Matthew, Mark, Luke Vs the Gospel of John

[metis]

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

Reminds me when I was at a seminar down in Dayton, Ohio, about three decades ago, whereas I had a chance talk with Christian theologian who was brought up in China, and he mentioned that all too many here in the west read scripture as if was a historical record, missing the fact that they were written by traditional Asian authors writing from a subjective perspective. He mentioned that, for example, when reading the creation accounts, many here in the modern west typically ask "Did this really happen?", whereas in the traditional east it would be more like "What are you trying to tell me?". In Judaism, we often phrase it as "the meaning behind the words".

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

The Gospel of Johanan is more accurate.

 

[wizanda]

You've failed to prove your assertion

Because you're maintaining your predisposition, that the synoptic gospels are all copied from each other.... So maybe we should have a new debate on that topic first.

The Gospel of Johanan is more accurate.

It has a totally different theology and end result....

1. John claims you get eternal life by believing in his name; Yeshua tells us in the synoptic gospels you won't.
2. Yeshua tells us not to go after those that use "I Am" about him; John claims he is the great "I Am".
3. John claims the world doesn't understand light; Yeshua said we are the light.
4. Within John God ordained his murder; in the synoptic gospels we're told the Pharisees orchestrated it.
5. Yeshua cut off Israel by his murder and proof is the second temple destruction, etc; John creates a false ideology, that he came to bring salvation and peace.
   
6. And loads more points...

So John is accurate if you're looking for something to gain; yet otherwise it is a very poor attempt at rewriting history.

 

[psychoslice]

I myself like the gospel of John the best, it suites my inner being.

 

[sojourner]

Because you're maintaining your predisposition, that the synoptic gospels are all copied from each other

I don't have that predisposition -- and never claimed I did. I never said that the synoptics are "all copied from each other." I said that Matt and Lk rely heavily on Mark, and that Mt and Lk also rely on Q.

It has a totally different theology

Yes, it does, but that, in itself, is no indication that it's a "false" theology. It sounds as if you've fallen into two traps: 1) That the early church was unified in its thinking and belief, and that there is some "original, correct belief," 2) That the church is predicated upon its belief. Neither is -- or ever has been -- the case.

 

[wizanda]

I said that Matt and Lk rely heavily on Mark, and that Mt and Lk also rely on Q.

Well we still need to debate that topic first then, since i don't agree.... What if Yeshua stated the parable of the wicked husbandmen, clearly warned the same in all 3 gospels about the usage of Ego I-mee (I Am); thus they're not copies, yet individual accounts.

Yes, it does, but that, in itself, is no indication that it's a "false" theology.

If Yeshua didn't refer to himself as 'I Am' in the synoptic gospels, yet used it for God; the term doesn't even exists within Hebrew or Aramaic, as there is no present tense to do so. Then when John's main emphasis is jesus is the "I Am" who led them through the wilderness, that clearly defines false theology....They've even re-translated and added to the Tanakh to make that fit.
There are also loads of other points that can be shown as false theology; especially the Trinity existing since the start of the Bible, when John 1 is taken into full consideration.

It sounds as if you've fallen into two traps:

LoL, this is a trap before the nations, and thus the prophecies all add up one way; unfortunately Christians and Pharisees have fallen into it, just as stated would occur....This is just seeing if anyone wants to understand how the snare was set, so they can get themselves out of it.

That the early church was unified in its thinking and belief,

Well clearly not from what history we can still gather, personally would say that the Ebionites with James the Just, were the true church; with Paul and his Pharisee infiltrators, dismantling any traces of it.

and that there is some "original, correct belief,"

A jigsaw puzzle can only be put together the correct way, and even if people try to cut corners off, as they have, it is still blatant where pieces fit.
So a few key elements to none of it fitting, the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen links with Isiah 28's chief corner stone.... Thus there is no inheritance from Yeshua's death, and the covenant with death was disannulled before it was ever established.
Zechariah 11 was a clear divorce decree prophesying the second temple destruction; so both John and Paul making out people should be grafted onto Israel are sadly mistaken.
Yeshua asked for Mercy and not sacrifice, thus implying that the murdering priest would take his life, and yet the knowledge of God is what matters; so again John and Paul making up that all we need to do is believe, is sadly mistaken...Plus them accusing God of first degree murder, is shocking.
Plus loads more missing pieces that can be explained in the puzzle...

That the church is predicated upon its belief.

Well that i can understand and agree with, that there are a lot of naive people signing their soul over in someone else's blood, without having read any of the small print, that states they won't get anything.
So clearly the church doesn't care about building on the foundations of what is there; yet that has little to do with me, and this case.

 

[sojourner]

Well we still need to debate that topic first then, since i don't agree.... What if Yeshua stated the parable of the wicked husbandmen, clearly warned the same in all 3 gospels about the usage of Ego I-mee (I Am); thus they're not copies, yet individual accounts.

There's always that possibility, but most serious scholars would disagree. You'd have to come up with some pretty convincing evidence of why you disagree.

If Yeshua didn't refer to himself as 'I Am' in the synoptic gospels, yet used it for God; the term doesn't even exists within Hebrew or Aramaic, as there is no present tense to do so. Then when John's main emphasis is jesus is the "I Am" who led them through the wilderness, that clearly defines false theology....They've even re-translated and added to the Tanakh to make that fit.

Yeah. That's not how it works.

especially the Trinity existing since the start of the Bible, when John 1 is taken into full consideration.

How are you deciding, though, that Jesus' divine nature is, somehow, "false?" Simply because it doesn't appear the way you want it to in the synoptics?

Well clearly not from what history we can still gather, personally would say that the Ebionites with James the Just, were the true church; with Paul and his Pharisee infiltrators, dismantling any traces of it.

Paul is the earliest writing we have, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that Paul is some kind of "infiltrator."

A jigsaw puzzle can only be put together the correct way, and even if people try to cut corners off, as they have, it is still blatant where pieces fit.

Xian theology and belief isn't a jigsaw puzzle. Bad, bad metaphor.

Well that i can understand and agree with, that there are a lot of naive people signing their soul over in someone else's blood, without having read any of the small print, that states they won't get anything.
So clearly the church doesn't care about building on the foundations of what is there; yet that has little to do with me, and this case.

This isn't cogent to the point.

 

[wizanda]

Xian theology and belief isn't a jigsaw puzzle. Bad, bad metaphor.

This is the whole point of the Bible, which partially substantiated, by showing whole chapters that disagree with the ideology put forward; yet you are right, Christians can make up what ever they like, it doesn't matter if it fits with the Bible....It is just sad to see so many hopeful people going to hell, for something they're not even aware they've signed up for.

How are you deciding, though, that Jesus' divine nature is, somehow, "false?" Simply because it doesn't appear the way you want it to in the synoptics?

Within the synoptic gospels Yeshua was sent from heaven, had divine powers, said he was the son; yet doesn't go claiming "I Am"....This he stated would be the deception that would come after, so quite clearly when it isn't even speakable in Hebrew, didn't exist in the Tanakh, it is a forgery added after as he stated.
As for it being the way i 'want it to', unfortunately for me; i like to understand a text for its inherent meaning, and not just make it up like Christians can.

Paul is the earliest writing we have, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that Paul is some kind of "infiltrator."

The church that Paul established is the people who've delivered the text to us. Yet even within these, where told in Acts that Paul was a Pharisee murderer to begin trying to end the followers of Yeshua, then became one of them supposedly. The accounts of the gospels could have been around for sometime, before they were officially accepted or recognized, especially when Paul's church was against the disciples.
Why i said about the Ebionites, who were vehemently against Paul on the idea Yeshua came as a human sacrifice.

 

[sojourner]

This is the whole point of the Bible,

The whole point of the bible is to preserve the whole tradition of the people of God. It presents no cohesive theology. it only presents the different things people have believed and practiced.

Christians can make up what ever they like, it doesn't matter if it fits with the Bible.

Well, no, they really can't do that. Xy is, first and foremost, a community religion, so it's the sense of the community that matters. "Fitting with the bible" is a secondary concern.

It is just sad to see so many hopeful people going to hell, for something they're not even aware they've signed up for.

It's sad to see someone worried about hell in some "life to come," rather than being concerned with the here-and-now.

Within the synoptic gospels Yeshua was sent from heaven, had divine powers, said he was the son; yet doesn't go claiming "I Am"

'K. still doesn't show that John is "false."

This he stated would be the deception that would come after, so quite clearly when it isn't even speakable in Hebrew, didn't exist in the Tanakh, it is a forgery added after as he stated.

You're confusing linguistics and translation here.

As for it being the way i 'want it to', unfortunately for me; i like to understand a text for its inherent meaning,

You're obviously missing that meaning.

The church that Paul established is the people who've delivered the text to us. Yet even within these, where told in Acts that Paul was a Pharisee murderer to begin trying to end the followers of Yeshua, then became one of them supposedly.

Acts is a much later document and disagrees with Paul on many points. Kind of irresponsible to use it as a benchmark or a litmus test.

The accounts of the gospels could have been around for sometime, before they were officially accepted or recognized, especially when Paul's church was against the disciples.

Not likely. And I don't understand where you get the idea that "Paul's church" (there was no such thing) was "against the disciples." That simply doesn't make any sense from a reading of the texts.

Why i said about the Ebionites, who were vehemently against Paul on the idea Yeshua came as a human sacrifice.

Paul didn't think that Jesus came "as a human sacrifice."

 

[wizanda]

The whole point of the bible is to preserve the whole tradition of the people of God. It presents no cohesive theology. it only presents the different things people have believed and practiced.

We've got prophets, with prophecies that have an exact fulfillment, anything other than that, is making things fit. We've got laws stating what is right and wrong, going against the laws are causes, for things not to fit.
Sounds like you're speaking about another book, more like reading a novel; than a history of Judaism and YHVH's interaction with mankind....From the overall interaction, like a jigsaw puzzle across time, it gives a clear definition of the laws, theology and prophetic events.

It's sad to see someone worried about hell in some "life to come," rather than being concerned with the here-and-now.

We're in hell from what the Bible states, why there is so much corruption everywhere. Plus in context of the overall effects of John's gospel on the world, instead of people believing that by their works, feeding the poor, giving up of wealth, healing the sick, etc, we could create here, to be as it is in heaven....Instead people assume all they have to do is believe in the name of jesus.

'K. still doesn't show that John is "false."

That was in the context of a 'false theology' within John, which i clearly established within its Jewish theological setting.... Add all the other points mentioned overall to that, then the gospel of John becomes circumspect from the many errors within it.

You're confusing linguistics and translation here.

Not confusing anything, Yeshua prophesied of that specific deception, that has happened within the gospel of John, and the Christian church.

You're obviously missing that meaning.

Trying to be patient; yet clearly you're not giving anything specific to over turn the points, other than conjecture. Would go into detail with how the prophecies fit together; yet not without at least a reasonable dialogue first.

Acts is a much later document and disagrees with Paul on many points. Kind of irresponsible to use it as a benchmark or a litmus test.

That i do agree with, Acts is most likely fabricated in much of it... Yet we also read the same from Paul's letters of coming back to Jerusalem. There is then evidence about the Ebionites, James the Just, etc; yet none from Rabbinic sources to say Paul even existed. So remain open minded on the whole topic; yet for the sake of the ideological claims it is easier to identify them as Paul's; than say the person who made up some of the epistles attributed to Paul.

And I don't understand where you get the idea that "Paul's church" (there was no such thing) was "against the disciples."

With the synoptic gospels Yeshua told his disciples how prophecy fitted, how the Sanhedrin were going to put him to death/murder him... So Paul's whole ideology of the gospel being about jesus's death falls flat on its face, with what they were taught. The only person we can attribute that thinking to is Simon the stone (petros); which is why Yeshua called him that, to imply he would lead people astray, and warned he would be used by satan.

Paul didn't think that Jesus came "as a human sacrifice."

Nope, Paul said being the image of God, he came down here like Adam, to sacrifice himself in human form, to be more precise.

 

[sojourner]

We've got prophets, with prophecies that have an exact fulfillment, anything other than that, is making things fit.

You realize that the prophecies and stories are contrived mythology, right? Nothing magical or supernatural about them.

Sounds like you're speaking about another book, more like reading a novel; than a history of Judaism and YHVH's interaction with mankind....From the overall interaction, like a jigsaw puzzle across time, it gives a clear definition of the laws, theology and prophetic events.

See above. The myths are contrived; the bible is the repository for the collection of contrived mythology.

We're in hell from what the Bible states, why there is so much corruption everywhere. Plus in context of the overall effects of John's gospel on the world, instead of people believing that by their works, feeding the poor, giving up of wealth, healing the sick, etc, we could create here, to be as it is in heaven....Instead people assume all they have to do is believe in the name of jesus.

John is a particular theological take from a particular community. No one should take any one perspective as THE one that's "right."

That was in the context of a 'false theology' within John, which i clearly established within its Jewish theological setting.

You haven't established that at all. All you've done is give us some conjecture based upon ... nothing beauteous own (limited) perspective.

Not confusing anything

Of course you don't think you are.

Yeshua prophesied of that specific deception, that has happened within the gospel of John, and the Christian church.

Biblical writers wrote that -- but the "fact" that it has happened is a matter of perspective and revisionist reading.

Trying to be patient; yet clearly you're not giving anything specific to over turn the points, other than conjecture. Would go into detail with how the prophecies fit together; yet not without at least a reasonable dialogue first.

The prophecies do fit together, but they fit because that's how they were contrived -- not because there's anything particularly supernatural about them.

With the synoptic gospels Yeshua told his disciples how prophecy fitted, how the Sanhedrin were going to put him to death/murder him... So Paul's whole ideology of the gospel being about jesus's death falls flat on its face, with what they were taught.

Yah, except "what Jesus said" in the gospels is nothing more than writing that is much later than Paul, so perhaps it's the gospels that "fall flat on their faces," according to the criterion you present here.

Nope, Paul said being the image of God, he came down here like Adam, to sacrifice himself in human form, to be more precise.

Citation, plz.

 

[wizanda]

Citation, plz.

[VERSE]Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.[/VERSE]
There is then much of Hebrews, saying about him being Adam and a final sacrifice.... Beginning to doubt you even know the topic.

You realize that the prophecies and stories are contrived mythology, right?

With whole chapters showing prophetic fulfillment, the reason they're called prophets is that people perceive the prophecies to have come to pass... You've got no claim.

No one should take any one perspective as THE one that's "right."

If the gospel of John is said to be an account from Yeshua; yet isn't his words or teachings, instead is defamation of character, then legally it is wrong.

You haven't established that at all. All you've done is give us some conjecture based upon ... nothing beauteous own (limited) perspective.

Agreed you do seem to have a limited perspective, will explain for you... In Hebrew and Aramaic there is just 'Ani hu', which would be 'I he', there is no 'Am' in the languages. So it doesn't have 'I Am that I Am' and YHVH, wasn't called 'I Am' in the Tanakh; so when it is making out jesus was claiming to be this in John, it is a false theology. That isn't conjecture, it is based on knowledge from a Jewish professor of religious education.

Biblical writers wrote that -- but the "fact" that it has happened is a matter of perspective and revisionist reading.

Indeed it is a matter of perspective, some can see and others have blinkers... Plus some just don't even know what they're on about, and like arguing.

 

[sojourner]

There is then much of Hebrews, saying about him being Adam and a final sacrifice.... Beginning to doubt you even know the topic.

That passage doesn't claim that Jesus came in order to be a sacrifice. It only claims that he ended up being a sacrifice. Beginning to doubt you even know the topic...

With whole chapters showing prophetic fulfillment, the reason they're called prophets is that people perceive the prophecies to have come to pass... You've got no claim.

First of all, prophecies aren't future prediction. Second, there are lots of prophecies as yet unfulfilled. Third, prophecy fulfillment is subjective -- not objective. Jews, for example, are still waiting for the Messiah.
Beginning to doubt you even know the topic...

If the gospel of John is said to be an account from Yeshua; yet isn't his words or teachings, instead is defamation of character, then legally it is wrong.

1) John isn't said to be "an account from Jesus."
2) We don't know if the synoptics contain Jesus' words or teachings; we don't know for sure what Jesus words or teachings were.
Beginning to doubt you even know the topic...

Agreed you do seem to have a limited perspective, will explain for you... In Hebrew and Aramaic there is just 'Ani hu', which would be 'I he', there is no 'Am' in the languages. So it doesn't have 'I Am that I Am' and YHVH, wasn't called 'I Am' in the Tanakh; so when it is making out jesus was claiming to be this in John, it is a false theology. That isn't conjecture, it is based on knowledge from a Jewish professor of religious education.

Agreed you do seem to have a limited perspective, so I'll explain for you. Translation between languages often involves a fair bit of "fudging" in order to make the message intelligible in the new language, because language is never a fair trade across the board. Therefore, the problem isn't "false theology," it's "lack of vocabulary."
I'll take your Jewish education professor and raise you two peer-reviewed and published Hebrew scholars and two peer-reviewed and published Greek scholar. Two pair beats your one lousy ace.
Beginning to doubt you even know the topic...

Indeed it is a matter of perspective, some can see and others have blinkers... Plus some just don't even know what they're on about, and like arguing.

Taking responsibility for yourself and owning up to your own shortcomings is a good first step. Glad to see that you've taken that step.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe Paul is not viewing it as a Jew but as a Chistian. I believe the same is true for John.

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.

I believe this should be sufficient.

Mat 26:31 ¶ Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended in me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

Mark 14:27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.

Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfilment.

 

[Muffled]

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".

I believe the criteria should be that it contradicts the other gospels but it does not.

 

[Muffled]

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.

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

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.

I believe youu are saying you were there but what evidence do you have for that?

I believe I have not seen any.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

ask four different people to write about what they saw on the news last night and you will get four completely different stories. why should all four gospels be exactly the same?

 

[wizanda]

I believe youu are saying you were there but what evidence do you have for that?

Was saying that theology is an understanding of God....Having had a NDE, plus many miracles since i can remember, my theology is from first hand experience; not some books.... The Bible is a murder mystery, thus unlike many I'm not looking for some form of private gain; just verifying what is written.

I believe this should be sufficient.

That isn't sufficient; it is missing all the other verses about the Sanhedrin choosing to put him to death, so though Yeshua knew he was going to be put to death for prophetic fulfillment, it was their choice.

I believe Paul is not viewing it as a Jew but as a Chistian. I believe the same is true for John.

They created Christianity and both contradict Christ; thus fulfilling all the prophecies about the deception.

why should all four gospels be exactly the same?

They shouldn't be all the same if they're real accounts; yet they shouldn't have 3 matching character references, and then one with a totally different character, who talks entirely differently (no parables, etc), has a totally different ideology and contradicts everything he said in the synoptic gospels...

It is like a game of spot the odd one out, yet people aren't bright enough to see how blatant the differences are....so trying to help explain some of them.

 

[metis]

I believe the criteria should be that it contradicts the other gospels but it does not.

But you're making an assumption that the gospels are objectively correct, whereas scriptures are mostly written from a rather subjective perspective. Also, there are quite a few variations that's found between the gospels, and John's certainly is less like the three synoptics.

One thing to note in John's gospel is that he often refers to "the Jews" in such a manner whereas it's being referred to essentially as an outside group, the importance of that being that even though Jesus and the apostles are all Jewish, by the time you get to the end of the century, they are seeing themselves as being different.

 

[wizanda]

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

It is only in John that says, 'by believing in his name, we're saved'.