My problem with Christianity

[Quadrochosis]

But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing.  Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels.  There is no such theology in the Synoptics.  And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.

But John does provide an account of the period we're talking about, and his gospel was completed in the first century, not too much later than the Synoptics. I don't see a particular reason he should be distrusted. Furthermore, his theology may be much more explicit than the other three, but there's nothing in John that can't be found in Matthew, Mark or Luke. 

There is plenty in John that is not in the Synoptics.

This. If it weren't for the Passion sequence, John almost seems like it's about a completely different person.

There's differences to be sure. But I think your exaggerating them. Why John must conform to the Synoptics in order to be reliable is a mystery to me.

Because when two people share accounts of an event, and both are different, they cannot both be right.

Yes, if there are truly irreconcilable differences. But that doesn't make either generally unreliable. You could dismiss a lot of historical material, and would do so wrongly, based on the standard that many commentators apply to the Gospels, John particularly.

I didn't say they were both wrong, I said at least one is.

[William Wallace]

But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing.  Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels.  There is no such theology in the Synoptics.  And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.

But John does provide an account of the period we're talking about, and his gospel was completed in the first century, not too much later than the Synoptics. I don't see a particular reason he should be distrusted. Furthermore, his theology may be much more explicit than the other three, but there's nothing in John that can't be found in Matthew, Mark or Luke. 

There is plenty in John that is not in the Synoptics.

This. If it weren't for the Passion sequence, John almost seems like it's about a completely different person.

There's differences to be sure. But I think your exaggerating them. Why John must conform to the Synoptics in order to be reliable is a mystery to me.

Because when two people share accounts of an event, and both are different, they cannot both be right.

Yes, if there are truly irreconcilable differences. But that doesn't make either generally unreliable. You could dismiss a lot of historical material, and would do so wrongly, based on the standard that many commentators apply to the Gospels, John particularly.

I didn't say they were both wrong, I said at least one is.

I know. And I don't think that makes either generally unreliable.

[reo73]

But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing.  Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels.  There is no such theology in the Synoptics.  And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.

Not true...See Matthew 28:19.  And see 2 Cor 13:14. These verses suggest an early formulation of the idea of the trinity or at least a foundation upon which the theology was formulated.

[Adami]

I think there's a difference between believing in something and then finding something in the text that might vaguely confirm it, and reading the text without the belief and coming to the same conclusion.

[hefdaddy42]

But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing.  Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels.  There is no such theology in the Synoptics.  And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.

Not true...See Matthew 28:19.  And see 2 Cor 13:14. These verses suggest an early formulation of the idea of the trinity or at least a foundation upon which the theology was formulated.

Not really.  Neither of those support any such theology in and of themselves.

[reo73]

But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing.  Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels.  There is no such theology in the Synoptics.  And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.

Not true...See Matthew 28:19.  And see 2 Cor 13:14. These verses suggest an early formulation of the idea of the trinity or at least a foundation upon which the theology was formulated.

Not really.  Neither of those support any such theology in and of themselves.

No, not in and of themselves.  But combined with the Gospel of John, other various pieces of scripture, and a couple hundred of years of early church formation is how the theology came to be.

[Quadrochosis]

But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing.  Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels.  There is no such theology in the Synoptics.  And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.

Not true...See Matthew 28:19.  And see 2 Cor 13:14. These verses suggest an early formulation of the idea of the trinity or at least a foundation upon which the theology was formulated.

Not really.  Neither of those support any such theology in and of themselves.

No, not in and of themselves.  But combined with the Gospel of John, other various pieces of scripture, and a couple hundred of years of early church formation is how the theology came to be.

See, if I was a Christian, I'd ONLY accept theology that was present at the time of the Jesus event, why on earth would I care about the theological development of random Roman people hundreds of years later?

[William Wallace]

But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing.  Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels.  There is no such theology in the Synoptics.  And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.

Not true...See Matthew 28:19.  And see 2 Cor 13:14. These verses suggest an early formulation of the idea of the trinity or at least a foundation upon which the theology was formulated.

Not really.  Neither of those support any such theology in and of themselves.

No, not in and of themselves.  But combined with the Gospel of John, other various pieces of scripture, and a couple hundred of years of early church formation is how the theology came to be.

See, if I was a Christian, I'd ONLY accept theology that was present at the time of the Jesus event, why on earth would I care about the theological development of random Roman people hundreds of years later?

As I said, the doctrine was formulated from biblical data, and has roots in Jewish theology. Furthermore, given that the early church was so furiously opposed to the different heretical schools of Christianity, because they altered Jesus' teachings, I find it unlikely that church itself would take the liberty of decreeing something as central as the trinity by fiat.

[Ħ]

But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing.  Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels.  There is no such theology in the Synoptics.  And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.

Not true...See Matthew 28:19.  And see 2 Cor 13:14. These verses suggest an early formulation of the idea of the trinity or at least a foundation upon which the theology was formulated.

Not really.  Neither of those support any such theology in and of themselves.

No, not in and of themselves.  But combined with the Gospel of John, other various pieces of scripture, and a couple hundred of years of early church formation is how the theology came to be.

See, if I was a Christian, I'd ONLY accept theology that was present at the time of the Jesus event, why on earth would I care about the theological development of random Roman people hundreds of years later?

I actually agree with you.  Who cares what church history says?

[Quadrochosis]

I find it unlikely that church itself would take the liberty of decreeing something as central as the trinity by fiat.

This makes me laugh when I think of what the Christian Church has actually done over the course of History.

[reo73]

But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing.  Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels.  There is no such theology in the Synoptics.  And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.

Not true...See Matthew 28:19.  And see 2 Cor 13:14. These verses suggest an early formulation of the idea of the trinity or at least a foundation upon which the theology was formulated.

Not really.  Neither of those support any such theology in and of themselves.

No, not in and of themselves.  But combined with the Gospel of John, other various pieces of scripture, and a couple hundred of years of early church formation is how the theology came to be.

See, if I was a Christian, I'd ONLY accept theology that was present at the time of the Jesus event, why on earth would I care about the theological development of random Roman people hundreds of years later?

Because the Christian faith is not just comprised of the Bible alone, it is comprised of the Church as well which is a dynamic and living institution, established by Christ himself.  But if you want to formulate your own theology solely on what was documented as happening during the life of Christ then I will just refer you back to the passage in Matthew and the Book of John and you can determine for yourself whether you want to believe in a trinity.

[Quadrochosis]

well i don't believe in any of it. but all i meant was that i wouldn't believe any later theological inventions because that would be absolutely silly and illogical in my opinion.

[hefdaddy42]

We don't know for sure what happened in the life of Christ.  But Paul's legitimate writings are from shortly thereafter, and the Gospel of Mark is the oldest extant narrative of the life of Jesus.  Matthew and Luke both used Mark as the framework for their gospels, along with teachings and sayings of Jesus.  John is much later and contains a bunch of stuff not present in the Synoptics or Paul.

John is useful to determine the history of Christianity, but I don't find it very useful in determining what Jesus really said, did, or taught.

[William Wallace]

I find it unlikely that church itself would take the liberty of decreeing something as central as the trinity by fiat.

This makes me laugh when I think of what the Christian Church has actually done over the course of History.

A lot of less than wonderful things. But the above is not an argument.

[bosk1]

But the NT as a composite grouping doesn't date to the time period we are discussing.  Sure, John equates Jesus with God, but it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels.  There is no such theology in the Synoptics.  And I don't believe for a minute that any of the earliest Apostles believed in anything like a Trinity.

But John does provide an account of the period we're talking about, and his gospel was completed in the first century, not too much later than the Synoptics. I don't see a particular reason he should be distrusted. Furthermore, his theology may be much more explicit than the other three, but there's nothing in John that can't be found in Matthew, Mark or Luke. 

There is plenty in John that is not in the Synoptics.

This. If it weren't for the Passion sequence, John almost seems like it's about a completely different person.

There's differences to be sure. But I think your exaggerating them. Why John must conform to the Synoptics in order to be reliable is a mystery to me.

Because when two people share accounts of an event, and both are different, they cannot both be right.

2 points in opposition:
1.  Yes, they can be different and still both be right as long as the differences do not contradict one another (which is the case here).
2.  We are not talking about two people sharing an account of an event.  We are talking about two people sharing an account of select events that took place mostly over a 3 - 3 1/2 year period, and the differences are not conflicting, contradictory accounts of the same event, but generally fall into one of two categories:  (1) emphasis on different events during that time period, or (2) placing emphasis on different things within the same events. 

[hefdaddy42]

It's not just the different events discussed.  It is also the very way that Jesus and his teachings are presented.  John presents something entirely different than do the Synoptics.

[bosk1]

Not really.  But one thing I will say about John:  he could turn a drop of water into an ocean.

[William Wallace]

Not really.

Yeah, I'd like an example, Hef.

Of course I realize John recounted some of the same events in the Synoptics  differently, some that don't appear in the first three at all and arranged his material differently. But I'm not sure what you see that makes John unreliable.

[bosk1]

Not to oversimplify or misstate what Hef would say, but based on what I've seen him post in the past, I think he would primarily say:  "The synoptics presented Jesus as going about teaching the people privately and telling them to keep things quiet without putting any emphasis on himself whatsoever.  In John, we have a completely different Jesus teaching openly and unable to shut up about himself."  I can see where there is a bit of truth to that, but in general, I don't agree.

[rumborak]

I think it's more about the underlying theology. The synoptics mostly portray Jesus as an itinerant prophet (who has special standing with God, but is distinctly separate), whereas John sees him as the incarnation of the Logos and part of God himself. I mean, there's a reason why the the synoptics are called synoptics, and John isn't.
In terms of historical accuracy, I kinda consider John to be on par with other non-canonical writings really, e.g. the Gospel of Thomas. Inspired by historical accounts, but too concerned with pitching a message to be taken at face value.

rumborak

[reo73]

I think it's more about the underlying theology. The synoptics mostly portray Jesus as an itinerant prophet (who has special standing with God, but is distinctly separate), whereas John sees him as the incarnation of the Logos and part of God himself. I mean, there's a reason why the the synoptics are called synoptics, and John isn't.
In terms of historical accuracy, I kinda consider John to be on par with other non-canonical writings really, e.g. the Gospel of Thomas. Inspired by historical accounts, but too concerned with pitching a message to be taken at face value.

rumborak

The pre-resurrected Jesus does not directly claim his deity in the Synoptics, but his Deity is implicit in his behavior.  For instance he forgives sin, he holds the power to judge, he lays claim to fulfillment of OT prophecy, he claims to know man's heart and thoughts, he claimed himself greater than the temple, he teaches of himself for eternal destiny, etc.  

[William Wallace]

In terms of historical accuracy, I kinda consider John to be on par with other non-canonical writings really, e.g. the Gospel of Thomas. Inspired by historical accounts, but too concerned with pitching a message to be taken at face value.

rumborak

Except that one wasn't drastically edited by the Gnostic Christians.

[rumborak]

I think it's more about the underlying theology. The synoptics mostly portray Jesus as an itinerant prophet (who has special standing with God, but is distinctly separate), whereas John sees him as the incarnation of the Logos and part of God himself. I mean, there's a reason why the the synoptics are called synoptics, and John isn't.
In terms of historical accuracy, I kinda consider John to be on par with other non-canonical writings really, e.g. the Gospel of Thomas. Inspired by historical accounts, but too concerned with pitching a message to be taken at face value.

rumborak

The pre-resurrected Jesus does not directly claim his deity in the Synoptics, but his Deity is implicit in his behavior.  For instance he forgives sin, he holds the power to judge, he lays claim to fulfillment of OT prophecy, he claims to know man's heart and thoughts, he claimed himself greater than the temple, he teaches of himself for eternal destiny, etc.  

Given the large amount of direct quotes in the gospels, and given the "game changer" quality of him being divine, I think the fact that he didn't claim his divinity means he didn't think he was. That's like Barack Obama never mentioning that he's president of the USA, but instead leaving everyone guessing.

rumborak

[bosk1]

I think it's more like a brief narrative by a third party about his entire 4-year presidency in a book about, for example, "Barak Obama, the 44th President of the United States" that doesn't see the need to introduce quotes by Obama claiming to be president.  There is simply no need.

[Ħ]

I think Jesus had to primarily demonstrate himself as the prophetic Messiah, because that's what people were looking for.  He does this quite obviously in all four gospels. 

But he was more secretive about his deity, I think, because if he came out and said "I'm God," I don't think that would be something the Israelites would see as consistent with their beliefs.  I think it's possible that his deity was something that started off as something only few people knew, and expanded outward over time (which would also explain why the later gospels contain more references to him as God).

[WildeSilas]

I'm late with this, but it's a big mistake to take a book that in itself claims progressive revelation and not be willing to tolerate the semantic disciplines required to assemble arching doctrines established therin. This isn't necessarily a case of biblical scholars doing acrobatics as much as it's the way any responsible scholar would draw theological principles from any religious text, be it the bible, quaran, etc. It is the most sensible and effective way to draw out ideas and doctrines over the course of time. If anyone is looking for the word Trinity or Rapture in the Bible, they are misunderstanding how language translation works at a very basic level. It is actually very simple to demonstrate that early writers did have a concept of a triune diety, but it's done by following the thread of passages dealing with that issue and building the case systematically as you go. That's not semantics, it's basic heurmanutics.

[j]

^That.  It's a pretty simple concept.  Of course the earliest accounts of specific historical EVENTS are most likely the most reliable, but the development of doctrine, theology and philosophy are completely different things.  It's only natural that those things develop over time, because human understanding of things is progressive in general.

-J

[Ħ]

Actually, that leads to another question I have.  Do the Christians here believe in an evolution of theology?  By that, I mean does one generation grow in knowledge from the generations before it?

For example, justification by faith was a pretty unknown doctrine for a good while of history, until Martin Luther uncovered it and spent his life defending it.  Of course, because he was fighting the fight for that specific doctrine, he wasn't able to develop other doctrines that have since been developed.

So...it's almost like one person spends 30 years in study, and plants flags along the way, so it only takes the next generation 5 years to learn everything he did, and they have much more time to spend learning new things.

What do you guys think of that?

[bosk1]

Actually, that leads to another question I have.  Do the Christians here believe in an evolution of theology?  By that, I mean does one generation grow in knowledge from the generations before it?

Not really, no.  Jesus knew exactly what he meant, as did the Holy Spirit when he spoke through the apostles and other NT writers.  Unless there is additional revelation, there isn't really any new knowledge that can be gained on what has been revealed.

For example, justification by faith was a pretty unknown doctrine for a good while of history, until Martin Luther uncovered it and spent his life defending it. 

Not really.  It is explicit in scripture and was VERY well known.  It's just that the Catholic Church buried it, which Luther and others battled them on.

[Ħ]

So do you think that each generation's church knew basically the same amount as the previous generation's?

[bosk1]

I think they could have, yes.  Whether or not they actually did depends a lot on the diligence of the given church's leadership and individual members (and, to some extent, historical accident).  If a church has to go beyond what is written in scripture to formulate a doctrine, I think they most likely are missing the point.

[reo73]

Actually, that leads to another question I have.  Do the Christians here believe in an evolution of theology?  By that, I mean does one generation grow in knowledge from the generations before it?

For example, justification by faith was a pretty unknown doctrine for a good while of history, until Martin Luther uncovered it and spent his life defending it.  Of course, because he was fighting the fight for that specific doctrine, he wasn't able to develop other doctrines that have since been developed.

So...it's almost like one person spends 30 years in study, and plants flags along the way, so it only takes the next generation 5 years to learn everything he did, and they have much more time to spend learning new things.

What do you guys think of that?

That's a tough question.  I think it happens to an extent but I also think there is a foundation that never changes.  For instance I believe the Apostles Creed to be a good foundation of the Christian Faith as it was the culmination of theology in the 4th century to define the Orthodox Christian Faith from the various sects that spun their own theology.  Really this theology has held through the Church's history.  But, there are a whole host of doctrines that come out of the Christian church that seem to ebb and flow over time.  Some are important and some are less important.  For instant the Catholic church prior to the reformation had abandoned the doctrine of Salvation thru faith almost completely which led to the rise of the reformation yet Martin Luther almost swung too far to the other extreme to a point where he was ready to throw the book of James out of the Bible because it emphasized works.

Because Christians view the Bible as a living document and the Church as a living institution I think there will always be changes in theology as study continues, but I also believe that as long as there is a recognition that scripture is inspired and authoritative and a respect for the history of the Christian church I think the foundation will stand.

[Ħ]

I think they could have, yes.  Whether or not they actually did depends a lot on the diligence of the given church's leadership and individual members (and, to some extent, historical accident).  If a church has to go beyond what is written in scripture to formulate a doctrine, I think they most likely are missing the point.

Yeah I agree with everything you're saying.  But do you believe that there were any truths that were accepted early in church history, then forgotten, then later rediscovered?  For example, I think of how churches slipped away during the apostles lifetimes (lke Paul references in 1 Timothy).

[bosk1]

I think they could have, yes.  Whether or not they actually did depends a lot on the diligence of the given church's leadership and individual members (and, to some extent, historical accident).  If a church has to go beyond what is written in scripture to formulate a doctrine, I think they most likely are missing the point.

Yeah I agree with everything you're saying.  But do you believe that there were any truths that were accepted early in church history, then forgotten, then later rediscovered?  For example, I think of how churches slipped away during the apostles lifetimes (lke Paul references in 1 Timothy).

Yes.  But I think that problem can mostly be avoided by (1) the leadership and members being informed of what scripture teaches by diligent, frequent study, and (2) making sure the leadership structure of the church itself is scriptural (i.e., each congregation being autonomous and having as its only authority structue local elders/pastors (plural) with authority only over that congregation and deacons, and not some extra-congregational denominational structure). 

Do you have specific truth in mind, or are you just speaking generally?

[Ħ]

I think they could have, yes.  Whether or not they actually did depends a lot on the diligence of the given church's leadership and individual members (and, to some extent, historical accident).  If a church has to go beyond what is written in scripture to formulate a doctrine, I think they most likely are missing the point.

Yeah I agree with everything you're saying.  But do you believe that there were any truths that were accepted early in church history, then forgotten, then later rediscovered?  For example, I think of how churches slipped away during the apostles lifetimes (lke Paul references in 1 Timothy).

Yes.  But I think that problem can mostly be avoided by (1) the leadership and members being informed of what scripture teaches by diligent, frequent study, and (2) making sure the leadership structure of the church itself is scriptural (i.e., each congregation being autonomous and having as its only authority structue local elders/pastors (plural) with authority only over that congregation and deacons, and not some extra-congregational denominational structure). 

Do you have specific truth in mind, or are you just speaking generally?

ATM, I can speculate on three (that you may or may not agree with):

1. justification by faith (rediscovered by Luther)
2. the "rapture" (or the "catching away" to be biblical) vs. an earthly return of Christ (rediscovered 1700ish)
3. Paul's separate message/apostleship from the 12 (rediscovered 1900ish)

But there probably are a lot more, and hopefully ones that we agree on.