees' perspective." Its perspective sounds, in fact, more Gentile than Pharisee.
a) All the gospels are written from the particular perspective of their writers; they were not written in a vacuum, according to some objective criterion.
3) All the difference in "sound" amounts to is source material. Matt. and Lk. share a great deal of Markan material -- which is why they're referred to as "synoptics" -- "seen together."
a) John doesn't contradict Jesus; it merely does not share source material with the synoptics. Maybe it does sound like Jesus; we will never know for sure.

with made up testimony told as truth...Then it is false.

1) There's absolutely no indication that it constitutes "made up testimony told as truth," any more than the synoptics indicate such.
2) There is no "testimony." These are stories -- not news accounts, or even eyewitness accounts. They're merely theological treatises of the life and ministry of Jesus, told by the church much later than that actual occurrences. IOW, they're part of the church's mythology about Jesus.

when have had first hand experience.

First hand experience of ... what?

Though i would tend to agree that could be a possibility in overall authors writing styles, this isn't the case with the testimony in John; we have clear cases of misrepresentation of information (perjury)

What, exactly, are these "clear cases of misrepresentation of information?" What's the objective information upon which you're basing the charge of misrepresentation?

So clearly you've not investigated the case;

I've investigated the synoptics heavily -- as well as John in a scholastic setting. I just don't see any basis for the conclusion of either falsity or misrepresentation. Can you be more specific with your evidence?

 

[sojourner]

LOL, I'm partially Jewish

That seems a lot like being "partially pregnant."

• Didn't you notice that most of the Christian tenets, are established via the gospel of John (+Paul), and not the other gospels?

• That the case for jesus being God comes mainly from there?

1) Paul started the congregations that mostly continued Xy, and John was written after those congregations had been well-established.
2) Paul is a lot closer to Jesus, chronologically, than even Mark. Paul wrote from about 45-55 C.E. Mark is post-70.
a) Paul was well-versed in Judaic theology, and his stuff is largely congruent with Judaic thought.

Didn't you notice the totally different character and vocabulary of Yeshua?

The differences stem from the lack of Q as source material for John. John was written by a community who may have actually been closer to Jesus than the communities that produced the synoptics.

 

[wizanda]

1) We don't really know what Jesus "sounded like." All we know is what the gospel writers "sounded like."

We've got 3 synoptic gospels with him speaking in parables, answering with questions and showing his overall approach. John has no parables, answers egotistically; so clearly by more than one witness we can establish a case.
We're also warned in the synoptic gospels, that the whole world will be deceived by those that came after, pretending to be Yeshua using the term Ego I-mee (I Am); this is used 7x (+1) in John to portray jesus as being god.

2) There's little indication (if any) that John is written from a "Pharisees' perspective."

There are numerous conversations within John, that took place amongst the Pharisees and high council; the only person with knowledge of all that took place would be a member of them, most likely Nicodemus the Pharisee high councilor.
Thus the evidence within John, comes from the Pharisee perspective of Yeshua; where it has been used to dismantle his case, and make up he was claiming to be god.

1) There's absolutely no indication that it constitutes "made up testimony told as truth," any more than the synoptics indicate such.

Look up the verses posted pertaining to the temple being torn down and rebuilt in 3 days... It is clear Matt and Mark state this was false testimony made up for the Pharisees.
The point of him being led up to Pilate silently, examine all 3 gospels, which say he said a word....John has an elaborate conversation, claiming to be the king of Israel.

What, exactly, are these "clear cases of misrepresentation of information?" What's the objective information upon which you're basing the charge of misrepresentation?

Within both Jewish and modern law, by more than one witness a case is established... I don't agree the gospels are all copied from each other, there are enough differences in them to say they're unique in places.
Thus within things like jesus making a whip, to drive out cattle and people. jesus lying about not going to a party. Plus all the other false claims within John, when compare to the other gospels.

 

[sojourner]

We've got 3 synoptic gospels with him speaking in parables, answering with questions and showing his overall approach. John has no parables, answers egotistically; so clearly by more than one witness we can establish a case.

The parables are the writers' literary devices, and have little to do with Jesus' "overall approach," and more to do with the writers' approach.
The gospel writers are not "witnesses" of Jesus.

There are numerous conversations within John, that took place amongst the Pharisees and high council; the only person with knowledge of all that took place would be a member of them, most likely Nicodemus the Pharisee high councilor.

More likely a literary device, using the Pharisees as pariahs to make the stories better, and not necessarily a "perspective" of that group.

Thus the evidence within John, comes from the Pharisee perspective of Yeshua; where it has been used to dismantle his case, and make up he was claiming to be god.

That simply doesn't follow from what we know of the Pharisees.

Look up the verses posted pertaining to the temple being torn down and rebuilt in 3 days... It is clear Matt and Mark state this was false testimony made up for the Pharisees.
The point of him being led up to Pilate silently, examine all 3 gospels, which say he said a word....John has an elaborate conversation, claiming to be the king of Israel.

Again: so what? Doesn't mean anything other than the message each writer hoped to emphasize. The synoptics agree, because they used common source material.

Within both Jewish and modern law, by more than one witness a case is established

These writers aren't witnesses. They're storytellers.

I don't agree the gospels are all copied from each other, there are enough differences in them to say they're unique in places.

Of course. There's the common Markan material, which is obvious to the most casual reader. There is the Q material, common to both Matt and Lk (also pretty obvious). Then there is material unique to matt and unique to Lk. But there is a TON of shared material that has been copied -- nearly word-for-word from Mark.

Thus within things like jesus making a whip, to drive out cattle and people. jesus lying about not going to a party. Plus all the other false claims within John, when compare to the other gospels.

Remember: This is storytelling -- not history.

You've failed to prove your assertion that John is "false."

 

[metis]

It's interesting that even though most biblical scholars that I have read believe it's likely that the synoptics came from a common source, nevertheless they sometimes disagree. For example, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, where was the angel(s) located, what did the angel(s) say, whom was actually at the tomb, and what did they do right after leaving the tomb? None of the three agree.