Basstian
In Search
nope lol I am 2000 yrs away from when John wrote anything.
Its real easy to get into a place where we doubt everything. And one way to do that is ask questions that no one alive can answer.
But I will tell you what when we see John face to face we will ask him where he was when this was written than we will both know
Its real easy to get into a place where we doubt everything. And one way to do that is ask questions that no one alive can answer.
But I will tell you what when we see John face to face we will ask him where he was when this was written than we will both know
But then Didymus we are in agreementdidymus said:
If John the Baptist was not certain, and was in prison, knowing he was about to die, then he would ask the question about Jesus being the One. As you state, three Gospels (ones addressing the shall we say more learned folk), show John B's concern (and fear of failure). The Gospel of John is the "layman's" Gospel, and was written last. Simple folk do not need complex issues to worry about. John's Gospel is in my opinion, the "milk" Gospel. The other three are the "meat" Gospels.Ce n'est pas Vrai?
v/r
Q
B
Bandit
Guest
just to make sure we are not getting John the baptist and John the disciple mixed up.
Q I see it the opposite. John would be the meat gospel if any. It was in John that Jesus became God incarnate, the logos, creator of the universe. There isn't any mention of this in the previous three.
If John was the layman's gospel and they had to dummy it down a bit the chances are those folks wouldn't have been able to read it anyway. I mean if John being confused was too complex for them to grasp how could they have been literate enough to get John' version anyway?
Bandit- it's definitely Jthe Baptist we are discussing. It flows from John 1:19-34.
If John was the layman's gospel and they had to dummy it down a bit the chances are those folks wouldn't have been able to read it anyway. I mean if John being confused was too complex for them to grasp how could they have been literate enough to get John' version anyway?
Bandit- it's definitely Jthe Baptist we are discussing. It flows from John 1:19-34.
Possibly Did,didymus said:
That is just the way the Gospel differences were explained to me as a child. And the reason John's Gospel was such an easy read for a child (or for me). Four commentaries on the same set of events, four differing points of view. If they were each cooky cutter identical (or that close), then I'd be suspect of them as a whole (plus we'd only need one really).
v/r
Q
I guess this is where we agree to disagree. There are several ways to rationalize the narratives contradicting each other. For me none of these rationalizations suffice. My personal belief is that the gospels portraying John with a seed of doubt are the more accurate ones. The gospel of John flies in the face of that which leads me to believe that John(being written at a much later date) improvised on the previous gospels and smoothed this situation out. I think whoever wrote John knew about the John the B problem and reconciled it.
No matter which way you slice it you have to face up to the fact that either; one account is true and the other is false, they were reconciling the gospels with each other or people had their information mixed up. How can it be that John is doubting in one and stating firmly in the next that he saw, heard and knew Jesus was the one. This is the question noone has answered yet.
No matter which way you slice it you have to face up to the fact that either; one account is true and the other is false, they were reconciling the gospels with each other or people had their information mixed up. How can it be that John is doubting in one and stating firmly in the next that he saw, heard and knew Jesus was the one. This is the question noone has answered yet.
B
Bandit
Guest
this still does not show the gospels are out of line with each other. you have turned a question by JTB, into the book of John being a cover up and a conspiracy for something without evidence and maybe to support some cause in your mind.
If JTB had never been imprisoned, he would never have asked the question from inside a dark cell where he could not see Jesus.
it is like you are saying 2+2 =4, but 1+1 =3 & people are not allowed to be human in the bible.
i did this topic about JTB, with you once before and your objective never made any sense (except to show the scripture is in error, which you have not done).
My suggestion Did is this...take a black magic marker and scribble out all the verses that you think are cover ups and contradicitons, so you wont have to read them any more.
Basstian
In Search
You know reading this statement I recall stories from Foxes book of martyrs about people who gave their lives believing in so much less than we have.Q said:
Imagine not having all the gospels epistles strongs commentaries and info we have now.
Would we be willing to lay down our lives based on just one of the gospels or even just what we have been told. Looking for reason to doubt what we have today makes one wonder if blood of these men of faith was shed in vain.
I reading all this dispute I really understand the simple truth of how much more blessed one that believes truely believes and has not seen is over one who has seen and believes.
We in this day and age require more faith than ever to overcome the shadows of doubt that are often cast our way. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools. The truth of Jesus and the Bible can be as hard or as easy as you want to make it.
I just think Didymus your making it hard on yourself. Your questions are valid ones but do they truely need to be asked in this day and age or should we wait till we can ask face to face.
Bandit, you misunderstand my intent. I do not state that gospel of John is a cover up or false as a whole. I am pointing out the contradiction of the baptism and testimony of John with other gospels.Bandit said:
What does John being in prison have to do with asking the question? He saw and baptised Jesus prior to that. According to the gospel John testified to these things before being locked up. he stated he saw them at the baptism and knew Jesus was the one to come and save the world. If he knew this beforehand and saw the dove descend on Jesus and heard God's voice there would have been no need to ask if Jesus was the one later. This is not a complicated theory is it?
Bandit if my objective in this discussion isn't clear to you then, what can I say? I suggest you take a marker to the parts that you can't justify away. There is a clear inconsistancy in the narratives about John and Jesus. I think if we took a 15 year old and sat him down he would see the point.
B
Bandit
Guest
no there is not a clear inconsistancy. you just cant stand it because you dont have the answer for questions you come up with. my bible stays in tact every word of it. you are the one who wants to do away with what parts you dont like, of which i can list a dozen off the top of my head.didymus said:
you have already stated JOHN or the other three gospels are out!
(with your magic marker)
if we put this before a judge in a supreme court, they would most likely throw out your case the very same day because they do not rule on surmizing and guessing.
who are you to suggest someone cannot ask or has no need to ask a question?
but it is ok for you to create assumptions and build cases on someones question. You lack seriously on this one.
B
Bandit
Guest
interesting but i never said John doubted what he saw. his question is not about what he saw. saw. see. saw.didymus said:
you are the one doubting and most of your objectives are the same...to look for fault which leads to accusation and bring others to that way of thinking.
I dont have a case to prove, you feel that you do that is why you are posting this. when there is no for sure answer, that is when most people move along to something a little more upbeat and profitable. hint.
ok. i am done with this one
.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Ok Im going to take a leap here... Correct me if Im wrong but it seems to me that didymus thinks that John the apostle and John the baptist are the same person... or that John the baptist wrote the Book of John. If this is the case then let me reiterate that John the beloved friend and apostle of Christ wrote the book of John..the book of John was the book thats sole purpose was deifying Christ. Both Johns testified of the divinity of Christ but John the baptists purpose was to go before Christ and after Christ came was to fade into the background. John the apostle was with Jesus throughout his ministry.
Faithful, I don't have the 2 John's mixed up. For one, I stated earlier that John the Baptist died before Jesus did therefore making it impossible for him to have written the gospel of John(written around 100AD)
In the gospel of John it clearly states that John the Baptist testified that Jesus was the lamb of God and that he was there for the baptism and saw the dove.
Look at John 1:29-34
In the gospel of John it clearly states that John the Baptist testified that Jesus was the lamb of God and that he was there for the baptism and saw the dove.
Look at John 1:29-34
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
I think we are looking at a man questioning why he would be left in prison after preparing the way for the Lord..We are looking at a man who is human and being a human has doubts about why bad things happen to him when his work is that of God... John was not divine and had no divine understandings of the work of God other than the Holy Spirit who was with him and spoke through him. John was the first martyr and being a martyr held a special place in heaven as being the first of many.. he was also technically the last of the OT prophets.
Matthew presents the gospel as a hebrew for the hebrew mind
Mark presents the gospel writes for the roman mind
Luke presents the gospel for the greek mind
John presents the gospel as an interpretation of the facts of Jesus life rather than a presentation of the facts in historical sequence. It was written for the purpose of deifying Christ.
All had their own interpretation of what they saw and heard...if you have a bunch of people witnessing the same thing then interview them later you are going to have different accounts of what happened.. This alone shows the validity of all of them because each of them are unique in their own way. Jesus did not testify of himself...what truth would be in that he would be called a liar.. He had 4 distinctly different people writing what they saw and heard.
If your whole problem with it is the fact that John may have had doubts then you need to question every person who has doubts at any time.. The fact that it was in the scriptures doesnt mean anything because you saw all of them doubt or lose faith at one time or another. John was a prophet of God he was not Jesus Christ. It seems to me when something like this is brought up as a question of the validity of the bible that a person wants to find something in order to use as a means to question the truth of the bible.
Matthew presents the gospel as a hebrew for the hebrew mind
Mark presents the gospel writes for the roman mind
Luke presents the gospel for the greek mind
John presents the gospel as an interpretation of the facts of Jesus life rather than a presentation of the facts in historical sequence. It was written for the purpose of deifying Christ.
All had their own interpretation of what they saw and heard...if you have a bunch of people witnessing the same thing then interview them later you are going to have different accounts of what happened.. This alone shows the validity of all of them because each of them are unique in their own way. Jesus did not testify of himself...what truth would be in that he would be called a liar.. He had 4 distinctly different people writing what they saw and heard.
If your whole problem with it is the fact that John may have had doubts then you need to question every person who has doubts at any time.. The fact that it was in the scriptures doesnt mean anything because you saw all of them doubt or lose faith at one time or another. John was a prophet of God he was not Jesus Christ. It seems to me when something like this is brought up as a question of the validity of the bible that a person wants to find something in order to use as a means to question the truth of the bible.