lets go by the gospel of John

[WHARFE]

Well, it does if you presume that the other ones are at least somewhat accurate. For instance, if you were to go by only John, think about what Jesus' life would look like. jesus

Never would tell a parable
Never would cast out a demon
Goes around talking about how awesome he is and how he is the messiah, while in the other gospels he hides it and tells people not to tell anyone
Would not have a special birth
Would not be baptized by John the Baptist
Would not be tempted in the wilderness
Wouldn't pray in the garden of Getheseme

Wow. I guess none of those were important enough to even mention!
What about the Lords Supper? Not important? John doesn't appear to think so, he never mentions it, even though he mentions that they had dinner.

In the other gospels, Jesus at one point takes John and Peter up a hill and then Jesus gets lit up like a Christmas tree in glory. Remember, John's main point throughout his gospel is that Jesus is an awesome god. You really think he just didn't decide to include the freakin' transfiguration because it wasn't important or because someone already said it? If he wasn't including stuff that other people already said, then why mention the crucifixion or resurrection? Oh, I guess because those *are* important, unlike the transfiguration and the last supper?

Now, since it is asserted that the gospels are inspired by the holy spirit, and since there is only one god, then that means that believing the gospel of John is legitimate means we have to beleive the Jesus himself dictated these confused stories about himself. Even worse, the courtroom oath comes to mind "do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?". It seems that claiming that the Gospel of John is real is claiming that the holy spirit told an inaccurate story at least once, and maybe more than once. That seems an awful lot like blaspheming the holy spirit, which according to Mt 12:31 is a ticket straight to hell.

Looking at many gospels, I have to admit that if Mk, Lk and Mt are accurate, then the Gospel of Thomas seems much more likely to be accurate than the Gosple of John. The GoT at least has a lot of very similar sayings, and few if any radically different public portrayals of Jesus like John has.

It's not about "removing" the historical witness - it's about deciding if there is a historical witness there to begin with. I don't assume that the gospel of mary magdalene has a historical witness either until it is examined.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that the four canonical gospels differ in their accounts of Jesus. After all, in the gospel of Matthew the infant Jesus is visited by wise men; in the gospel of Luke they were shepherds. Despite this, wise men and shepherds are included in every Nativity play performed by children every year all over the world.

Peace

 

[WHARFE]

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that the four canonical gospels differ in their accounts of Jesus. After all, in the gospel of Matthew the infant Jesus is visited by wise men; in the gospel of Luke they were shepherds. Despite this, wise men and shepherds are included in every Nativity play performed by children every year all over the world.

peace

That discussion came from the in errancy forum.you will also note within the gosples that jesus's "i am" speeches are not to be found in 3 gospels except for the gospel of john.and what about the amazing miracle of saints coming out of thier graves and then appearing to many? it was this miracle that convinced the roman soldiers that jesus was the son of god,but the other gospels never made use of this miracle? why is that? maybe they didn't know.they include the crucifion and ressurection and many other less amazing miracles but all 3 of them leave out the great miracle of saints poping out of thier graves.

 

[WHARFE]

scholars say that 90percent of the gospel of matthew repeats the gospel of mark verbatim and with interpolations.doesn't that shatter the claim of eye witness testimony?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

scholars say that 90percent of the gospel of matthew repeats the gospel of mark verbatim and with interpolations.doesn't that shatter the claim of eye witness testimony?

Who claims the gospels were written by eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus?

Peace

 

[Michael Samuel]

I enjoy reading biographies in my spare time. You know what I noticed? You can take one notable historical figure — let's say Abraham Lincoln. There are tons of books written about Lincoln by different authors. You know what else? Those different writers wrote about many different aspects of Lincoln's some. Some centered strictly on his presidency. Others thought it pertinent to cover his childhood and upbringing. Still other authors made the focus of their books Lincoln's relationship with his wife.

Different authors, different perspectives, different focuses.
Maybe the Gospels are like that.

 

[WHARFE]

How difficult would it of been for the gospel of John ,Mark and Matthew to sqeeze in "When Jesus died, a great earthquake shook open the tombs of many saints, who went into the city, after his resurrection, and appeared to many, and the centurion seeing the earthquake and what took place said, 'Surely, this was the son of God'"? with the backing of the holy spirit god it wouldn't be difficult at all, would it? these gospel writers had the holy spirit god backing them, yet all 3 of them failed to include the famous "i am speeces" and the saints incident and many other things.

If, however, Turkel wants to talk about "reporting mostly the same things," let him explain why over half of the content of Mark is repeated in the gospel of Luke and over 90% of it in the gospel of Matthew. Only about 7% of the material in Mark is peculiar to it; the rest is repeated, often times in near-verbatim form, in Matthew and Luke. So I will dump Turkel's question back into his lap. Why did "Matthew" and Mark waste so much space reporting the same things that Mark had already reported? Turkel, of course, will reject the Marcan priority of Matthew and Luke, but whether Matthew was written before Mark or vice versa is irrelevant to the question that Turkel asked above. If Matthew was written first, then Mark wasted a lot of space reporting the same things that "Matthew" had, and if Mark was written first, "Matthew" wasted space reporting the same things that Mark had.

Now in reply to Turkel's question above, I will just repeat what I have already said. If the central purpose of my "biography" is to encourage the readers to believe that Jesus was "the Christ," I would certainly include the extraordinary events reported by Matthew, which caused the Roman soldiers to declare, "Surely, this was the son of God." After all, if one's purpose is to instill belief in one's readers, why not include that which has been proven to cause nonbelievers to believe? Wouldn't reporting that be more important than telling of, say, how Jesus once sat on a mountain with his disciples? Did anyone who saw Jesus on that occasion proclaim, "Holy smoke, Jesus is sitting on a mountain, so he must be the son of God"?

How many biographers of Martin Luther king failed to include his "i have a dream" speech?

 

[WHARFE]

We don't know nothing about the authours of the gospels. we don't even have early christians name any book now in the modern day nt.do you know of any early christian writer that hails any book in the nt as "holy scripture"? Bart Ehraman says: "the books we call the new testament were not gathered together into one cannon and scripture, finally and ultimately , until HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER THE BOOKS themselves had been produced."

 

[Michael Samuel]

How difficult would it of been for the gospel of John ,Mark and Matthew to sqeeze in "When Jesus died, a great earthquake shook open the tombs of many saints, who went into the city, after his resurrection, and appeared to many, and the centurion seeing the earthquake and what took place said, 'Surely, this was the son of God'"? with the backing of the holy spirit god it wouldn't be difficult at all, would it? these gospel writers had the holy spirit god backing them, yet all 3 of them failed to include the famous "i am speeces" and the saints incident and many other things.
How many biographers of Martin Luther king failed to include his "i have a dream" speech?

While I understand the point you are making, I disagree with your conclusion.
You aren't specifying how it devalues the Gospels for their to be different focuses put forward by different writers. The works complement each other; at least that is what I see as a believer.
The Bible says that Jesus did many miracles and wonders that were not recorded — I guess you could say that the writers had to hit the edit key at some point.

 

[abdul Majid]

All Prophets Did Miricles, How Else Are People Gonna Beleive They Are Prophets.... Do You Know How Many People Baring The Message Of God Were Killed, Many.....by The Way Jesus(pbh) Never Said To Worship Him!
He Always Said, "your God Is One".

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

While I understand the point you are making, I disagree with your conclusion.

I don't understand what point he's making.

Peace

 

[Michael Samuel]

Greetings,


I don't understand what point he's making.

Peace

I think the point he's trying to make is that since the Gospels aren't identical in the aspects of Jesus' life they each focus on, this invalidates them.
I guess, by that reasoning, all recorded historical information should be thrown out.
But where does that leave us?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I think the point he's trying to make is that since the Gospels aren't identical in the aspects of Jesus' life they each focus on, this invalidates them.

I grasped this point in WHARFE's posts, but it was so mixed up with a ragbag assortment of other points made by different writers that it was pretty much obscured...

I guess, by that reasoning, all recorded historical information should be thrown out.

That would appear to be the result of that line of argument!

Peace

 

[WHARFE]

Matthew 27:51-53 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

What were the other 3 gospel writers doing? sleeping? smoking weed? how could any Jewish writer at that time FAIL to include this miracle in his talmud? do we have EVEN ONE DOCUMENT outside of the nt to support this event? maybe john and the other 2 were stoned so badly that they didn't notice an earthquake.Maybe the words "appeared unto many" meant appeared unto matthew only.Even if the other 3 weren't present at the big event, the ghost god should of filled them in.Isn't it strange that the gospel of John tells us where jesus was crucified (19:20) but doesn't bother to add or make reference to what we read in Matthew above? Did John see the events described in Matthew above? wasn't johns purpose of writing his gospel to prove jesus was the messiah? don't you think he missed a great opportunity by failing to quote rewrite matthew 27:51-53 ?

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

I'll quote from exchristian Farrell Till on this:

With this concession, what Turkel needs to do now is prove that those "many" other things that Jesus did, which "John" didn't mention were anywhere comparable to a three-hour period of midday darkness and a resurrection of "many" saints who appeared to "many" and that they were deeds that would have contributed to his purpose of wanting to write the things about Jesus that would cause readers to believe that he was "the Christ" (20:31).

First, we have been talking about why "John," who was presumably an eyewitness to the events of that day, would not have mentioned the three hours of midday darkness, the earthquake that shook the tombs open, and the subsequent resurrection of the "many" saints who went into the city and appeared to "many." None of these were "things" that Jesus did; they were miracles that happened independently of anything that Jesus, who was hanging between life and death, did that day. In other words, these three extraordinary events that "John" omitted in his gospel were not "things" that Jesus had done in the sense of healing the deaf, the blind, and the lame or changing water into wine or walking on water or calming storms.

No, no, I can already hear Turkel saying. Verse 53 says that these saints came out of their tombs after the resurrection of Jesus. Yes, I know that it says that, but I also know of--and agree with--a scholarly consensus that the "after the resurrection" phrase was an addition put into the text at a later time in order to give primacy to the resurrection of Jesus. The Greek text, which an expert in biblical languages like Turkel should be aware of, literally says: "(A)nd the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the having fallen asleep saints were raised and coming forth out of the tombs after the rising of him entered into the holy city and were manifested to many." The phrase "after the rising of him" could have easily been added by a later scribe. If it is omitted, the text has a much more likely meaning.

And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallens asleep were raised, and coming forth out of the tombs, they entered into the holy city and were revealed to many. And the centurion and those guarding Jesus seeing the earthquake and the things taking place they feared exceedingly, saying, Truly this one was [the] son of God.

This reading is according to Hendrickson's Interlinear translation with the suspected interpolation of "after the rising of him" omitted. One who reads this can easily see that Matthew was undoubtedly going all out to pour on the miraculous events to explain why the centurion and his soldiers would have been so terrified.

 

[Michael Samuel]

don't you think he missed a great opportunity by failing to quote rewrite matthew 27:51-53 ?

No, I think each of the Gospels serve their purpose remarkably well.

Why, in your opinion, is it important for there to be a rewriting of Matthew 27:51-53 in order? Would this redundancy make the Gospels more palatable for you?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I don't know if it's worthwhile asking WHARFE any questions at this stage. He hasn't answered any so far; perhaps it's best to leave him to complete this mildly diverting monologue until he works it out of his system and feels ready to respond...

Peace

 

[PrIM3]

what is the question?

about why the gospel accounts are not exact?

 

[Michael Samuel]

Greetings,

I don't know if it's worthwhile asking WHARFE any questions at this stage. He hasn't answered any so far; perhaps it's best to leave him to complete this mildly diverting monologue until he works it out of his system and feels ready to respond...

Peace

Solid advice, I think.
It was good to be able to talk to you, and I hope we get to dialogue in other threads.
Michael Samuel

 

[Nicola]

scholars say that 90percent of the gospel of matthew repeats the gospel of mark verbatim and with interpolations.doesn't that shatter the claim of eye witness testimony?

No I don't think so


Because the gospels where written for different audiences at the time. They included different accounts for different reasons.

Matthew was written by a Jew and for the Jewish audience.
Mark was written a young man who was present during some of the events of Jesus' life and it was written for the Roman audience.
Luke was written by a gentil doctor to the Greeks
John was written by one of the first and earliest followers of Jesus, he used to be a follower of John the Baptist along with his brother James this gospel was written for the "Born-Again" Christian

They where all written before 70 AD before the destruction of the Jewish Temple..which Jesus' had prophesed about.

 

[*Hana*]

They where all written before 70 AD before the destruction of the Jewish Temple..which Jesus' had prophesed about.

I think you should research that information. Many Biblical and Christian scholars certainly disagree with you. Evidences seem to have a timeline similar to this: Mark was written after 70CE but before105CE.
Matthew was written after 90CE. Luke was written after 95CE.

Peace,
Hana