Who is the Lier: Jesus, John the Baptist or Gospel writer?

India
February 7, 2007 1:47pm CST
Jews were expecting two person to come: Elijah to come first and then Messiah[Jesus], when Jesus claimed to be the Messiah of the Jews, the Jews began to inquire, as where is Elijah then? this is because of the parallel prophecy which they have in OT, that before Jesus Elijah must come in his second coming. Jesus confirms this Jewish belief in Matthew: "and his disciples asked him, saying; why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first." "He replied, Elijah indeed shall come, and restore all things" "But I say to you, that Elijah is already come, and they knew him not, But have done unto him whatsoever they listed. so also the Son of Man shall suffer from them." "Then the disciples understood, that he has spoken to them of JOHN THE BAPTIST" [Matthew 17:10-13] According to the NT the Jews were not ready to swallow the words of any would-be Messiah, and this the Gospel of John confirms: they asked are you christ He said 'NO'. they asked are you Elijah He said 'NO'. they asked are you that Prophet he again said 'NO'. [John 1:19-25] Here John the Baptist clearly contradicts Jesus. Jesus said John is Elijah and John denies that he is what Jesus ascribes him to be. ONE of the TWO [Jesus or John], (GOD FORBID) is definitely not speaking the TRUTH. Please correct me, if I understood BIBLE wrongly
2 people like this
8 responses
• Philippines
7 Feb 07
None of the three is a liar. When John was asked if he is Elijah, he answered NO because he is not Elijah but John who came to baptize (John 1:26). His work was to baptize. John is not the Christ, he was not Elijah because he is John, and he was not also the Prophet who is Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ did not lie in Matthew 17:11 because John said: "I am the voice shouting in the wilderness: 'Straighten the way of the Lord'" as told in the Old Testament (Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1; 4:5). John fulfilled what was prophesied in the Old Testament. The writer did not lie because he wrote the gospel having been borne by the Holy Spirit. There is no contradiction whatsoever.
• India
7 Feb 07
If there is no contradiction then can u explain what Jesus is suggesting at Matthew 17:13 for your kindness can u please read the message from the top till end which i started. it is very clear that Jesus called John the Baptist to be the Elijah which the Jews inquiring But on the contrary John the Baptist refused his identity as Elijah. I don't understand how you relate things when it is Cristal clear. I knew few of my friends, at the back of their subconscious mind, they have an idea that what they believe is Right, even after reading in simple baby English.
1 person likes this
• Brazil
16 Feb 07
On all versions of the Bible, it was understood that Jesus was referring to John- http://bible.cc/matthew/17-13.htm
@manong05 (5029)
• Philippines
8 Feb 07
Nobody in the three you mentioned is a liar. I don't think decent people should use such a degrading word to describe people mentioned in the Holy Book though they don't believe it is holy for them. This is indicative of your agenda and attitude to the Bible. You approached the subject with an assumption that someone is lying. Funny. Does this attitude reflect your people's attitude to the Bible or just your own. I believe it's just your own. To me, a proper scholarly approach after reading a passage like this would be to ask questions like. Why did John say No? Is it because he didn't look at himself as the fulfillment of the prophecy but just a simple voice in the wilderness? Was it is because the Jews were not looking for an answer but just to stir trouble? What is the context of the verses?Had you approached the subject on a scholarly level, you would have a better understanding rather than just ask questions like who is a liar? hahaha The Jews' questions and some other questions are not seriously looking for answers, that I'm sure you already know very well.
• India
10 Feb 07
"I dont think decent people should use such a degrading word to describe people mentioned in the Holy Bible" I humbly apologise for ur heartache. BUT I must say that its not my words, its a borrowod terms from Bible scholars. let me list them: "Christ Crucified - Hoax or History?" no doubts it sounds provocative, but it is christian's own extravagances from his own vocabulary. Garner Ted Armstrong, The Executive Vice-President & Co-Publisher of the 'Plain Truth' attempts to answer his own puzzle under the heading: Was the Resurrection a HOAX? this is the typical American way of selling religious magazine. He elucidates his pose -'Hoax?' with the words, "The resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth is EITHER the supreme Fact of History OR a Flagrant, Delibrate Fabrication Foisted off on the followers of Christianity." Another person 'Billy Graham', from America, Josh McDowell effuses in his boob "The Resurrection Factor", saying "I was forced to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is EITHER one of the most wicked, Heartless, Vicious, Hoaxes ever foisted upon the minds of men OR it is the most fantastic FACT of History" sinse it is not possible for an Oriental guy like me to match American superlative & Extravagant verbiage. I simply said who is the LIER?
1 person likes this
• Canada
11 Feb 07
OK, I'm up to the challenge :) I think you are looking at this wrong in the wrong order. In John 1, when John is saying this he is actually alive. At this stage, when this was written, he didn't go around calling himself Elijah. Perhaps, Jesus never called him that. John the Baptist lived to baptize. I'm not an expert, but I'd be surprised if he had even met Jesus before baptizing Him. (If I am wrong anyone, let me know.. ) Now, lets head to Matthew. John was beheaded in chapter 14. In chapter 17 Jesus is taking about Elijah having already come, and they knew him not, but they did to him whatever they wished. Thats when the disciples knew He was talking about John. I think where you where you are having trouble, is that you thinking that since Matthew comes before John in the Bible, that must be the time-line of the events too; when in reality it is not the case. If you look at it in the content I explained, that the events in John happened first, it makes a lot more sense. Hope this makes sense... :)
• Philippines
11 Feb 07
I agree with you bro. Studying the bible singlehandedly and not inquiring on theologians then asking those kinds of questions is simply more like finding weaknesses in other religions. BTW if youre interested in understanding the bible, you can ask theologians the right questions not like if anyone is lying - it will simply continue the unending argument of who has the true religion.
1 person likes this
• Canada
11 Feb 07
Thanks for the feedback. Are you saying that you need to study yourself, not blindly believe what you are told? If you are I totally agree with you there! :)
• India
11 Feb 07
Dear comedyaddict, could u please give the verse refrences to ur explaination, its like i m getting confused with gospel of John and John the baptist.. please be specific so I can understand thanks
@saralee1 (1983)
• United States
11 Feb 07
My husband and I both looked this up in the bible. Clearly, there is indeed a liar here, and unfortunately, we have come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was a liar. It was hard to swallow, but it is true. unless of course, John the Baptist was lying out of fear? hmmm, you brought up a very good point here.
• India
11 Feb 07
Thank you very much for your honestly to admit atleast that there is a discrepency or error. But pleace its my humble request, never ever think that Jesus could give a false Verdict and I can also say the same to John the Baptist Both are annointed[chosen] men of God. Easily i can accept the mistake of the Gospel writer... but not in the least bit, can attribute such errors to Jesus or John the moment I believe that Jesus can do mistakes, I will b called Muslim No more, my religion teach about Jesus like this
• Canada
11 Feb 07
If there is any mistake, it's that we too often read what we want to read. If you look at it in the context I outline in my post above, it makes sense that no one is lying. :)
• India
11 Feb 07
SNDCAIN: Which Bible U talking about: Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the Moody bible Institute, Chichago, one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical Mission in the world, answeing the Question - 'Is the Bible word of GOD?' IT IS HUMAN YET DIVINE , he says on page 17: Yes, The Bible is Human, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed throu the minds of Men, are written in the language of Men, were penned by the hands of Men and bear in their stlye the characteristics of Men. Another erudite Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book, 'The Call of the Minaret' "Not so the New Testament... there is condensation and Editing; there is Choice, reporduction and witness. The Gospels have come thru the mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and History." If words have any MEANING, do we need to add another word of comment to prove our case? NO! Both this Doctors of Religion are telling us in the clearest language Humanly possible that the Bible is the handiwork of man. all the while pretending that they are proving to the contrary. An Old Arab saying goes: "If Such are the Priests, God Bless the Congregation."
@Multanee (268)
• Pakistan
7 Feb 07
No one is going to tell u my friend cause this is thier weakpoint.They dont know themselves! How can they tell you then.......Ha ha ha ha.
• India
7 Feb 07
we can't underestimate anyone like this my friend. u know it is very interesting and surprise that every Christian believe differently they may belong to same church they may belong to same denomination, they the other will say, I don't believe so n so things. Its my experience in my life, I believe each Christian is Unique in this belief and faith
1 person likes this
• India
11 Feb 07
what is my belief? what U know of it? have I ever said anything abot jihad being Holy war.. or atleast mere WAR? my answer NO The word Jihad does NOT mean 'Holy War' Jihad means effort or endeours against man's own self. a student does Jihad to pass his school exams [jihad here implies - struggle and effort of student on studies] "Fight in the way of God AGAINST those who fight against you; and do NOT exceed limits, surely God does not love aggressor[Quran 2:190] [the word for FIGHT used here in Arabic is QitAl not JihAd] did I ever said anywhere that women r slaves? moreso does Islams says anywhere that women have no rights? my answer NO women can participates in goverment [Quran 9:71] (and U know still the Jews are calling for conference to discuss if the women should be allowed to give voting rights or not) Do all Muslims believe that its is right to fly airplanes into buildings? my answer NO Do you have any evidence or solid proof to prove your claim that some muslims did it. Don't thow red herrings my religion do NOT permitt me to Blame anyone without proof, if Your religion Permits you to call all Muslims to be Criminal: I wonder what kind of religion is that? Does Islam rcognize any kind of innocet Killings? If any human kill someone, its as thou he killed whole mankind and if someone save a life, its as thou he saved whole mankind [Quran 5:32] U alleged so many things without any proof to stand urself nd I refuted all with quote from Quran. will u allow me to say something about your Christian God, and lets see how far HE withstand your last word "God of Compassion & Love" I will not just say tat someone said or news channel says i will Quote from Bible.... shall I
1 person likes this
• Canada
11 Feb 07
What happened to your level headed approached profound2me?. Sure Jihad can mean a struggle, but Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) means's holy war. Quran 9:71 says nothing about women in goverment. I'm not actually sure what it does mean. However 4:34 is pretty telling about womans rights... Quran 5:32 does mention about not killing people, but the very next verse 5:33 says its ok to kill for doing mischief in the land. (Thats pretty vague isn't it???)
1 person likes this
• Philippines
10 Feb 07
I don't believe anyone was lying. If you think of it this way, Elijah is used more like a title for the one who will come before the savior. Maybe they were just being humble? I mean, seriously, if they went running around shouting "I'm the savior! I'm the one who came after Elijah!" or "I'm Elijah! The one who comes before the Savior!" I would believe that a greater number of people then would be more skeptical. They used action rather than their would-be titles to prove who they really are what they really came to do.
• India
10 Feb 07
I m not able to understand the meaning .. what u trying to say? I m sorry my english is not so good, did U mean that the Jews were expecting only Messiah and they were not expecting any Elijah b4 Messiah? or u trying to say .. Messiah and Elijah both r the titles for Jesus? please clear, thank U
• Philippines
10 Feb 07
No no, i meant that Elijah can be treated as just a title and not an actual name of a person. In this case, Elijah is the name given to the prophet who comes before the savior. Of course, John the Baptist might not have declared that he is Elijah since it would make him too self-righteous or arrogant if you will. Jesus denied that he is Elijah because he is the one who came to be our Messiah. Derailing a bit, from what I remember, the Jews counted Jesus as just a prophet coz they were expecting someone like King David or the likes to be the savior. Please, correct me if I'm wrong about this. =)
• India
10 Feb 07
when i was a student, my teacher said, there is always two way to approach a book: one is concordis approach another is conflict approch and being an Oriental or a Muslim: nevertheless, i must admit, mostly I use conflict approch while reading Bible. But I never intend to Invent LIE by any of the Jewish prophets or more specificly in the words of JESUS. I really can't understand why John has to deny in accepting that he is Elijah: when he baptize Jesus, he is the one to recognize Jesus as the long awaited Messiah and Jesus accepted. why John the Baptist deny being called Elijah. It is very clear that the Jews who r inquiring they, NO doubt awaiting an answer so that they can REPORT to one who send them. and what more intresting is the Christian world so far never identified that the Interogator is asking 3 question not Jesus Elijah or Jesus.. they also asked: "are thou That Prophet?" one one cross refrence bible, at this 'that prophet' it shows Deo [18:18] so this means, the Jews were expection Elijah to come before Messiah and they were also expecting some prophet to fulfil Deu 18:18
@albert2412 (1782)
• United States
8 Feb 07
It is my understanding that when Moses stood before God at the burning bush Moses asked God what God's Name was and God said "I am" (el gabor). In John 8;58 Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am" (el gabor). Surely Jesus is saying that He is eternal, always was, and is the Son of God.
• India
8 Feb 07
I can understand what u referring in OT : when God said yeheye ashar yeheye : "I am! what I am" by the way what this has to do with the subject we dealing here?
• Philippines
8 Feb 07
I don't think there is a lie or a liar. The Holy Bible should be understood in its whole context for if not, there would be a lot of contradictions, if we just take one verse and insist that that is already what it is. We should study the whole counsel of God as Paul said.
• India
8 Feb 07
NO doubt, the holy book should read with understanding and with context. and so I didnt pick one verse and pose the argument.. did u see But its an amazing situation: Jesus says He is Elijah in simple language, and his disciples understood. when the Jews asked John, He refuted and said NO he is not Elijah. now u telling me, to understand what Jesus and John meant in their words I should go and ask PAUL... Really its an amazing situation.