/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Post to fix thread.

>>531821

It bothers me from a pure historical standpoint. For example, who saw Jesus first when he was resurrected? The gospels can’t agree. In the synoptic gospels, it’s clear that Jesus didn’t think of himself as divine or in the trinitarian sense as we understand God today. You can see the evolution of the Christology from Mark to John. John, being a much later writing is much more orthodox than Mark is.

From the standpoint of faith, as a Catholic, I can simply say that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church to understand these things that are not clear in scripture.

>>531821

>Do the differences between John and the synoptic Gospels bother anyone else?

No, different writers have different perspectives. God used the perspectives and styles of each Gospel author to give us insights that a single Gospel could not have.

>>532044

>In the synoptic gospels, it’s clear that Jesus didn’t think of himself as divine or in the trinitarian sense as we understand God today.

No, it's just that the synoptic Gospels are more focused on the events and teachings of Christ's ministry whereas John is much more theological and christological. That doesn't mean that Saints Matthew, Mark, and Luke were ignorant of true christology just as we can't say John was ignorant of the feeding of the 4,000 simply because he didn't include it in his Gospel. All of the Gospels basically assume Christ to be divine; there's no other context to read them in that makes any sense, and the first enumeration of the Holy Trinity is in Matthew.

>From the standpoint of faith, as a Catholic, I can simply say that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church to understand these things that are not clear in scripture.

No, the Holy Spirit guides us toward clearer articulation of the faith but not better understanding, and Holy Scripture, being God-breathed, is the highest articulation of the faith that we have.

The Apostles didn't formulate the trinitarian or christological vocabulary that we use today, but that doesn't mean that the church fathers who did formalize such things in the ecumenical councils understood the faith better than the Apostles. Heresy just gave rise to a need to articulate the faith that was always present more formally and clearly.

>>532058

>All of the Gospels basically assume Christ to be divine; there's no other context to read them in that makes any sense

No they don’t. If you start with the earliest gospel and move to the next oldest (ie Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) you can even see the evolution of the pre-existence of Jesus and different points at which he was thought to become divine, which is where we get adoptionism from. In John, we see that scribes added things like “Before Abraham was, I am”, to give credence to the pre-existence and full divinity of Jesus to conform to orthodoxy. Later he says “I and the Father are one” (10:30) Again, the Jews break out the stones. Later he tells his disciples, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (14:9). And in a later prayer to God he asks him to “glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world was created” (17:5). All this because of adoptionists in the first century because in the gospel of Mark, God “adopts” Jesus at his baptism.

>>532067

So what does that mean for the interpretation of John for us today? What are we to do with this?

>>532095

It’s really up to you how you want to read and understand it. The OP wants to have a critical discussion from the point of view of scholarship and criticism. Since that’s the case, we can easily make the case that Jesus’ divinity and when he became the Son of God evolved throughout each gospel to conform to early Christian belief.

This doesn’t affect my faith personally (though it might for Sola Scripturists) because I would simply appeal to the Church.

to the folks denying Christ's divinity, or claiming it as an evolved doctrine;

if you are discounting the Prophets of the Old Testament who continually point to the Christ being God Himself, you are rejecting God's revelation of Himself, and thus; apostate

>>532106

We are speaking exclusively about the synoptic gospels and how they relate to John. I am simply pointing out that Jesus never claims to be God or equates himself to God in the synoptic gospels. The point at which he becomes the Son of God (whatever that meant to first-century Christians) changes throughout Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And only in John was Jesus pre-existent. In the other gospels, he is given divinity after living as an ordinary human.

>>532067

>scribes added

Where do you get this from?

So it's not a question of net divinity, if you will, but change in divinity? Adoptionism vs begotten, not made?

>>532067

>If you start with the earliest gospel and move to the next oldest (ie Mark, Matthew, Luke, John)

Luke was probably written before Mark, but the original manuscript has been lost. Acts was written around the same time as Mark(62 A.D.), and we know the Gospel of Luke was written before Acts because Luke makes reference to it in the first chapter.

>scribes added

opinion discarded.

>>532136

Another thing useful in dating Luke is that Paul quotes it as scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18

>>532181

>perhaps even as late as very-late second century

That's actually impossible. The earliest fragment of John we have is from the early 2nd century.

>when an orthodoxy had been developed

The notion that orthodoxy is a development is ahistorical. It is based on speculation, not evidence (since there is no evidence of all these groups running around). It is more of a conspiracy theory than a historical theory.

>>532200

>The notion that orthodoxy is a development is ahistorical. It is based on speculation, not evidence (since there is no evidence of all these groups running around). It is more of a conspiracy theory than a historical theory.

what does this mean?

>>532203

It is the "Bauer hypothesis". An anti-Christian conspiracy theory of early Christian development

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Bauer

>Bauer concluded that what came to be known as orthodoxy was just one of numerous forms of Christianity in the early centuries. It was the eventual form of Christianity practiced in the 4th century that influenced the development of orthodoxy[3] and acquired the majority of converts over time. This was largely due to the conversion to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine I and consequently the greater resources available to the Christians in the eastern Roman empire capital he established (Constantinople). Practitioners of what became orthodoxy then rewrote the history of the conflict making it appear that this view had always been the majority one. Writings in support of other views were systematically destroyed.

As you can see, this theory involves the rejection of any evidence as being tampered with and pure speculation taking its place. In other words, it is a conspiracy theory.

>>532197

1 Timothy is likely another author writing as Paul, although this is contrary to Christian tradition. This is mainly due to the fact that much of the letter is about Gnosticism in Ephesus, which would make the letter be written in the late first century (at the earliest). Polycarp seems to make a reference to this letter in 120AD, so that’s the absolute latest it could have been written (though whether the reference is made is disputed).

>>532200

>actually impossible

Are you referring you P52?

>>532200

>ahistorical

So you think Paul knew about the trinity as we understand it today? What we’re all the councils for then? Be more specific, expand on this.

>>532206

>1 Timothy is likely another author writing as Paul

And how do we know this? Because if it is authentic our anti-Christian theory collapses.

>This is mainly due to the fact that much of the letter is about Gnosticism in Ephesus

It is debatable whether Gnosticism is referred to at all, and if it is it takes up very little of the epistle.

>which would make the letter be written in the late first century

Proto-Gnosticism begins when the Athenians who rejected Paul in Acts 17 adjusted his message so that it would be more palatable.

>>532208

>Are you referring you P52?

Yes

>So you think Paul knew about the trinity as we understand it today?

No. The development of the understanding of Christ's deity from John to Nicaea is undeniable, but it is equally undeniable that homoousianism is contrary to John's Gospel. What I mean is the idea that you have a bunch of wildly contradictory groups running around in the 1st century, and these all influenced each other as well as new groups, and one of these smorgasbord groups eventually became "orthodoxy" and then destroyed all evidence of this.

>>532212

>anti-Christian theory

It’s not anti-Christian, it’s New Testament history. Christian tradition and what professionals consider to be historical aren’t the same thing. You don’t need to take it as a personal attack on your faith either. Historians believe this stuff for a reason, they aren’t part of a grand conspiracy to discredit Christianity.

>debatable whether Gnosticism referred to at all

Lol okay bro. Just ignore the word Gnosis or Gnoseos in 1 Tim 6:20.

>P52

Literally the size of a credit card with a date that may go into the 200s.

>eventually became orthodoxy and destroyed all evidence of this

I would say that the evidence exists in the gospel of John and the level of christology.

>>531821

John was the last gospel, and based on the narrative it does seem to try to compliment the other gospel without wanting to repeat any of the biography. Otherwords, it's just filling the gaps about Jesus's, but in the same time the book has it own style as it's focused on numerology and wanted to object to the anti-christ's rejection of Christ like Jerome reported:

>That when St. John was in Asia, where there arose the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus, and others, who denied that Christ was come in the flesh—that is, denied his divine nature, whom he, in his Epistle, calls Antichrists, and St. Paul frequently condemns in his Epistles—he was forced by almost all the bishops of Asia, and the deputations of many other churches, to write more plainly concerning the divinity of our Saviour, and to soar aloft in a discourse on the Word, not more bold than happy.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.iv.viii.html

Here are some arguments the Gospel was written before 70 A.D. and a bit of theology.

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/john-acts/introduction-to-john/

>>532218

Actually that makes a lot of sense. St John was asked to recollect Christ, and in so doing, explain some points of theology. In writing for that, he focuses on the divinity of Christ, and reveals a different aspect than the other Gospels. Is this understanding consistent with an orthodox (small o) view?

>>532217

>It’s not anti-Christian, it’s New Testament history

In case you are deluding yourself that you are a Christian, let us put that to rest by making clear that you are not. Only people that actually believe the bible are Christian. Liberalism and Christianity are antithetical religions.

>Christian tradition and what professionals consider to be historical aren’t the same thing

I could care less what these naturalist, materialist, secularist anti-Christian (((professionals))) think.

>You don’t need to take it as a personal attack on your faith either

I am not taking it personally, but don't pretend it is anything other than an attack on my faith. If Mark is not infallible scripture, if it presents a merely human Jesus, if it contradicts the Gospel of John, then Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead.

>Historians believe this stuff for a reason

Yes, and that reason is their hatred of God (Romans 1:18). It certainly isn't because of the weight of the evidence, since as I already pointed out, this conspiracy theory, as a conspiracy theory, rejects the validity of the evidence.

>they aren’t part of a grand conspiracy to discredit Christianity

Everytime I've spoken to someone who promotes this garbage they've accused me of being a conspiracy theorist. No, it isn't some grand conspiracy, it's just sinners continuing in their war on God.

>Just ignore the word Gnosis or Gnoseos in 1 Tim 6:20

Gnosis isn't some special word in Greek like it is in English. It simply means knowledge. While the knowledge falsely so called in verse 20 might be the secret knowledge of the Gnostics, I think verse 21 contradicts that interpretation because it implies profession of it leads to apostasy, not that it itself is apostasy. Either way this is a postscript and can hardly be considered "much of the letter".

>Literally the size of a credit card

So what? Why does its size matter at all?

>with a date that may go into the 200s

No. The latest possible date is around 170, which would place the writing of the Gospel itself in the mid 2nd century at the absolute latest.

>I would say that the evidence exists in the gospel of John and the level of christology

Using the Gospel of John as evidence of such development is begging the question because it is assumes that high christology was not the original Christianity, which itself constitutes the rejection of the Christian faith.

>>532220

I think that would be the orthodox view, but I wouldn't be quick to say "different aspect than the other Gospels" in the sense John was imagining up Christology as he wrote his book. Most Christians would agree that Jesus Christ's life was properly record in the gospel and John really saw these events about Christ.

Of course the messiah was known to divine way before Son of God took on human flesh as we see in Isaiah 9:6-7, Jeremiah 23:1-6, Zechariah 9:9, and Psalm 110:1.

>>532229

Oh no, I'm not saying he made it up - it's just different recollections and different narrative framing of events.

>>532181

>No, because of the similarity of Luke and Matthew, even word-for-word paragraphs, what’s more likely is that they share the same, earlier sources

Yes, Matthew was likely written before Mark as well. Luke mentions that he isn't the first one to write about the life of Jesus in the beginning of his Gospel.

>>532206

>1 Timothy is likely another author writing as Paul

Not this crap again. How hard is it to understand that people write differently in personal letters to friends than they do in letters that are meant to be read aloud in front of large congregations?

>This is mainly due to the fact that much of the letter is about Gnosticism

Like >>532227 said the word Gnosis had nothing to do with the heretical sect we call "Gnosticism" today. Just like the word "Catholic" had nothing to do with what we now call the Roman Catholic Church.

>>532227

>In case you are deluding yourself that you are a Christian

LOL. I am a Christian, bro.

>Only people that actually believe the bible are Christian

You seem to be misunderstanding what history is and what it is not. History, from the point of view of a professional in the field, is not exactly the same as "what happened in the past." It's more like what would hold up under scrutiny from other historians. History is not a science where we can compare what historians have created with what actually happened because the past doesn't exist anymore.

If your faith is based on history and what historians believe, you're going to spend your entire life bending over backwards to try to make them compatible. My faith isn't based on history, it's based on what the Bible says and what the Church says. I can keep what is arguable from a historical standpoint and my faith separate.

>I could care less what these naturalist, materialist, secularist anti-Christian (((professionals))) think.

This is a good example of what I mean by "bending over backwards to make them compatible". The entire fields of history, textual criticism, new testament research, simply become a conspiracy to attack your faith. You basically reveal that you're an idiot here.

>I am not taking it personally, but don't pretend it is anything other than an attack on my faith.

Literally mental gymnastics.

>Historians believe this stuff for a reason

>Yes, and that reason is their hatred of God

LOL.

>Gnosis isn't some special word in Greek like it is in English. It simply means knowledge.

Sure, if you either ignore or are ignorant of the context of the rest of the book:

>Strange doctrines (1:3)

>Myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation… (1 Timothy 1:4).

>Confidently on matters different from the Law (1:6-8).

>That only spiritual authorities and powers were relevant and stood uninvolved from this world (2:4).

>To pay attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons (4:1).

>Marriage was forbidden (4:3)

>To abstain from foods (4:3)

>Worldly fables (4:7)

>Different doctrine and does not agree with sound words (6:3)

>Controversial questions and disputes about words (6:4-5).

>Worldly and empty chatter and opposing arguments which is falsely called 'knowledge' (6:2)

>Using the Gospel of John as evidence of such development is begging the question because it is assumes that high christology was not the original Christianity

Not sure what you mean by "original Christianity", but there are a lot of things we believe now that the Apostles would have no idea about. I'm confident the christology in John is the result of beliefs of adoptionists.

>>532277

>Yes, Matthew was likely written before Mark as well.

What makes it likely?

>>532297

>My faith isn't based on history, it's based on what the Bible says

Evidently not, since you believe the bible contains massive contradictions.

>I can keep what is arguable from a historical standpoint and my faith separate.

That may very well may be, but that can't be done for the Christian faith. Christianity is not like the pagan religions, it isn't a religion of myths, it authoritatively declares "This happened in this place and this time".

>The entire fields of history, textual criticism, new testament research, simply become a conspiracy to attack your faith

You seem completely oblivious that Christian scholarship actually exists.

>You basically reveal that you're an idiot here

euphoric

>Literally mental gymnastics

What a meaningless buzzword. Do you even know what that means?

>LOL.

>>>/reddit/

>Sure, if you either ignore or are ignorant of the context of the rest of the book:

Despite what you make it look like here, it's not like if you actually read 1 Timothy from start to finish it just screams "Gnostic". The epistle is instruction on how to rule the house of God. It isn't some big focus on and argument against Gnosticism, it is guidance in pastoral ministry. When read in context, all of those verses are very much part of the flow of the text and don't jump out at all. I recommend you stop reading scripture looking for some way to attack it.

>but there are a lot of things we believe now that the Apostles would have no idea about

Maybe you, but not me.

>I'm confident the christology in John is the result of beliefs of adoptionists

Well that's just the product of a combination of unbelief with ignorance. John is not attacking Adoptionism in his gospel, the thrust is against the Gnostics. Hence why such a focus on the incarnation, that Christ is true man and true God, because this is offensive to the Gnostics.

>>532306

>Everything is an attack on my faith

>You’re attacking the Bible

>Scholarship is attacking my faith

>Muh jews

>(((New Testament Scholars)))

Let me guess, you’re a KJV-onlyist, Independent Fundamental Baptist, you browse /pol/ daily, and you think Steven Anderson is brilliant.

>>532311

You know, as long as I live, I will never understand you Liberals. Why do you continue to pretend to be Christian? When you believe none of this is true and it's just an overglorified LARP for you, why don't you leave? Do you just enjoy being poison? Go on and be open about your apostasy, you're an atheist, own it.

>>532313

I’m not a liberal at all, I’m a very traditional catholic. The difference between you and I in this situation is that you’re a moron who can’t separate his own personal beliefs from what historians say. I am able to do so and I am comfortable in my faith. I don’t think every bible scholar is a secret satanist or a Jew trying to destroy faith.

You know when I said, “my faith isn’t based on history”, I was actually quoting Steven Anderson. Think about it, bro.

Also, stop making Christians look like retards with your conspiracy theories.

>>532318

Yeah and you’re a kike pretending to be a Christian to make us look dumb

>>532097

>>532067

you sound exactly like a crypto muslim. most probably are.

>>532127

>We are speaking exclusively about the synoptic gospels and how they relate to John.

no we're not

the Bible has to be taken as a whole… because that is precisely what the 4 Gospels reveal in Christ's discourses with men, opening up to them the Scripture God breathed several centuries before

>>532458

How about you read the OP again?

>>532297

>My faith isn't based on history, it's based on what the Bible says and what the Church says.

>also I believe important tenets of Christology were innovations (lies) of the gospel writers

>>532543

Are you seriously this dumb?

There is a difference between:

1. What can be learned and defended using the rules that all professionals must abide by. Again, history in this sense, is not the same as “what happened in the past”, it’s simply what historians can construct that stands up to scrutiny.

2. What I personally believe happened that does not stand up to scrutiny and is not understood using the method that professional historians use.

>>532534

how about you read the gospels again

they don't exist in a vacuum

>>532559

Buddy keep practicing. You'll get it convincing enough to slip past the judgement at some point.

ITT:

>OP: I want to talk about the differences between the synoptic gospels and John

>”Okay, anon, from a scholarly point of view, we can make a strong case for the evolution of Christ as divine, which is why he seems different in the Synoptics vs John.”

>anons are triggered

>STOP ATTACKING MY FAITH

>YOURE GOING TO HELL YOURE A FAKE CHRISTIAN

>(((historians))) (((bible scholars)))

>Academia is a conspiracy run by Jews

>You’re a Muslim

Wew

>gently mock suspected heretic

>they sperg out

It's better than prodding the witch's teat

>>532559

>What can be learned and defended using the rules that all professionals must abide by

Why do you believe it is a rule of proper scholarship that historians must presuppose that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead?

>>532106

>>532097

>>532095

>>532067

You're a damn liar. The "Son of God" is even explicitly mentioned WAY back in the Psalms, and he is called "BEGOTTEN," not adopted.

PSALM 2

7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

>>532594

You're a filthy liar. the Son of God is called BEGOTTEN in >>533314 Psalm 2. Your theory about "adoption" or otherwise denying the divinity of Christ is patently false.

>>533314

>>533318

We’re talking about the gospels, faggot.

>>533314

>>533318

See, anon, you have to keep this >>533376 in mind. This man is not a Christian, he does not believe the bible, he has a strange god called "History" and everything he believes about the past is informed by priests called "Historians" who also mediate for him in his worship of this false idol.

>>532067

>you can even see the evolution of the pre-existence of Jesus and different points

Micah 5:2 says his origins are "from everlasting."