The Worst Book In The New Testament Is Read The Most

The three gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke agree on some parts of the story. They were written withing three or four decades  of the alleged time of Jesus.

Those three books are consistent in that Jesus was a human being who later became a god. When we get to the book of John the story changes.  It is the Book of John that is most read.

By the time the Book of John was written, six decades after Jesus, churches had been meeting for generations. The majority being illiterate worshipers were read to at gatherings. We all know that when we read something out loud in front of people it flows differently than when we read silently. TV newscasters are skilled at writing for being read out loud.

It is logical to assume the same thing happened back then. Reading material like Mark and Matthew would have been altered over the years so it read better out loud. Edited thousands of times to make it more readable and entertaining it became the Book of John.

By the time that Book was entered into the Bible sweepstakes Jesus was no longer a man who became a god. He was a god who became a man. He was a more dramatic and had Trump-like personality. For some reason that made for a better storytelling. Maybe tastes had changed.

Because the Book of John is so out of sync with other parts of the Bible it is not regarded as history by critical scholars.

 

23 Responses

  1. mark anthony

    what critical scholars?? three or four decades? how about two:33AD to about 50-55AD. Mark 50AD.

  2. Catcher

    Re, “read the most”. Not at all ! ! In liturgical churches, Each of the daily, (including Sundays,) the readings contain 1.One Old Testament reading, 2. One epistle reading, . and 3. One Gospel reading, John being only one of the four. In total, all the readings for the day contain material that are directly related. In many daily readings, John is not included.

  3. Juan Ruiz

    There are 2 sets of gospels: MK, MY,and LK, which are called the synoptics. Then there is John, which is totally differnet. No parables, no Nativity stories, no baptism. “In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” A pre-existing Jesus as god. It was no coincidence the John 1:1 is a parody of Genesis 1;1. The John Gospel is meant to show his community that Jesus was completely separated from the Jewish Messiah tradition. That he had nothing to do with it. For John’s community, Jesus was, as Meekes pointed out, the “Stranger from Heaven.” He went through the motions, suffered death with no Passion, and arose. For John’s community, it was not the death that saved them, but recognition of him.

    1. Henry

      Clearly, all four gospels are different from one another, but yet well harmonized. I see you adequately itched Jon’s ears with one of your posts a couple weeks ago to compel him to further carry your water, only if I did a little checking, I suspect I would find your post regurgitation of the higher critics. Nothing new under the sun.

      1. Henry 10:09 but yet well harmonized.

        You sound like a graduate of Moody’s Bible Institute. Former grads say they mastered answers to every accusation about inconsistencies in the Bible. When the Jesus character in the Bible always claimed in the early three books he was a man who was made a God and then the opposite in John…let me think. I’ve got it, in the early gospels he was both a man turned into a god and a god turned into a man but Jesus forgot to mention the latter. Yes, harmonized.

        1. Henry

          2:08, you are embracing an either/or fallacy. Niels Bohr also had difficulty in reconciling wave/particle duality. The wave/particle paradox is scientifically accepted. All to most atheists accept this, yet they struggle with human/God. It must be an either/or for them, and in reality, all they crave and work towards is nor, without evidence of course.

          1. Henry 10:27 That is a peculiar use of the word, evidence. Consistent use of the word would be that if someone stands up today in a meeting, or, holds a press conference and says, “I am both divine and human.” Both you and I would say, “Give us some evidence.”

            We differ, however, on ancient writing by unknown writers. You are saying that writing needs no evidence to be believed. I’m saying it requires the same evidence as the person who makes the same claim today.

            I’m sorry you are struggling.

          2. Henry

            Multiple witness is evidence. Add to that some witnesses were quite hostile and had no motivation to support Christianity.

        2. Davis Goedker

          Jesus Christ was always and will always be God, and that is a consistent and uncontradictory throughout the Bible.

          1. Davis 6:39 Thanks for the comment.

            Jesus Christ was always and will always be God, and that is a consistent and uncontradictory throughout the Bible

            That Jesus was always God is certainly something many believe. That was not the issue in the blog. The issue was what those who wrote the material attributed to Jesus had him say about himself. According to scholars I have read, he did not say he was God before he was born in the first three Gospels. Only when writers assigned him a Trump-like personality in the Book of John did he claim he was God at the beginning of God.

  4. Mike

    Don’t waste your breathe, Catcher and Mark Anthony. All the atheists/agnostics that chime in on this blog don’t need any facts to make their arguments. They just use this blog to trash Christians and they get great entertainment out of doing it. Sad!

    1. Mike 8:18 on this blog don’t need any facts to make their arguments.

      So, it’s not factual that Jesus was portrayed as a man who became a god in Mark, Matthew and Luke but a god who became a man in John? Please correct us.

      1. Catcher

        @9;17; Not going to get into a argument here, but an understanding of a few key words / phrases would help with the poorly worded terms such as; “man who became a god….but a god who became a man”
        Hypostatic union,—hypostasis, —- Consubstantial —- The two natures in, (Not of) Christ,

  5. MJB

    I am very intrigued how Atheist can use time to explain the happen stance of DNA but clearly cannot believe the truth that real people, not time, witnessed and authored the Bible. I look forward the hearing the Free Thinkers take on the letters to the Corinthians, Acts and Romans. Those letters must have been “fake news”, the challenges and divide within early Christianity were made up… Paul either was not real or was on acid because he spent his entire adult life Testifying as a witness of Jesus Christ.

    The Gospels are not folklore and while you see the similarities of different books to be collusion of thought I see it as confirmation.

    Free Thinkers thank you once again for entertaining me! Your arguments, free thinking analysis and original thoughts are truly is my pleasure!!

  6. Mike

    MJB, most Christians will admit that the Bible is a book of faith, but we know that there are a lot of substantiated facts that have been unearthed over the years to say that Bible believing Christians do not have “blind faith”. For one thing, the subject of DNA that you point out. There are a whole host of other examples of the intricacy of God’s creation but that is all stubbornly denied by the unbeliever who rants: ‘Where is your proof”.

    For that reason, you can’t really have a debate with an atheist/agnostic since there is no common form of reference. However, if you were, you would point out many incidents during the first century that just don’t add up, if you were to “fake” a religion.

    Women were not trusted as reliable eyewitnesses, because they were thought to be too emotional. Why have women at the tomb be the key witnesses to Christ’s Resurrection if this is all fake? Why have your key “hero” among the disciples(Peter) deny knowing Christ 3 times. For that matter, why have all of Christ’s disciples act so cowardly or be so seemingly dense about the Man/God they followed for three years? Why did God pick an enemy of the faith(Paul), and choose him to be its most ardent evangelist of the faith?

    The answer, of course, is something happened that change their perception of the world. Why else would so many early Christians submit to persecution and die in grisly deaths if this was all a fake?
    If you haven’t seen the movie, “the Case of Christ”, check it out on Netflix. It does a good job of going through many of these points. Based on a true story.

    1. Joseph 1:40 Thank you for commenting.

      Please show your sources/provide names of scholars (critical scholars) that you claim do not accept …John as history.

      Fair question. Most recently I have been rereading Bart Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God…. A while back I watched some debates between Ehrman and New Testament scholars who are believers. I recall a couple of believers who also dismissed the Book of John as a good source of Jesus history.

      I will quote here a summary of chapter 3 “Did Jesus Think he Was God?” In that chapter Ehrman points to NT quotes in the early three gospels where Jesus does not claim divinity. Then in the Book of John that changes. Ehrman summarizes..many traditions in the Gospels do not derive from the life of the historical Jesus but represent embellishments made by storytellers who were trying to convert people by convincing them of Jesus’ superiority…

      I have others on my bookshelf who see the Book of John in the same way, Richard Carrier, etc., but Ehrman is the best known. Thanks again for commenting.

    1. Matt 4:49 We’ve discussed here before that Area Voices will end May 15. Will this blog no long appear Forum Communications properties? You like this blog so much you need to check out the Forum site after May 15.

Comments are closed.