Tuesday, November 2, 2010

The proper take on the Gospel of John.

That the dialogues, events and teachings recorded there actually occurred, in history. It baffles me that modern man, who is separated from the time of Jesus by two freaking thousand years, and divorced from his culture as the east is divorced from the west, can be the arbiter of what Jesus did and didn't say, of what he did and didn't do. Get behind me Satan.

And the problems of difference of tone and content between the so-called "Synoptics" and John mean squat. SQUAT. One might as well expect that a human being must only adopt one manner of speech and one topic for his speech, for his whole freaking life if he is to be deemed human. These historians need to get outside and observe real humans doing real living (As was proposed by Martin Hengel and with him, Henri Blocher). They should observe how a businessman speaks when he is at work and when he is at the bar and when he is at home and when he is on vacation and when his best friend just got hit by a car etc....and see how radically his idiolect can alter from situation to situation! In a manner of hours!

Oh these damnable humans. Get over yourselves and subject yourself to the Gospels which know more about what Jesus did and didn't do than you EVER will. And if you find a contradiction, embrace it rather than devising some silly synthesis, or favoring one document over the other etc...

No comments: