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?

[bjs]

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?

It has long been noted that each of the four Gospels have their own focus.

John focuses on Jesus divinity, Matthew on his humanity, Mark on the cross, and Luke and salvation being for all people. (Obviously it is more complicated than this, but lets keep it simple.)

While each Gospel writer focused on certain themes, most of these themes can be seen in all four of the Gospels.

For instance, you mention John focused on the divinity of Christ through the I am statements and the talk of Jesus pre-existence. We do see the divinity of Jesus most clearly John, but the theme is found in all four Gospels.

In Matthew, the Gospel which focuses most of Jesus humanity, we see Jesus doing things which only God can do. Jesus claims authority over the Law (Matt 5), command nature (Matt 8:23-26), forgive sins (Matt 9:2), create something from nothing (Matt 14:13-21), and accept worship (Matt 28:9).

While John does focus more on the theme of Jesus being God, and presents it in ways that are not found in the other Gospels, the theme is not unique to Johns Gospel. It can be found in all of the Gospels.

[Elijah John]

[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.

Exactly!

[postroad]

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.

Especially since the Spirit could as easily enlighten all as opposed to just a few.

[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?

It has long been noted that each of the four Gospels have their own focus.

John focuses on Jesus divinity, Matthew on his humanity, Mark on the cross, and Luke and salvation being for all people. (Obviously it is more complicated than this, but lets keep it simple.)

While each Gospel writer focused on certain themes, most of these themes can be seen in all four of the Gospels.

For instance, you mention John focused on the divinity of Christ through the I am statements and the talk of Jesus pre-existence. We do see the divinity of Jesus most clearly John, but the theme is found in all four Gospels.

In Matthew, the Gospel which focuses most of Jesus humanity, we see Jesus doing things which only God can do. Jesus claims authority over the Law (Matt 5), command nature (Matt 8:23-26), forgive sins (Matt 9:2), create something from nothing (Matt 14:13-21), and accept worship (Matt 28:9).

While John does focus more on the theme of Jesus being God, and presents it in ways that are not found in the other Gospels, the theme is not unique to Johns Gospel. It can be found in all of the Gospels.

Where in the synoptics does Jesus claim Divinity explicitly, distinctly, and unambiguously?

If this was such an important and actual claim, would it not have been clearly made in the earliest Gospels?

The examples you cited regarding Jesus supposed God-like actions in Mattlew have other, just as plausible explanations. That Jesus changed the Torah, could be seen as his new interpretation of the Law, or at worst, Jesus' heresy.

The nature miracles, could be God working THROUGH Jesus like He is said to have done through Old Testament figures such as Moses.

And regarding 28.9 of Matthew, that could be interpreted that the woman fell down in fear before the risen Jesus, and he reassured her, not that he was accepting worship. Similar the way that folks in the Bible often fall down in fear when an angel appears.

And the power to forgive sins, could be that God delegated that power to Jesus, much the same way that he delegated that power to Peter and the Apostles. That does not make them God either, does it?

So basically we are left with the claims of John, and even John, does not claim Divinity for Jesus clearly, distinctly, and unambiguously except in his prologue. (see John 17.3) "Jesus" makes a dictinction between God and himself as the One whom God "sent".

But we are also left with the exclusivist claims of John, (14.6) that are not repeated clearly in the synoptics.

[Student]

[Replying to Elijah John]If the gospel of John is to be considered an eye-witness account then it appears to bear witness to a different Jesus from than that of the Synoptic gospels. This can be demonstrated simply by the relative portrayals of Jesus:

[mrow] Synoptic Gospels [mcol] Gospel of John [row] Jesus' ministry lasts one year [col] Jesus' ministry spans three years [row]Jesus only visits Jerusalem once[col]Jesus visits Jerusalem on numerous occasions [row]Temple cleansing at end of mission[col]Temple cleansing at the beginning of mission [row]Jesus was baptized [by John the Baptist Mt, Mk][col]Jesus baptism not mentioned [row]Jesus teaches in parables [col]Jesus does not teach in parables [row]Jesus performs exorcisms [col]Jesus does not perform exorcisms [row]Jesus associates with outcasts [col]Jesus does not associate with outcasts [row]Jesus has little to say about himself [col]Jesus constantly talks about himself

etc. etc.

So, g.John does not compliment the Synoptic gospels, it repeatedly contradicts them.

There are such differences between the Synoptic and Johannine narrative, in content as well as order, that it is impossible to suppose that both derive from the original apostolic witness. (Marsh; St. John; p.22)

In other words, if the Synoptic accounts contain eye witness materials, then g.John does not, and vice versa.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 10 by Jax Agnesson]

Well if this debate had merit, I would stay and show you that ALL FOUR Gospels are consistent in the theme that Jesus is divine. But to dismiss it because it is written in a different style is ridiculous since John was NOT Matthew Mark or Luke, which by the way, they are all 4 very unique in presentation because they were 4 individuals.

On 2nd thought, let me just prove your premise wrong anyway and it will be a double slam... The pre-existance of Christ and who He is is a main theme THROUGHOUT the bible.

From Genesis to Revelation His divinity is a common theme, so your criticism of various individual style is about as valid as asking why didn't Shakespeare kill off his characters sooner.

[Strider324]

[Replying to post 10 by Jax Agnesson]

Well if this debate had merit, I would stay and show you that ALL FOUR Gospels are consistent in the theme that Jesus is divine. But to dismiss it because it is written in a different style is ridiculous since John was NOT Matthew Mark or Luke, which by the way, they are all 4 very unique in presentation because they were 4 individuals.

On 2nd thought, let me just prove your premise wrong anyway and it will be a double slam... The pre-existance of Christ and who He is is a main theme THROUGHOUT the bible.

From Genesis to Revelation His divinity is a common theme, so your criticism of various individual style is about as valid as asking why didn't Shakespeare kill off his characters sooner.

Backing out of a debate because you have piously decided it is without merit seems a little weasel-like to me. But more to the point, different styles by the synoptic authors is not the problem. It's the different FACTS they submit. If the claims of John are important, how much more important would the last words of the Savior of the World be?

And yet, there is NO AGREEMENT among these venerated authors on what Jesus last words were.

Mt - "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Luke - "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit."

Jn - "It is finished."

How could these 3 'eyewitnesses' have screwed this up so badly? Why do they contradict each other? How can we credit any of them when they were all allegedly standing at the cross with big ole crocodile tears in their eyes listening breathlessly for ANY proclamation by the Living God - and at least TWO of them obviously got it wrong?

No sir, style is not the problem. Substance is.

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 10 by Jax Agnesson]

Well if this debate had merit, I would stay and show you that ALL FOUR Gospels are consistent in the theme that Jesus is divine. But to dismiss it because it is written in a different style is ridiculous since John was NOT Matthew Mark or Luke, which by the way, they are all 4 very unique in presentation because they were 4 individuals.

On 2nd thought, let me just prove your premise wrong anyway and it will be a double slam... The pre-existance of Christ and who He is is a main theme THROUGHOUT the bible.

From Genesis to Revelation His divinity is a common theme, so your criticism of various individual style is about as valid as asking why didn't Shakespeare kill off his characters sooner.

Taking one example where (IIRC) all four gospels agree: the prayer of Jesus in the garden at Gethsemane, where he prays to his father 'Not my will, but thine, be done'.
Doesn't this suggest that Jesus didn't think he was the same person as his heavenly father?

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 10 by Jax Agnesson]

Well if this debate had merit, I would stay and show you that ALL FOUR Gospels are consistent in the theme that Jesus is divine. But to dismiss it because it is written in a different style is ridiculous since John was NOT Matthew Mark or Luke, which by the way, they are all 4 very unique in presentation because they were 4 individuals.

On 2nd thought, let me just prove your premise wrong anyway and it will be a double slam... The pre-existance of Christ and who He is is a main theme THROUGHOUT the bible.

From Genesis to Revelation His divinity is a common theme, so your criticism of various individual style is about as valid as asking why didn't Shakespeare kill off his characters sooner.

Taking one example where (IIRC) all four gospels agree: the prayer of Jesus in the garden at Gethsemane, where he prays to his father 'Not my will, but thine, be done'.
Doesn't this suggest that Jesus didn't think he was the same person as his heavenly father?

That does not seem to be the topic of debate here BUT since you ask... no it makes no such suggestion if one is at all familiar with the bible.

Genesis 22:16 "I swear by myself"
JEREMIAH 22:5 "I swear by my self"
Jeremiah 49:13-15 "I swear by myself
Isaiah 45:23 "By myself I have sworn"

There was no greater name by which an oath could be made. If God were to swear to something He swears by his own name because no name is greater... so how can He pray to anyone greater than himself?

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 19 by Wolfbitn]
"Not MY will but THINE, be done.."
This is nott the same as swearing by yourself, it is explicitly distinguishing between 'my' will and 'thine'. Jesus here is clearly not identifying himself with his heavenly father.
Two separate and very different wills. Two separate persons, surely?