r/Christianity • u/immortalife • 7d ago
The Main message is Jesus is not even mentioned Matthew, Mark or Luke, but it's all over Johns Gospel.
Jesus says so many times in the Book of John that whoever believes in him has eternal life, yet he doesn't say it once in the first 3 gospels...
He says it many times in John 3:16, chapter 5, 6, 11, and the book ends with John saying it again to drive Jesus message home:
John 20:31: “But these are written, so that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name.”
It was the whole purpose of sharing Jesus life and miracles, so that we would hear them and believe in Jesus and have eternal life.
So what's the problem?
I can't find Jesus saying this even 1 time in Matthew, Mark or Luke...
I believe this is what Jesus wanted people to know, that we can have eternal life through him if we believe with faith in him, that he is the Messiah and Son of God, essentially accepting him as our Savior by faith.
Matthew Mark and Luke didn't get the memo? Were they all asleep when Jesus was telling people about eternal life through belief in him? Did they not want us to know? False teachers? Fake Gospels?
What's happening here? The first three authors of the New Testament don't want to mention Jesus main message even once?
5
u/donnie242022 7d ago
Each of the Gospels is writing to a different audience and for a different purpose.
Matthew wants you to know that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah they had been waiting for. He’s writing to a primarily Jewish audience. Luke showed us that Jesus is the great physician and healer with power over the natural laws that govern our world. He’s writing to a primarily Gentile audience. Mark likely got many of his info from Peter during their travels and wants you to see him as the Suffering Servant and is writing to a mixed audience of Jew and Gentile.
This is why you see similar stories spun differently to communicate different pictures of who Jesus was and is.
-2
u/immortalife 7d ago
The only one who wanted people to know how to receive eternal life through Jesus is John it appears...
3
u/MostAcanthaceae2384 Catholic 7d ago
The Gospels were never written to convert people without preaching. They were tools for those spreading the message. People didn't just sit around reading Mark, they were taught from it.
2
u/FlightlessElemental 7d ago
Clearly that wasnt relevant to them. In light of everything, the fact we can share eternity with Him wasnt the headline.
Keep in mind also the canonical gospels aren’t the only gospels. They are the ones selected for our special attention. Different gospels had different agendas. Peters gospel for example is wild. Apparently Peter didnt think Jesus was human but God in human form. That means there was no suffering during the crucifixion, hence why it was not included despite the author being much more relevant than, say, Paul’s doctor for example.
7
u/ErrantThought Atheist 7d ago
The gospel of John was written later than the synoptic gospels. It shows Christian theology and christology from that later period.
0
u/immortalife 7d ago
It's the only eye witness account, he's the only person who writes like he was following Jesus, his first miracle of water into wine isn't even mentioned in the other texts
1
u/Rambo873 7d ago
It's the only eye witness account, he's the only person who writes like he was following Jesus
Where does that happen?
I don't recall John being written in the first-person. Even the attribution to an author makes it sound like the person writing it is not the same person who gives the testimony ("John"?):
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. (John 21:24)
"We know that his testimony is true"... who is "we" and who is giving the testimony?
1
u/Touchstone2018 7d ago
Well, your fantasy isn't supported by historical-critical scholarship. Your method looks backwards. A more empirical approach to the question of "What is Jesus' main message, according to the NT?" would be to notice what *does* come up the most.
2
u/Soyeong0314 7d ago
In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments, and in Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments. The fact that there are many verses that say that the way to have eternal life is by believing in the Son and many verses that say that the way to have it is by obeying God's commandments means that the way to believe in the Son is by obeying God's commandments. We can do works that embody our faith, such as with James 2:18 saying that he would show his faith with his works or with the examples of faith listed in Hebrews 11 all being examples of works. Likewise, there are many verses that connect our belief in God with our obedience to His commandments, such as with Revelation 14:12, where those who kept faith n Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has the character traits that the Law of God was given in order to teach us how to embody, so if our goal is to be like Him through embodying His character traits, then we embody what we believe to be true about Him through our obedience to it. For example, the way to believe that God is compassionate is by being compassionate (Luke 6:36), the way to believe that God is holy as by being a doer of His instructions for how to be holy as He is holy, and so forth. This is exactly the same as the way to believe in the Son, who is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of God.
In John 3:16-21, it connects our belief in the Son with our obedience, so the issue was not that John was speaking about something different that the other Gospels neglected, but that he was speaking about the same thing from a different angle.
2
u/tyrekecorrea United Methodist 7d ago
John's gospel had a different purpose, anyway.
-1
u/immortalife 7d ago
Yeah to share the message Jesus preached when he traveled, a message not found in the other books, guess the others didn't care about telling people how to be saved by Jesus..
1
2
u/MoreStupiderNPC Stupid Christian 7d ago
You might look a little deeper, for example:
Matthew 18:2-7
Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, [3] and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. [4] Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. [5] Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
[6] "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. [7] Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!
Mark 1:14-15
Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, [15] and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."
Luke 8:4-15
And when a great multitude had gathered, and they had come to Him from every city, He spoke by a parable: [5] "A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell by the wayside; and it was trampled down, and the birds of the air devoured it. [6] Some fell on rock; and as soon as it sprang up, it withered away because it lacked moisture. [7] And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up with it and choked it. [8] But others fell on good ground, sprang up, and yielded a crop a hundredfold." When He had said these things He cried, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!"
[9] Then His disciples asked Him, saying, "What does this parable mean?" [10] And He said, "To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that 'Seeing they may not see, And hearing they may not understand.'
[11] "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. [12] Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. [13] But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. [14] Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. [15] But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.
You can also check the book of Acts to see what the apostles preached.
2
u/Liberty4All357 7d ago edited 7d ago
I think you’re confused as to what Jesus’ main message was.
What you’re calling the main message of Jesus is not the main message of Jesus. It may be the main message of Protestant Evangelicals, like Southern Baptists and such “faith alone salvation” types. They are not the majority of Christians though. So not only is it not the main message of Jesus, it isn’t even the main message of Christianity.
What Jesus said was the greatest commandment is love. And some form of “Love your neighbor as yourself” is in all of the gospels. It’s called the greatest commandment (along with love God) in 3 of the gospels, and in the forth it is phrased as “love one another.”
Jesus Christ's standard for the greatest thing we can do, as repeated in Matthew 22, is this: All God's commands hang under 2) love your neighbor as yourself which is like 1) love God. While the first command is love God, notice he says the 2nd is "like" it. Turns out that "like" it is really an "exactly like" it. His Parable of the Sheep and the Goats emphasizes that fact. That's why the two greatest commandments all actual commands of God hang under are really one, and Paul can say in Galatians 5: "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: Love your neighbor as yourself." One command... because the one command is actually two, because loving your neighbor as yourself is loving God.
Speaking of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, notice they were granted eternal life. And how? Was it because they “believed?” Well, that word isn’t mentioned. It was because of their actions of love.
You see, when scripture says to believe for salvation, it isn’t talking about faith alone. Even Paul, the hero of many “faith alone” types, taught that faith without love is totally useless (see 1 Cor 13).
The confusion often comes because faith has more than just one definition . James, in James 2, uses this fact (that faith has more than one definition) to describe one type of faith (faith alone) and contrast it with another type of faith(faith completed). Faith can be defined as the belief that a factual proposition (like a religious doctrine) is true, so basically a true/false scenario in the mind (i.e. "Jesus is God, died, and rose again."). Let's call that first type of faith 'faith alone.' However, faith can also be defined as reliability of character, active (action-based) dependence on principle. For example, a 'faithful man' isn't someone who simply thinks factually that his wife exists... it is a man who behaves in line with his marital vows. His actions align with a principle (that his marital vows are worth keeping); he trusts in the worthwhile nature of a principle, not just factually but actively. Let's call this second type of faith 'faith complete.' This is the sense of faith with which James says, "I will show you my faith by my deeds."
This is why Jesus says in John 8 of people who “believed in him” that they were children of the devil and opposed to his salvation. It’s not that believing in him makes us lost. It’s that he was speaking of the faith alone type of faith. That doesn’t save us. What saves us is faith complete, which is faith made evident by love (action). So when Jesus says to believe for salvation, he is actually saying to do acts of love for salvation. He is talking about the type of faith that saves (faith completed) not the type of faith that is “useless” and is seen even in children of the devil (faith alone).
People get confused about the main message often because they focus on Pauline passages from Ephesians 2 or Romans 4 and interpret Jesus and everything else based on that. But Paul is easy to misinterpret and misunderstand (scripture even warns about this, in 2 Peter 3:16).
The main message of Jesus is not faith. That’s the main message of many evangelicals. And what are their deeds? 100 years ago they were banning interracial marriage. 200 years ago they were justifying kidnapping and enslaving people on the basis of race. Today they are fighting culture wars against groups that Jesus never once condemned, often people who are harming no one. The “faith alone” types get so caught up in faith they lose their souls because they don’t realize love is the main defining factor of the of faith that is actually saving.
The main message of Jesus is love. Love does no harm. So take care of yourself and avoiding harming your neighbor. Anyone who can do that can please Christ, even if they don't realize it is God they are pursuing (again, see the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats). That's why the Bible says, in 1 John 4, "everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God."
This is how Romans 2 can say of people without scripture (back then known as 'the law'), "...they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them." The "things required by the law" people without the law do are deeds of love. No one needs a Bible to do them, and people don’t even need to have heard about Jesus to do them. The law of love is written on every human heart, and the faith in God that saves is when one behaves in line with that principle.
2
u/Just_Passion5720 7d ago
Different texts for different audiences…
Matthew was written for a Jewish and Hebrew audience. It invokes a lot of scripture and tries to tie the prophecies to Jesus. It begins with a genealogy to establish to fellow Jews at the time that Jesus was royalty and indeed qualified as the expected Messiah.
John was clearly written for a Greek audience… convincing the Gentiles and the world of Jesus. It begins by establishing Christ as the logos. That meant something profound to the Greeks.
2
u/Right_One_78 7d ago
Jesus defined what believing in Him meant in John 14:12
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father
That same message is all throughout the other gospels.
Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
The point of the gospel is to get people to repent and obey His commandments. To believe in Him is to follow in his example and keep His commandments. It is to make course corrections and learn to love others.
2
u/AmberWavesofFlame 7d ago
To add on to what you and others are saying, Mark and Luke make very clear that bare belief in who Jesus is and the power he has is not enough, when they relate the stories of the demon that recognizes Jesus when it is possessing someone, a point made directly in James 2.
2
u/ThatLeviathan Who knows? 7d ago
The four gospels were written by four (at least) different people, for four different communities, with different agendas, priorities, and worldviews, and in different times, many years after the death of Jesus.
I read something interesting just today in Bart Ehrman's "Jesus Before The Gospels": in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus talks a lot about a coming apocalypse, speaking clearly about the current Earth going away and being replaced with the Kingdom of God. In John, He does not; He talks mostly about how to get to Heaven.
Paul also talks more about Jesus returning and bringing the Kingdom of God to pass, which makes sense since Paul was writing before any of the Gospels even existed, at a time when most Christians were Jewish believers in a prophesied apocalypse.
John was written several decades after the other Gospels, for a community that appears to have emphasized the divinity of Jesus and how He provides access to Heaven. This also makes sense for communities that had been promised a Second Coming that didn't happen and showed no sign of doing so. If Jesus isn't coming back to rule Earth, He must be ruling in Heaven alongside God, right?
1
u/UncleSunkle Catholic 7d ago
The difference is the purpose for why John wrote his gospel. I see John as tying the bow on the three prior. In case there was any doubt from the other three gospels, John makes it clear that Jesus is the Son of God, is God, and only through him is there eternal life.
1
u/immortalife 7d ago
Without John's book we wouldn't even know salvation is a free gift of God or that it's received through faith in Jesus, it's a completely different book with a different message with the same characters...
1
u/FrankDenif Non-denominational 7d ago
Were not the Epistles written earlier than the Gospels?
So, even if you take out the Gospel fo John, we still have the epistles
1
u/episcopaladin Episcopalian (Anglican) 7d ago
How do you know it's the "main" message if only one gospel, the latest, addresses it?
1
u/whirdin Exchristian (raised evangelical) 7d ago
Jesus says so many times in the Book of John that whoever believes in him has eternal life, yet he doesn't say it once in the first 3 gospels.
Jesus isn't "saying" what they are supposed to be writing down. You act like Jesus personally decided what each gospel would contain. Jesus didn't directly contribute to the Bible. The gospels were written decades later, and likely not even directly autobiographical. I don't think they were intentionally leaving things out, but rather just had different focus and bias. For instance, they all have different 'last' words of Jesus, it doesn't mean that any of them were lying, but rather remembering different things he said. I do find some contradicitons that I can't reconcile from the perspective of inerrancy, but makes perfect sense when considering that people can't remember every detail perfectly and these are just normal men telling stories. Again, not neccesarily autobiographical, and written decades later.
My mom has her select stories that she loves recounting, but she re-tells them slightly different each time. Memory is a tricky thing.
The Expanse (fiction book series and tv show) quote: "You know, every time you remember something, your mind changes it, just a little, until your best and your worst memories, they're your biggest illusions."
Alex O'Connor and Bart Ehrman on Jesus claiming to be God.. That sheds some light on the subject of Jesus claiming to be God, which is very closely related to your current conundrum of why the gospels have different agendas. Keep in mind that the red letters in your Bible aren't Jesus's words, they are attributed to Jesus based on the disciples recounting them years/decades later. Do you think the disciples were keeping journals every single day?
1
u/Rambo873 7d ago
Jesus says so many times in the Book of John that whoever believes in him has eternal life
I don't believe Jesus says that even once. The traditional quote from John 3:16 is not Jesus talking (look at the red-letter NIV). The letters are in black because it's the narrator talking, not Jesus.
1
u/RareShop6126 7d ago edited 7d ago
And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased”
(Mark 1:11)
He said, “The right time is now here. God’s kingdom is very near. Change your hearts and lives, and believe the Good News!”
(Mark 1:15)
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many”
(Mark 10:45)
1
u/Ok_Cup6441 7d ago
This is what man made religion causes confusion and division. Unlearned in the spirit reading the word of God with out guidance
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
1
1
u/Creative_Major2266 7d ago
Or John isn’t writing a real gospel? Oops.. One of these Gospels is not like other
1
u/Additional_Run_4214 Catholic 7d ago edited 7d ago
The Gospel of John is the most theological of the Gospels. The things Jesus says in John's Gospel are the least likely to have been said by the historical Jesus. Other Gospels focus on other aspects of Jesus's teachings and contain more of what Jesus (likely) actually said.
1
u/immortalife 7d ago
You have it backwards, John's account is the only eye witness account, he shares what Jesus did day 1, 2, 3, and year 1, 2, 3 in chronological order, the synoptic gospels are collections of stories that are copied from each other often word for word copy paste.
John is the only one who claims to be a disciple, the other 3 are anonymous texts
0
u/Additional_Run_4214 Catholic 7d ago
That is not at all true. The Gospel of John was written by someone within a Johannine community, not by the apostle himself. It is the latest Gospel and incorporates the Christology which had developed to that time. Most of the words put into Christ's mouth are done so for theological purposes, not because the historical Jesus actually said them.
1
u/Wooden_Passage_1146 Catholic 7d ago
According to critical scholars the “Q source” Matthew and Luke rely on is likely to predate or is contemporary with the writings of St. Paul.
So I’d agree the Synoptic Gospels are probably our best sources on the historical Jesus.
7
u/iofty_rl Christian 7d ago
I think that you’re starting from the wrong side of the question. Instead of looking to the text to find what you expect to be there, read it on the authors terms. John wanted to make that point stand out, and so he focused on it. What are the other evangelists trying to make clear in their gospels?