Matthew, Mark, Luke Vs the Gospel of John

[Desert Snake]

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.

Choosing one Gospel would not make the other Gospels false, by default, though. You would really have to prove that. I think that that is not provable with merely theologic belief, then interpreting them in ones belief system.

 

[metis]

Choosing one Gospel would not make the other Gospels false, by default, though. You would really have to prove that. I think that that is not provable with merely theologic belief, then interpreting them in ones belief system.

I really don't deal with the issue of "false" in this context sense scriptures tend to be mostly subjective by nature. "Difference", yes.

 

[Desert Snake]

I really don't deal with the issue of "false" in this context sense scriptures tend to be mostly subjective by nature. "Difference", yes.

I havn't read them in entirety. I've read portions. I can't really think of reason why I would read them ,I don't think any belief/s/ hinges on those texts.

I know that, traditionally, the Gospel of Johanan is legit, though. This all goes to what /we think the early Xians believed, not what ''I'' believe....

 

[wizanda]

Choosing one Gospel would not make the other Gospels false.

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Matthew 18:16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

So we've got three (more or less) matching witnesses, these therefore can establish a case vs John...Yet we couldn't do it the other way around; though most of Christianity has done to establish its beliefs.

I really don't deal with the issue of "false" in this context sense scriptures tend to be mostly subjective by nature. "Difference", yes.

What if the overall amount of differences are so substantial, that there is overwhelming evidence to deem it 'false'?

 

[Muffled]

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.

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.

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

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.

I believe this is unreliable as a source for theology. One aspect of NDE's is a noticing of events on earth and that has no verity as to what theology is correct; a second aspect is an experience of Heaven which out of necessity is fantasy and also not a very good basis for theoogy.

I believe you are in error since Jesus create Christianity. I also believe that they did not contradict Christ.

I believe you must have made this up out of your imagination.

I beleive there is no such thing.

I believe all the gospels have diferences and I have no problem with that.

I believe miracles can be done by the devil lso that is no guarantee,

I believe what I am saying is that you have no experience with what Jesus said and I would bring into question anything you think God said to you.

 

[Muffled]

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

Mat. 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.

 

[wizanda]

Mat. 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.

Would be nice if you got his name right then.... Yeshua or Yehoshua.

I believe this is unreliable as a source for theology.

My own theology has nothing to do with what is being discussed; so you can't believe anything about my own experience, when not even shared it with you.

 

[Muffled]

Would be nice if you got his name right then.... Yeshua or Yehoshua.

I don't worry about how accurate or authentic a name is. I believe the fact is that Jesus is the most common usage in my culture.

My own theology has nothing to do with what is being discussed; so you can't believe anything about my own experience, when not even shared it with you.

I believe you were the one who mentioned it. I believe in personal revelation but I also believe it ought not to be contrary to the word of God.

 

[wizanda]

Yeshua said John the baptist was Elijah, it is denied in the gospel of John.
Simon was from Capernaum, not Bethsaida like John says.
John says jesus got the donkey himself.
No kiss from Judas within John.
Carried cross all the way on his own with John; Simon of Cyrene helped in the synoptic gospels.
Multiple women came to the tomb, only Mary did in John.
Was crucified the day of the passover in John or day after in the synoptic gospels.
Women stood at distance from the cross in the synoptic gospels, John says they stood near by.
Yeshua in the synoptic gospels doesn't say amen twice (verily, verily); yet it is used 25 times in John like he did.
Yeshua said he didn't come to bring peace, John says he did.

Vs Tanakh

No one has ever seen God, when clearly the Bible says they have.

Theological

11 times we're told that we should believe in jesus within John; yet he tells Simon to have faith in God, not himself.
It is only in John that has the concept of believing in his name, that we're saved.
People hated and didn't understand him in John, the multitude met to hear him.
In John jesus is the light, everyone doing the work of God is light in the synoptic gospels.
Call no man your father, yet claims the father is within him to Philip, and he who has seen him, has seen the father.
All who work for God are children, only jesus is begotten in John.
John said that God is the vine dresser; Yeshua said he is the owner of the vineyard.

John vs john
Disciples meet jesus at tomb in Galilee, then Sea of Tiberius, and then Jerusalem all on the same day, no time for travel.
Testifying of himself (5:31) not valid, and testifies of himself valid (8:14).

Loads more to add still....

 

[sojourner]

So we've got three (more or less) matching witnesses, these therefore can establish a case vs John

You really don't understand the source theory, do you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

Christianity had this argument pretty much since the beginning. They excommunicated Marcion for it in 144 CE, which was pretty much when the Gospel of John was received in the churches.

Anyway, the Gospel of John is a theological polemic against Christian theologies that had developed since the writing of the other three Gospels. A Jesus is produced that was openly exclusive of the 'opposing' theologies. The early churches knew this, which is why they accepted it along with the previous three. Of course, many churches did not accept John, but they were eventually wiped out.

 

[wizanda]

You really don't understand the source theory, do you.

I understand it; just don't accept it.

 

[sojourner]

I understand it; just don't accept it.

Your circus; your monkeys.

 

[Muffled]

Wazanda said: "Yeshua said John the baptist was Elijah, it is denied in the gospel of John."

I don't believe I have seen a denial of it in John. Verse?

 

[Muffled]

Christianity had this argument pretty much since the beginning. They excommunicated Marcion for it in 144 CE, which was pretty much when the Gospel of John was received in the churches.

Anyway, the Gospel of John is a theological polemic against Christian theologies that had developed since the writing of the other three Gospels. A Jesus is produced that was openly exclusive of the 'opposing' theologies. The early churches knew this, which is why they accepted it along with the previous three. Of course, many churches did not accept John, but they were eventually wiped out.

I beleive I don't know what kind of assessment you are using but it seems to me that John has written about the ministry of Jesus just as the other gospels did.

I beleive if John is a being considered a later book, the evidence is that John lived a longer life than the other apostles so it would not be out of the question and John would certainly want to set the record straight.

I believe the churches would accept a book that is authentic and reject books that are not.

 

[Muffled]

You really don't understand the source theory, do you.

I beleive I am not familiar with it so I will be happy to rely on your vast education to give me an abstract of it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I beleive I don't know what kind of assessment you are using but it seems to me that John has written about the ministry of Jesus just as the other gospels did.

I beleive if John is a being considered a later book, the evidence is that John lived a longer life than the other apostles so it would not be out of the question and John would certainly want to set the record straight.

I believe the churches would accept a book that is authentic and reject books that are not.

I understand....

There were many churches that were 'Gnostic' and/or 'Marcionite' - so many that some historians think that they (read 'heretics') were the majority, not the proto-orthodox (read 'pre-Roman Catholic'). Of course, the position of Roman Catholics is that proto-orthodox Christian churches were both the earliest churches and the majority, but this position cannot be defended beyond doubt (in fact, it's an inductive [not directly supported by evidence] and not a deductive argument [directly supported by positively proven evidence or theory]).

So all that being said, Marcionites rejected John as a Gospel. This means that many, many churches rejected John as authoritative. In my opinion, this is because they received the Gospel of Luke first, along with some of the epistles of Paul, and then the other works of the NT followed slowly. They kept the original works as authoritative, building their theology and practice from them, and when later works permeated the churches, they rejected them, causing significant division that was not resolved until hundreds of years later in the counsels dominated by the proto-orthodox, who subsequently and systematically squashed the minority.

 

[Muffled]

I understand....

There were many churches that were 'Gnostic' and/or 'Marcionite' - so many that some historians think that they (read 'heretics') were the majority, not the proto-orthodox (read 'pre-Roman Catholic'). Of course, the position of Roman Catholics is that proto-orthodox Christian churches were both the earliest churches and the majority, but this position cannot be defended beyond doubt (in fact, it's an inductive [not directly supported by evidence] and not a deductive argument [directly supported by positively proven evidence or theory]).

So all that being said, Marcionites rejected John as a Gospel. This means that many, many churches rejected John as authoritative. In my opinion, this is because they received the Gospel of Luke first, along with some of the epistles of Paul, and then the other works of the NT followed slowly. They kept the original works as authoritative, building their theology and practice from them, and when later works permeated the churches, they rejected them, causing significant division that was not resolved until hundreds of years later in the counsels dominated by the proto-orthodox, who subsequently and systematically squashed the minority.

I don't know if there is any evidence of what criteria the Marcioites used but I go by the Holy Spirit and He points me to John all the time so it must be one of his favorites. That indicates a possiblity that the Marcionites were jsut deciding things in their own heads which leads to heresy.

 

[Simplelogic]

I understand....

There were many churches that were 'Gnostic' and/or 'Marcionite' - so many that some historians think that they (read 'heretics') were the majority, not the proto-orthodox (read 'pre-Roman Catholic'). Of course, the position of Roman Catholics is that proto-orthodox Christian churches were both the earliest churches and the majority, but this position cannot be defended beyond doubt (in fact, it's an inductive [not directly supported by evidence] and not a deductive argument [directly supported by positively proven evidence or theory]).

So all that being said, Marcionites rejected John as a Gospel. This means that many, many churches rejected John as authoritative. In my opinion, this is because they received the Gospel of Luke first, along with some of the epistles of Paul, and then the other works of the NT followed slowly. They kept the original works as authoritative, building their theology and practice from them, and when later works permeated the churches, they rejected them, causing significant division that was not resolved until hundreds of years later in the counsels dominated by the proto-orthodox, who subsequently and systematically squashed the minority.

The Marcionites rejected all the gospels except for Luke. Even Luke was edited and trimmed down to fit Pauline theology. The Marcionite rejection of John gives it more credibility imho.

 

[Simplelogic]

More on Marcion:

http://jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/56-marcionism.html