So I read the Gospels

[Moss]

and now I'm debating if I should continue reading Acts and Romans, ect...

or if I should stop now and do my moralistic, ethical analytical snyopsis of the Gospels now, before I continue?

Hmm...

I think I'll continue, at least through Acts because it's mainly a continuation of Luke, but dunno yet. (But then again, Act is a huge book in itself).

One funny thing I found, is that I wrote down the verse numbers that I found very telling or important, and for whatever reason, I didn't write down many verses that are "popular" ... i.e. John 3:16.

I did take special note of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew though.

Oh, and I'm mainly doing this reading and analytical stuff for fun...and I'm not really looking at the facts so much as the teachings...

so your thoughts?

 

[Irish Caesar]

I would recommend stopping after the Gospels (and maybe Acts) and think of them as one work, and then read Paul's letters. It will be interesting how much of Paul's thoughts on Christianity compare with what you interpret from the Gospels.

 

[Plotinus]

Don't think of the Gospels as one work, though. They all have quite different theological agendas. Of course the biggest difference is between John and the Synoptics, but it's still interesting to see the differences between the others - look at how Matthew changed Mark, for example.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Very true; poor phrasing on my part. But compared to Paul's letters, the Gospels are quite different. And of course, there are differences between Paul's letters, which probably has a lot to do with the fact that Paul didn't write all the letters he is credited for.

 

[Moss]

This is me thinking out loud, but I think I'm going to start by looking at each of the Gospels individually, and then comparing them.

Matthew and Luke seemed to be the two that compared the most from my initial reading, with Mark being close, but also quite short...and John, well, I didn't like John...partly because Jesus seems much more arrogant and above everyone else. Maybe it's just the way it's worded, but he seems much different in that Gospel than the other three.

 

[Plotinus]

That is one of the main differences between John and the Synoptics. Compare Jesus' last words on the cross in John and Mark, for example. The classic question that scholars have asked about John (and which students always get in exams) is whether John's Jesus is docetic, that is, not really human. Many have thought that he is, though there is an opposing view that John was actually trying to correct a pre-existent docetic tradition by having Jesus eat, die, and so on.

Related to this is the question whether John had read any of the other Gospels. It's virtually certain that Luke and Matthew both based their work on Mark (and other stuff), apparently independently. John evidently didn't do that, but it's not certain whether he'd read Mark. Compare the story of the feeding of the five thousand in John and Mark, for example - very different, but still notable similarities (the reference to the grass, for example).

 

[Irish Caesar]

Really? John was my favorite: the Jesus in John seemed less likely to condemn people for trivial things. Also, it seemed more poetic than the other Gospels. It's the only one to feature "Bread of Life" and all of the other names for Jesus, right?

Also, is there a leading historical opinion as to where John got his material? I've seen that there is a Gospel which claims to be the Gospel of John, the son of Zebedee, which was who I thought the Gospel of John in the NT claimed to be written by.

 

[Moss]

I just really liked the parables in Matthew...the sermon on the mount being my favorite part of the entire Gospels, and Luke is very similar to Matthew...

To me, John seemed to portray Jesus in a way that I'm most likely not to believe, not that I don't believe it, but of the personalities in Jesus, the Jesus portrayed in the other three gospels makes him an actual human, less godly figure, who relates more to the people in my opinion...and sees things in more of a black and white view...but that could just have been how I read it at the time too...

 

[jonatas]

Luke has the highest number of "exorcisms". Some of these are easily classified as medical conditions, others are the real thing. It makes for interesting comparison with the contemporary Judiac exorcists, who tended to rely on ritual and magic, whereas apparently in Luke's account, it was the power of the word, ie. the command... perhaps highlighing a difference between early Christian exorcism and the prevailing beliefs of the time.

 

[classical_hero]

To me, John seemed to portray Jesus in a way that I'm most likely not to believe, not that I don't believe it, but of the personalities in Jesus, the Jesus portrayed in the other three gospels makes him an actual human, less godly figure, who relates more to the people in my opinion...and sees things in more of a black and white view...but that could just have been how I read it at the time too...

Why do you say this?

 

[Irish Caesar]

I just really liked the parables in Matthew...the sermon on the mount being my favorite part of the entire Gospels, and Luke is very similar to Matthew...

To me, John seemed to portray Jesus in a way that I'm most likely not to believe, not that I don't believe it, but of the personalities in Jesus, the Jesus portrayed in the other three gospels makes him an actual human, less godly figure, who relates more to the people in my opinion...and sees things in more of a black and white view...but that could just have been how I read it at the time too...

But aren't we all Pharisees in some ways? I saw a presentation of Godspell (which tells Matthew's Gospel in song and dance and such) and was astonished: every hypocrite burns in Hell? The man who doesn't come to the feast in a wedding garment is thrown outside to wailing and gnashing of teeth? Maybe I'm way off-base here, but that doesn't sound like a way to get people to join your religion...

 

[Moss]

Why do you say this?

I would say it lies mostly in the dialouge that is attributed to Jesus himself...what he says is more blunt...which is fine I guess, but it does have an air of arrogance to it I think. And maybe I just have a fondness for the parables, I don't know.

It also seems, to me, that in John, Jesus speaks about himself more than in the other gospels. In the other Gospels, Jesus concentrates on the whole picture, humanity in general, in John it seems almost too focused on proving that, yes, indeed, he is the son of God.

I'm not saying it's bad, I just prefer the style of Matthew and Luke much better.

 

[Moss]

But aren't we all Pharisees in some ways? I saw a presentation of Godspell (which tells Matthew's Gospel in song and dance and such) and was astonished: every hypocrite burns in Hell? The man who doesn't come to the feast in a wedding garment is thrown outside to wailing and gnashing of teeth? Maybe I'm way off-base here, but that doesn't sound like a way to get people to join your religion...

See, and I didn't read it that way. Mainly because I've always believed that God's grace goes to everything. I liked Matthew mainly because of the sermon on the mount...and verses like this, "Love for Your Enemies"

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your friends, hate your enemies.’ But now I tell you; love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you so that you may become the children of your Father in heaven. For he makes his sun to shine on bad and good people alike, and gives rain to those who do good and to those who do evil. Why should God reward you if you love only the people who love you? Even the tax collectors do that! And if you speak only to your friends, have you done anything out of the ordinary? Even the pagans do that! You must be perfect – Just as you Father in heaven is perfect.

or...when Jesus calls Matthew

Jesus left that place and as he walked along, he saw a tax collector named Matthew, sitting in his office. He said to him, “Follow me.”
Matthew got up and followed him.

While Jesus was having a meal in Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and other outcasts came and joined Jesus and his disciples at the table. Some Pharisees saw this and asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with such people”

Jesus heard them and answered, “People who are well do not need a doctor, but only those who are sick. Go and find out what is meant by the scriptures that say: ‘It is kindness that I want, not animal sacrifices.’ I have not come to call respectable people, but outcasts.”

ect...I just think that his teachings, of love, and accepting the "outcasts" of society, and those who are less fortunate is much stronger in Matthew or at least detailed in a better fashion.

Now, if I were trying to convert someone to Christianity, I probably wouldn't use the Parable of the Weeds (about pulling the weeds out of the wheatfield and then burning them), but I would use Matthew 25 : 34-40

Then the King will say to the people on his right, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father! Come and possess the kingdom which has been prepared for you ever since the creation of the world. I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me a drink; I was a stranger and you received me in your homes, naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you took care of me, in prison and you visited me." The righteous will then answer him, "When Lord, did we ever see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you a drink? When did we ever see you a stranger and welcome you in our homes, or naked and clothe you? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?" The King will reply, "I tell you, whenever you did this for one of the least important of these followers of mine, you did it for me!"

 

[Plotinus]

Ah, but what of Matthew 23? Not the nicest chapter in the Bible!

Most scholars think that the style of teaching attributed to Jesus in the Synoptics is far more likely to be historical than that of John. That is, while Jesus probably didn't really say everything attributed to him in the Synoptics, this was the sort of thing he said and the way he said it, rather than the endless monologues in John. Similarly, Jesus' preaching probably revolved around the kingdom of God, as the Synoptics suggest, rather than around himself, as John suggests. The question of who Jesus is is important in the Synoptics, especially Matthew, but it's handled in a different sort of way.

[Irish Caesar] There is vast speculation about the circumstances of the writing of John - it's certain that the Gospel went through a number of editions, for example, and what we have is the "revised" version, quite apart from what sources the author used in the first place. Bear in mind that none of the Gospels "claims" to be by anyone - they are all anonymous.

 

[classical_hero]

I would say it lies mostly in the dialouge that is attributed to Jesus himself...what he says is more blunt...which is fine I guess, but it does have an air of arrogance to it I think. And maybe I just have a fondness for the parables, I don't know.

It also seems, to me, that in John, Jesus speaks about himself more than in the other gospels. In the other Gospels, Jesus concentrates on the whole picture, humanity in general, in John it seems almost too focused on proving that, yes, indeed, he is the son of God.

I'm not saying it's bad, I just prefer the style of Matthew and Luke much better.

Perhaps the most memorable passages are in John. One of the most personal passage in the whole Gospel accounts happens in John. Jesus talking to Nicodemus is one of the few one on ones that Jesus has and he does get into the heart of the conversation there. You also see Jesus as someone who thinks outside of the box. This is when the woman is caught in Adultery. I must say that that is one of my favourite passages, because it shows us how human Jesus can be and yet at the sme time it shows his diety. He shows compassion to this woman when noone esle would show her any and he was able to convict her accusers by showing them there hypocracy in there actions. This is perhaps the most perfect example of forgiveness in the whole Bible. That is why I like it so much.

 

[Plotinus]

Interestingly, the passage about the woman caught in adultery is something of an anomaly in John. Many manuscripts don't have it, and the language and style is unlike the rest of the book. I had a tutor who argued at length that the passage was actually originally part of Luke, but it somehow got accidentally transferred to John. Perhaps someone dropped the first copy of the New Testament and picked it up in the wrong order.

Seriously, things like that are possible. It is often said that something like this must have happened with John, because as it stands the Gospel makes no geographical sense whatsoever. One moment Jesus is at one end of the country, the next he is at the other; it says things like "And then he crossed to the other side of the Sea of Galilee" when he wasn't anywhere near it to start with. You don't spot things like this if you're not familiar with Palestinian geography, but it's very strange. So one theory is that, at an early stage, someone dropped the manuscript of John and picked the chapters up in the wrong order.

 

[Irish Caesar]

[Irish Caesar] There is vast speculation about the circumstances of the writing of John - it's certain that the Gospel went through a number of editions, for example, and what we have is the "revised" version, quite apart from what sources the author used in the first place. Bear in mind that none of the Gospels "claims" to be by anyone - they are all anonymous.

Doesn't the last chapter of John say something about "it is this disciple who testifies to these things and says that they are true"? Although, the 21st chapter of John is also questioned as to whether it comes from the same source as the rest of the book...

Seriously, things like that are possible. It is often said that something like this must have happened with John, because as it stands the Gospel makes no geographical sense whatsoever. One moment Jesus is at one end of the country, the next he is at the other; it says things like "And then he crossed to the other side of the Sea of Galilee" when he wasn't anywhere near it to start with. You don't spot things like this if you're not familiar with Palestinian geography, but it's very strange. So one theory is that, at an early stage, someone dropped the manuscript of John and picked the chapters up in the wrong order.

My priest told me that there are some anachronisms in John, also, which tend to point out that the author of John never really knew Jesus. But then, none of the Gospel writers really did, did they?

 

[Moss]

Mark is possibly written by a disciple of Peter (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), and Mark was the first written. So no, none of the writers Knew Jesus, which leads to a point that the personal dialouge of Jesus, especially in John, but in all the Gospels, is not accurate but just an assumption by the writers of the Gospels. Of course, if I remember right, Mark, Matthew, and Luke used other sources while writing too, so it is possible that someone who saw Jesus teaching, wrote what he said down...and that's another reason I like the first three more than John, as Plotinus said, it just seems more reasonable...I dunno.

 

[Hornblower]

Luke has the highest number of "exorcisms". Some of these are easily classified as medical conditions, others are the real thing. It makes for interesting comparison with the contemporary Judiac exorcists, who tended to rely on ritual and magic, whereas apparently in Luke's account, it was the power of the word, ie. the command... perhaps highlighing a difference between early Christian exorcism and the prevailing beliefs of the time.

I started reading this thread out of sheer curiosity as I have never read the Gospels or any other part of the bible. When I read that a part of it talks about exorcisms I was intrigued.
Do people actually believe in demonic possession in todays Christian world?

If so, do they still do exorcisms?

I just thought that it was the premise for a really disturbing movie that scared the pants off me when I was 12 and not actually based on anything.

 

[Louis XXIV]

From what I understand, Exorcisms still exist, but they are very rare.