John Vs Mark, Mathew and Luke

[calamity]

“Father Forgive Them, They Know Not What They Do.” (Luke 23:24)

You likely will not see anything that understanding in John. In fact, very accomplished scholars will say that the Jesus quoted in John is not even the same guy we encountered in Mark, Mathew and Luke.

Jesus Many Faces - What Can We Really About Jesus | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

www.pbs.org

...the way Jesus talks in the first three, the so-called synoptic gospels, is very different from the way he talks in the Gospel according to John. Now, which is right? Which is the real Jesus speaking here? We discovered that there are several different portraits of Jesus enshrined in the shape of the traditions about him, and that these seem to go back to very early times.

I agree. There is a huge disconnect between the loving, somewhat secular words attributed to Jesus written in the synoptic gospels and the fire and brimstone, hocus pocus stuff preached within the Book of John.

The first three books are places were you find parables and quotes about giving away riches to feed the poor. These are completely different from John, a book where the poor no longer matter and only adherence to the dogma holds sway.

It's like Jesus woke up mad one day, and John recorded his rants....of course, this is not far from the claimed reality.

John is called “The Revelator” because, among other things, he unveiled the true identity of Christ in greater depth than any other Bible author. John drew closer to Jesus than any other disciple and was given deeper insight into His divine nature....

John was like a mechanic who opens a car hood to see what makes it run. In the process, he got some oil (anointing) all over him. Remember, John literally laid his head on the chest of Jesus and heard the heartbeat of God (Jn. 13:23-25). The synoptic Gospels inform us of what Jesus said and did; John’s Gospel digs deeper and tells us Who Jesus is.

The uniqueness of John's Gospel

The Gospel of John is unique from the “synoptic Gospels” (Matthew, Mark and Luke), so called due to their similar content. The synoptics cover many of the same miracles, parables and events of …

mountaineagle.com

 

[bluesmoke]

So, the Christ of John would be more like the one the white evangelicals follow than the Christ of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

 

[calamity]

So, the Christ of John would be more like the one the white evangelicals follow than the Christ of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

I would say this is true.

 

[code1211]

“Father Forgive Them, They Know Not What They Do.” (Luke 23:24)

You likely will not see anything that understanding in John. In fact, very accomplished scholars will say that the Jesus quoted in John is not even the same guy we encountered in Mark, Mathew and Luke.

Jesus Many Faces - What Can We Really About Jesus | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

www.pbs.org

I agree. There is a huge disconnect between the loving, somewhat secular words attributed to Jesus written in the synoptic gospels and the fire and brimstone, hocus pocus stuff preached within the Book of John.

The first three books are places were you find parables and quotes about giving away riches to feed the poor. These are completely different from John, a book where the poor no longer matter and only adherence to the dogma holds sway.

It's like Jesus woke up mad one day, and John recorded his rants....of course, this is not far from the claimed reality.

The uniqueness of John's Gospel

The Gospel of John is unique from the “synoptic Gospels” (Matthew, Mark and Luke), so called due to their similar content. The synoptics cover many of the same miracles, parables and events of …

mountaineagle.com

What is your point?

 

[calamity]

What is your point?

It's laid out in the op. Read it.

 

[VySky]

John's message was deliberate. He did have a soft side at times

(1 John 4:16-17) Encouragement to love one another. Such love has no fear, because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of punishment, and this shows that we have not fully experienced his perfect love. We love each other because he loved us first. (1 John 4:18-19)

 

[Rumpel]

“Father Forgive Them, They Know Not What They Do.” (Luke 23:24)

You likely will not see anything that understanding in John. In fact, very accomplished scholars will say that the Jesus quoted in John is not even the same guy we encountered in Mark, Mathew and Luke.

Jesus Many Faces - What Can We Really About Jesus | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

www.pbs.org

I agree. There is a huge disconnect between the loving, somewhat secular words attributed to Jesus written in the synoptic gospels and the fire and brimstone, hocus pocus stuff preached within the Book of John.

The first three books are places were you find parables and quotes about giving away riches to feed the poor. These are completely different from John, a book where the poor no longer matter and only adherence to the dogma holds sway.

It's like Jesus woke up mad one day, and John recorded his rants....of course, this is not far from the claimed reality.

The uniqueness of John's Gospel

The Gospel of John is unique from the “synoptic Gospels” (Matthew, Mark and Luke), so called due to their similar content. The synoptics cover many of the same miracles, parables and events of …

mountaineagle.com

That John is that guy with that hateful "Revelation".
I do not like it.

 

[calamity]

That John is that guy with that hateful "Revelation".
I do not like it.

End times guy...also, I believe his is the first mention of Jesus coming back. You know, because he didn't do what he was supposed to do the first time.

Weird how that works.

 

[Rumpel]

End times guy...also, I believe his is the first mention of Jesus coming back. You know, because he didn't do what he was supposed to do the first time.

Weird how that works.

Maybe somebody told Jesus: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!"

 

[Rumpel]

Anyway: the idea that Jesus will come back and take a few selected "Better Christians" with him into heaven i find deeply inhuman and a-social and generally revolting.

 

[calamity]

Anyway: the idea that Jesus will come back and take a few selected "Better Christians" with him into heaven i find deeply inhuman and a-social and generally revolting.

Yeah, it's a bizarre belief.

 

[code1211]

It's laid out in the op. Read it.

Your OP is poorly reasoned and has no references to the various very well reasoned and scholarly opinions regarding the Gospels.

That's why I asked.

As one example of the shallowness of your post, you group the Gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke as if they are identical in tone and attitude.

They are not. Mathew writes like an accountant. More like recording a box score. Mark writes more as a disciple. You feel more of the joy and pain in his words.

Actual scholars, who actually know something on this topic, refer to the first three as The Synoptic Gospels and to John as someone less connected to events recount.

I am, like you, also not a scholar. I was however interested in know what your concern was.

 

[calamity]

Your OP is poorly reasoned and has no references to the various very well reasoned and scholarly opinions regarding the Gospels.

That's why I asked.

As one example of the shallowness of your post, you group the Gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke as if they are identical in tone and attitude.

They are not. Mathew writes like an accountant. More like recording a box score. Mark writes more as a disciple. You feel more of the joy and pain in his words.

Actual scholars, who actually know something on this topic, refer to the first three as The Synoptic Gospels and to John as someone less connected to events recount.

I am, like you, also not a scholar. I was however interested in know what your concern was.

The op was fine.

 

[code1211]

The op was fine.

If you say so, we can accept your verdict with all of the weight and authority it is due.

 

[tosca1]

“Father Forgive Them, They Know Not What They Do.” (Luke 23:24)

You likely will not see anything that understanding in John. In fact, very accomplished scholars will say that the Jesus quoted in John is not even the same guy we encountered in Mark, Mathew and Luke.

Jesus Many Faces - What Can We Really About Jesus | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

www.pbs.org

I agree. There is a huge disconnect between the loving, somewhat secular words attributed to Jesus written in the synoptic gospels and the fire and brimstone, hocus pocus stuff preached within the Book of John.

The first three books are places were you find parables and quotes about giving away riches to feed the poor. These are completely different from John, a book where the poor no longer matter and only adherence to the dogma holds sway.

It's like Jesus woke up mad one day, and John recorded his rants....of course, this is not far from the claimed reality.

The uniqueness of John's Gospel

The Gospel of John is unique from the “synoptic Gospels” (Matthew, Mark and Luke), so called due to their similar content. The synoptics cover many of the same miracles, parables and events of …

mountaineagle.com

All of them are right.
They approached the subject, and focused from their own angles of preferences.



Think of the many biographies published about a certain individual (written by different authors).
They're not all covering exactly all the same things.

As an example: look at Hitler's biographies.

Best Hitler Biographies (12 books)

12 books based on 18 votes: Hitler by Ian Kershaw, Hitler by Joachim Fest, Adolf Hitler by John Toland, Hitler: The Terminal Biography by D. Harlan Wilso...

www.goodreads.com

 

[bluesmoke]

The op was fine.

I got lost in the conjugation of his own word salad and could not swim through to any relevance between his post and your OP. No dry land there. The abuse of participle by such unstable genius tends to confuse me.

 

[calamity]

I got lost in the conjugation of his own word salad and could not swim through to any relevance between his post and your OP. No dry land there. The abuse of participle by such unstable genius tends to confuse me.

No worries, I expected the subject to fly over some heads.

 

[code1211]

All of them are right.
They approached the subject, and focused from their own angles of preferences.



Think of the many biographies published about a certain individual (written by different authors).
They're not all covering exactly all the same things.

As an example: look at Hitler's biographies.

Best Hitler Biographies (12 books)

12 books based on 18 votes: Hitler by Ian Kershaw, Hitler by Joachim Fest, Adolf Hitler by John Toland, Hitler: The Terminal Biography by D. Harlan Wilso...

www.goodreads.com

When asked if he thought that history would treat him well, Churchill replied by saying that he thought it would since he intended to write it.

So many implications in the question and in the reply.

 

[calamity]

When asked if he thought that history would treat him well, Churchill replied by saying that he thought it would since he intended to write it.

So many implications in the question and in the reply.

Would you rather that Hitler wrote it?

 

[code1211]

Would you rather that Hitler wrote it?

The question has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of my post, but, no.

However, apparently quite by accident have highlighted the topikc you seem to have missed.

If Hitler had written the history of the conflicts in Europe in the 30's and 40's, the narrative would have been much, MUCH different than the one(s) currently presented.

History is written by the victors obviously means that history is propaganda.

 

[calamity]

...If Hitler had written the history of the conflicts in Europe in the 30's and 40's, the narrative would have been much, MUCH different than the one(s) currently presented.

History is written by the victors obviously means that history is propaganda.

we know this