tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post2157607403373193143..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: Were Peter and Andrew called before or after John the Baptist was arrested? Reconciling the synoptic gospels with JohnFather Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-5244750744753530982013-07-03T12:50:26.742-07:002013-07-03T12:50:26.742-07:00I am in the process of constructing a harmony of t...I am in the process of constructing a harmony of the Gospels and have been generally disappointed with any work done on this subject. I myself leaned toward a single Temple cleansing and omitted the Johannine account--until in trying to piece together Jesus' movements after his baptism between the 4 Gospels, it became clear that a visit to Jerusalem was necessary to incite the negative attention of the Pharisees in John 4:1. Otherwise, his only movements, other than in the area of John the Baptist after his baptism and a time in the wilderness to be tempted, were to the wedding in Cana. A location is also needed for his encounter with Nicodemus, who was presumably in Jerusalem. Without this plot progression, it is hard to imagine how or why the Pharisees would have gotten wind of Jesus up near John the Baptist in the Judean wilderness. Certainly they may have sent envoys as they did to John in all 4 Gospels, but such is not reported, and Jn 4:1 also begs the question as to why the attention of the Pharisees should motivate Jesus to leave the area for safer turf. An early Temple cleansing and concomitant arguments (Jn 2:13-25) provide some reason as to why the Pharisees should now turn their sights upon Jesus with ill intent, and why Jesus should be so motivated as to leave his baptism ministry and return to Galilee.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458624720521922915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-25998565604592468142012-01-23T23:18:02.135-08:002012-01-23T23:18:02.135-08:00Finding in the temple: always perplexed me until, ...Finding in the temple: always perplexed me until, I figured if your lost or left behind, you need to stay in one place so your parents can find you....<br /><br />So consequently when Jesus said "Didn't you know I would be in my Fathers House" was not a smartsy/immature comment as it seems, it was actually an intellegent comment.<br /><br />RB2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-82311787949551868812012-01-22T13:30:00.658-08:002012-01-22T13:30:00.658-08:00@Anonymous (1:18pm),
Please use a pseudonym at lea...@Anonymous (1:18pm),<br />Please use a pseudonym at least.<br /><br />You are right, St. Thomas distinguishes the calling in Matthew and Mark from that in Luke -- since Luke mentions the large catch of fish.<br /><br />I don't know whether we have to hold this or not ... it does not seem to be necessary to hold that they were two (to make up a total of three) callings.<br />St. John Chrysostom says that Luke and Matthew (and Mark) tell of the same single calling -- the second one, after John was imprisoned.<br />Fr. Cornelius a' Lapide says the same.<br /><br />As far as I am concerned, either two or three callings seems possible -- so long as we maintain that John related a prior calling which occurred about a year before the second (given in today's Gospel from Mark) and after John was already arrested.<br /><br />Thanks for the citation to St. Thomas! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-29498452142110752302012-01-22T13:18:46.938-08:002012-01-22T13:18:46.938-08:00st Thomas Aquinas says apostles were called by Chr...st Thomas Aquinas says apostles were called by Christ 3 times-(comm on the Gospel of John ch 1 #308)--call for knowledge,diction of the office and apostleshipAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-72465667315558105352012-01-22T13:13:59.977-08:002012-01-22T13:13:59.977-08:00Woody, I don't recall having written on the fi...Woody, I don't recall having written on the finding in the Temple ... though, you are right that it would be a great topic to consider!<br /><br />I touched on something of this point in an article around Christmas time in which I explained that the general tradition of the Church is that Christ had full use of free will and reason, and that he knew all things in his humanity, from the first moment of his conception.<br />While yet an embryo, and infant, a child, and a young boy -- Christ was already a perfect man.<br /><br />http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/12/when-did-christ-reach-age-of-reason.html<br /><br />Peace to you! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-39714588578757684602012-01-22T12:02:21.538-08:002012-01-22T12:02:21.538-08:00Father, have you ever written on the time that Jes...Father, have you ever written on the time that Jesus was found by the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph in the temple? I have always wondered what the rabbis must have thought about Jesus, amazing them with his knowledge of the Torah, and then telling his Mother, in front of them, that she had no causes to worry as He was in HIS Father's house! Who did they think this boy was as He left with Mary and Joseph?!<br />WoodyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-7171938532843989142012-01-22T06:15:11.121-08:002012-01-22T06:15:11.121-08:00Great Point.Great Point.Morriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12764661218261629576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-80741294104913319522012-01-21T17:11:39.955-08:002012-01-21T17:11:39.955-08:00@TeaPot,
Thank you for bringing this point up ... ...@TeaPot,<br />Thank you for bringing this point up ... I had intended to mention it as well, but forgot.<br />Certainly, the calling in the synoptics makes much more sense when read in light of John! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-54408543063301433282012-01-21T17:10:52.864-08:002012-01-21T17:10:52.864-08:00@Dan,
I completely agree!
I wrote an article on t...@Dan,<br />I completely agree! <br />I wrote an article on this a while back -- http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/12/did-john-baptist-doubt-that-jesus-is.html<br /><br />Peace! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-63955584878791296992012-01-21T16:00:35.947-08:002012-01-21T16:00:35.947-08:00The account of the calling of the apostles in the ...The account of the calling of the apostles in the synoptics - Peter & Andrew abandoning their nets; and James and John abandoning their father Zebedee and his boat; make much better sense if these men had already heard Jesus preach and teach for some time before the episode described in the synoptic gospels.<br />TeaPot562Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-4938488976824320342012-01-21T13:35:49.305-08:002012-01-21T13:35:49.305-08:00I believe that John's sending of his disciples...I believe that John's sending of his disciples to Jesus to ask Him if He was the "expected One," was John's gentle way of turning their attention to Jesus.<br /><br />John knew that he himself, must decrease, and Jesus must increase.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01504517769804159508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-65587579085095959662012-01-21T12:00:46.130-08:002012-01-21T12:00:46.130-08:00Louis,
Please understand ... I'm not saying it...Louis,<br />Please understand ... I'm not saying it couldn't possibly be the case ... what I am saying is that there are good reasons to think that there were two Temple cleansings (and this seems to be the general opinion of the Church Fathers and Catholic Doctors).<br /><br />Now, the way that the cleansing of the Temple is presented in John is very different from the manner it is presented in the synoptics ... and they seem to have occurred at different times ... therefore, it is most reasonable to conclude that there were two cleansings.<br /><br />What you call "inconceivable" is the opinion held by saints and theologians for nearly 2,000 years (and still held by many today) ... perhaps a bit more humility is in order?Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-30056899399159658312012-01-21T07:20:13.462-08:002012-01-21T07:20:13.462-08:00Now hold on, clarify this for me: why must we assu...Now hold on, clarify this for me: why must we assume that because John does not mention the reaction of the Jewish Authorities, that therefore there was no reaction?<br /><br />Does believing in the infallibility of scripture mean that if something is not mentioned, then it did not happen?<br /><br />And further, how is it conceivable that someone who was not well know, and did not have the support of the crowds, could go into the sacred place of the Jews, and perform an action as disruptive as Jesus did, without severe punishment by the Jewish authorities?Louisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-22664791167465942962012-01-21T06:38:43.444-08:002012-01-21T06:38:43.444-08:00Louuis,
You (unwittingly) give another reason why ...Louuis,<br />You (unwittingly) give another reason why there had to be cleansings ... in John the Jewish authorities are relatively passive, but in the synoptics they are quite aggressive.<br /><br />And the reason they were passive in John is because this was the first cleansing before Jesus was well known, while John was still alive. At this time (early in the ministry) Jesus was not seen as a great threat -- but all this changed later.<br />Further, John makes no mention of large crowd support ... which our Savior did have in the second cleansing late in his ministry.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-5792507342031995572012-01-21T05:57:36.256-08:002012-01-21T05:57:36.256-08:00I don't see why it is necessary to assume that...I don't see why it is necessary to assume that Jesus cleansed the temple twice, in order to reconcile John - it seems easier, and more reasonable, to simply say that John has some reason for relating that particular event from Jesus's life early in his gospel, even though it happened later. Nor does this imply falsehood in the gospel, as John does not assert temporal continuity, but simply says, "the passover was at hand."<br /><br />A strong reason for believing that there was only one cleansing, is that the cleansing only makes historical sense in light of Jesus's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, with all the crowds supporting him, and hailing him as the son of God. It is inconceivable that the pharisees would allow anyone to do what Jesus does to the temple, their sacred place, unless they were in great fear of the crowds - and this in fact is mentioned by all the synoptics. <br /><br />If Jesus cleansed the temple while he was relatively unknown in Jerusalem, how is it possible to account for the remarkable passivity of the Jews and Pharisees?Louuisnoreply@blogger.com