John the Baptist

[DeistPaladin]

And, john, with its fantastic claims seems to have been written for a Harry Potter audience!

I know you're kidding but John does seem to be written for a specific audience: the Trinitarian audience.

If you read the Synoptic Gospels only, you'd have no clue that Jesus was supposed to be "one with his father". Search Matthew, Mark or Luke in vein for any support for the modern Trinity concept.

The Synoptic Jesus was clearly a lesser being, utterly subservient to and separate from his father-god. This includes rebuking a compliment "Why do you call me 'good'? There is none good but God." It includes claiming to not be as knowledgeable "no man knows the day, not even the son, but the father only" and having a separate will "not my will but thy will be done". Throughout the Synoptics, Jesus and his dad speak to each other in second person and of each other in third.

John was clearly a later Gospel, probably much later than the 1st century, written to advance a story consistent with orthodox theology.

[John V]

And with that, we're done.

[bladevalant546]

And, john, with its fantastic claims seems to have been written for a Harry Potter audience!

I know you're kidding but John does seem to be written for a specific audience: the Trinitarian audience.

If you read the Synoptic Gospels only, you'd have no clue that Jesus was supposed to be "one with his father". Search Matthew, Mark or Luke in vein for any support for the modern Trinity concept.

The Synoptic Jesus was clearly a lesser being, utterly subservient to and separate from his father-god. This includes rebuking a compliment "Why do you call me 'good'? There is none good but God." It includes claiming to not be as knowledgeable "no man knows the day, not even the son, but the father only" and having a separate will "not my will but thy will be done". Throughout the Synoptics, Jesus and his dad speak to each other in second person and of each other in third.

John was clearly a later Gospel, probably much later than the 1st century, written to advance a story consistent with orthodox theology.

Glad you brough that up, with a discussion and cross referencing various theological books. Beyond anything written before catholic influence we find the trinity concept not mentioned or referenced. D.S you heard of the Arians? They were a majority theology up until the Council of Trent (maybe Nicea) made their theology "illegal".

[DeistPaladin]

The problem with find "contradictions" in the texts is the difference in writing styles of the authors. All four authors had distinct penmanship that influenced what events are recorded.

Understand, we're not talking about stylistic differences or differences that could be attributed to point of view. What color was Jesus' robe is not something I spend any time on. Someone might have seen "scarlet" while another saw "purple". That's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about:
What decade was Jesus born in?
Did he go into the wilderness after his baptism or to a wedding?
Did he fly up into the sky on the day of his resurrection or 8 days later or 40 days later?

Just to name a few. These are not nit-picky little details. These are major milestones in the story that "reliable eye-witnesses" should agree upon.

[DeistPaladin]

Glad you brough that up, with a discussion and cross referencing various theological books. Beyond anything written before catholic influence we find the trinity concept not mentioned or referenced. D.S you heard of the Arians? They were a majority theology up until the Council of Trent (maybe Nicea) made their theology "illegal".

Oh yes. They were a sect that thought Jesus was an angel or arch-angel of some sort, a view which better fits the Synoptics. I find it likely the Gospel of John was penned to rebuke heterodox beliefs like these.

Personally, my favorite were the Ebionites. JC was a man until the Holy Spirit came down at his baptism. My understanding is that the two had a symbiotic relationship from that point forward, explaining the miracles and why there were none before. In fact, the whole Herod-trying-to-kill-baby-Jesus made no sense to me because how do you kill a god? Don't you usually need to go on a quest for the special sword of the four elements guarded by the fierce Foosil and then anoint the blade with the Oil of Maguffin or something? If JC was just a baby at that point, he's more vulnerable. And then there's the "why have you forsaken me" moment, which makes sense in light of their explanation that the Spirit couldn't die and left Jesus on the cross. I still wouldn't believe any of it, but it's better story-telling.

[bladevalant546]

Indeed, the Catholic butchering of heteodoxal theologies really put a hamper on the continuity of the gospels. This was apparent with the belief that jesus was not god but merely had the essence of him, kind of like making an AI program with your words and mannerisms.

How this is relevant imho is that influenced the wording and "translation" of texts to support their theology. For example, from what I remember (i wish I can cite sources from memory) is the term I Am was not capitalized until later to support the trinity concept, as well as the meaning of the phrase "me and the father are one". I think it is interesting to note the inconsistency of the time of birth of Jesus and the fact the logistical issues of the “Census” to have everyone go back to the land of their ancestors. Not to mention the fact that the mass killing of the first born did not happen. It is kind of odd that it mirror Moses’s birth. Not even talking about kings that ruled during this time.

Concerning the ascension that is a strange reference because we do have a different account in the book of Acts also detailing the strange time gaps and the odd characteristics of the raised Jesus.

[Minimalist]

I don't think theology should even be a subject. Nothing but apologetic bullshit trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

---

Matty tried to put a Jewish spin on Mark? Have you read Mark? Its one of the most Jewish books I ever read.

How Jewish can Matthew be?

On the other hand - how Jewish could Jesus be? Way more Jewish than me - and I have 2 Jewish parents.

Really?

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelo...dience.htm

There is no real consensus on identity of the audience Mark was writing for. The traditional position has been that the balance of evidence indicates that Mark was writing for an audience that, at the very least, consisted largely of non-Jews. This argument rests upon two basic points: the use of Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs.

[Vicki Q]

I know you're kidding but John does seem to be written for a specific audience: the Trinitarian audience.

If you read the Synoptic Gospels only, you'd have no clue that Jesus was supposed to be "one with his father". Search Matthew, Mark or Luke in vein for any support for the modern Trinity concept.

The Synoptic Jesus was clearly a lesser being, utterly subservient to and separate from his father-god. This includes rebuking a compliment "Why do you call me 'good'? There is none good but God." It includes claiming to not be as knowledgeable "no man knows the day, not even the son, but the father only" and having a separate will "not my will but thy will be done". Throughout the Synoptics, Jesus and his dad speak to each other in second person and of each other in third.

John was clearly a later Gospel, probably much later than the 1st century, written to advance a story consistent with orthodox theology.

There's a lot I wouldn't argue with here. Developing an over-clever Trinity concept was probably unhelpful, if probably unavoidable.

The conception of the Early Church was not of some obviously divine individual who wandered around with a far off expression in his eyes and a permanent halo around his head. (Actually that would be quite useful. Finding dropped coins at night, that sort of thing.)

There is a tension between God's transcendence and his action in the world. In the Jewish story, God communicates through such things as the Pillar of Cloud/Fire, the Burning Bush and the Torah. Jesus was seen as another in that line- God's presence in the world, on this occasion in human form. As a human, there were restrictions (could be killed, didn't contain all knowledge).

Geza Vermes (Jewish ex-Xian) deals best with the “Why do you call me good?” thing. He compares it to the “Call no man father” passage (Matthew 23). The focus on both of these is not the object (Jesus, father) but on God. In the same way as he's saying, 'Your understanding of the word father is utterly inadequate compared to God's fatherliness', he's saying 'Your understanding of the word good is utterly inadequate compared to God's goodness'.

Finally, the Synoptics don't hammer the 'Jesus as God' issue, because they're deliberately doing a long run up story. There are references (Bad tenants who kill the son, “No one knows the Father except the Son”, use of Daniel in Jesus' trial). However, might I gently suggest that the lack of references indicates the Synoptic writers were being careful to avoid reading back into their accounts the Christology they were developing? That they were concerned more with accuracy than theology?

[Minimalist]

However, might I gently suggest that the lack of references indicates the Synoptic writers were being careful to avoid reading back into their accounts the Christology they were developing?

Or, they were writing before that "christology" developed? Recall that there were many "gospels" which were rejected by the church for one reason or another and the final canon of the bible was not fixed until the late 4th century in the West and even later in the East. Even then, we have evidence that individual books were edited.

But thanks for a reasoned discussion on the issue. So different than what we normally get from the fundies.

[Bad Writer]

I would think that if the fate of the entire human race hinged upon a collection of Holy writings that accuracy would have been of the utmost importance to every author throughout the canon. Think of how pissed off Trekkies get when you bring up the "ridge-less Klingons" of the Original Series.