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?

[Overcomer]

I'm a writer by trade. I have spent my entire adult life taking information and packaging it for different audiences. I can take the same subject and present it to four different audiences in four different ways and not include the identical information in all four.

For example, if I'm talking about the topic of abortion and why I as a Christian cannot support it, I will not present the information the same way to a Christian crowd, a group of philosophers and a group of nurses. I wouldn't have to explain the Scriptural viewpoint to the Christians, but they wouldn't necessarily be well-versed in how to argue using the logical arguments of philosophy or the medical nitty-gritty of the process so I would include more of that. But I couldn't count on the philosophers or the nurses understanding why Christians don't support abortion so I would go heavy on the theology for them.

The gospels were written for four different audiences. Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience. This is why he includes so many references to the Old Testament. He wanted to show them that Jesus was the Messiah they had been waiting for so he showed them how Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the O. T.

Mark wrote for a Gentile audience. Therefore, he does NOT make the Old Testament references that Matthew did or include genealogies because they were unimportant to his audience. But he did have to explain some of the Jewish customs such as the hand-washing incident with the Pharisees (Mark 7:1-8). He was most concerned about bringing people the understanding that Christ came to serve, not be served, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Luke wrote for a Gentile audience as well. His purpose was to provide a historical account. This is why he mentions so many people and places that can be verified historically and why he notes that he interviewed many eyewitnesses to get his information. Some have even suggested that he wrote his gospel along with the Book of Acts to be presented at Paul's trial, but that is only supposition.

John wrote his gospel for believers, both Jewish and Gentile, to make sure that they understood exactly who Jesus is and who they are in him. That is why he includes so many "I am" statements. That's why he explained both Christ's deity and humanity so well so that people would know that Jesus was both fully God and fully man and why that was important.

Good writers write with their audience in mind, meeting their needs. Each of the writers of the gospels had different audiences with different needs. There is no reason why they would include identical information. They complement each other and give us a fuller picture when taken all together.

[Wolfbitn]

[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?

Again you seem to be biased in this question. You assume you are seeing 2 separate wills, and forgot that Christ is in fact an entity with a dual nature... you are seeing 2 sides of the SAME will in conflict. You also seem to be forgetting that while Christ is God, He is also completely human... so yes in this respect He certainly has a huge inner conflict to deal with. The human nature of course not wanting to experience the pain and terrible agony associated with His crucifixion, while at the same time His divine nature knew the plan and that it needed to be carried through for our salvation. It is not common at all for one to argue with themselves, so in this case why is it inconceivable for Him to pray "not MY (His human will and nature) will, but thy (Nature of God) will be done".

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 22 by Wolfbitn]

But then...
He found the disciples sleeping, and said 'Could you not watch one hour with me?'
If all the disciples were sleeping, who heard his prayer? Who told the tale to the gospellers?
Were the gospellers directly inspired by God himself to 'know' of the prayer that Jesus prayed that night? Why would God inspire the gospellers to recount this pryer, unless to emphasise the lack of identity between Jesus and God?
Or was this passage, common to all four gospels, not inspired by God?

And then, what of the words Jesus spoke in his final agony?
"Father, forgive them..." Note, not, 'I forgive you.'
'Into thy hands I commend my spirit'. (Into whose hands? His own?)
And most poignantly 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"
Father, why have you forsaken me?

Clearly Jesus did not think he was God. That idea was worked up much later.

[Elijah John]

I'm a writer by trade. I have spent my entire adult life taking information and packaging it for different audiences. I can take the same subject and present it to four different audiences in four different ways and not include the identical information in all four.

For example, if I'm talking about the topic of abortion and why I as a Christian cannot support it, I will not present the information the same way to a Christian crowd, a group of philosophers and a group of nurses. I wouldn't have to explain the Scriptural viewpoint to the Christians, but they wouldn't necessarily be well-versed in how to argue using the logical arguments of philosophy or the medical nitty-gritty of the process so I would include more of that. But I couldn't count on the philosophers or the nurses understanding why Christians don't support abortion so I would go heavy on the theology for them.

The gospels were written for four different audiences. Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience. This is why he includes so many references to the Old Testament. He wanted to show them that Jesus was the Messiah they had been waiting for so he showed them how Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the O. T.

Mark wrote for a Gentile audience. Therefore, he does NOT make the Old Testament references that Matthew did or include genealogies because they were unimportant to his audience. But he did have to explain some of the Jewish customs such as the hand-washing incident with the Pharisees (Mark 7:1-8). He was most concerned about bringing people the understanding that Christ came to serve, not be served, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Luke wrote for a Gentile audience as well. His purpose was to provide a historical account. This is why he mentions so many people and places that can be verified historically and why he notes that he interviewed many eyewitnesses to get his information. Some have even suggested that he wrote his gospel along with the Book of Acts to be presented at Paul's trial, but that is only supposition.

John wrote his gospel for believers, both Jewish and Gentile, to make sure that they understood exactly who Jesus is and who they are in him. That is why he includes so many "I am" statements. That's why he explained both Christ's deity and humanity so well so that people would know that Jesus was both fully God and fully man and why that was important.

Good writers write with their audience in mind, meeting their needs. Each of the writers of the gospels had different audiences with different needs. There is no reason why they would include identical information. They complement each other and give us a fuller picture when taken all together.

This may be the best answer that I disagree with that I have encountered so far, on these boards. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and the fact that you don't just throw around scripture like a weapon. So even though I have come to different conclusion, I appreciate your well considered and well reasoned response.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 10 by Jax Agnesson]


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.

Prove it. Many Jews and Deisticly inclined Christians do not see the OT that way. In fact they see a lot of tampering, deliberate(?) mistranslation and a whole lot of things taken out of context to support arguments such as yours here.

And while I agree those who posted here that John is very, very different in style than the synoptics are, that isn't my main point. It is mainly my contention that there is a HUGE difference in content between John and the Synoptics. And where they differ, I'll side with the Synoptics.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 10 by Jax Agnesson]


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.

Prove it. Many Jews and Deisticly inclined Christians do not see the OT that way. In fact they see a lot of tampering, deliberate(?) mistranslation and a whole lot of things taken out of context to support arguments such as yours here.

And while I agree those who posted here that John is very, very different in style than the synoptics are, that isn't my main point. It is mainly my contention that there is a HUGE difference in content between John and the Synoptics. And where they differ, I'll side with the Synoptics.

Of course there has been manipulation of our scriptures. Origen of Alexandria tried to change them early on and failed, but the alexandrian manuscripts unfortunately survived and gave us most of the translations we have before us today. Not to mention Constantine, the council of Nice, etc. I do completely agree with this, BUT... both the Western manuscripts, before the Alexandrian, and the Byzantine, after the alexandrian match in wording, only the Alexandrian differs.

[Student]

Taking one example where (IIRC) all four gospels agree: the prayer of Jesus in the garden at Gethsemane

Hello Jax, while not disagreeing with the main thrust of your argument, the four gospels do not agree on the events that transpired in the garden prior to Jesus' arrest.

In the Synoptic gospels Jesus' prayer in the garden [Gethsemane is mentioned only in Mt and Mk.] forms part of the Passion Narrative and immediately precedes Jesus betrayal by Judas, and his arrest.

In g.John it does not. Jesus and his disciples enter into a garden, across the Kidron valley [18:1] where he is betrayed and arrested. [18:2 " 12]. There is no mention of Jesus praying after entering the garden [prior to his betrayal and arrest].

A parallel with the Synoptic gospels can only be obtained if two disparate verses are artificially combined i.e. the first part is found in Johns concluding statements at the end of his account of the time before the Passion:
Jn 12:27 . Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

The second part is found in Jesus Farewell Discourses:
Jn 14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

So, if Jesus actually prayed in the garden [Gethsemane] prior to his arrest then the Synoptic gospels might possibly represent an eye-witness account. Conversely, Jesus didnt pray in the garden and the Synoptic evangelists invented the story; the author of John, knowing the prayer didnt occur at that juncture, felt free to discard the story.

Both versions cannot be right.

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 27 by Student]


Thanks for this, Student. I was working from dim memory, and should have checked my facts.

[ElCodeMonkey]

John is not a different perspective. It's a different story. John makes him out to be super-human and powerful. A deity if you will. You can't claim it's so different just because he's a different person. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all 3 different people and yet they tell a strikingly similar story. John? Not at all.

Matthew 26:39
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.

Mark 14:36
Abba, Father, he said, everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.

Luke 22:42
Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.

John 12:27
Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.

Also, just look at how Jesus treats the Pharisees in the synoptics versus John. In the synoptics, Jesus constantly mentions how the Pharisees think themselves righteous even though they're evil. In John, he condemns them, not for their evil or false assumption of righteousness, but for their lack of FAITH in Jesus. Again, it's a different story. It's not merely a different perspective.

Matthew 5:20
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

23 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices"mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law"justice, mercy and faithfulness.

25 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence

28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Luke 11:42
Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God.

Where are these things in John? Nowhere. He constantly only talks about who he is and complains that the Pharisees don't believe him. This is not found in the synoptics. John is about "believing in Jesus" and the synoptics are about doing what is right for building the Kingdom of God that is notably "not observable" in its coming. You can never say, "Oh, here it is" or "here it comes". Never. The Kingdom is within us to create through righteous behavior. This is what the synoptics teach. They teach the Kingdom.

Number of times "Believe" appears in the Gospels in reference to believing in, on, or who Jesus is:
Matthew: 2
Mark: 2
Luke: 1
John: 79

Number of times Gods Kingdom is mentioned in the Gospels:
Matthew: 52
Mark: 17
Luke: 40
John: 3

John is NOT a different perspective. It's entirely different. Pretty much the only thing that's the same is the names of the people and places, that Jesus did some miracles, that Pharisees were the bad guys, and that Jesus died.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 27 by Student]

Of course it could be right... It is possible that John AND mark were eyewitnesses. But when Jesus returned to the apostles at least most of them were sleeping. It is entirely possible that "take this cup from me" was the opening plea... and then "shall I ask for you to take this from me? No, Thy will be done" and "thy will be done in the other accounts are in complete agreement.

It could very well be that each relayed the outcome, while John simply omitted the opening of the prayer.