Competing emphasis.

[Elijah John]

Bible literalists deny there are any contradictions in the Bible, they claim it is perfect. Even when contradictions are presented, they

a) engage in linguistic, verbal and theological gymnastics in order to deny what they consider the "apparent" contradiction.

b) simply deny the obvious contradiction with arguments that pretty much amount to little more than "is not"..... "that's not what it says" but often fail to tell us what the passage in question does say.

c) launch personal attacks against the person who presents the contradiction as "lacking understanding" or being "of the flesh" and therefore cannot understand the deeper truths of God, since they are "spiritually discerned".

d) appeal to the original Greek or Hebrew, and insist there is no contradiction in the original languages.

e) occasionally admit to a contradiction, but point out that the contradiction is not "significant".

But I wonder, can we get some Fundamentalists here to admit that there is an actual contradiction of emphasis between the Gospel of John vs the Synoptic Gospels?

In the Synoptics Jesus always glorifies the Father, and teaches his disciples to do the same.

By contrast,

In the Gospel of John, Jesus grasps for the glory that he "shared with the Father",

If this is not a contradiciton of emphsis, what is it?

And isn't this a major contradiciton, in effect, two completely different Jesus Christs?

[Overcomer]

Elijah John wrote:

In the Synoptics Jesus always glorifies the Father, and teaches his disciples to do the same.

By contrast,

In the Gospel of John, Jesus grasps for the glory that he "shared with the Father",

If this is not a contradiciton of emphsis, what is it?

And isn't this a major contradiciton, in effect, two completely different Jesus Christs?

First of all, the Law of Non-Contradiction says that something cannot be one thing and it's exact opposite at the same time. Having Jesus glorify God the Father and sharing glory with him as God the Son is not a contradiction. A contradiction would be:

Jesus says to glorify God. Jesus says NOT to glorify God.

Or a contradiction would be:

Jesus says NOT to glorify himself. Jesus says we MUST glorify him.

Those would be contradictions. But saying that both are worthy of glory isn't a contradiction, especially since Jesus, as God the Son, is as much God as God the Father.

Secondly, in the Synoptic gospels, Jesus models for us how we are to relate to God. Remember that he was here on earth as both God AND man -- and it's the man who was telling people of the glory of God the Father and what the appropriate response of men to him should be. Jesus was all about kingdom-living (as the Sermon on the Mount shows) and part of living rightly in God's kingdom is giving him the glory he is due.

John, on the other hand, wrote his gospel purposely to explain who Jesus Christ is and what he has done for humankind. Therefore, it makes sense that he quotes Jesus' statements about him being the only way to God, saying, "I am the door", "I am the good shepherd", "I am the way, the truth and the life", etc.

Jesus didn't have to "grasp" for glory, as you put it. He deserved glory as the second person of the Triune Godhead and as our Saviour who went to the cross out of love for us.

What's remarkable is the fact that, as such, he was willing to humble himself to come to earth and die on our behalf, especially since we had done nothing to deserve it. As C. S. Lewis put it, if we want to understand at least a little bit what it was like for God to come to earth as a man, we should think about how we would feel if we gave up our humanity to become an earthworm. That would be quite a demotion!

[Elijah John]

Elijah John wrote:

In the Synoptics Jesus always glorifies the Father, and teaches his disciples to do the same.

By contrast,

In the Gospel of John, Jesus grasps for the glory that he "shared with the Father",

If this is not a contradiciton of emphsis, what is it?

And isn't this a major contradiciton, in effect, two completely different Jesus Christs?

First of all, the Law of Non-Contradiction says that something cannot be one thing and it's exact opposite at the same time. Having Jesus glorify God the Father and sharing glory with him as God the Son is not a contradiction. A contradiction would be:

Jesus says to glorify God. Jesus says NOT to glorify God.

Or a contradiction would be:

Jesus says NOT to glorify himself. Jesus says we MUST glorify him.

Those would be contradictions. But saying that both are worthy of glory isn't a contradiction, especially since Jesus, as God the Son, is as much God as God the Father.

Points well made.

Secondly, in the Synoptic gospels, Jesus models for us how we are to relate to God. Remember that he was here on earth as both God AND man -- and it's the man who was telling people of the glory of God the Father and what the appropriate response of men to him should be. Jesus was all about kingdom-living (as the Sermon on the Mount shows) and part of living rightly in God's kingdom is giving him the glory he is due.

I agree, except with the "God AND man" part. But yours is the orthodox view, and mine the "heretical" view on the nature of Jesus being completely human.

John, on the other hand, wrote his gospel purposely to explain who Jesus Christ is and what he has done for humankind. Therefore, it makes sense that he quotes Jesus' statements about him being the only way to God, saying, "I am the door", "I am the good shepherd", "I am the way, the truth and the life", etc

So John interprets Jesus for us. You say by quoting certain statements of Jesus, I say the self-centered ones. (the I AM, etc.) Did the other Gospel Evangelists not notice such revolutionary statements? Or do you suppose it is possible that John himself put those words on his Jesus lips, for the purpose of theological interpretation.

Jesus didn't have to "grasp" for glory, as you put it. He deserved glory as the second person of the Triune Godhead and as our Saviour who went to the cross out of love for us.

"Grasps", "lays claim to". Deserved or not, that is not humbling oneself.

What's remarkable is the fact that, as such, he was willing to humble himself to come to earth and die on our behalf, especially since we had done nothing to deserve it. As C. S. Lewis put it, if we want to understand at least a little bit what it was like for God to come to earth as a man, we should think about how we would feel if we gave up our humanity to become an earthworm. That would be quite a demotion!

No earthworm can contain the humanity even of a single individual person. No man, no human can contain the infinite and eternal God, even if that person is Jesus of Nazareth. Exept perhaps, in John and Paul's universe.

Yes, the Grace and mercy of the Father is a remarkable and wonderous thing. But are you certain that Grace and Mercy is tied to the cross? I don't recall Jesus having emphasized that in his ministry. Paul, yes, but Jesus?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

One doesn't need to be a literalist or Fundamentalist to deny there are any contradictions. However, they obviously have a much worse time of proving their claims which makes them the low hanging fruit for winning a debate on contradictions in the biblical texts. Their doctrines are a dogmatic disaster, and hardly worth the trouble to bother with attempting to comprehend in the first place.

I find it a bit disingenuous to even bothering with engaging in debate with them when there are so many scholars and theologians who have expounded on these texts in so much more depth. Their profound insights reveal the coherent structure of not only individual texts, but the entire anthology of texts as a whole.

I suppose when one has made themselves familiar with those scholars and theologians there's really nothing left to talk about on the subject of contradictions which leaves only those who are incapable of discerning blatant literal contradictions.

I suppose one needs to begin with those passages that can't be literal and ask how does a literalist get around Jesus saying things like: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees"?

If we move in the other direction, the entire text becomes an allegory of sorts which spotlights that to say one word is to lie. One can't say anything without contradicting oneself.

[marco]

First of all, the Law of Non-Contradiction says that something cannot be one thing and it's exact opposite at the same time. Having Jesus glorify God the Father and sharing glory with him as God the Son is not a contradiction. A contradiction would be:

Jesus says to glorify God. Jesus says NOT to glorify God.

You've exemplified the negation of a statement. In general usage, rather than in strict logic, one thing can contradict another without being its exact negation. God alone is due worship and we are told this many times. If it is suggested that Jesus, too, merits worship, this IS a contradiction.

One way of circumventing the contradiction is the radical step of saying Jesus is God and reducing the problem of resulting polytheism to an unfathomable mystery. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude, from what Jeus said and how he said it, that he is not to be worshipped. That he is the way to God, the light and the conveyor of truth in no way raises him to the status of God. It is probable that John, following the Roman example of deifying the great, got carried away with his enthusiasm much as Matthew did when he spoke preposterously of holy corpses getting out of their graves. ( And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose.)

[shnarkle]

First of all, the Law of Non-Contradiction says that something cannot be one thing and it's exact opposite at the same time. Having Jesus glorify God the Father and sharing glory with him as God the Son is not a contradiction. A contradiction would be:

Jesus says to glorify God. Jesus says NOT to glorify God.

You've exemplified the negation of a statement. In general usage, rather than in strict logic, one thing can contradict another without being its exact negation. God alone is due worship and we are told this many times. If it is suggested that Jesus, too, merits worship, this IS a contradiction.

One way of circumventing the contradiction is the radical step of saying Jesus is God and reducing the problem of resulting polytheism to an unfathomable mystery. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude, from what Jeus said and how he said it, that he is not to be worshipped. That he is the way to God, the light and the conveyor of truth in no way raises him to the status of God. It is probable that John, following the Roman example of deifying the great, got carried away with his enthusiasm much as Matthew did when he spoke preposterously of holy corpses getting out of their graves. ( And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose.)

Another way to circumvent the contradiction is to simply state that when one has seen the son, they have seen the father who, as Paul points out is the origin of all that exists. To see the image of God isn't to see God, but simply God's image. If that's the only way to see God, then there really isn't anything else one can worship. Beside God's image there is nothing.

[marco]

Another way to circumvent the contradiction is to simply state that when one has seen the son, they have seen the father who, as Paul points out is the origin of all that exists. To see the image of God isn't to see God, but simply God's image. If that's the only way to see God, then there really isn't anything else one can worship. Beside God's image there is nothing.

Sadly this does not circumvent the contradiction inherent in "Worship the Father alone" and " "we may worship Jesus."

Seeing God's goodness in the saintliness of humans is fine; Jesus shows the WAY to the Father and reflects, in his humanity, what the Father would want us to do. This is a very long way from saying that Jesus can be worshipped: he can't.

When Muslims say there is no God but Allah they do not allow Muhammad to be worshipped; he is given the highest honour, as is Mary, in Catholicism. The problem raised is whether worshipping Jesus contravenes God's injunction to worship him alone. Muslims do not worship Jesus; to them he is a holy prophet.

[shnarkle]

Another way to circumvent the contradiction is to simply state that when one has seen the son, they have seen the father who, as Paul points out is the origin of all that exists. To see the image of God isn't to see God, but simply God's image. If that's the only way to see God, then there really isn't anything else one can worship. Beside God's image there is nothing.

Sadly this does not circumvent the contradiction inherent in "Worship the Father alone" and " "we may worship Jesus."

The contradictions inherent in the minds of those who make up contadictory ideas to articulate is their problem. If they can't see what the texts plainly state, that doesn't negate the fact that it is circumvented. There is nothing that states "worship the father alone" Paul points out that Christ is the lord who is one while the father is the origin of everything. There is only the image, and only those who can see that the image isn't what it represents will ever be able to distinguish between the two. The rest will be idolators.

Seeing God's goodness in the saintliness of humans is fine; Jesus shows the WAY to the Father and reflects, in his humanity, what the Father would want us to do. This is a very long way from saying that Jesus can be worshipped: he can't.

Exactly. Very well said.

[Elijah John]

There is nothing that states "worship the father alone"

Worship none but YHVH and serve only him

(Luke 4.8, Deut 6.13)

Or is "YHVH" (LORD) not the name of the Father?

[shnarkle]

There is nothing that states "worship the father alone"

Worship none but YHVH and serve only him

(Luke 4.8, Deut 6.13)

Or is "YHVH" (LORD) not the name of the Father?

Nope. Paul unpacks it to reveal that Christ is the revealed God of the bible, but again one cannot reveal the transcendent except insofar as revealing the way to the transcendent, and that is though Christ alone. Paul shows who is God and who is the lord by expanding on the Shema

Hear, O Israel: The LORD thy God is one LORD. Deuteronomy 6:4

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:6

The origin of everything that exists isn't the means by which everything exists, and the origin of something isn't something; it's the transcendent, which is essentially nothing

Christ points this out by saying that he doesn't do anything that he doesn't see the father doing. What does Christ do? He empties himself of his divinity, his humanity, and eventually we are presented with an empty tomb. the father therefore is the origin of this process of emptying, or rather what you get when you are empty; i.e. nothing. Christ is this empty vessel filled with essentially nothing which is how it remains empty. Empty vessels are filled with nothing.