FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-03-2009, 07:13 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default Telling Your Source He Doesn't Know What He Is Talking About. John as Denial of Mark

JW:
Witness is like Real Estate in that it has 3 important criteria to determine its value:

Source, source and source.

For purposes of this Thread it will be assumed that "Mark" is the original Gospel narrative and therefore the primary source for "John". It will also be assumed that "Mark" has a primary objective of discrediting the Disciples as witnesses while "John" has the opposite primary objective of crediting the Disciples as witnesses. We have the ironic result than that while using "Mark" as a primary source, "John" does not simply edit or just change "Mark's" primary objective, but makes it the opposite. This conclusion is useful in the raging MJ/GJ/HJ debate as it is support that "John" had no available historical witness and relatively minor alternative legends casting doubt on HJ.

What this Thread will be concerned with than is not whether "John" is a reaction and denial of "Mark's" presentation of the Disciples as witnesses because this reaction and denial is an assumption of this Thread, but rather how "John" reacts and denies.

On to the evidence:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_1

Quote:
John 1:35 Again on the morrow John was standing, and two of his disciples;

John 1:36 and he looked upon Jesus as he walked, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God!

John 1:37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

John 1:38 And Jesus turned, and beheld them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? And they said unto him, Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher), where abideth thou?

John 1:39 He saith unto them, Come, and ye shall see. They came therefore and saw where he abode; and they abode with him that day: it was about the tenth hour.

John 1:40 One of the two that heard John [speak], and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter`s brother.
Compare to:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

Quote:
Mark 1:16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.

Mark 1:17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

Mark 1:18 And straightway they left the nets, and followed him.
JW:
Note that "Mark" is interested in literary style here with pleasing language. Simon and Andrew were fishers who wanted to become fishers of men. Long on style and short on motivation.

"John" has changed the intro of the Disciples to show that they were already in the service (so to speak) and presumably actively looking for the Messiah. In other words (so to speak), they are motivated.

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.

The Sage and Messiah of Reason candidate, Bart Ehrman, points out that people are in the habit of reading the Gospels vertically rather than horizontally. Reading vertically you have a gradual transition from discrediting the Disciples to crediting the Disciples as follows:

1) "Mark" = Discredits the Disciples. No Disciple source for Jesus' witness. The source is the Gospel = revelation.

2) "Matthew" = Takes "Mark's" basic story with some editing to reduce discrediting and add crediting and ending which flips discrediting to crediting. Implication that the Disciples are the source for Jesus' witness.

3) "Luke" = Takes less of "Mark's" basic story with more editing to reduce discrediting and add crediting and ending which flips discrediting to crediting. Adds companion work (Acts) which makes explicit that the Disciples are the source for Jesus' witness.

4) "John" = Only takes the frame of "Mark" and completely remakes to credit the Disciples as witnesses from the start and not only make explicit that the Disciples are the source for Jesus' witness but also the source for the Gospel ("John"). You've come a long way baby Jesus.

Remove the middlemen/women though and the contrast between "Mark" and "John" becomes clear (or at least should become clear).




Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 12:49 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
JW:
The Sage and Messiah of Reason candidate, Bart Ehrman, points out that people are in the habit of reading the Gospels vertically rather than horizontally. Reading vertically you have a gradual transition from discrediting the Disciples to crediting the Disciples as follows:

1) "Mark" = Discredits the Disciples. No Disciple source for Jesus' witness. The source is the Gospel = revelation.
Yup. In Mark, when the ground rule for competence in the gospel is spelled out (4:10-11), the disciples (the twelve) are not spoken to by Jesus. When Jesus was alone, those with him and the twelve, asked him. He answers them. The exchange between Jesus and the Pauline gospel "knowers" is telepathic.


Quote:
2) "Matthew" = Takes "Mark's" basic story with some editing to reduce discrediting and add crediting and ending which flips discrediting to crediting. Implication that the Disciples are the source for Jesus' witness.

3) "Luke" = Takes less of "Mark's" basic story with more editing to reduce discrediting and add crediting and ending which flips discrediting to crediting. Adds companion work (Acts) which makes explicit that the Disciples are the source for Jesus' witness.
Both Matt and Luke, in the parallel passages to Mk 4:10-11 (Mt 13:10-15, Lk 8:9-10) remove the original koan and make the disciples (in "local" time and space to Jesus) ask the question about the parables. By having Jesus endorse them, ('to you it has been given)' they become witnesses to the gospel !

What a dirty little trick ! :huh:

Quote:
4) "John" = Only takes the frame of "Mark" and completely remakes to credit the Disciples as witnesses from the start and not only make explicit that the Disciples are the source for Jesus' witness but also the source for the Gospel ("John"). You've come a long way baby Jesus.
Don't agree at all ! John restores the original Markan paradigm. True, he does not re-discredit Peter and Co. but puts them in status under "the beloved disciple", which I take is a compacted and extruded version of the Markan "knower" of the kingdom imported into the story. John further operates with "the paraclete" as the ultimate arbiter of truth across time zones. These kinds of props would have run counter to apostolic authority in Johanine churches.

Jiri

Quote:
Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
Solo is offline  
Old 03-06-2009, 07:24 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
JW:
The Sage and Messiah of Reason candidate, Bart Ehrman, points out that people are in the habit of reading the Gospels vertically rather than horizontally. Reading vertically you have a gradual transition from discrediting the Disciples to crediting the Disciples as follows:

1) "Mark" = Discredits the Disciples. No Disciple source for Jesus' witness. The source is the Gospel = revelation.
Yup. In Mark, when the ground rule for competence in the gospel is spelled out (4:10-11), the disciples (the twelve) are not spoken to by Jesus. When Jesus was alone, those with him and the twelve, asked him. He answers them. The exchange between Jesus and the Pauline gospel "knowers" is telepathic.
JW:
Let he who has ears hear. What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Excellent observation Jiri but you are speaking "Mark's" language so the multitudes here will not understand the secret meaning:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_4:10

Quote:
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parables.
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...ter=4&verse=10

καὶ ὅτε ἐγένετο κατὰ μόνας ἠρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ(the ones) περὶ(around) αὐτὸν(him) σὺν(with) τοῖς(the) δώδεκα(twelve) τὰς παραβολάς

This is not the twelve asking Jesus about the parable. It is "the ones" with the twelve.

We have the motivation than for copyists to Forge. Metzger and even Wee Willie Wielker, fail to inventory this, as my uncle used to say (referring to Washington Redskins games), "very critical" textual variation. We have to turn to Zuhl! for the answers:

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=...ef=Mark+4%3A10

Quote:
καὶ ὅτε WH
ὅτε δὲ Byz ς
ἠρώτων WH
ἠρώτησαν Byz ς
περὶ αὐτὸν σὺν τοῖς δώδεκα Byz ς WH
μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ (see parallel passage) D W Θ f13 28 565 it syrs (Origenlat)
τὰς παραβολάς *א B C L Δ 892 pc vgst syrs cop WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
τὴν παραβολὴν A 0133 f1 Byz vgcl syrp syrh copbo(ms) ς ND Dio
τις ἡ παραβολὴ αὐτὴ D W Θ f13 28 565 it Origenlat
Note that some English translations try to avoid the problem with mistranslations:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1;49;77;15;16;

Quote:
New International Version (NIV)

10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables.


New American Standard Bible (NASB)

10 As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables.


Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

Why Jesus Used Parables
10 When He was alone with the Twelve, (A) those who were around Him asked Him about the parables. (B)


Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

10 And when he was alone, those about him, with the twelve, did ask him of the simile,


Darby Translation (DARBY)

10 And when he was alone, those about him with the twelve asked him [as to] the parables.
What is also ReMarkable as supporting "Mark's" presentation here as not for the benefit of the disciples is the use of "ἠρώτων", the imperfect form of "ask". They were "asking", indicating this was not intended to be a historical (past) conversation. A fine example of those on the outside, without understanding of "Mark's" meaning, misunderstanding it as bad grammar rather than style.

In the big picture, notice the delicious ironic contrast sandwich "Mark" creates, better served in my Mark "I Am IronyMan". How Much Ironic Contrast, Transfer and Reversal Did He kraM? Thread, where "Mark" creates an ironic situation by itself, sticks irony in the middle and contrasts the top irony with the bottom irony:

[bread]Jesus teaches openly to the multitudes but the meaning is secret[/bread]

[meat]Jesus' teaching is about teaching[/meat]

[bread]Jesus teaches secretly to the few but the meaning is opened[/bread]

If there's anything divine about the Christian Bible its the literary skill of this author. I feel like Butch Cassidy when he was being chased by the posse and kept saying, "Who are those guys?". "Mark" is a long way from a hearer of an illiterate Galilean fisherman's teachings about Jesus writing what he remembered (but not in order).

More in line with this Thread note that "John" has to exorcise the entire parable of the Sower (the key parable of the Synoptics) because "John" is in complete and utter denial that there was any failure to understand Jesus on the part of the Disciples. The biggest enemy of "John's" Jesus is not Magus, Cerinthius or Marcion. It's "Mark's" Jesus.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 03-09-2009, 07:39 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

JW:
Continuing with a comparison of "John" verses "Mark" as to sources:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

Quote:
1:19 And going on a little further, he saw James the [son] of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the boat mending the nets.

1:20 And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and went after him.
Note the literary style here. Jesus calls and James and John immediately follow leaving their father and their wealth behind. As Hobbes would say, "Mark" has a wonderful economy of speech."

"John" rejects "Mark's" rejection of family theme. He can not use his source's James and John calling story because it is a rejection of family story. Note that "John" never names "James" and "John" as disciples. I repeat, note that "John" never names "James" and "John" as disciples. As that great 20th century philosopher, ALF, used to say, "Look it up.". "John" does have "those of Zebedee" at the end which may be intended to refer to the James and John of his source.

"John" was likely originally written as figurative with the "beloved disciple" as a figurative source and than OCD (mis)took it as literal and claimed the "beloved disciple" was a historical source and later, specifically "John" (just as "Luke" did with his source).

Exorcising "Mark's" rejection of family theme was not enough for "John" as he felt the need to explicitly deny it via narrative at the end:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_19

Quote:
19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own [home].


Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 03-13-2009, 07:35 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

JW:
Continuing with a comparison of "John" verses "Mark" as to sources:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_1

Quote:
1:40 One of the two that heard John [speak], and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter`s brother.

1:41 He findeth first his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted, Christ).
JW:
No Messianic Secret here. Andrew and Simon immediately ID and understand Jesus is the messiah. Compare to the source:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_8

Quote:
8:27 And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am?

8:28 And they told him, saying, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets.

8:29 And he asked them, But who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

8:30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
JW:
Here, at the end of Jesus' Ministry (and right before the Passion - The Transfiguration splits them in two Acts) Peter guesses that Jesus is the Christ but Jesus tells him to dummy up (no deal). "John" is reacting to and denying "Mark's" disciples as not knowing and understanding who Jesus was. The reaction is to place the knowledge and understanding at the beginning.

Likewise for Jesus' other role in "Mark", the son of God. In the source:

Quote:
15:39 And when the centurion, who stood by over against him, saw that he so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Here the disciples never ID Jesus or understand what his only important quality was, the son of god. Their lack of understanding is contrasted by an outsider's (Roman) who is the first to understand.

"John's" reaction:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_1

Quote:
Nathanael answered him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art King of Israel.
"John" immediately has his disciples ID and understand Jesus as the son of god.

Bonus material for Solo. Note that in "Mark" Jesus predicts his Passion and plainly communicates it to his Disciples:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_8

Quote:
8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

8:32 And he spake the saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
"Mark's" Jesus does this 3 times to make clear that it was a clear communication to the Disciples who clearly never understood the prediction.

"John's" reaction is to deny there was any clear Passion prediction for the Disciples to understand by exorcising it:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_16

Quote:
16:16 A little while, and ye behold me no more; and again a little while, and ye shall see me.

16:17 [Some] of his disciples therefore said one to another, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye behold me not; and again a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?

16:18 They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? We know not what he saith.

16:19 Jesus perceived that they were desirous to ask him, and he said unto them, Do ye inquire among yourselves concerning this, that I said, A little while, and ye behold me not, and again a little while, and ye shall see me?

16:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.


Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 03-25-2009, 07:16 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

JW:
Continuing with a comparison of "John" verses "Mark" as to sources:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

Quote:
Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.

Mark 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:

Mark 1:11 And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.
JW:
A lot of information here:

1) Ironic Contrast/Balance Style - At the start Jesus comes from the dead - Nazareth was a cemetery at the time. At the end Jesus comes from the dead.

2) Ironic Contrast/Balance Style - At the start Jesus comes from nowhere out of Galilee. At the end Jesus goes to nowhere in Galilee.

3) Ironic Contrast/Balance Style - At the start the spirit is creative ("rent asunder"). At the end it is destructive (curtain "rent asunder").

4) Contrast - The baptism of men (John) is physical (water). The baptism of God (Dove) is spiritual (air).

5) Separationist - At the start the Spirit goes "into" Jesus (not "onto"). At the end the Spirit leaves Jesus. This is why the Christ, speaking through Jesus, explains that it will be hard to recognize when it returns. You have to recognize the Spirit, not the man.

6) For our purposes in this Thread Jesus is clearly baptized by John physically, with water, but as to source witness it is only Jesus who is the witness ("And straightway coming up out of the water", "he saw", "Thou" and "thee").

"John's" reaction:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_1

Quote:
John 1:29 On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!

John 1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man who is become before me: for he was before me.

John 1:31 And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing in water.

John 1:32 And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him.
JW:
Note that "John" does not show Jesus being baptized by "John". The purpose of the baptism in "Mark" is to show the christological moment (the spiritual baptism) to the Reader. Jesus is the only narrative witness. There is no claim of any narrative witness who would subsequently be a source. "John" rents asunder "Mark's" meaning of the Spirit descending into Jesus. In "Mark", "Mark"
itself is the source which shows the christological moment of Jesus becoming Christ. In "John", John the Baptist is the source who claims that the Spirit descending merely identifies Christ, as opposed to "Mark's" creation of Christ (which "John" places at the Beginning).

"John" is not a compliment to "Mark" told from a different perspective. It is a flat out denial and rejection of Markan theology.



Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 03-29-2009, 01:58 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

JW:
Continuing with a comparison of "John" verses "Mark" as to sources:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

Quote:
Mark 1:20 And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and went after him.

Mark 1:21 And they go into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught.

Mark 1:22 And they were astonished at his teaching: For he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes.

Mark 1:23 And straightway there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,

Mark 1:24 saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Nazarene? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

Mark 1:25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.

Mark 1:26 And the unclean spirit, tearing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him.

Mark 1:27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What is this? a new teaching! with authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.

Mark 1:28 And the report of him went out straightway everywhere into all the region of Galilee round about.
JW:
The key points:

1) "Mark's" Jesus is a man of action during the First Act or Ministry. Everything is done "immediately". This will be Ironically contrasted with Jesus as a man of inaction during the Second Act or Passion. "Mark's" source for the Passion is Galatians where Paul instructs to "crucify" one's passions to be like Jesus. Paul explains here the figurative meaning of "crucify" (my guess is this was also supported by the two exorcised letters to the Corinthians). "Mark" took Paul's instruction to Paul's audience and applied it to "Mark's" Jesus.

2) In the original story the key conclusion of the audience is authority. Everyone agrees that Jesus has authority. This leaves the next and final question open. By who's authority?

3) Regarding the answer to this question only the spirit (evil) knows the answer ("I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God)". Private and sub-text knowledge.

4) As usual the story is told in pleasing language with the chiasms consistent with Aristotle's definition of Greek Tragedy.

"John's" reaction:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_2

Quote:
John 2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

John 2:2 and Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples, to the marriage.

John 2:3 And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

John 2:4 And Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

John 2:5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

John 2:6 Now there were six waterpots of stone set there after the Jews` manner of purifying, containing two or three firkins apiece.

John 2:7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

John 2:8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the ruler of the feast. And they bare it.

John 2:9 And when the ruler of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants that had drawn the water knew), the ruler of the feast calleth the bridegroom,

John 2:10 and saith unto him, Every man setteth on first the good wine; and when [men] have drunk freely, [then] that which is worse: thou hast kept the good wine until now.

John 2:11 This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
JW:

1) "John" exorcises contrived sounding "immediately" with "the third day".

2) "John" exorcises the issue of authority.

3) Most importantly, "John" rejects and denies "Mark's" primary theme that the disciples never believed in Jesus. John asserts that the disciples believed in Jesus at the start.

4) What I find most biased about the Christians here is a denial of Markan chiasms. See what kind of chiasm you can make out of "John's" story above.

"John" is not a compliment to "Mark" told from a different perspective. It is a flat out denial and rejection of Markan theology.



Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 04-04-2009, 06:55 AM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

JW:
Continuing with a comparison of "John" verses "Mark" as to sources:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

Quote:
Mark 1:23 And straightway there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,

24 saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Nazarene? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.

26 And the unclean spirit, tearing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him.

27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What is this? a new teaching! with authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.
JW:
The key points:

1) "Mark's" Jesus' first sign was casting out an evil spirit.

2) "Mark's" Jesus received the spirit of God.

3) "Mark's" Jesus' Mission is to give the holy spirit.

4) "Mark's" Jesus goes through Galilee casting out demons.

5) "Mark's" Jesus instructs his disciples to cast out demons.

6) "Mark's" Jesus loses it (his spirit) on the stake.

In "Mark's" theological universe the diechotomy is good vs. evil spirit. The good spirit is God's and the bad spirit is Satan's.

"John's" reaction:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_2

Quote:
John 2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

John 2:2 and Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples, to the marriage.

John 2:3 And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

John 2:4 And Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

John 2:5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

John 2:6 Now there were six waterpots of stone set there after the Jews` manner of purifying, containing two or three firkins apiece.

John 2:7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

John 2:8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the ruler of the feast. And they bare it.

John 2:9 And when the ruler of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants that had drawn the water knew), the ruler of the feast calleth the bridegroom,

John 2:10 and saith unto him, Every man setteth on first the good wine; and when [men] have drunk freely, [then] that which is worse: thou hast kept the good wine until now.

John 2:11 This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
JW:

1) "John's" Jesus' first sign was turning water into wine.

2) "John's" Jesus never received the spirit of God.

3) "John" has exorcised Jesus giving the holy spirit.

4) "John's" Jesus never casts out a demon. Look it up.

5) "John's" Jesus never instructs his disciples to cast out demons.

6) "John's" Jesus does not lose it (his spirit) on the stake. He does give it up though.

In "John's" theological universe the diechotomy is flesh vs. spirit. Flesh is bad and spirit is always good.

"John" is not a compliment to "Mark" told from a different perspective. It is a flat out denial and rejection of Markan theology.



Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 04-09-2009, 07:07 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
In "Mark's" theological universe the diechotomy is good vs. evil spirit. The good spirit is God's and the bad spirit is Satan's.

"John's" reaction:

...

In "John's" theological universe the diechotomy is flesh vs. spirit. Flesh is bad and spirit is always good.

"John" is not a compliment to "Mark" told from a different perspective. It is a flat out denial and rejection of Markan theology.
JW:
I've created a subcategory of Themes for the error category of Contradictions at ErrancyWiki which includes the above Thematic contradiction between "Mark" and "John". Everyone is welcome to contribute except for Harvey Dubish.



Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 04-11-2009, 08:51 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
JW:
Bonus material for Solo. Note that in "Mark" Jesus predicts his Passion and plainly communicates it to his Disciples:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_8

"Mark's" Jesus does this 3 times to make clear that it was a clear communication to the Disciples who clearly never understood the prediction.
Mark dumbs down Paul's opponents, 'the enemies of the cross' (of Phl 3:18-3:21) and sets up the passion as the
allegorical moral triumph of the Pauline church over the pillars' disciples now scattered in the Diaspora.

Quote:
"John's" reaction is to deny there was any clear Passion prediction for the Disciples to understand by exorcising it:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_16

Quote:
16:16 A little while, and ye behold me no more; and again a little while, and ye shall see me.

16:17 [Some] of his disciples therefore said one to another, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye behold me not; and again a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?

16:18 They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? We know not what he saith.

16:19 Jesus perceived that they were desirous to ask him, and he said unto them, Do ye inquire among yourselves concerning this, that I said, A little while, and ye behold me not, and again a little while, and ye shall see me?

16:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.
Ahhhh......! My favourite passage from John ! Do you understand what John is saying ?

Now you see me...and now you don't....you'll be sorrowful (depressed) when you miss me and joyfully exuberant (euphoric manic) when you see me. ...........

And when you have me, you are in a marriage feast - you drink water, and I make your head spin as if it was wine. I'll even make you look drunk. Btw, the 'marriage' and 'bridegroom' cipher also appears to derive from Paul and Mark (2 Cor 11:2, Mk 2:19-20).

Now, obviously there are differences between Mark and John: John actually destroys the underlying Markan plan of the passion, as the definitive "cycling out" of the spirit. The gospel of Mark is based on a single "spirit" cycle (and perhaps that is why he leaves out the "temptation" in the desert which it appears he knows about but which allegorizes the cycling out of the manic grandeur in another way). John, I take to be a "rapid cycler" (i.e. someone who goes up and down very quickly) something best illustrated by the viscous emotions of Jesus during the Lazarus extraction scene.
As for the disciples; as in Mark they do not 'see' Jesus the same way as the one who is 'loved', i.e. chosen to know the deeper mystery. Like the knowing followers in Mark, this character is a non-local insert into the story. Ihe important departure from Mark is in that in John's community, those who do not 'know' the mystery are not being condescended to but patronized (as per the anti-Thomasian blessing of Jn 20:29) by the gospel.

Jiri

Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - JW

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page[/QUOTE]
Solo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:41 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.