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?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[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.

That doesn't make any sense at all. You don't say "Do X" and then act like you'd never say such a thing, "What shall I say, do X? No!" But, you know, if you want to make it fit you can. I can make it fit that Jesus had a cup that disgusted him and he was asking God to take it from him. Thus it has nothing to do with dying. Yay, discrepancy solved. You can take it however you want. The fact is, it's very obviously not in agreement if you simply read what is there. That's why there's something called a scientific process where you test your beliefs rather than believing something and finding evidence for it. You can ALWAYS find evidence for ANYTHING you want to believe. One needs to work the other way though if they want truth.

Oh, and sorry, Student, I didn't realize I was copying what you had already said .

[Student]

[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.

Try as I might, I cannot make any sense of your post.

I will try to restate my point as clearly as I can. In answer to the question,
Did Jesus pray in the garden immediately prior to his betrayal and arrest,
how do the evangelists respond?

Matthew [26: 36 " 46]: Yes, three times
Mark [14:32 " 42]: Yes, definitely twice, probably three times
Luke [22:39 " 46] : Yes, once
John [18:1]: No. Jesus does not pray at all.

It cannot be any clearer. There is no ambiguity. The Synoptic accounts flatly contradict g.John and vice versa.

As I mentioned previously, it is only possible to construe a parallel by artificially cobbling the opening part of the prayer from John 12:27 together with the closing part from John 13:41. However the parallel is very strained as the [Greek] text of the prayer and contexts in which the two parts are made, are entirely different.

To be perfectly honest, this highly imaginative, yet desperate attempt to reconcile the Synoptic and Johannine accounts amounts to little more than theological barrel scraping.

[Student]

[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.

That doesn't make any sense at all. You don't say "Do X" and then act like you'd never say such a thing, "What shall I say, do X? No!" But, you know, if you want to make it fit you can. I can make it fit that Jesus had a cup that disgusted him and he was asking God to take it from him. Thus it has nothing to do with dying. Yay, discrepancy solved. You can take it however you want. The fact is, it's very obviously not in agreement if you simply read what is there. That's why there's something called a scientific process where you test your beliefs rather than believing something and finding evidence for it. You can ALWAYS find evidence for ANYTHING you want to believe. One needs to work the other way though if they want truth.

Oh, and sorry, Student, I didn't realize I was copying what you had already said .

No problems, ElCodeMonkey. I only hope you have more success than me in comprehending Wolfbitn's responses!

[Student]

[Replying to post 27 by Student]


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

Hi Jax, I hope my intervention hasn't derailed your discussion with Woldbitn. I notice there has been no response to your post.

[Elijah John]

A lot of good points made on this thread so far, I would just like to add (and/or emphasize and reinforce) that it is one thing to assert that John had a different writing style than the authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke. And to a certain degree, a different perspective in writing for a different audience.

But to have a completely different Jesus...that is quite another matter altogether.

-John would have us believe that JESUS changed his speaking style from aphorisms and parables to long theological discourses.

-John would also have us believe that JESUS changed his focus and emphasis from glorifying the Father to claiming glory for himself.

I think in John we can see mythmaking and deification of Jesus in progress, especially compared with the Synoptics.

[postroad]

John also has Jesus disrupting the Temple courts at the beginning of his ministry instead of the end.

Maybe he did it twice?

Although I imagine one would only do it once and be killed as a blasphemer of God, worthy of death?

Basically Jesus was disgusted with the sacrificial system prescribed by Law.

John 2:14-16

New International Version (NIV)


14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, Get these out of here! Stop turning my Fathers house into a market!

[Jax Agnesson]

I think in John we can see mythmaking and deification of Jesus in progress, especially compared with the Synoptics.

You present a very convincing case.
Is it your belief, then, that Jesus was an important prophet, but not actually God?

[Elijah John]

I think in John we can see mythmaking and deification of Jesus in progress, especially compared with the Synoptics.

You present a very convincing case.
Is it your belief, then, that Jesus was an important prophet, but not actually God?

That is my exact conclusion. And as one who was raised in a Christian culture and in the Christian tradition, I consider Jesus my prophet much as Muslims consider Mohammed to be their prophet. For me, he embodies the ethical Monotheism of Judaism, for the masses.

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 38 by Elijah John]
Thanks EJ.