quote:Originally posted by HeruStar:
Again, I can't speak for 'most' Christians, what I notice about the double-standard of anti-fundamentalists is that they go into the religous debate with a strong bias, and accept any argument in their favor, credible or not, logical or illogical
Oh I was PERFECTLY logical. Keep reading.
I don't know what book of John this guy was reading but...This is frustrating to me because when I read John, I can sense his kindheartedness and his passion for getting across Jesus' message, moreso than a chronological history of his sermons. Most people don't THINK when they read the Bible soo...
The "this guy" in question was me. And the book I was reading was The Gospel According to John. And I think plenty. Even when I read the Bible. Thank you very much.
You seem to have completely missed the point I was trying to make. Maybe I wasn't clear enough:
The other 3 Gospels assert a CAUSAL CONNECTION between the events in the temple and the crucifixion. By changing the chronology, John, in effect, denies that the connection was a CAUSAL CONNECTION.
he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money and overthrew the tables
(there goes that theory): And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Fathers house an house of merchandise. And His disciples remembered that it was written, the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up (retrospective validation)... DESTROY THIS TEMPLE, AND IN 3 DAYS I WILL RAISE IT UP...
(this next part is significant, because clearly the author of the conspiracy ignored this part)
First thing is I never claimed a 'conspiracy'. Second thing is, and I repeat, although you're right that John does make some sort of a connection between this event and the crucifixion, by changing the chronology, John, in effect, denies that the connection was a CAUSAL CONNECTION.
That is: Event A causing Event B.
The other three Gospels portray the event in the temple as directly bringing about the crucifixion. I.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke assert that there was a CAUSAL connection between these events ("When the chief priests and scribes heard of it, they kept looking for a way to kill him")
While John does make a connection it is NOT a causal one. The alteration in the chronology in effect is a denial of a causal connection.
That is a factual conflict between the Gospels.
Case closed. That is, unless you have a real argument against the actual point I'm making.
Does John's use of foreshadow invalidate his book?
* I never said that John's use of foreshadow "invalidated" the book. What I said was that John's alteration of the chronology introduces a factual conflict with the other 3 Gospels. I continue to stand by this claim because NOTHING you've said here addresses my real point. *