Me: I call my next witness, John.
***John takes the stand***
Me: Now then Mr. John, you claim to be an eye-witness to the life of Jesus, correct?
John: Yes.
Me: And that must mean you lived sometime during his ministry?
John: Of course.
Me: If you don't mind, I'd like to read for the court record a few choice passages from your deposition.
Quote:1:19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
5:10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.
5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
8:22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.
8:52...
Opposed Attorney: Your honor, if it please the court, is there a question coming sometimes before Jesus returns?
***Laughter***
Me: I'm just wondering why John doesn't seem to think that Jesus and his followers were Jews?
John: Well, they weren't. They were Christians.
Me: And that's what Jesus called himself?
John: Not exactly, but...
Me: And that's what the other Gospel writters called themselves?
John: Well, not right away but...
Me: And in fact, the 'Synoptic' Gospels, a term meaning 'similar', which underscores that yours is not, refer to the ones you call "Jews" instead as "scribes" or "pharisees" or "priests"?
John: What's your point?
Me: The point is that the other Gospel authors depict Jesus as leading a splinter faction rebellion against a corrupted church whereas you seem to think that the "Jews" represented a distinct and hostile religious group completely.
John: But...
Me: Next question, also dealing with how your deposition is in conflict with the others, was Jesus God incarnate?
John: Well, he was and he wasn't. You see, he was God the Son, who was separate and distinct as a person from God the Father but yet they're all part of the same substance God.
Me: If you don't mind, we'll gloss over the issue of the Trinity for now and just stick to how your Jesus was different from the Synoptics.
John: OK
Me: Now, in your deposition, you said that Jesus claimed...
Quote:John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John: Famous passage, that one.
Me: Indeed, also famous are some of these examples of Synoptic depictions of Jesus:
Quote:Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, …neither the Son, but the Father.
Me: Let the record show that the KJV deleted the part about "neither the Son" but the originals do say that.
John: Your point?
Me: Why didn't Jesus have knowledge that his Father had if the two were one?
John: Well, you see, that was part where the human Jesus was speaking. You see, at that time, he wasn't one with...
Me: And in Star Trek, subspace communication is either instantaneous or takes days depending on the needs of the story at that point.
Opposing Attorney: OBJECTION!
Me: I withdraw my last comment, your honor. Let me proceed to the next Synoptic verse...
Quote:Matt 26:39 …O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Me: So Jesus has a separate will that is clearly subordinate to the Father?
John: Well, this is another example of Jesus being fully human at that moment...
Me: And let's go to what Luke has to say...
Quote:Luke 3:22 …a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Me: This is one of countless examples where the Synoptics have Jesus and his father Yahweh talking to each other in 2nd person and of each other in 3rd person.
John: Yet more examples of how Jesus was fully human.
Me: In fact, that's the only way Jesus is depicted throughout the Synoptic Gospels. He has inferior knowledge, a separate and subordinate will and refers to himself as a separate being from his father god, speaking to and about that being in 2nd and 3rd person. You and only you seem aware that there's the other Jesus who is one with his father?
John: Well, um...
Me: In fact, the other authors who you admit came earlier seem completely unaware of this who Trinity, one-with-the-father-yet-separate-person thing?
John: Well, that's because you're not reading it right.
Me: How else should I read what's there?
John: You need the Holy Spirit to understand.
Me: And what about John the Baptist?
John: What about him?
Me: He never baptizes Jesus in your version.
John: An oversight.
Me: Nor does he have to get out of the way before Jesus can start his ministry in your version.
John: Their oversight.
Me: In fact, John the Baptist becomes completely passive in your version.
John: Well, he was always passive. He always claimed that he was a forerunner of Jesus.
Me: His followers, who remained rivals of Christians for centuries. They didn't get the memo?
John: Well, um, you know how stubborn religious people can be?
Me: Yes indeed. So when the Muslims did the same thing to Jesus it was a lie but when you did it to John the Baptist it was true?
John: Yes.
Me: How about the cleansing of the temple? It was at the beginning of his ministry according to you but at the end according to them?
John: There were two cleansings!
Me: Two exact cleansings within two years?
John: Yes.
Me: A rabbi running through the sprawling complex, single-handedly throwing out all the merchants, and it happened twice over two years?
John: Yes.
Me: And no mention of it in history?
John: Yes.
Me: And no mention of the duplication in the narrative, such as "just as before..."?
John: Yes.
Me: No comment from the merchants "not this guy again"?
John: Yes.
Me: No comment from Jesus, "I thought I told you...?"
John: Yes.
Me: In fact, this isn't a contemporary Gospel, is it?
John: What? No!
Me: You have a completely different, Trinitarian idea of Jesus that didn't come along until later, a sharp distinction with the Jews as a separate religion that didn't exist in the other Gospels, and similarly aged concepts of John the Baptist and the aggressive nature of Jesus.
John: That was just my take on it all. I'm not a liar!
Me: I'm through with this guy!
In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen the jury, that the four eye-witnesses simply aren't.
We've seen how Mark testimony is based on hearsay on top of anonymous hearsay penned four decades after the alleged events and we know of at least one significant undisputed alteration to that testimony.
We've seen Matthew arrested for perjuring himself.
We've heard Luke admit he's not an eye-witness.
We've seen how John is called "not similar" to the other testimonies by the very Christian scholars themselves for a reason. His testimony is strangely advanced in all respects, from theological differences with "The Jews" to concepts of the divinity of Jesus, too much to be contemporary with the other so-called "witnesses".
The testimonies are neither reliable nor are they witnesses.
