The Gospels

[Mythra]

I'd like to open up a little dialog about the four gospels themselves. See what I can learn from you guys, and maybe offer a tidbit or two myself. And, if Christians want to chime in, we'll try and tolerate ya, if you're not too obnoxious.

 

To start with, it is almost universally agreed that Mark was the first gospel written. And that it ended at verse 16:8. The women fleeing from the empty tomb. End of story.

 

The gospel of John trailed all of the others by at least thirty years. Yet John is the gospel that is most often used by christians in force-feeding their religion to uneducated unbelievers.

 

I have a couple of questions.

 

1. How is it possible that the book of Mark would have found the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus of so little interest that they were not included in the narrative, if they had actually happened?

 

2. How is it possible that not one of the seven "I AM" statements attributed to Jesus in the book of John made their way into Matthew, Mark, or Luke - if indeed there was a man named Jesus who said these things.

 

Here is what "Jesus" says about himself in John.

 

1. I AM the living bread that came down from heaven.

2. I AM the light of the world.

3. I AM the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved.

4. I AM the good shepherd.

5. I AM the resurrection and the life.

6. I AM the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

7. I AM the true vine.

 

These are extraordinary things for anyone to say. They are among the most striking of all of the words or sayings attributed to Jesus. If they had actually been said by a man named Jesus, it is inconceivable to believe that at least some of these sayings wouldn't have been recorded in Mt, Mk, and Lk.

[Reach]

Here is what "Jesus" says about himself in John.

 

1.  I AM the living bread that came down from heaven.

2.  I AM the light of the world.

3.  I AM the door.  If anyone enters by me, he will be saved.

4.  I AM the good shepherd.

5.  I AM the resurrection and the life.

6.  I AM the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.

7.  I AM the true vine.

 

These are extraordinary things for anyone to say.  They are among the most striking of all of the words or sayings attributed to Jesus.  If they had actually been said by a man named Jesus, it is inconceivable to believe that at least some of these sayings wouldn't have been recorded in Mt, Mk, and Lk.

Extraordinary, indeed! Usually, anyone making such bold statements would be forced to prove himself along these lines or be considered another lunatic, perhaps needing confinement so as not to hurt himself and others he could mislead. What do these statements really mean anyway? The fact that none of these is found in Matthew, Mark and Luke makes them highly suspect, to say the least.

[All Gods Fail]

Extraordinary, indeed! Usually, anyone making such bold statements would be forced to prove himself along these lines or be considered another lunatic, perhaps needing confinement so as not to hurt himself and others he could mislead. What do these statements really mean anyway? The fact that none of these is found in Matthew, Mark and Luke makes them highly suspect, to say the least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, but you're both forgetting that these are revelations of god, and we cannot fathom his ways!

 

The reason is...er...because of...well, he has his reasons, which we cannot possibly understand. So don't ask these kinds of questions.

[MQTA]

I'd like to open up a little dialog about the four gospels themselves.  See what I can learn from you guys, and maybe offer a tidbit or two myself.  And, if Christians want to chime in, we'll try and tolerate ya, if you're not too obnoxious.

 

To start with, it is almost universally agreed that Mark was the first gospel written.  And that it ended at verse 16:8.  The women fleeing from the empty tomb.  End of story.

 

The gospel of John trailed all of the others by at least thirty years.  Yet John is the gospel that is most often used by christians in force-feeding their religion to uneducated unbelievers. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Mark was presumed to be written before 70AD, John was written after 70AD, right?

 

Mark's author wrote before the temple was destroyed. John's author was writing upon the momentum following the destruction. Had a chance to absorb the previous written materials and really get creative, with little potential opposition.

 

?

[Kuroikaze]

Mark was presumed to be written before 70AD, John was written after 70AD, right?

 

Mark's author wrote before the temple was destroyed.  John's author was writing upon the momentum following the destruction.  Had a chance to absorb the previous written materials and really get creative, with little potential opposition.

 

?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most biblical scholars, even the fundy ones, admit that John was probably written after 90 C.E.

[Mike D]

What do these statements really mean anyway?

My sentiments exactly.

 

1. I AM the living bread that came down from heaven.

Living bread?? Um, sourdough or rye? Buttered or dry? Lightly toasted?

 

2. I AM the light of the world.

No, the physical sun is.

 

3. I AM the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved.

Everyone is a door to something. So what?

 

4. I AM the good shepherd.

Nice. I am the good systems analyst.

 

5. I AM the resurrection and the life.

At the time you said this you were supposedly alive. Resurrection of what?

 

6. I AM the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

<yawn>. Nobody comes to Allah without first making an appointment with Mohummad. Why do all the gods need secretaries and administrative assistants?

 

7. I AM the true vine.

As opposed to the false vine? Lordy.

 

To me these claims don't sound all that extraordinary, because they don't really have any intelligible meaning to start with. I am the living bread? I am the true vine? No one comes to the Father except through me? It's almost like people think that the more vague, ambiguous and non-specific someone is, the more mystical and metaphysical it must be, and therefore must be true. Why is nonesense equated with mysticism? Doesn't it seem that way when it comes to religion?

[Checkmate]

To me it just sounds like "Jesus" is an egotistical, dickhead, not very unlike the pastors and prophets of today. But then, what can you expect from someone who gets off on women kissing his feet and scrubbing his feet with her hair? (You just KNOW his feet had to be covered with sweat, mud and camel shit! Sounds like something out of a fetish movie. )

[Mythra]

Most biblical scholars, even the fundy ones, admit that John was probably written after 90 C.E.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The only thing that almost all biblical scholars agree on, is that Mark was first, and John followed by a considerable amount of time.

 

Truly fundy apologists have Mark being written as early as 42 to 45 CE.

 

Earl Doherty has Mark being written no earlier than 90 CE, and John around 125 CE. One of the reasons he dates them so late, is that there is no mention of them by any external sources until Justin Martyr, around 150 CE

[Mythra]

If anyone today said anything similar to all of these I Am statements, they'd probably be candidates for a straight jacket.

 

Of course, christians us these statements to claim that Jesus was God in the flesh.

I AM being a direct reference to the Exodus account where God says that his name is eh-yeh asher ey-yeh. (I AM that I AM)

 

But, what they can't explain is how there was no mention of Jesus claiming to be God and making these statements about himself in the synoptic gospels.

[quicksand]

But, what they can't explain is how there was no mention of Jesus claiming to be God and making these statements about himself in the synoptic gospels.

Which is, of course, acrimonious as dogma tells us that Jesus is God. Clearly, Jesus stating that he is the way to the father - by his own words, and if he was the “father” then, he just say it. I AM GOD. End of story. All done.

 

Of course this creates tremendous, and I mean Sam’s Club sized bottles of Advil headaches for Christian Trinity dogma, ie God can’t suffer cause he is immortal and all that.

 

What does makes sense is that Jesus was just a liberal Rabbi of the day, relaxing some social laws to strengthen the family underneath Roman occupation by the proxy Herod. Not a God, but a man just like you and me. Why? Jesus was a good Jew and a good monotheist. Only later, disappointed anonymous jews/proto-christian’s living in what they thought were the last days never materialized, had to transform Jesus through acceptable pagan archetypes, ie men as gods that we get this chop-suey, potpourri religion of today.

[Mythra]

Here's an interesting exerpt talking about the gospel of John from "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man", by Robert Price.

 

The staged artificiality of the discourses and dialogues of Jesus in John make clear that they are purely the writer's own creation. They all share a structure in which carnal-minded opponents misunderstand Jesus' spiritual double entendres (sometimes existing only in Greek, 3:3, 6:33, as if we could imagine Jesus debating with Palestinian Pharisees in Greek!). This gives Jesus occasion to explain his point at greater length for the benefit of the reader...

 

In the same way, note the artificial prompts put into the mouths of Mary the mother of Jesus (2:5) and Martha of Bethany (11:21-22). They have no possible meaning in the imagined historical circumstances and exist only to provide a drumroll anticipating the miracle Jesus will go on to work.

[SkepticOfBible]

Chrisitians always claim that the Gospel are eyewitness account. Yet nowhere does the Author of Mark and Mathew identify themselves as Witnesses.

 

The Gospel of John is a second hand account, and the Gospel of Luke is series of collection of report from various eyewitnesses.

 

The biggest fact is that the eyewitness of 500 people which revealed by Paul is nowhere acknowledged by the four main gospel.

[Mythra]

The biggest fact is that the eyewitness of 500 people which revealed by Paul is nowhere acknowledged by the four main gospel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Another item that cannot be explained away. 500 people seeing the risen christ and no one recorded it except Paul in 1 Corithians?

 

Maybe they were trying to get over the embarrassment of Paul saying that christ revealed himself to the twelve - in the preceding verse (when Judas was dead by then, according to the story) Paul. Have a clue, dude 12-1=11.

 

The shit doesn't add up, I tell ya.

[Ouroboros]

Another item that cannot be explained away.  500 people seeing the risen christ and no one recorded it except Paul in 1 Corithians?

Because all of them were easily duped farmers, without education or critical thinking. Only the non-scholars fell for the tricks.

 

Maybe they were trying to get over the embarrassment of Paul saying that christ revealed himself to the twelve - in the preceding verse (when Judas was dead by then, according to the story)  Paul.  Have a clue, dude 12-1=11. 

 

The shit doesn't add up, I tell ya.

Of course it doesn't add up. "Add" is addition, while 12-1 is subtraction. They flunked that grade in school!

[Razor]

Greetings people,

Many Christians ask the same questions you do, the Bible is full of references about not to lean on your own understanding of the scriptures.

Right at the end of Revelations you will see God himself will one day reveal the mystery of God to all.

Man will never be able to fathom it.

 

The central core message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ remains the same,

 

Your Sin debt has already been paid in full weather you believe in God and Jesus or not, so it does not matter what you believe.

 

Lots of people think you need to go to church and be baptised and pray for forgiveness.

 

Not so!

 

Other people think you need to be Good and behave and not party on if you are to keep your right standing with God if you are a believer

 

Also not so!

 

The biggest problem with the Gospel is the way men have warped it.

 

The only thing required to be a Righteouse person in the sight of God, is to believe Jesus has already paid your Sin debt in full.

 

That is ALL that is required.

 

Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness (Romans 4:4-5).

 

How good is that news people!

My faith is in him who Justified all of you, party on with your lives.

 

 

Peace

[Mythra]

The only thing required to be a Righteouse person in the sight of God, is to believe Jesus has already paid your Sin debt in full.

That is ALL that is required.

Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness (Romans 4:4-5).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi Razor. Please don't treat us like we are ignorant of the bible. I guarantee you that we are not. Unless you want us to pull out an overwhelming laundry list of verses that contradict the verse you quote here. We know all about salad bar christianity.

[Mythra]

Or, would the verses that disagree with you be considered "warping" the central message?

[Razor]

Which is it Razor?  Please make up your mind.

First you say nothing is required, then you say something is required. BTW...Please tell me whether or not I have misread you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The reason why it does not matter, is because the Bible is full of references, that not everybody is going to believe.

 

However there is comming a time when all will be confronted with the Truth of the matter.

That truth will not condemn you, that is why it does not matter.

 

The Core message remains the same, your Sin debt is already paid in full by Jesus, its just not everybody knows that yet.

 

Some will not know it until they are ressurected to this, thats where we get to the part of Scripture where it says that every knee shall bend at the sound of the name of Jesus.

 

So it does not matter Ok.

 

Peace

[Mythra]

Besides that, dude - this thread is about the gospels.

 

Romans is sometimes referred to as a Pauline Epistle.

 

"Lean not on your own understanding" is just another way of saying - "we know this stuff doesn't make sense. Try not to analyze it too much"

[Ouroboros]

The reason why it does not matter, is because the Bible is full of references, that not everybody is going to believe.

 

However there is comming a time when all will be confronted with the Truth of the matter.

That truth will not condemn you, that is why it does not matter.

 

The Core message remains the same, your Sin debt is already paid in full by Jesus, its just not everybody knows that yet.

 

Some will not know it until they are ressurected to this, thats where we get to the part of Scripture where it says that every knee shall bend at the sound of the name of Jesus.

 

So it does not matter Ok.

 

Peace

Sounds like another Universalist. Everyone will be saved, even the unbeliever?

[Razor]

Sounds like another Universalist. Everyone will be saved, even the unbeliever?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well the Scriptures do actualy say, that Gods Love will overwhelm all men, and that God will draw all men to himself.

 

That God will be all in all, that is for a future time however, of course not everybody believes now.

 

Like I said before it doesnt matter what you believe now, you will NEVER be condemned for it.

 

Peace

[Mythra]

Hey, whatever. Beats the shit outta being condemned to hell.

 

Unfortunately, universalism isn't what the bible says.

 

Plus, I don't want to go to heaven. I got my heart set on annihilation.

[quicksand]

Razor, please confine yourself to the issue at hand. What you offer is irrelevant. Thank you.

[Mythra]

speaking of. I have read in a couple of places now that there were no Pharisees in Galilee until they fled the fall of Jerusalem in 68 - 70. If this is true, this is a BIG booboo in the gospels. Anybody know anything more about this?

[Ouroboros]

speaking of.  I have read in a couple of places now that there were no Pharisees in Galilee until they fled the fall of Jerusalem in 68 - 70.  If this is true, this is a  BIG booboo in the gospels.  Anybody know anything more about this?

I never heard that before. But I heard that there were several kinds besides the pharisees and the sadducees parties.

And also that Jesus teachings were very close to the Pharisee ideas.