Last Sunday I made a visit to see my Friend and visit Hillsongs churh morning service, which I enjoyed very much, the worship was great.
Me and Ken then decided to go to speakers corner in Hyde Park in the afternoon. I got talking with an ex christian who became a Muslim. His name was Paul and he stated to me he had his own blog, which I have now looked at and he was the head of an Islamic Dawa centre for arranged debates with Muslims and other faiths.
He started out with the a liberal question where did jesus teach he would die for the sins of the world and his view on how to get to heaven. Where he got liberal was when he said but you can't use Johns gospel, because its authorship and historical Jesus is very skeptical among scholars. I stated I would discuss the gospel of john with him as a separate question, but would answer his question without the use of John and use his liberal standard.
He pointed me to the rich man in matthew 19 quote
6 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
He stated as we can see eternal life is by works and you don't need Jesus to die for the sins of the world if you can get salvation by other ways.
I stated yes you can get to heaven by works, BUT you cant achieve it through works, because this is God's standard the lAW. If you break just one of the the laws you have fallen short of gods standard and you can not enter as we read in Romans 3:23. Only because the man stated he had not done any of things means he is telling the truth. Jesus then states now go and give up everything you have and you shull have treasure in heaven and THEN come follow me. Paul stated but notice you can get treasure in heaven before following jesus. I stated the verse is not complying that interpretation, Jesus is stating the rich things he has are worthless, as treasure in heaven is eternal. the follow me part is issuing the statement o and also come follow me, not the fact when you do these things you get treasure in heaven first and then you have to follow him, Jesus is this using an example of how hard it is for a rich man to reach heaven due to material works, as he says you can't serve two masters. Paul still did not accept it, but we moved on.
I then told him old testament does not teach works get you into heaven, this issue of good and bad deeds is not biblical. I showed him Habakkuk 3 regarding Yahweh is my salvation, not the law.
If we look at post Resurrection claims of jesus in matthew 28 baptise in the name of the 3 persons, is 1. showing the triune god and 2. why would jesus say this? knowing that when you are baptized it is the cleansing of sin, by being washed by water and bought back up in a new life.
luke 24
47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
this is Jesus speaking declaring what the Christ had to do. But he stated in post resurrection that he came to die for the sins of the world, now when we look at pre Resurrection, he had not yet died for the sins of the world. The Jewish law and customs are still to be practiced.
He then started bring scholarship to the table quoting various liberal scholars on how jesus never claimed to be god and doubts within the authenticity of the beloved disciple john son of Zebedee.
He did quote a few conservative scholars such as F F Bruce and James Dunn on the gospel of John. He stated that they both doubt the authenticity of johns gospel, because it came after the synoptics and is completely different to the synoptics, as the synoptics show a jesus who preaches the coming kingdom of god and that he is a prophet. But John on the other preaches a divine jesus and only once does he mention the kingdom of god.
I was a bit lost at the start, because I didn't quote know what method for the histrocial jesus he was using, but in fact it was quite conservative, compared to liberal scholarship like John D Crossan who use the non existant gospel Q, gospel of thomas, gospel of hebrews. John Crossan uses two major stepping stones multiple addestation, so if a saying of jesus or something of jesus is in Mark and John that is two sources, but if it is in Mark and Mtthew thats one source, because Matthew used Mark as a source. the other major one is Embarassment, so if it just embarrasses doctrine and something that looks like the early church would not make up, as it lowers Jesus for example.
However John bought another more conservative method the synoptics contain a more historical jesus than John and jesus shows himself to be a prophet within the eynoptics.
I advised him to read the pre existant son by Simon Gathercole professor of new testement studies at Cambridge University. Simon uses the synoptics, to show Jesus is god, pre existent and divine in the synoptics.
Gathercole mentions The son of God on page 273 and devotes a whole chapter to it.
matthew 16
16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven
Jesus accepts the title the son of god. This is different to Marks gospel where he states you are the christ, some may see its an evolution, but is there any evidence? no. If mark is earlier than matthew, which is not what Papias believed in 125 AD, we see mark is a less detailed account, maybe due to the audience he was targeting in his community, which was Jews. It could also be due to the lack of papyri, or as we just see mark is a lazy writer and shows noo detail what so ever. Matthew applies Jesus full sayings or a more explained saying by showing us more context of what Jesus said. differences in accounts don't mean its an evolutionary account.
Jesus accepts the title son of god at his baptism in mar by his father in heaven, this is my son in whom i am well pleased. But does this son of god title just render Galatians 4 that hes just a son of god, just a child of god that we can all become.
Gathercole argues against this; saying jesus is described as the monogonese the unique son. Galtians 4 even tells us to become a son of god you have toa ccepted christ as the son of god.
Gathercole argues this using matthew 11 a verse that ud expect to find in John that is in the synoptics.
All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
jesus showing himself as the unique divine son and the only to come to the father is through the son, not a son and it is by the son we see the father, this is not a mere prophet.
In all four gospels Jesus claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath in mark 2 for example.
Now how can a prophet as cliamed by Gathercole aswell be a prophet?
exodus 20
8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God
Notice this was a devotion to yahweeh and Jesus is claiming to Kyrios meaning of lord in greek of this day. Gathercole argues saying by no means can it be a polite address or courtly usage on page 244, but it used as a much higher authority.
In mark 1 verse 3 God makes the promise to his son to send John to prepare the way of the LORD. As Gathercole argues this a direct messianic passage of Isaiah 40 v 3 prepare the way of yahweeh.
Gathercole takes this further by using Mark 12:35 - 37 where Jesus cites Psalm 110 v 1 yahweeh says to yahweeh, here Jesus is the second Lord and the reference is is merely to the fact that Jesus is Davids LORD. This is no prophet.
I will use one other high christology claim of christ towards his divinity.
Jesus Calimed to be the Son of Man everywhere in the gospels, it was the title he used the most to himself in the gospels. In Mark 2 when I quoted Lord of the sabbath he claims it here For the Son of man. In hebrew son of man is Ben ha Adam, meaning son of humanity. People may jesus think jesus is just calling himself a son of a man, but in fact he is applying daniel 7 to himself and shows it in graver detail at his trial. He states in all the synoptics for you shull see the son of man on the clouds of heaven seated at the right hand of god. this is no prophet lets read Daniel 7
13 “I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
14 And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.
This is no prophet but the etnerla son of God. Gathercole argues saying this also shows his pre existance, if Daniel had already seen it.
Gathercole also argues that his main objective with this is to show jesus is pre existant in the synoptics.
The transfiguration in all synptic accounts but ill use mark 9. Gathercole argues this shows jesus transcending the heaven Earth divide.
And he was transfigured before them, 3 and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one [1] on earth could bleach them.
Notice Jesus was a normal earthly looking man and then transformed as to what he will look like when in heaven, showing the heaven and earth divide, that he pre existed.
Many people use the heaven hierarchy, as to refer to jesus as not god. mark 13 32 states no one knows the hour nor the angels, not even the son but the father only. Jesus using his human nature he does not know, as he is dependant on this spirit, but he also shows his divine nature, as Gathercole argues, he shows Jesus is showing some rank, by first naming man, then angels, the himself then the father. Jesus places himself between the angels and the father, showing he is a heavnely rank above the angels, showing himself to be god and pre existant.
Gathercole then argues the fact of the heavenly council, which is only things you could know if you pre existed.
In luke 10 18 Jesus states to have seen Satan fall like lightning, as we see satan has already fallen in the old testement and is tempting people job 1 v 7. This shows jesus must of been there since the beginning.
In luke 10 20 jesus knows whos name are in the book of life, something he would only of known if he pre existed.
Gathercole also points out matthew 11, which i stated earlier that jesus has some sort of special authroity, that its only by him who can reveal the father, which shows his pre existance.
My last point on this Gathercole points out that spiritual beings like demons call jesus the son of god earlyy in his ministry, before anyone knows who he is, as we see in matthew 4 with satan. Now this could only be if jesus pre existed, as Demons and satan are fallen angels from heaven, showing they knew jesus before, as they knew who he was.
I could go on for much longer, but showing like i have that jesus is god in the synoptics alone proves that he is pre existant, as jews believe there is no god but god and that he is not created.
I will now be talking about the gospel of John, which quite frankly like John a lot of liberal scholars claim its an evolutionary story of jesus, elavating him above the historical jesus.
As Gathercole has shown we still see a divine, pre existant jesus in the synoptics.
So why is John so different?
The main reason along the side of conservative mainstream scholarship is John if written after the synoptics,which is the most common, targets his gospel against mystism and gnostics. Even though this had a counter fit, as the gnostics started using John out of context, as D A Carson (Ph.D University of Cambridge) shows John wanted to show a different side to Jesus. Remember Jesus ministry was 3 years, he would of said a lot more than what is contained in the synoptics and John brings another side to Jesus.
Regarding the dating of John scholars use to believe John dated the last quarter of the second century, until P52 was discovered, which is a small papyri fragment of John 18 that dates to 125 AD, it turned scholarship and on its head. The second century dating has now been abondonded and majority of scholars date John to the late half of the first century.
CArson holds the view John probably write his gospel in 80 AD. There is good evidence, as Carson shows for a pre 65 AD dating to Johns gospel .e.g. John 21 19, is that you have peter by his death glorified god when chapter 21 was composed, well Peter died in the year 64.
The silnece of the destruction of the temple is another example of a pre 65 AD date, as it was destroyed in the year 70.
Another point is the Pool of Bethseda mentioned in John 5 v 2. John describes the pool in detail as though he has seen it himslf. Carson points this out that Jhn writes in the present tence with historic force compared to the other gospel writers. The pool of Bethseda were changed by Herod Agrippa in 44 AD into a new wall which blocked the pools and he placed a roadway along the dam, and expanded the asclepieion into a large temple to Asclepius and Serapis. The pool was completely destroyed in 70 ad by the destruction of jersualem. For John to be talking about this, he is eaither writing, as D A carson suggests, as if its present but hes writing in the future of the event, as though he was there and has seen it himself or the view that John is writing,as though its still there in the present. This is also good evidence to show John was the beloved disciple, as his grave detail of jerusalem before the year 44 AD.
There is good evidence to also show a later date, as New testement scholar Robinson states that John write under the reign of emperor Domitian who reinged AD 81 - 96. But even Robinson states there is no evidence to this. \there is also strong evidence to show Jjohn was the last of the apostles and to write his gospel, as we see in Irenaeus and Eusebius. Irenaeus also states John lived to a very long life, Irenaeus states even surviving into the reign of Emperor Trajan in 98 - 117 ad.
There is other evidence to show on bboth sides of the dating period, but carson raises the issue we have no actuall date, just inbetween the year 70 - 100. I would argue against that saying most likely the year 60 - 95.
I will do a more in depth commentry on Johns gospel regarding its history, its authentitcity, the beloved disciple and the evangelists jesus within 1st century palestineian juadism and ggreeco roman world.
God bless (sorry for spelling and grammar mistakes).
