If the claims of John are so important..

[Elijah John]

I am frequently told that the claims of John attributed to Jesus are central to definitive Christianity.

The supposed pre-existence of Jesus in John's prologue, establishing Jesus as "Divine".

The claim that Jesus is the only way to God.

The "I AM" sayings, supposedly equating Jesus with JHVH

And others.

If these claims are central and essential to Christianity, then why are they not repeated in the other three Gospels?

[Duvduv]

Many things vary among the canonical texts, so they were not included because the Roman authors wanted to give the impression that the texts complemented one another with contributions appealing to various ideas popular among the people, or at least the Roman literati.

[2ndpillar]

[Replying to Duvduv
I am frequently told that the claims of John attributed to Jesus are central to definitive Christianity.
The supposed pre-existence of Jesus in John's prologue, establishing Jesus as "Divine".
The claim that Jesus is the only way to God.
The "I AM" sayings, supposedly equating Jesus with JHVH
And others.
If these claims are central and essential to Christianity, then why are they not repeated in the other three Gospels?

Dear John,
It takes two witnesses to establish any matter (Dt 19:15, Mt 18:16, and even the self professed apostle and prophet Paul in 2 Cor 13:1).

As for Yeshua being the "Word" made flesh, he was the embodiment of the "Word" in that he lived the "Word". The same any child of God must also do.

Nothing can be established without a second first person witness. Everything must be in line with "the law & the testimony". (Is 8:20)

The only first person witness of the apostolic fathers of the "Christian" church, who established the articles of faith, was the bishop of Hereciea, who described his fellows as illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing. (Nicaea Council)

Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said, "Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing" (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint). http://loveforlife.com.au/content/07/07 ... ony-bushby

[Wolfbitn]

I am frequently told that the claims of John attributed to Jesus are central to definitive Christianity.

The supposed pre-existence of Jesus in John's prologue, establishing Jesus as "Divine".

The claim that Jesus is the only way to God.

The "I AM" sayings, supposedly equating Jesus with JHVH

And others.

If these claims are central and essential to Christianity, then why are they not repeated in the other three Gospels?

Hi good to meet you.
Why do you suppose it is necessary that absolutely every theme in the bible be repeated wherever you think it should? Not meaning this in any negative way, it is just an honest question. You could just as justifiably ask Why didn't Shakespeare kill off Romeo and Juliet earlier on.

[Joab]

I am frequently told that the claims of John attributed to Jesus are central to definitive Christianity.

The supposed pre-existence of Jesus in John's prologue, establishing Jesus as "Divine".

The claim that Jesus is the only way to God.

The "I AM" sayings, supposedly equating Jesus with JHVH

And others.

If these claims are central and essential to Christianity, then why are they not repeated in the other three Gospels?

Hi good to meet you.
Why do you suppose it is necessary that absolutely every theme in the bible be repeated wherever you think it should? Not meaning this in any negative way, it is just an honest question. You could just as justifiably ask Why didn't Shakespeare kill off Romeo and Juliet earlier on.

Perhaps because all four are allegedly reporting the teachings of jesus.
What's with believers quoting fiction and fictional characters in support of their bible?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I've certainly asked this question myself. I don't understand how Christians can view John as anything but a different gospel entirely. It's not the same message at all. It's not merely a different perspective. If what John says is true, it's absolutely 100% vital information such that anyone expressing Jesus' message would be absolutely foolish to have forgotten to mention. Such things would have to be in the other 3 gospels. But they're not. John is most definitely religious foul-play.

[Wolfbitn]

Hi good to meet you.
Why do you suppose it is necessary that absolutely every theme in the bible be repeated wherever you think it should? Not meaning this in any negative way, it is just an honest question. You could just as justifiably ask Why didn't Shakespeare kill off Romeo and Juliet earlier on.

Perhaps because all four are allegedly reporting the teachings of jesus.
What's with believers quoting fiction and fictional characters in support of their bible?

You arent sure what a quote is? You give this impression because No one "quoted" Shakespeare. A quote is when one actually repeats word for word something that was previously stated or written.

And if you want to ask why Shakespeare didnt kill off Romeo and Juliet sooner, I guess that is your prerogative. I suggest not 2nd guessing Stephen King though... He is still alive and might take offense and write something very nasty about you. Then your life will be a Stephen King book with a John Carpenter sound track.

Ok, final thought here, you are certainly grasping at straws. Just because any particular theme does not occur when you determine it should, it is a ridiculous thought that thus debunks anything... it simply means you are criticizing literature you actually know very little about.

[99percentatheism]

I am frequently told that the claims of John attributed to Jesus are central to definitive Christianity.

The supposed pre-existence of Jesus in John's prologue, establishing Jesus as "Divine".

The claim that Jesus is the only way to God.

The "I AM" sayings, supposedly equating Jesus with JHVH

And others.

If these claims are central and essential to Christianity, then why are they not repeated in the other three Gospels?

The people that compiled the New Testament didn't see a problem. Why do you?

[Elijah John]

I am frequently told that the claims of John attributed to Jesus are central to definitive Christianity.

The supposed pre-existence of Jesus in John's prologue, establishing Jesus as "Divine".

The claim that Jesus is the only way to God.

The "I AM" sayings, supposedly equating Jesus with JHVH

And others.

If these claims are central and essential to Christianity, then why are they not repeated in the other three Gospels?

Hi good to meet you.
Why do you suppose it is necessary that absolutely every theme in the bible be repeated wherever you think it should? Not meaning this in any negative way, it is just an honest question. You could just as justifiably ask Why didn't Shakespeare kill off Romeo and Juliet earlier on.

Welcome, Wolfbitn.

Most scholars have concluded that John was the last of the four to be written. And humans DO have a tendency to deify, glorify, and mythologize their heroes. I suspect that is what happened with John in writing about Jesus, and I think the claims attributed to Jesus in that Gospel were most likely NOT from Jesus himself, but from the evangelist John. I think John is dramatizing what Jesus meant to him and making a case of what Jesus SOULD mean to others.

And remember, the four Gospels were written independently of each other, each for a different audience. And John is VERY different from the first three, and makes claims that have become vital to the whole Christian religion which are NOT included in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

So if those claims are SO important to Christianity, why would Matthew Mark or Luke have left them out of THEIR preaching, not knowing John would come along later and make those claims?

It seems to me that the whole foundation of Roman based (Protestant and Orthodox are also Roman council, Trinitarian based) Christianity is based on the least reliable Gospel, the one furthest removed from the events and teachings of Jesus' life.

[Jax Agnesson]

The people that compiled the New Testament didn't see a problem. Why do you?

It is fair for interested persons to criticize a work, (even a work of the most fantastical fiction) if that work is inconsistent: ie if it does not adhere to its own internal logic.
Jesus was the Son of God.
The almighty Creator of the universe sent His only-begotten Son down to earth personally, to deliver an important message to His people. The men charged with preserving and transmitting that message garbled it badly.
God, was then satisfied to have a set of mutually-contradictory and garbled accounts pass as His Holy Word for the next two thousand years..

I would expect better than this from any reasonably-competent author, whether of supposed histories or genre fantasy..
So yes, I see a problem with the NT. That the authors/editors of the work didn't see the problem is indicative of their level of critical thought, not ours.