Why do you believe the Gospel of John, verbatim?

[Elijah John]

Does the Gospel of John present Jesus words and teachings verbatim? If so, why do you believe this? Why are you so sure that the Evangelist "John" did not put any words on Jesus lips?

How certain are you that the real, historical Jesus said the words of John 14.6 or John 3.16, for example? And why this certainty?

[ttruscott]

Back in the mid-70s when I was working out such things and knew His voice a little I was told the bible is HIS book and says what HE wants it to say... I was to let HIM teach me, not decide how I wanted to divide HIS word up...

Every doctrine had at least two interpretations and my job was to learn them then see to which I was led to put my faith in.

[Elijah John]

Back in the mid-70s when I was working out such things and knew His voice a little I was told the bible is HIS book and says what HE wants it to say... I was to let HIM teach me, not decide how I wanted to divide HIS word up...

Every doctrine had at least two interpretations and my job was to learn them then see to which I was led to put my faith in.

So, did He tell you why there are different canons of the Bible? Why the Protestants and the Jehovah's Witnesses have only 66 books in theirs, the Orthodox and Catholics more? And the Jews, fewer?

Someone divided up His book. The Catholics and the Orthodox added to the Jewish canon, and the Protestant reformers subtracted from the Catholic canon. Are any of them more qualified than you to decide? With or without the help of "Christ" or of your Lord?

And why do you suppose that Matthew, Mark and Luke missed Jesus saying that he was the "way, the truth and the life" and that no one comes to the Father but by him?

Were they relying on John to come along later to record this saying of Jesus? Wouldn't that have been important enough for them to include? After all, John 14.6 is one of the most exclusionary religious statements in history.

In a literary sense, John's Jesus is a very different Jesus than is found in Matthew, Mark or Luke. Their speech patterns are very different. Also in a theological sense. Very different Jesus in John. In the Synoptics, Jesus mostly glorifies the Father, not himself. In John, he grasps to share in the Father's glory. Very different.

So was it Jesus or was it John who was attempting to glorify Jesus?

[Divine Insight]

Does the Gospel of John present Jesus words and teachings verbatim? If so, why do you believe this? Why are you so sure that the Evangelist "John" did not put any words on Jesus lips?

How certain are you that the real, historical Jesus said the words of John 14.6 or John 3.16, for example? And why this certainty?

Isn't this fundamental to being a Christian?

Orthodox Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus was the Son of God and that the Gospels are the inspired Word of God that contains the teachings of Jesus.

The moment you start questioning the "Gospel Truth" of the Gospels you no longer have a valid religion.

1. What sense would it make at that point to continue to believe in the teachings of Jesus?

2. Where are you going to find anything about what Jesus supposedly taught if not in the Christian Gospels?

3. A core foundational principle of the whole religion is that these Gospels represent the "Gospel Truth".

If you need to toss that out then you no longer have a meaningful religion.

Moreover if you are going to reject what the authors of the Gospels had to say about Jesus then what are you going to do at that point? Make up your own imaginary Jesus by picking and choosing only parts from the Gospels that you have already rejected to create a Jesus of your own making? What sense would that make?

As far as I can see anyone who has rejected the "Gospel Truth" of the Gospels has already rejected Christianity. If they cling to the idea that they can create their own personally created ideal of what they think Jesus should have been that wouldn't be Christianity anyway.

So as far as I can see, to reject the Gospel Truth of the Gospels is to reject Christianity. Period.

There's simply nothing left to point to once you have declared the Gospels to be an untrustworthy source of what Jesus might have actually taught. There may have still been a historical Jesus at that point, but if the Gospels aren't a true description of Jesus then we have no clue who or what Jesus might have been. So anything from that point forward could be nothing more than pure speculation on our part.

That's hardly a basis for a compelling religion.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Do you see any differences at all in the Gospel of John compared to the Synoptics? If so, and if you can admit this, which do you think most probably better represents the real, historical Jesus? The earliest Gospels, the Synoptics including Mark? Or the most recent, the latest Gospel, John? Do you agree that there is a very human tendency for embellishment as a story is retold? John seems to have quite a few of them.

Do you see any difference at all in the speaking style of Jesus as presented by "John" vs the speaking style as presented by the Synoptic writers? How do you account for the differences?

Do you see any difference in the theological emphasis as found in the Gospel of John, vs that of the Synoptics? (Jesus glorified far more so in the GoJ, etc)

Why is there no equivalent to John 14.6 in the Synoptics?

Why are there no real Divinity claims in the earliest Gospel, the Gospel of Mark? And there are in the latest Gospel, the GoJ?

To say that John is part of orthodoxy and part of the "Gospel Truth" and therefore no Christian should question it, is not an answer. It is dismissive. Or it does not answer the discrepancies illustrated in the OP, anyway.

[Divine Insight]

Do you see any differences at all in the Gospel of John compared to the Synoptics?

Yes, I see what I consider to be dramatic contradictions. But then again, I see inconsistencies and contradictions in the Synoptic Gospels as well.

If so, and if you can admit this, which do you think most probably better represents the real, historical Jesus?

Having never met this supposed historical Jesus I could have no clue, right? So any speculations I might offer up could be nothing more than my own personal preferences of what I would like to imagine what Jesus might have been like. And any personal speculation that I would imagine could hardly be a credible foundation for any meaningful religion, right?

The earliest Gospels, the Synoptics including Mark? Or the most recent, the latest Gospel, John? Do you agree that there is a very human tendency for embellishment as a story is retold? John seems to have quite a few of them.

It is my current understanding that the most rational explanation for these stories is as follows:

1. Mark appears to be the first one to write down his impressions of the rumors of Jesus.

2. Matthew and Luke appear to have retold the rumors that had been first recorded by Mark. Each author adding their own personal twists and additional rumors.

Keep in mind that Matthew is the only one of these Gospel authors who claim the following two things:

a.) Jesus endorses every jot and tittle of Jewish Law.
b.) A multitude of dead saints rose from their graves and showed themselves to people.

There are many differences, as well as contradictions in these early Synoptic Gospels.

3. The writings attributed to John came much later and are indeed quite different from the original rumors. John does not appear to be an author who was simply repeating rumors, but instead John appears to be a purposeful attempt to try to create an entire coherent theology.

I suspect that the book we call "John" was actually the work of a large committee of religious zealots who were hoping to create an authoritative work that they could use as the foundation of a new Church. And apparently they were quite successful in their goal.

Do you see any difference at all in the speaking style of Jesus as presented by "John" vs the speaking style as presented by the Synoptic writers? How do you account for the differences?

Yes I absolutely do see dramatic differences between the Gospel of John and the previous rumors. But there is no reason from this observation to assume that one collection of rumors is true while the other is false. My conclusion is that all these rumors are more likely false than true.

Do you see any difference in the theological emphasis as found in the Gospel of John, vs that of the Synoptics? (Jesus glorified far more so in the GoJ, etc)

Yes, I see the whole shebang as a totally unconvincing and self-contradictory collection of religious rumor, gossip, and possibly superstitious beliefs.

Why is there no equivalent to John 14.6 in the Synoptics?

Why is there no equivalent to Matthew 5:17-18 in Mark and Luke?

Why is there no equivalent to Matthew 27:52 in Mark and Luke?

The answer is simple. These ancient rumors are nothing more than fictional stories.

Why are there no real Divinity claims in the earliest Gospel, the Gospel of Mark? And there are in the latest Gospel, the GoJ?

Because these rumors evolved over time just as rumors always do.

To say that John is part of orthodoxy and part of the "Gospel Truth" and therefore no Christian should question it, is not an answer. It is dismissive. Or it does not answer the discrepancies illustrated in the OP, anyway.

But I have answered your question concerning Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christianity accepts the Gospels as Gospel true, and they are clearly focused on the Gospel of John, as the most famous verse Orthodox Christianity quotes is John 3:16.

John 3:16 is the foundational rock upon which Orthodox Christianity stands.

If you want to argue for an unorthodox Christianity that tosses the book of John out as being filled with lies, then as far as I'm concerned, you have rejected Orthodox Christianity.

Precisely what you would have left after that is beyond me. As I've shown even Mark, Matthew and Luke have inconsistencies and contradictions. Not only this, but then your new theology would have a difficult time explaining why it was your chose to toss out John instead of Mark, Matthew, and Luke?

It appears that your only reason is that you personally like their Jesus better. But that's hardly going to serve as a compelling foundation for a new religion.

If I could choose which Jesus to support I'd probably choose Luke's Jesus.

But now I'm the one who is choosing what Jesus should be like. It that really a good foundation for a religion?

And putting which Jesus we would like to believe in aside, there's still the problem with the claim that Jesus was the intentional virgin-born Son of God who was crucified at the demand of God's very own corrupt priests as some sort of drama play that could only have been written and orchestrated by God himself.

I mean, when talking about this religion we shouldn't lose sight of the broader view of what we are being asked to believe. Christianity is far from being just about Jesus. Before we even get to Jesus we need to first believe a myriad of utterly absurd, often insane, and clearly self-contradictory claims about Yahweh in the first place. But yeah, that is indeed a whole deeper topic.

In this thread you asked.

Does the Gospel of John present Jesus words and teachings verbatim? If so, why do you believe this? Why are you so sure that the Evangelist "John" did not put any words on Jesus lips?

How certain are you that the real, historical Jesus said the words of John 14.6 or John 3.16, for example? And why this certainty?

I've answered all those questions. I don't support Christianity as a compelling religion. Like you, I see no reason to believe the Gospel of John. It just seems to me that once you have rejected the Gospel of John you have effectively rejected Orthodox Christianity.

So at that point you are stuck with an unorthodox version of the religion which would require you to start up a whole new religion. Or perhaps revert to Judaism? Any attempt to try to retain the label of "Christianity" at that point would be basically an a fraudulent use of the label, IMHO.

Christianity is founded very deeply on the Gospel of John and the "truth" of John 3:16, etc.

You can hardly toss those core principles out and still claim to be talking about Christianity. You are basically talking about starting up a whole new religion based on doctrines that are chosen solely by you. I'm sure you can find some followers, but the idea that such a religion would ever grow to become any serious competition for Christianity is unlikely.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

I agree with much of what you seem to be saying here. Yes, traditional, orthodox Christianity is based on the Gospel and the theology of the unknown evangelist we know today as "John". And, I would add, the letters and theology of the "apostle" Paul.

Why favor the Synoptics? Because they are earlier, more in line with the cultural and religious context of the times, namely first century Judaism. The Lord's prayer, for instance, is a very "Jewish" prayer. Similar to the Kaddish. And in Mark, Jesus affirms "Shema", the absolute oneness of God. He doesn't seem to in any of the subsequent Gospels, at least not explicitly. This represents another "progression" from absolute Monotheism, to a more compromised proto-Trinitarianism.

What have we left if we were to toss out the GoJ? The quest for the historical Jesus. Granted, seems like a minority approach still, given the rise of Evangelical and other forms of orthodox, Trinitarian Christianity.

A few things HJ scholars all seem to agree on, is that Jesus was crucified by the Romans as an insurrectionist, and that Jesus, was baptized by John, succeeded him, collecting some of his followers along the way, preached and maybe healed in some manner or other. At least he had that reputation.

So what we have left are the Golden Rule as reformulated by Jesus in positive terms, (contrasted with Hillel who said essentially the same thing, but in a conversely negative way), The LORD's Prayer, The Sermon on the Mount, the Parables the preaching about YHVH being Father, and his Kingdom.

Not much about blood atonement preaching, or the supposed Divinity of Christ is considered historically likely according to HJ scholars. Those doctrines are seen as a) a way to vindicate a failed Messiah who was never supposed to have been martyred, or executed, and b) a way to sell Christianity to the Greco-Roman world, by divinizing Christ. Making him into a dying and rising god would make him, and the message of ethical "monotheism" more palatable to the pagan Mediterranean world of the day.

Is building a new form of Christianity based on a more original Jesus going to succeed? God only knows. But at the very least, that "new" form of Christianity may well represent an old form of Christianity which was squelched by John, Paul, and emperor Constantine.

I think that is a good insight you had there. John's purpose seems to have been to build a coherent, foundational theology. I would say that was Paul's as well. Whatever their intent, that seems to have been the effect.

[William]

Elijah John: Does the Gospel of John present Jesus words and teachings verbatim? If so, why do you believe this? Why are you so sure that the Evangelist "John" did not put any words on Jesus lips?


ttruscott: Back in the mid-70s when I was working out such things and knew His voice a little I was told the bible is HIS book and says what HE wants it to say... I was to let HIM teach me, not decide how I wanted to divide HIS word up...

Every doctrine had at least two interpretations and my job was to learn them then see to which I was led to put my faith in.

Divine Insight :I see the whole shebang as a totally unconvincing and self-contradictory collection of religious rumor, gossip, and possibly superstitious beliefs.

You can hardly toss those core principles out and still claim to be talking about Christianity. You are basically talking about starting up a whole new religion based on doctrines that are chosen solely by you. I'm sure you can find some followers, but the idea that such a religion would ever grow to become any serious competition for Christianity is unlikely.

William: The way I sort these things is to look for premises which form the strongest foundation for as much of everything else which can be built upon said foundations.
Undeniably this is still effectively 'picking and choosing' but I understand it to at least be effective P&C...

My system starts off with the foundation cornerstone that It Is Written {iiw} within the information of the story, that what the bible records of Jesus' public speaking is only a tiny part of what he taught, because most of what he taught was not done in the public domain.

[a] {iiw} Jesus' public speaking is only a tiny part of what he taught, because most of what he taught was not done in the public domain.

From that, I build outwards, finding clues and seeking where they best fit. Sometimes I have had to remove pieces of the puzzle (for that is what it is essentially) because even that they looked like they belonged there, it turned out that they didn't.

So from [a]...naturally follows;

What is known as "The Bible" - be that 66 books or more or only the OT or less - is lacking the greater part of the information about what Jesus did and spoke of in private.

[c] {iiw} The Bible itself claims that Jesus said that HE is "The Word of GOD"

+[c]=[d]

[d] The Bible is not "The Word of GOD" even that it contains words claimed to have been spoken by "The Word of GOD" ({iiw} - "Jesus" aka "The Christ" = "The Word of GOD".)

[e] There is other script which is not contained in The Bible, which claims things Jesus is supposed to have spoken and done. As such these scripts are additional information which can be added to the whole, and may well help piecing together what is being built. There is no logical reason which I have been told as to why I should ignore any script which is contained outside the bible, any more than there is no logical reason which I have been told as to why I should only accept the OT and not the NT, or only some Gospels and not other Gospels.

[d]+[e]=[f]

[f] Means that what I can build upon [a] is far greater than what Judaism or Christendom has been able to build upon, because [a] signifies more material to be found, elsewhere.

Elijah John: How certain are you that the real, historical Jesus said the words of John 14.6 or John 3.16, for example? And why this certainty?

William: As certain as one can be, taking into consideration [a]

[Checkpoint]

Does the Gospel of John present Jesus words and teachings verbatim? If so, why do you believe this? Why are you so sure that the Evangelist "John" did not put any words on Jesus lips?

How certain are you that the real, historical Jesus said the words of John 14.6 or John 3.16, for example? And why this certainty?

Isn't this fundamental to being a Christian?

Orthodox Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus was the Son of God and that the Gospels are the inspired Word of God that contains the teachings of Jesus.

The moment you start questioning the "Gospel Truth" of the Gospels you no longer have a valid religion.

1. What sense would it make at that point to continue to believe in the teachings of Jesus?

2. Where are you going to find anything about what Jesus supposedly taught if not in the Christian Gospels?

3. A core foundational principle of the whole religion is that these Gospels represent the "Gospel Truth".

If you need to toss that out then you no longer have a meaningful religion.

Moreover if you are going to reject what the authors of the Gospels had to say about Jesus then what are you going to do at that point? Make up your own imaginary Jesus by picking and choosing only parts from the Gospels that you have already rejected to create a Jesus of your own making? What sense would that make?

As far as I can see anyone who has rejected the "Gospel Truth" of the Gospels has already rejected Christianity. If they cling to the idea that they can create their own personally created ideal of what they think Jesus should have been that wouldn't be Christianity anyway.

So as far as I can see, to reject the Gospel Truth of the Gospels is to reject Christianity. Period.

There's simply nothing left to point to once you have declared the Gospels to be an untrustworthy source of what Jesus might have actually taught. There may have still been a historical Jesus at that point, but if the Gospels aren't a true description of Jesus then we have no clue who or what Jesus might have been. So anything from that point forward could be nothing more than pure speculation on our part.

That's hardly a basis for a compelling religion.

Remarkably well put - thanks.

We either forgo the faith or we walk by faith.

Those who divide the Word or doubt or reject parts of it are taking a path that does not lead to life.

Instead, they create their own version of the Bible, one that reflects the false god they have made in their own image and likeness.

Grace and peace to you.

[William]

Checkpoint: Those who divide the Word or doubt or reject parts of it are taking a path that does not lead to life.

William: In light of what I wrote in post #8 in relation to [a]+[c] I would have to interpret your statement as follows;

"Those who divide Jesus or doubt or reject parts of Him are taking a path that does not lead to life."

This, because:

[a] {it is written} Jesus' public speaking is only a tiny part of what he taught, because most of what he taught was not done in the public domain.

[c] {iiw} The Bible itself claims that Jesus said that HE is "The Word"

Checkpoint: Instead, they create their own version of the Bible, one that reflects the false god they have made in their own image and likeness.

William: Likewise and for the same reason, I would interpret the above as;

"Instead, they create their own version of Jesus, one that reflects the false god they have made in their own image and likeness."

I still might not agree with the statements, but at least these better reflect The Truth, according to the information available.

May The Truth Guide You...