Matthew, Mark, Luke Vs the Gospel of John

[Marcion]

All four canonical gospel stories are fiction by Christians who had no direct contact with the mission of Yeshua.
Just like Matthew is an adaptation based on Mark and Q-lite, Luke is possibly an adaptation based on Mark, Matthew and Q-lite, John is an elaboration based on Mark, Matthew and Luke.
Mark stands at the beginning of the gospel story tradition but perhaps is a narrative elaboration based on Q-lite, written in two stages, the first stage still free of the passion narrative.

So these four narrative gospels represent a series of stages in the development of second century Christianity, quite far removed from a posible historical Yeshua associated with Q-lite.
Luke was likely developed in two stages, with an earlier proto-Luke that was much shorter than present Luke (possibly extended by also using parts of Matthew).

John is closer to the Christianity that existed when the canon was formed, so it is not surprising that evangelicals will prefer it for mining quotes to defend their Christian faith.
I only find Q-lite really inspiring and perhaps some bits and pieces from the first (non-passion) part of Mark, the rest is too religious for me.

 

[OtherSheep]

Edit your post to say Jeremiah 31:31-36, which is what you're citing.

Then read the chapter, and see that when that happens at the start of Jeremiah 31:1, all the Tribes of Israel are united, which happens at the Messianic Age.

Will get back to your other arguments later...

In my opinion.

Chapter 38:1 "At that time, saith the Lord, I will be a God to the family of Israel, and they shall be to me a people. 2 Thus saith the Lord, I found him warm in the wilderness with them that were slain with the sword: go ye and destroy not Israel."[LXX] {God is speaking to and of Ἰερεμίας who was sent to pull down nations.}

The Greek Bible is very different in Ἰερεμίας, than the Canaanite texts which came much later.

________________________
BTW, I forgot to thank you for your understanding regarding the time it would take to walk from Jerusalem in Israel to Galilee in Israel. Either John is correct, or the circle of the nations cannot have been what today they've called Galilee. And of course, I believe John... since my faith isn't based on what conventional wisdom has to say about who/where.

 

[OtherSheep]

Here are a list of over 30 points where John directly contradicts the Synoptic Gospels, we can show it is purposely made up by the Sanhedrin to discredit Yeshua.

And here's the second batch, answered... with numbers added.

1. Yeshua said John the baptist was Elijah, it is denied in the gospel of John.

2. Simon was from Capernaum, not Bethsaida like John says.

3. Was crucified the day of the passover in John or day after in the synoptic gospels.

4. Yeshua said he didn't come to bring peace, John says he did.

5. Disciples meet jesus at tomb in Galilee, then Sea of Tiberius, and then Jerusalem all on the same day, no time for travel.

1. If ye will receive... they didn't.
Mat.11:14 And if ye will receive, this is Elias, which was for to come.

2. Capernaum vs Bethsaida
Mat.4:13 And leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:
4:18 And Ἰησοῦς, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
Jon.1:44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

3. preparation of the Passover
Jon.19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

4. peace with God, not man
Mat.10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Jon.14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

5. But you're right there was no time for travel, in the land called Israel today.

Maps of New Testament story

"A trained walker can walk a 26.2-mile marathon in eight hours or less, or walk 20 to 30 miles in a day."
How Far Could You Walk in 8 Hours?

 

[Hawkins]

The first 3 gospels are more about human testimonies of Jesus' deeds and speeches. Different authors may have different focus and perspectives. If you read history, no two authors can describe the same scenarios completely the same. That's the nature of what human history (and thus human witnessing is). The gospels are already how things are described consistently under human capability. I read a lot of Chinese history written by different authors in different period of times, they are much less consistent than the gospels are.

That said. The first 3 gospel are almost pure recording of Jesus' deeds and words, without adding any theological explanations of the why behind. John was left as the last disciple with all others martyred themselves. In this perspective, he is expected to be someone different. He wrote from another perspective by adding some theological explanations behind the scene, and in nature who Jesus is. It's not a pure eye-witnessing of deeds and speeches only. It's more or less analog to the writing of a Bible translation and a Bible commentary, where a translation remains faithful to the contexts while a commentary adds in the explanations.

 

[Muffled]

All four canonical gospel stories are fiction by Christians who had no direct contact with the mission of Yeshua.
Just like Matthew is an adaptation based on Mark and Q-lite, Luke is possibly an adaptation based on Mark, Matthew and Q-lite, John is an elaboration based on Mark, Matthew and Luke.
Mark stands at the beginning of the gospel story tradition but perhaps is a narrative elaboration based on Q-lite, written in two stages, the first stage still free of the passion narrative.

So these four narrative gospels represent a series of stages in the development of second century Christianity, quite far removed from a posible historical Yeshua associated with Q-lite.
Luke was likely developed in two stages, with an earlier proto-Luke that was much shorter than present Luke (possibly extended by also using parts of Matthew).

John is closer to the Christianity that existed when the canon was formed, so it is not surprising that evangelicals will prefer it for mining quotes to defend their Christian faith.
I only find Q-lite really inspiring and perhaps some bits and pieces from the first (non-passion) part of Mark, the rest is too religious for me.

I believe you know this because you are going to claim you were there to witness the writing.

 

[Muffled]

sorry to be sooooooo late

did anyone mention?
the Carpenter suffered the hand of John and baptism
He then went to the wilderness

but John's gospel has Him snaring two disciples
and is changing water into wine on day three

same Fellow?

I believe I don't remember seeing the words "day three" in the text

 

[Thief]

I believe I don't remember seeing the words "day three" in the text

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

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

 

[Muffled]

The other obvious possibility is that these parts were just made up.

There’s an interesting trend with the Gospels: the older the are, the less fantastical they are.

Mark has very few claims of divinity or miracle stories. The original version didn’t even have the Resurrection - it just ends with Jesus’s body missing and everyone being confused and afraid.

From there, the story seems to snowball, and the further in time the authorship is from the events it describes, the more grandiose the story becomes.

I believe one may speculate depending on whatever your point of view is. I will make mine from a godly point of view. I figure Peter was a busy man and Mark got what he could when he could. So some editions were earlier editions but the source and the validity of the writing is the same.

 

[Muffled]

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

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

I believe third day is not three days. It implies there were two other days somewhere along the line but there is no reference to two other days so John left us hanging without a reference point.

 

[Thief]

I believe third day is not three days. It implies there were two other days somewhere along the line but there is no reference to two other days so John left us hanging without a reference point.

as I read it....
day one....Jesus is spotted by John
day two....the disciples of John turn to follow jesus
day three....the wedding

granted the line of thought as written is a bit tricky to follow
i might review it latter

but Chapter Two begins as I quoted it

 

[sooda]

There is an aspect to
Yeshua sharing his inheritance with the strong; which still applies, even if we remove the egoistical statements with John.
Luke 10:22 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."



Sorry should've included the verses i was referring to within John based on eternal life. That though the verse you've posted is in a pharisee understanding of the resurrection into the messianic age, it isn't directly related to Yeshua answering about eternal life; which within John, it makes it into simply being about believing that God sent Yeshua to die. (works Vs belief)

I've got a firm belief in Yeshua statements and understand them more than you'll ever know, so that isn't in question; yet it makes an easy way for someone to religiously debate the case.
The character within John doesn't match Yeshua's; so claiming that it somehow reveals extra details the other authors failed to know about (like his whole ministry), makes no logical sense, other than in a faith based statement, that you like what you find within the gospel of John...
Which is like in Charlies Chocolate Factory, saying John gives me a fake free golden ticket to get in; yet if you read the small print within the competition, you will get nothing for believing it.

Using Simon the stone (petros) to back up the case, counts for nothing; as Yeshua stated satan wished to use him, and thus he called him the stone to fulfill prophecy. Yet lets keep it on topic and will start another debate against Simon later, if we get anywhere with John and Paul.

Luke 22:31-32 King James Version (KJV)

31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.​

 

[wizanda]

Simon, Simon

Simon the Stumbling Stone | ReligiousForums.com

In my opinion.

 

[sooda]

Simon the Stumbling Stone | ReligiousForums.com
In my opinion.

See Luke 22:32..

 

[wizanda]

See Luke 22:32..

In Revelation 20:8 satan has managed to deceived the whole world...

Thus when Simon 'followed the ways of man, more than the ways of God (Matthew 16:23)', this is why Yeshua named him the 'stone' fulfilling Zechariah 3:9.

In my opinion.

 

[sooda]

In Revelation 20:8 satan has managed to deceived the whole world...

Thus when Simon 'followed the ways of man, more than the ways of God (Matthew 16:23)', this is why Yeshua named him the 'stone' fulfilling Zechariah 3:9.

In my opinion.

The battle of Armageddon is one and the same as the battle of Gog and Magog. The vision of the battle of Gog and Magog is a recapitulation of the battle of Armageddon. Both visions contain specific references to Ezekiel 38-39.

 

[The Anointed]

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

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

After John had baptized Jesus, the son of his cousin Mary, the man Jesus was led by the spirit into the wilderness where he was tempted for 40 days.

Some 40 odd days after the temptation of Jesus, and after John had been questioned by the Jewish authorities, as to who he was, John saw Jesus coming toward them and said; "There is the lamb of God, this is the one of whom I said "There is one who comes after me, who is greater than I, ETC."

The next day John was there with two of his disciples, ect, then two days later there was a wedding in Cana, etc.

Work it out for yourselves from there, and next time Try to comprehend that which you read.

 

[Thief]

After John had baptized Jesus, the son of his cousin Mary, the man Jesus was led by the spirit into the wilderness where he was tempted for 40 days.

Some 40 odd days after the temptation of Jesus, and after John had been questioned by the Jewish authorities, as to who he was, John saw Jesus coming toward them and said; "There is the lamb of God, this is the one of whom I said "There is one who comes after me, who is greater than I, ETC."

The next day John was there with two of his disciples, ect, then two days later there was a wedding in Cana, etc.

Work it out for yourselves from there, and next time Try to comprehend that which you read.

nay.....john does not report 40 days in the wilderness

 

[blü 2]

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 John has gnostic qualities, some of which can be found in Paul.

Gnosticism is from Greek culture, not Jewish as such, but Greek culture had been influential in Jewish culture since Alexander's conquest of the region some three hundred years earlier. Greek was also the language of administration and trade in the first century CE and the authors of the NT were all Greek-speakers.

Jesus according to the unknown author of John pre-existed in heaven with God, and created the material universe (John 1:2-3). Paul's Jesus has the same credentials (eg 1 Corinthians 8:6). These ideas about Jesus aren't found in the synoptics.

In gnosticism, the being who created the material universe is called the 'demiurge' (Greek 'craftsman'). He does this because the gnostic God is so purely and perfectly spirit that creating anything material would be abhorrent to [him]. The gnostic God is also for the same reason incredibly remote from the material world, and for that reason an intermediary is necessary, as in (for example) John 17 ─ where (says John's author) just as Jesus is one with God, by believing in Jesus you can be one with God through Jesus. And without John's Jesus you can't.

You'll have noticed that John's (and Paul's) God is thus entirely different from the God of Judaism (hence logically, given an historical Jesus, the God of that Jesus). Any Jewish person can pray to God directly; there's no question of needing an intermediary.

 

[wizanda]

The gospel of John has gnostic qualities

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.

 

[blü 2]

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.

I'm more inclined to think it was one of the strands of Christianity in its infancy, not least because Paul thinks the same way, Jesus as demiurge and necessary intermediary. Another possible example is Paul's use of ἀρχή arkhē in Ephesians 6:12

For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the ἀρχάς, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
​

ἀρχάς is translated as 'principalities' in the KJV (and even in my favored RSV) where it refers to the seventh of the nine order of angels in medieval belief, but the Greek is the ordinary word for 'rulers', and in gnostic belief ἀρχή arkhē in English archons were the either malevolent or at least indifferent and uncaring supernatural beings who oversaw and conducted earthly affairs. This becomes more interesting when Paul in connection with Jesus' arrest in Jerusalem says ─

1 Corinthians 2:7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
​

The word translated 'rulers' is again ἀρχόντων arkhonton, and on the face of it refers to the Romans, but the wording doesn't quite fit; whereas it fits perfectly if Paul is referring to the bad supernatural beings presently in charge of earthly affairs in gnosticism.