2 John/Synoptical contradictions
Christian Doscher errancy@infidels.org
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 01:33:07 PDT (00929712787, 19990618083309.16763.qmail@hotmail.com)
1) John the Baptist is already in prison before Jesus gains disciple Andrew,
(Mark 1:14-16)
but
2) John the Baptist is standing with Andrew when Jesus calls Andrew, (John
1:35-40)
You can't say Andrew was standing next to John the Baptist, visiting him in
prison, at the time that Jesus called Andrew because John 3:22-24 says Jesus
already had disciples at the same time that John was baptizing people, even
specifying that Jesus had disciples BEFORE the Baptist entered prison.
Since Andrew was the FIRST disciple, he is clearly part of Jesus group in
John 3:22-24, thus John's Gospel doesn't seperate Andrew from the Baptist
with the latter's prison stay.
Because Andrew was the first disciple called, how can Mark 1:14-16 place
Andrew's calling during John the Baptist's imprisonment, but John 1:35-40
has Andrew literally walking away from John the Baptist at the Jordan River
in response to Jesus' calling him?
Did John's imprisonment by Herod consist of being banished to the Jordan
River?
Another contradiction…
Who was the anonymous disciple alongside Andrew in John 1:35?
Failing to Identify him makes 13 disciples, contradicting "the twelve",
whose number is bibilically significant on their account.
Attempting to identify him as any of the Synoptic disciples only brings out
contradictions between John and the Synoptics.
Notice in John 1:35, "two disciples" leave John and follow Jesus. They are
Andrew and somebody else (John 1:40)
Is this other person, who was called at the same time as Andrew, to be
identified as his brother Peter?
No, Andrew leaves John the Baptist and this other dude to GO TELL PETER
about Jesus, only AFTER first having accepted his calling with some other
dude and walking with Christ for some time. Because Peter is clearly at
home at the time Andrew is called, the other dude is not Peter.
It can't be Peter also because in John 1:41, Andrew announces to Peter about
Christ with..."WE have found the Messiah..." (meaning Andrew and this other
guy). If Andrew is informing Peter by starting out with, "WE..." then
obviously Peter is not a part of the "we" who already have found the
Messiah, who are indeed telling Peter what he clearly didn't know till THEY
got to his house.
This will be a big problem for Inerrantists, because the Synoptics boldly
come right out and just lump Peter and Andrew together, being called by
Christ at the exact same second, Mark 1:16-18.
So just who is this anonymous disciple in the Gospel of John that
accompanies Andrew from their first calling unto Peter's house?
It can't be John the disciple, because HE is not called until after Andrew
and Peter already are, Matthew 4:21-22.
Some Inerrantists, intent that John the disciple really is this unidentifid
person, attempt to refute that and say Matthew 4:21-22, although it sure
looks like John's first calling, actually doesn't HAVE to be (therefore
making it at least possible that the anonymous dude who accompanies Andrew
to Peter's house in John 1:35-41 could be John the disciple). But this move
will not work, via the presumptuous nature of Inerrantist methodology...When
the motivation to search for a loophole in Matthew 4 DIDN'T exist,
Christians believed that Matthew 4 told of John's first calling. Oh! But
now that the Christian's pet theory is being attacked, his previous
commitment to and acceptance of the plain sense of Matthew 4:21-22 suddenly
doesn't mean anything any more, and from here on out, the inerrantist will
rest his argument upon all the things that Matthew never DENIED! "Where did
Matthew ever DENY in 4;21-22 that this was John's second calling?" We must
answer, "nowhere". "Aha!" they then trumpet..."As long as he doesn't DENY
it, we are free to push his refusal to deny, so far that it becomes an
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that it happened!" We answer "the devil is Jesus' father,
because, 'where did Matthew ever DENY this?"......("Aha!") I'm sick to
death of Inerrantists building their speculative "proofs" in negative
inferences, and trying to ground all their hypotheses in all the things that
nobody denied, that i just had to vent there, sorry.
Possible solution does equal LIKELY solution. When Inerrantists learn this
subtle distinction, they won't exist any more.
And hypothetical solutions to contradictions which are grounded in the
things nobody DENIED, and other such negetive inferences, is called S P E C
U L A T I O N....not R E F U T A T I O N.
Now, for those Inerrantists who wish to learn further about this, i
encourage you all to learn what the "ad ignorantiam" fallacy is.
The Inerrantist's only hope regarding John and the Synoptics, is to identify
this disciple without disturbing the times that the Synoptics say the named
disciples were actually called. Because John's Gospel and the Synoptics
contradict each other at this point, I wish inerrantists the best.
Remember, no Christian alive today has ever heard that the twelve disciples
were preceded by an anonymous person. Wouldn't that make 13?
The Inerrantist is quick to the draw with his how-it-could-have-been
scenarios, which he mistakes for "solutions" to biblical problems....
"well, the anonymous disciple who was called with Andrew in John 1:37 and
accompanied him from there to Peter's house, may have apostasized and that's
why there is nothing else about him, and yet the number of disciples
remained as 12 throughout the beginning. This MUST be true, because John's
Gospel nowhere DENIES this about the unnamed man!" ("Aha!")
skepticbud replys:
The Inerantist above forgot to tell us also that this anonymous disciple
prefered the summer more than winter, survived a shark attack when he was
just 4 years old, and how bored he was in Galilee one day. If exploiting
and abusing the fact that something was never DENIED, works wonders, why
set limits?
skeptic
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com