Matthew, Mark, Luke Vs the Gospel of John

[wizanda]

First wiz and I were discussing the Hebrew to English and Greek to English translations of "I AM".

Agreed it is a mess of mixed languages and transliterations, especially as you can't say "I AM" in Hebrew or Aramaic, as there is no present tense.

My point though regardless of the mixed languages, is Yeshua warns:

He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

When we examine Matthew, Mark and Luke in Greek, we see Yeshua refers to God being 'I Am'; there are odd discrepancies, yet generally he doesn't use it about himself.

So we can put forth as you've done, that John is badly translated, and this has arrived at misunderstandings or that John was made up to begin with, thus fulfilling what Yeshua stated.

Taken with all the other evidence against John, I'm more inclined to see John as a forgery; that still fulfills prophecy and thus why it is still included. When we look at Revelations, it is clearly pointing at the Roman Catholic church and its children (Christianity); yet people want to look elsewhere for the deception taking place.

Even if we translated John as you're implying, it still doesn't fix that the metaphors used within it, are claims to being the person who led them through the wilderness.
There is nothing like this within the other gospels and instead the opposite, of pointing clearly at the father in heaven.

 

[Kolibri]

Agreed it is a mess of mixed languages and transliterations, especially as you can't say "I AM" in Hebrew or Aramaic, as there is no present tense.

My point though regardless of the mixed languages, is Yeshua warns:

When we examine Matthew, Mark and Luke in Greek, we see Yeshua refers to God being 'I Am'; there are odd discrepancies, yet generally he doesn't use it about himself.

So we can put forth as you've done, that John is badly translated, and this has arrived at misunderstandings or that John was made up to begin with, thus fulfilling what Yeshua stated.

Taken with all the other evidence against John, I'm more inclined to see John as a forgery; that still fulfills prophecy and thus why it is still included. When we look at Revelations, it is clearly pointing at the Roman Catholic church and its children (Christianity); yet people want to look elsewhere for the deception taking place.

Even if we translated John as you're implying, it still doesn't fix that the metaphors used within it, are claims to being the person who led them through the wilderness.
There is nothing like this within the other gospels and instead the opposite, of pointing clearly at the father in heaven.

As a non-trinitarian myself, and someone you now know does not believe that Jesus is Jehovah. You know I'll disagree about Jesus pointing to himself as God, even in the book of John. We need to look at it verse by verse as you want (please again, only one or two passages at a time.)

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
You are correct in that wikipedia does not "sound like Jesus"--

Nope the gospel of John doesn't sound like Yeshua, for one listen to the parables.... They are a story, so for instance.... The kingdom of heaven is like a man who went out and brought a field....There were two sons...etc...

wizanda, Was Jesus wrong in preforming all the miracles of healing, relieving suffering, raising the dead, speaking the principles/truths of the Law---in HIS teachings? Luke 7:22, "Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John(the Baptist) what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached."

Parables were used in the OT to teach and in the NT, but teaching doesn't have to be by Parable and the Gospel of John was more in line with what Luke wrote to show John the Baptist that HE is/was the ONE sent by GOD to save sinners. Jesus was more that just a man---HE is/was the Son of GOD.
Of course, those who do not believe, want to discredit JOHN'S Gospel.

 

[wizanda]

Of course, those who do not believe, want to discredit JOHN'S Gospel.

LoL... The gospel of John sounds nothing like Yeshua; people don't even care to spot the difference, as they think it gets them free eternal life, just by believing.

So Yeshua doing miracles was as prophesied; his teachings were brilliant.... Following John leads you away from his truth.

 

[wizanda]

We need to look at it verse by verse as you want (please again, only one or (x7) passages at a time.)

1. Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. (John 6:35)
2. When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12)
3. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. (John 10:9)
4. “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” (John 10:11)
5. Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.” (John 11:25-26)
6. Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
7. “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)

 

[lovemuffin]

Very true. They didn't all copy from one another. Rather, the evidence is overwhelmingly strong that Matthew and Luke used Mark and both also used an independent sources generally referred to as Q. The power of the evidence isn't that the sources are virtually copies of one another (they aren't). For each of the synoptics, we have thousands of manuscripts that actually ARE copies but every single one contains variants (mostly spelling errors and the like).

There's a pretty interesting Open Yale Course introduction to the New Testament which talks about the gospels and the textual variations and varieties of early Christian thought.

Open Yale Courses | Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature

I think it's worth the time.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There's a pretty interesting Open Yale Course introduction to the New Testament which talks about the gospels and the textual variations and varieties of early Christian thought.

Open Yale Courses | Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature

I think it's worth the time.

It is indeed worth the time for those interested in or for whom textual criticism is (along with a host of other topics) unfamiliar. Personally, I find Metzger's textual critical companion to the Greek NT (not to mention the critical apparatus in the Greek NT itself) somewhat more valuable here. But it's a level of technicality that most can't deal with (you have to be able to read Greek, for starters), which is why such a course as the one you recommend is invaluable.

 

[sincerly]

Taken with all the other evidence against John, I'm more inclined to see John as a forgery; that still fulfills prophecy and thus why it is still included. When we look at Revelations, it is clearly pointing at the Roman Catholic church and its children (Christianity); yet people want to look elsewhere for the deception taking place.

Even if we translated John as you're implying, it still doesn't fix that the metaphors used within it, are claims to being the person who led them through the wilderness.
There is nothing like this within the other gospels and instead the opposite, of pointing clearly at the father in heaven.

No! John isn't a forgery---any portion of a forgery is false. Therefore can not fulfill prophecy.(other than to be false.) The Holy Spirit has been the promised "Comforter"---by Jesus in the Gospel of John.
Paul attests to Jesus leading in the wilderness.
1Cor.10:1-4, ""Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

 

[wizanda]

No! John isn't a forgery---any portion of a forgery is false. Therefore can not fulfill prophecy.(other than to be false.)
Paul attests to Jesus leading in the wilderness.

Paul is anti-Christ's teachings and contradicts Yeshua on well over 36 points. So just because another Pharisee agrees with John, doesn't make it anymore truthful.
Maybe you missed Matthew 23, where Yeshua makes a point of saying that the Pharisees condoned the murdering of the prophets, as they saw them as sin atonements.

Thus when Christianity created by Simon the stone, John and Paul teaches such things, it is Balaam teaching and thus false.

Yeshua warns about the wheat and tares, saying that the tares are planted by the wicked one soon after. Thus if the wheat is the teachings of Yeshua in Matthew, Mark and Luke; the tares are planted next to it being John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros).

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
Of course, those who do not believe, want to discredit JOHN'S Gospel.

LoL... The gospel of John sounds nothing like Yeshua; people don't even care to spot the difference, as they think it gets them free eternal life, just by believing.

There is coming a day of judgment. It has been known/believed for many thousand of years. Do all of your LOL now; because those Scriptures declare that for many, it will be a time of weeping and gnashing of teeth.
John's Gospel sounds very much like the Merciful, long-suffering GOD whose messages Jesus came to proclaim to the people.
Eternal life will not be obtained by anything, but through believing that Jesus Christ Died for the repentant, submission to the Will of the Father.

So Yeshua doing miracles was as prophesied; his teachings were brilliant.... Following John leads you away from his truth.

Yes, Jesus did do miracles and the many of the people(Priests and leaders) came to believe Jesus' "brilliant teachings".
Jesus, admitted to the Samaritan woman that HE was the ONE looked for (Messiah) for many centuries. Something HE could do with the Jewish Leaders who had another agenda for the Messiah to accomplish.(Just as had been prophesied.---HIS own rejected HIM)
That was evidenced by the multiple times they tried to kill HIM.
Following your assessment is what "leads away from HIS truth."

 

[wizanda]

Of course, those who do not believe, want to discredit JOHN'S Gospel.

So lets make it clear, i do not believe; i know.
This is why I've spent years trying to reach people with this information, before it happens. Plus within it, my faith is so strong; I'll throw half the book out, if it means following what is right....Can you say the same?
So far all you're showing me, is that a scrap of paper means more to you; than questioning if you're even following Yeshua.

Eternal life will not be obtained by anything, but through believing that Jesus Christ Died for the repentant, submission to the Will of the Father.

Just then a man came up to Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what good deed should I do to have eternal life?" (17) Jesus asked him, "Why ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you want to get into that life, you must keep the commandments." (18) The young man asked him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, "'You must not murder, you must not commit adultery, you must not steal, you must not give false testimony, (19) honor your father and mother,' and 'you must love your neighbor as yourself.'" (20) The young man told him, "I have kept all of these. What do I still lack?" (21) Jesus told him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell what you own and give the money to the destitute, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come back and follow me." (22) But when the young man heard this statement he went away sad, because he had many possessions.

So was Yeshua lying according to you?

Do all of your LOL now; because those Scriptures declare that for many, it will be a time of weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The master of that servant will come on a day when he doesn't expect him and at an hour that he doesn't know. (51) Then his master will punish him severely and assign him a place with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Hypocrisy is to follow multiple things, that contradict each other at the same time; so when John, Paul and Yeshua conflict with each other, it isn't my loss if you don't hear.

John's Gospel sounds very much like the Merciful, long-suffering GOD whose messages Jesus came to proclaim to the people.

Thank you for making it clear, you want to follow a suffering god. Where as Yeshua preached that God has the power to do all things, even turn rocks into followers.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Agreed it is a mess of mixed languages and transliterations, especially as you can't say "I AM" in Hebrew or Aramaic, as there is no present tense.

You can't say "I AM" in the English "present" either, as English uses the continuous present for the "present" as in e.g., "I am posting" (describing the present) as opposed to "I post", which describes a generic State of Affairs (SoAs). Greek, however, not only lacks (as most languages do, even IE languages) a "continuous present", but also uses the "present" to signify the past and the "past" to signify the present. This is because the concept of "tense" as distinct grammatical category was abandoned within linguistics some time ago and is increasingly absent in classical philology, biblical studies, NT studies, etc. Rather, verbal systems are described generally through a grammatical category of three interrelated and generally inseparable (at least cross-linguistically/typologically) subcategories: tense-aspect-modality (TAM). For example, the Greek aorist is (for the beginning student of Classical or Koine Greek) the same as the English simple past. In reality, English simple past constructions primarily construe temporality while the aorist aspectuality (what developed out of the grammatical analyses of aktionsart).

Hebrew, English, and Greek all have TAM systems, and all of them differ. Additionally, this isn't a normal verb: I have an entire monograph solely devoted to the verb "to be" in ancient Greek, for example, and such detail on this verb is not unusual.

Finally, Jesus spoke Aramaic. As long as we are entertaining the ridiculous notion that the synoptics can somehow tell us what Jesus' sounded like, why not realize that here (and in John) we find him speaking Aramaic, not Hebrew. One need only peruse Li's exhaustive study of the Aramaic of Daniel, an in particular the aspectual approach to adfixation to construe temporality, or the lack, of an entire "conjugation" in Aramaic, to see that such differences matter.

My point though regardless of the mixed languages, is Yeshua warns:

Something he says in the most important, unambigously prophetic, eschatological, and christological way in Mark. Not John.

Even if we translated John

You can't translate a language you can't even read.

 

[sincerly]

So lets make it clear, i do not believe; i know.
This is why I've spent years trying to reach people with this information, before it happens. Plus within it, my faith is so strong; I'll throw half the book out, if it means following what is right....Can you say the same?
So far all you're showing me, is that a scrap of paper means more to you; than questioning if you're even following Yeshua.


So was Yeshua lying according to you?


Hypocrisy is to follow multiple things, that contradict each other at the same time; so when John, Paul and Yeshua conflict with each other, it isn't my loss if you don't hear.

Thank you for making it clear, you want to follow a suffering god. Where as Yeshua preached that God has the power to do all things, even turn rocks into followers.

Of course, you "know." -- your aim is to discredit John's Gospel. It is your opinion which is wrong---not John's Gospel.

Matthew 19:16-22 is correct. The Decalogue points out sin. No sin, no penalty. However, all have sinned; therefore, a penalty has to be paid---One's life is that penalty. Death doesn't equate to eternal Life.
What remedy for sin was there for this person---an blood sacrifice. The death of an animal. Jesus didn't argue with him upon that point, but went after showing the person where he was still breaking the laws he claimed he had been keeping for years.---that of worshiping "possessions" and not really following GOD.
Jesus was the only sacrifice willing to be a propitiation for that "person"(and all).

Matt.24:50-51, is true, All who do not believe will be punished. There is No conflict between John, Paul, and Jesus. It is your opinion which is faulty.

Since I can not pay the penalty debt---death--and live, I thank my Merciful Heavenly Father for allowing HIS SON(Jesus) to be my atoning sacrifice.

The Creator GOD doesn't want "rocks as followers", God is long-suffering(Merciful) in having the "disobedient REPENT" and in love submit to the will of the Father.

 

[Muffled]

I believe this is contrived and lacking in reality.

 

[Muffled]

"Yeshua answered in parables, there are no real parables within the gospel of John."

I believe this is the null hypothesis. Is john obligated to tell the parables? I do not believe He is.

 

[wizanda]

I believe this is the null hypothesis. Is john obligated to tell the parables? I do not believe He is.

Yet the vocabulary doesn't match either, there is the repeated usage of Ego I-mee (I AM), to imply him as something he never claims in the other gospels.
Where as in the synoptic gospels, when he is asked questions, he answers using parables and questions (typical Jewish behavior), in John he just answers arrogantly and dismissively.
So overall his character doesn't match in the gospel of John, compared to the synoptic gospels.

 

[Muffled]

Yet the vocabulary doesn't match either, there is the repeated usage of Ego I-mee (I AM), to imply him as something he never claims in the other gospels.
Where as in the synoptic gospels, when he is asked questions, he answers using parables and questions (typical Jewish behavior), in John he just answers arrogantly and dismissively.
So overall his character doesn't match in the gospel of John, compared to the synoptic gospels.

I believe this is an unjustified attribution to Jesus that He is not able to answer questions as He pleases. If Jesus is God and I believe He is then He is able to answer questions in a myriad of ways. In my case He answered questions by asking questions and I see Jesus doing that in the Gospels as well.

 

[sincerly]

I believe this is contrived and lacking in reality.

Muffled, it would be helpful to know who is the recipient of your messages and what is the subject of them.
My post is above this, and I see no correlation--between them.
Also, could you answer one's post in a single post rather than chopping it up? Or is there a good purpose for such?

 

[sincerly]

Muffled said: ↑
I believe this is the null hypothesis. Is john obligated to tell the parables? I do not believe He is.

Yet the vocabulary doesn't match either, there is the repeated usage of Ego I-mee (I AM), to imply him as something he never claims in the other gospels.

wizanda, one sees and understands the reason for the parables---from the beginning of Jesus Christ's ministry to the people, there was animosity between Jesus and the leaders who were not teaching the laws of GOD, but the "traditions and commandments written by men". Many times they had tried to kill Jesus.(during that 3 1/2 year span of teaching.)
The people understood the parables, but the leaders only perceived those parables applied to them. In the "fullness of time" that "time" for the "sacrifice" was "at hand"/"come". The "pass over Lamb" was ready for the slaughter. Yes, Paul called Jesus "our Passover". I Cor.5:7, "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"

Matt.20:28, "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

Matt.26:17, Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?"

Matt.26:63-64, "But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

Mark 14:49, 61-62, "I was daily with you in the temple teaching, andye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled...
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

Luke 22:22, 27, 70, "And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!...For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth....Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am."

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Jesus acknowledged that their saying HE IS/WAS the SON of GOD is true and verified it by saying "hereafter"/the resurrection they would see HIM coming in the clouds."
Yes, Jesus Christ is the "suffering servant" and the redeemer of mankind. HIS "own people" rejected HIM and many still do.

Where as in the synoptic gospels, when he is asked questions, he answers using parables and questions (typical Jewish behavior), in John he just answers arrogantly and dismissively.
So overall his character doesn't match in the gospel of John, compared to the synoptic gospels.

What is arrogant is calling the Apostles arrogant, They had been taught by Jesus and years after the ascension they wrote the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as they were impressed to write and for our learning of the right relationship one is to have with GOD and fellow Beings.
John was painting a word/picture of the Father and Jesus as a combined force with the Holy Spirit in the redeeming of disobedient mankind.

 

[wizanda]

If Jesus is God and I believe He is then He is able to answer questions in a myriad of ways.

So god has a multiple personality disorder according to you.

What is arrogant is calling the Apostles arrogant

No one is calling the apostles arrogant in this topic. Just that John is most likely Nicodemus the Pharisee; thus his testimony is bias and based on hearsay information, that doesn't match the character of Yeshua in the other 3 gospels.