>John's gospelic facts DRASTICALLY disagree with the facts in the other >gospels by years in many cases. So, factually, John is totally >misaligned from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
"Totally" is quite a bit of a stretch. It's clear that the synoptics were written closer to the time of Christ and John written much later in the life of the author. It has a more retrospective approach and thus exact details (in many opinions) are less like to be completely accurate, due to the amount of time that had passed. Only the most conservative of Christians believe that everything written in the Bible is absolute historical truth. There is nothing though that truly contradicts any of the teachings in the other gospels. >John said that in order to reach heaven you had to follow an Earthly >protocol of rituals or you'd go to hell. This is the core reason the >canonizers selected John's interpretation of Jesus: they wanted to >scare people into being good Christians. I don't really agree with this...but you do realize that early Christians were Jews? A religion that is rife with protocol and ritual? However this is quite a jump of logic to say that ritual has anything to do with the selection of John over Thomas. We really don't know the exact reasons but there are certainly many more plausible ones. >John believed >"the light" existed externally to each individual Of course, he clearly states that Jesus is the light. >and to attain it >each person had to live a life of rules and then go to heaven when the >die. Not at all what the gospels and letters of John teach. I'd be interested to see what passages from the Bible you are drawing this conclusion from. The "rule" that John primarily quotes in his letters is the Golden Rule - love one another. Which is over and over the teaching of Jesus that we are clearly to pay the most attention to. >Obviously I'm Thomasian. The thought that God would require me to >follow some arbitrary set of rules is ridiculous to me. Really? It seems most logical to me that an all-powerful God would want us to follow his rules. Just as I for instance, would have rules I expect my children (and pets, etc.) to follow. They may think my rules equally arbitrary but I know what's best for them, they certainly aren't "arbitrary" to me. The idea that I can decide on my own rules puts me on the same level as God. >I don't think God >requires me to perform rituals to love me. I don't either, but that's not the teaching of Christianity. He *already* loves me. What "rituals" or "acts" I decide to do is my profession of love to him, but the form that takes can vary considerably. Some Christian sects (such as Catholics) put more emphasis on ritual and protocol than others, but it is not really something that is that central to the religion in comparison to some. >A follower >of Thomas, while Christian, has no set of rules to follow except a >personal search for their own truth. You seem to be arbitrarily defining religion as a code of rituals and protocols, but it need mean only the beliefs and practices as it relates to your view of a higher power. If those beliefs are in personal exploration rather than communnity and ritual, that doesn't necessarily make it any less of a religion. >So the question for each Christian is, do you think "the light" is >inside of you right now or do you think you have to follow a set of >rules for life in order to attain the light? Most Christians would not really agree with either of these. --- Mary Jo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:306278 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
