Your worst Gospel analogy! John 11

[Thomas123]

John 11 The death of Lazarus

Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.”

The contrivance and the gall of it, simultaneously. The writer ,self-declared his intent from the start.

How do I convince you that this guy can raise himself from the dead after three days? Well here is a time when he raised a dead Lazarus, after four days interred.
Doubt me now?

Knock a temple and I'll rebuild it in three days!

Anything else you want done! This makes me cringe!
What is your worst one?
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

One that comes to mind is Matthew 23. 29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ 31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

This is part of a diatribe with which Jesus lashes the Sadducees in the Temple after arriving there in Holy week (1). And there are a lot of accusations thrown at the Sadducees, just as there were at the Pharisees. This has tainted the previous teachers of the law so much so that 'Pharisee' is a term I will not use as a pejorative. But the point is that it was assumed that they were probably correct. But it was mentioned once somewhere that the forefathers of the Sadducees did not kill any prophets.

Is that true? Can anyone point up where old time teachers of the law (as Pharisees wouldn't really appear until Seleucid rule) murdered any prophets? If not, then this accusation is not only unfair but is a lie.

(1) in Luke of course it isn't and that again suggests 'Q' material and the accompanying prediction that you won't find it in Mark.

Luke 11.47 “Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. 48 So you testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49 Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

Here (together with the same temple denunciation material) we find it dished out in a display of shocking bad manners and mean - spiritedness to a Pharisee who had invited Jesus to dinner. And, I didn't find it in Mark. "Q" is a real thing on evidence, prediction and testing.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I'm not sure what thomas thinks is so terrible in the OP. Just because Christ knew that Lazarus was going to get sick and die, and He also knew that He was going to raise Lazarus from the dead, and that this would glorify God? As did the rest of the healing glorify God, the rest of the healing that Christ gave to the sick, the blind, the downtrodden, the outcast.

As to Transponder's post,

One that comes to mind is Matthew 23. 29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ 31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

This is part of a diatribe with which Jesus lashes the Sadducees in the Temple after arriving there in Holy week (1). And there are a lot of accusations thrown at the Sadducees, just as there were at the Pharisees. This has tainted the previous teachers of the law so much so that 'Pharisee' is a term I will not use as a pejorative. But the point is that it was assumed that they were probably correct. But it was mentioned once somewhere that the forefathers of the Sadducees did not kill any prophets.

(

1) in Luke of course it isn't and that again suggests 'Q' material and the accompanying prediction that you won't find it in Mark.

Luke 11.47 “Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. 48 So you testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49 Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

Here (together with the same temple denunciation material) we find it dished out in a display of shocking bad manners and mean - spiritedness to a Pharisee who had invited Jesus to dinner. And, I didn't find it in Mark. "Q" is a real thing on evidence, prediction and testing.

I don't really know what you are talking about either. Christ is rebuking the Pharisees (and scribes), here and in the Luke passage. I'm not sure why anyone thinks it is so far-fetched that religious leaders were hypocrites two thousand years ago. Do you not see hypocrisy in religious leaders today? What makes you think it would have been better back then? Hopefully you are not pointing a finger at Christ for doing something you have also done (if you have ever called out hypocrisy in religious leaders - or in anyone else for that matter). Because that would be hypocrisy, would it not?

Is that true? Can anyone point up where old time teachers of the law (as Pharisees wouldn't really appear until Seleucid rule) murdered any prophets?

You mean the 'fathers' and 'ancestors'? Christ didn't say 'the old time teachers of the law' killed the prophets. He just said ancestors (or fathers, as the Pharisees had said). That could include 'old time teachers of the law', but it would not be exclusive to 'old time teachers of the law'.

Regardless, prophets being killed is mentioned here at 1Kings 19 (Elijah speaking), see also chapter 18:

He replied, “I have been very zealous for the Lord God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.”

And here 2Chronicales 24:

Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood before the people and said, “This is what God says: ‘Why do you disobey the Lord’s commands? You will not prosper. Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.’”

21 But they plotted against him, and by order of the king they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the Lord’s temple. 22 King Joash did not remember the kindness Zechariah’s father Jehoiada had shown him but killed his son, who said as he lay dying, “May the Lord see this and call you to account.”

They (certain officials) certainly tried to kill Jeremiah. (Jeremiah 38)

If not, then this accusation is not only unfair but is a lie.

It is neither.



Peace again to you.

[Diogenes]

The anonymous 'Gospel' of John is an outlier. While the synoptic Gospels, especially Mark and Matthew, at least make an attempt to be factual, "John's" Gospel is obviously a sermon that makes little serious attempt to stick to the stories circulating about Jesus of Nazareth. It's only in John that we get the dubious foundation for 'the trinity.' In the other Gospels Jesus makes no clear declaration of being God.

Ask a Trinitarian for evidence of the divinity of Jesus and they will undoubtedly direct you to the Gospel of John. In a previous article we saw how any such evidence put forward from this Gospel is ambiguous at best and often taken out of context or misinterpreted. Remove the Gospel of John from the New Testament equation and there is very little left in the Trinitarian’s armoury to appeal to for evidence of the divinity of Jesus.

https://www.manyprophetsonemessage.com/ ... l-of-john/

Thomas Sheehan's famous book, The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity, makes the same case, proving Jesus never claimed to be God. Those claims come from the forgery known as the Gospel of John.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/tho ... rstcoming/

If you take your Christian faith seriously, you need to read Sheehan's book and answer it's claims. Thomas Sheehan is professor at the Department of Religious Studies, Stanford University and Professor Emeritus at the Department of Philosophy, Loyola University Chicago.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to tam in post #3]


Hi Tam. Thank you. Of course you are right to point out that religion in 1st c Judea as every where and every when has a few bad apples in the barrel, like about 85% and these should be called out other than religion every when and every when crouching under the umbrella of sanctity and demanding that they be excused everything. In fact in my last forum, a discussion about James in Josephus led me to think that the knocking about that Jesus got at the hands of the Sadducees might not have been out of character for them.

However that is not really the point. While pointing out the shortcomings of the teachers of the Law might be well - intentioned and needed, anyone with a modicum of social grace would not have accepted an invitation to dine, polished off the olives and cheese, licked the plates, sucked the last drops from the wine -jug and then proceeded to blast the host with a denunciation that would have shamed a Scottish herring - seller with Turettes'.

In short, Jesus is not showing himself an admirable figure but someone you would never let over the door step again, never mind handing over your bank balance nd following him dragging a chipboard cross.

Aside from which, I have to point to the different placing and usage of these two passages in Matthew and Luke, signifying imported material not originally part of the Gospel Like the Lord's prayer.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #3]


Hi Tam. Thank you. Of course you are right to point out that religion in 1st c Judea as every where and every when has a few bad apples in the barrel, like about 85% and these should be called out other than religion every when and every when crouching under the umbrella of sanctity and demanding that they be excused everything. In fact in my last forum, a discussion about James in Josephus led me to think that the knocking about that Jesus got at the hands of the Sadducees might not have been out of character for them.

Thank you.

However that is not really the point. While pointing out the shortcomings of the teachers of the Law might be well - intentioned and needed, anyone with a modicum of social grace would not have accepted an invitation to dine, polished off the olives and cheese, licked the plates, sucked the last drops from the wine -jug and then proceeded to blast the host with a denunciation that would have shamed a Scottish herring - seller with Turettes'.

If it is so terrible, why do you feel the need to exaggerate it? They had just sat down to eat. Have you considered that the rudeness might have been on behalf of the host (and his other guests)? We don't get an account of what the host said (at least not in this account). But it would be rude to invite someone into your house, then shame them for not following your traditions.

In the other accounts on this same topic (eating with unwashed hands), the other disciples are present and the disparagement is directed at them.

Perhaps by inviting him to dinner, he was being expected to then fall into place (perhaps there was some guile involved in the invitation?); speak well of them? But how could He do that? How could He even help them (or anyone else) if He did that? Some people can take correction when it comes a bit more gently. Some people need blunt and perhaps even what some might consider to be shocking or rude words.

In short, Jesus is not showing himself an admirable figure but someone you would never let over the door step again, never mind handing over your bank balance nd following him dragging a chipboard cross.

Aside from which, I have to point to the different placing and usage of these two passages in Matthew and Luke, signifying imported material not originally part of the Gospel Like the Lord's prayer.

That doesn't mean it is imported material. Perhaps Luke simply arranged these occurrences together in one spot.


Peace again to you.

[Diogenes]

What is your worst one?

Another piece of absolute rubbish, also from the phony 'gospel' of anonymous John, is a story I did not believe even when I was a missionary. From chapter 9:

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.

I credit the story teller for at least not blaming the parents for a birth defect, but a god that blinds people just so he can show off 30 years later by 'healing' him? I could never believe in such a cruel god who so desperately needs to display his powers for mere mortals. In trying to support the message, the author makes God looks like a cruel maniac with low self esteem.

My father was a man of strong faith all his life. He was born with an extremely rare neuro-muscular disorder that put him in a wheelchair by the time he was 20. He never believed his God did that to him. He and his family and their hundreds of Christian friends [he was a preacher's kid] DID believe in the power of prayer and that he would be healed. He lived 40 years in that chair and could not even take care of his most basic needs, personally. I do not believe in magic or the cruel promise of prayer.

[Thomas123]

Thanks for your post, Diogenes!

It is easy to see where John finds his phraseology.

Isaiah 49 :3
"He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendour:
John 9
“It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.
John 11
Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.”

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #3]


Hi Tam. Thank you. Of course you are right to point out that religion in 1st c Judea as every where and every when has a few bad apples in the barrel, like about 85% and these should be called out other than religion every when and every when crouching under the umbrella of sanctity and demanding that they be excused everything. In fact in my last forum, a discussion about James in Josephus led me to think that the knocking about that Jesus got at the hands of the Sadducees might not have been out of character for them.

Thank you.

However that is not really the point. While pointing out the shortcomings of the teachers of the Law might be well - intentioned and needed, anyone with a modicum of social grace would not have accepted an invitation to dine, polished off the olives and cheese, licked the plates, sucked the last drops from the wine -jug and then proceeded to blast the host with a denunciation that would have shamed a Scottish herring - seller with Turettes'.

If it is so terrible, why do you feel the need to exaggerate it? They had just sat down to eat. Have you considered that the rudeness might have been on behalf of the host (and his other guests)? We don't get an account of what the host said (at least not in this account). But it would be rude to invite someone into your house, then shame them for not following your traditions.

In the other accounts on this same topic (eating with unwashed hands), the other disciples are present and the disparagement is directed at them.

Perhaps by inviting him to dinner, he was being expected to then fall into place (perhaps there was some guile involved in the invitation?); speak well of them? But how could He do that? How could He even help them (or anyone else) if He did that? Some people can take correction when it comes a bit more gently. Some people need blunt and perhaps even what some might consider to be shocking or rude words.

In short, Jesus is not showing himself an admirable figure but someone you would never let over the door step again, never mind handing over your bank balance nd following him dragging a chipboard cross.

Aside from which, I have to point to the different placing and usage of these two passages in Matthew and Luke, signifying imported material not originally part of the Gospel Like the Lord's prayer.

That doesn't mean it is imported material. Perhaps Luke simply arranged these occurrences together in one spot.


Peace again to you.

I always like it when Bible apologists just make stuff up to try to explain away problems. One could reasonably suppose that this Pharisee and Jesus were not the only ones there. Why would not the 12 be invited, and friends or relatives of the Pharisee? However you have no business in accusing with no evidence the Pharisee of having said all sorts of nasty things to Jesus in hopes to excuse Jesus' staggering lack of common decency. But then Christians have never been reluctant to dish out accusations with no evidence and excuse their own rudeness (never you Tam ) as Righteous anger'. .

But be of good cheer, my dear Tam for if you re - read my post you will see that Matthew has a quite different scenario with this being a denunciation of the ...hang on ... ...yes. In Luke, the Pharisee comments on not washing before dinner and Jesus, or Luke rather, imports the lecture on ritual cleanliness (which Mark does have) and adds the denunciation which Matthew has in the Temple (not at dinner) and to the Pharisees even though we know (but Matthew forgets) it is to the Sadducees that Jesus is supposedly talking. So while I'll concede that it does look like Jesus 'went away' from the Pharisees' house without eating and the other Pharisees plotted murder, I'm still arguing that we can't trust these scenarios anyway because the same material is used in different places and in different contexts and combinations.

Which is why I think Luke and Matthew imported a lot (if not all) of their common material not found in Mark. It is demonstrable (I won't say obvious) that while the bit about cleaning cup and bowl is synoptic original material that all three use, the denunciation is not. And since Matthew and Luke use it in different places and contexts, we are looking at material separate from their Bibles (or whatever) and they had to decide where to put it. This happens again and again and it would be denialist to refuse to see there is a pattern.

I anticipate the apologetic of Jesus using the same argument art different times. No, because we never, ever, get the (postulated) Other occurrence agreeing with the other gospels. They are always looking like the same story in different places (1), and as the ex - detectives of the law will know, you keep your witnesses apart so they contradict themselves.

So I never think in terms of Jesus saying nasty things. You and I can reason together amicably even if we disagree, and Gospel Jesus could surely argue his point without being vicious and he and his invites would have got their dinner.

(1) test case - the Lord's prayer taught at the Sermon in Matthew, not in Luke. Luke has it taught for the first time to the disciples as they set off to Jerusalem for the last time. The go - to theory is that the prayer was in some other document and Matthew used the whole thing in his Sermon but Luke uses some of it but breaks the rest up. Verily, verily, I say unto you that when one understands the structure of the gospels, one understands the writers of the gospels, the motives of the writers and the fabrications and fiddles of the writers.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have to thank Tam for the passages that may indicate where Jesus got the idea that the forebears of the Pharisees (Luke) and all teachers of the law (Matthew) killed the prophets. But it does have to be more specific than just Jews in general otherwise he's be blasting his own disciples as much as a synagogue - ruler or the Sanhedrin. It really has to be priests killing prophets, not Israelites in general (1). Can you point up in the OT where this was so?

(1) Though I could guess that both Matthew and Luke are willing to regard all those who observe the laws of Moses (through their titular heads like Synagogue -rulers or Temple priests) as deserving of being shouted at across the dinner -table with old misdeeds from the history - books thrown in their faces as though they'd done the deed themselves.