Did Matthew, Mark and Luke's communities

[Elijah John]

When the Gospel's were written, they were written for particular communities. These communities did not have access to the whole canon of the New Testament, at least not when their particular Gospels were first circulated.

So it is doubtful, for example, that the Markan community had access to the Gospel of John. Certainly not, at least, in the years between the Gospel of Mark, (roughly 60 AD) and the Gospel of John (around 90 AD).

For debate...were the prayers of Matthew, Mark and Luke's communities answered?

If so, why do you suppose they were? After all, it is unlikely they prayed "in Jesus name". (as that concept was introduced with the Gospel of John, some 30 years later)

If praying "in Jesus name" is essential to answered prayer, why didn't "Matthew", "Mark" or "Luke" teach it? Why didn't their Jesus teach it?

[Elijah John]

QUESTION: Was the writer of the gospel of John lying ?

Your words, not mine. A more charitable way to look at it (and perhaps more accurate) is John's account is not accurate historical narrative, but rather a theological portrait of Jesus, an interpretation. Yes, scholars do think John put words into Jesus mouth, ... "poetic license" if you will.

While the gospel of John is held by many to be one of the most profound and beautiful works in literature,

Agreed, but literary merit does not mean complete, factual accuracy. On the contrary, an eloquent salesman is more likely to close a deal than an inarticulate one. Perhaps a good reason the Church has also swallowed Pauline theology hook, line and sinker was due more to his eloquence than the intrinsic truth of his doctrines.

there are those, even supposed "christians", that suggest it is reasonable to dismiss anything he wrote if not specifially corroborated by at least one, if not all three other gospels. Since 92% of what John wrote was unique we can thus,dismiss this book to be a work of fiction. However but is this a reasonable position to take?

While lack of corroboration may well cast doubt on an event, it it reasonable to consider other factors as well such as the reliability of the witness,

Reliability? There is little evidence that "John" is the apostle John, in fact, HJ scholars have concluded that exactly because of the author's eloquence in Greek, it is highly unlikely that Gospel was penned by the Aramaic speaking Galilean, the apostle John.

does the account while unique, harmonize with surrounding circumstances,

Not so much, "Before Abraham was, I AM". and the "Word WAS God". These do not comport with the "surrounding circumstances" of the absolute Monotheism of first century Palestine.

would the person be in a position to know the information being conveyed,

No, see above.

is the information logical and presented in a reasonable manner? etc.

In it's own way, perhaps. But the narrative and chronological details of John's account cannot be reconciled with those of Matthew, Mark and Luke....that is, not without some extreme twists and turns of rhetorical, linguistic and narrative gymnastics, and leaps of the imagination.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

As I said in my conclusion, each one must build their faith as they see fit.


If you see fit to reject all but one of the gospel as untrustworthy so be it. I cannot help but wonder if you consider accurate what remains reliable in the NT only so because you do no know their content well enough to rejects them as well. Still each one must find their way...

[strike]Matthew [/strike]
Mark
[strike]Luke [/strike]
[strike]John[/strike]

[strike]Acts[/strike] - speaking about the ministry your much distrusted "false Apostle" Paul; along with Lukes description of how he was hand picked by the Lord.

[strike]Romans - 16 chapters, Paul[/strike]
[strike]1 Corinthians - 16 chapters, Paul[/strike]
[strike]2 Corinthians -13 chapters, Paul[/strike]
[strike]Galatians - 6 chapters, Paul[/strike]
[strike]Ephesians - 6 chapters, Paul[/strike]
[strike]Philippians - 4 chapters, Paul[/strike]
[strike]Colossians - 4 chapters, Paul[/strike]
[strike]1 Thessalonians - 5 chapters, Paul[/strike]
[strike]2 Thessalonians - 3 chapters, Pau[/strike]l
[strike]1 Timothy - 6 chapters, Paul[/strike]
[strike]2 Timothy - 4 chapters, Paul[/strike]
[strike]Titus - 3 chapters, Paul[/strike]
[strike]Philemon - 1 chapter, Paul[/strike]
[strike]Hebrews - 13 chapters, probably Paul[/strike]
James - 5 chapters, James
1 Peter - 5 chapters, Peter ) Peter endorsed Paul's Letters - strike?
2 Peter - 3 chapters, Peter )
[strike]1 John - 5 chapters, John[/strike]
[strike]2 John - 1 chapter, John[/strike]
[strike]3 John - 1 chapter, John[/strike]
Jude - 1 chapter, Jude
[strike]Book of Revelation. [John][/strike]

Enjoy your reading of the improved "New Testament" reading, ie the 25 verses of the book of Jude.


JW

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 12 by JehovahsWitness]

A (deliberate?) misrepresentation of my position. A more accurate representation would be to say that (conversely) one Gospel (John) I find highly suspect. And major portions of the other three, far more accurate to the Jesus of history. (I. e. the real Jesus.)

And I have also explained you that I am not calling John a "liar" that is your characterization of my position, not my own. I have stated that his is a theological portrait. And let me add, one that I do not happen to share. (Jesus is the pre-existent "Word" and all, the great "I AM" who existed before Abraham and everyone and everything else).

And that Jesus is the only way to the Father. (tell that to the many, many Jews and Muslims for whom the Father, the God of Abraham, the God of Jesus and the God of Mohammed is a daily reality.)

Also, it is terribly unfair of you to list all of Paul's letters and cross them out, attributing their elimination to my position. Unlike Fundamentalists (Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists), Evangelicals and Jehovah's Witnesses, I do not adhere to simplistic, categorical "all or nothing" thinking.

One need not buy into Paul's blood-atonement theology, in order to appreciate and find inspiration in his Wisdom, such as Romans 8.28 and I Corinithians 13 etc.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John

Firstly I did not say the graph is your position, it is a summary of what I personally have found some non-church going independent so-called "christians" accept as unadulterated and trustworthy books in the bible.

I myself asked the question if John was a liar, I did not say you had asked that question (please look out for "quotations marks" and your name for a sure indication I am quoting YOU) otherwise don't take what I say personally. Many of my posts are for educational purposes, take them or leave them.

There are an abundance of passages in those crossed out books that support the teaching that christ provided a blood sacrifice and had a pre-human existence as well as that he alone is the sole means to attain everlasting life. The striked books also contain firm evidence prayer should only be addressed through Jesus

The chart is MINE and it represents the books that SOME PEOPLE believe contain falsehoods or inaccuracies (ie books that contain individual verses, and whole passages that should be dismissed or at least de-emphasized as relics of a primitive time and place; petty, tribal stuff that should be regarded as nonsense) . The unstriked books represent those books in the NT that SOME PEOPLE , regard as unadulterated books that with content that can be entirely embraced being the thoughts of God.

Feel free to say there ARE no books in the bible that fit the above critera if that is what you feel personally and are so inclined to share.

If not, have a nice day.


JW

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John

Firstly I did not say the graph is your position, it is a summary of what I personally have found some non-church going independent so-called "christians"

What is a "so-called" Christian in your book....and who are you to say?

I myself asked the question if John was a liar, I did not say you had asked that question (please look out for "quotations marks" and your name for a sure indication I am quoting YOU) otherwise don't take what I say personally. Many of my posts are for educational purposes, take them or leave them.

Thanks for the clarification.

Also, you have not addressed picking and choosing, (discerning rationality) of mining the Bible, vs. categorical, all or nothing acceptance of the Bible as a whole, or it's individual books in particular.

The former seems a thoughtful approach, the latter? Somewhat robotic.

You claim to adhere to Paul's teachings, yet JW women speak in Church, (they are asked their opinions on passages of Scripture etc.) something that Paul would probably frown upon, no?

And again, Matthew, Mark and Luke did not portray Jesus teaching anyone to pray "in Jesus name".

Why not, if that is an important doctrine? Wouldn't it have been important for the Synoptic reader (or hearer) as well?

Or do you suppose they were all relying on the Evangelist John, who didn't publish for another 20 or so years.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 14 by JehovahsWitness]

Many of my posts are for educational purposes, take them or leave them.

We who read them do just that, being bound therefore to exercise discernment.

If you knew some of what was in a glass was pure water but some was dirt, would you drink it?

Judges 7:5-7; Revelation 22:17.

[Elijah John]

No, I'd boil it and/or strain it through the filter of God-given Reason and common sense.

Anything else you want to toss at us from the Watchtower playbook?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

Also, you have not addressed picking and choosing, (discerning rationality) of mining the Bible, vs. categorical, all or nothing acceptance of the Bible as a whole, or it's individual books in particular.

The former seems a thoughtful approach, the latter? Somewhat robotic.

Like Jesus was, huh?

Did he pick and choose, was he mining the Bible?

If so, in what way? If not, why not?

Something to think about, EJ.

[Elijah John]

it is a summary of what I personally have found some non-church going independent so-called "christians"

Just a reminder, did you ever tell us whom you consider "so-called christians" vs real Christians?

Would you please expound on your remark? Does the word "Christiandom" come into play?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

Also, you have not addressed picking and choosing, (discerning rationality) of mining the Bible, vs. categorical, all or nothing acceptance of the Bible as a whole, or it's individual books in particular.

The former seems a thoughtful approach, the latter? Somewhat robotic.

Like Jesus was, huh?

Did he pick and choose, was he mining the Bible?

If so, in what way? If not, why not?

Something to think about, EJ.

Actually he did, "you have heard it said, but I say..." Regarding divorce, ritual purity law and other matters. And also blood sacrifice, when he said "I desire mercy not sacrifice".