(October 28, 2010 at 12:08 am)Godschild Wrote: What makes you think that John had to place the event, cleansing the temple, at a certain place in his writings.
Because he's supposedly an eye witness (Even though the author wasn't born when Jesus died), and if his memory is that fucking terrible that while putting it into writing he gets it completely wrong it seriously damages the credibility of the testimonial (though it's just a story).
Quote: John's gospel is not one written to convey a straight line historical account. Only Luke's gospel tries in any way to tell a historical account and this was not his main intention. All four gospels were written as a wittness about Jesus and the order of the events are not that important, the spiritual truth is the great importance of the gospels.
None of them are witnesses buddy, Mark was the first gospel and was written around 55AD, Luke and Matthew use about 90% of Mark verbatim in their accounts, ruling out the possibility of them all being primary sources. It's clear that whoever wrote Matthew was using Mark and had a very Jewish influence, while whoever wrote Luke also had Mark and wrote from and had a more Alexandrian approach to Christianity.
John is something somewhat removed from the textural history, it appeared from much more contrived sources some time later, almost 30 years after the authorship of Mark and is fairly clear intended for preaching, it's much more poetry and enticement that the other 3.
Quote: If you will look at the gospels the events are not always in the same order from gospel to gospel Mark and Luke are the ones with close time lines. We actually do not know which events happened when so as far as the event cleansing the temple is concerned John may have it in the proper order.
Wait, you've just decried the difference by saying that John wasn't intended to be a historical account, and now you've said John may be the one who is correct? Do you want to explain all this flip-flopping?
.
