troperville

tools

toys


main index

Narrative

Genre

Media

Topical Tropes

Other Categories

TV Tropes Org
random
Kickstarter Message
TV Tropes Needs Your Help
X
Big things are happening on TV Tropes! New admins, new designs, fewer ads, mobile versions, beta testing opportunities, thematic discovery engine, fun trope tools and toys, and much more - Learn how to help here and discuss here.
View Kickstarter Project
Headscratchers: The Man from Earth
New entries on the bottom.

    open/close all folders 

    Books on John wrong 

  • So John's name and myth got corrupted into Jesus over hundreds of years. Okay, but then how did the guys who knew him personally AND wrote the books on him get it wrong, embellishment aside?
    • Actually, none of the books of the New Testament were written by anyone who actually knew Jesus first-hand. Scholars believe that the earliest of the Gospels were written about 30-50 years after Jesus died and are second- and third-hand accounts.
      • Matthew and John were Jesus' disciples (read First John 1:1 - that "which we looked upon and have touched with our hands,") Mark was an associate of Peter, and Luke was an associate of Paul who did his research. Luke 1:1-4 "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."
      • According to tradition, they were. The books themselves do not say this. First John 1:1 reads "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Your quote is not found. I'm not sure where the evidence for Mark/Paul and Luke/Peter comes from. The Gospels were anonymous originally, the names added years after, therefore we do not know for sure who wrote them, if they were eyewitnesses, or drew on eyewitness accounts. Eyewitness evidence is the worst by far in any case.
    • Maybe because they were some primitive screwheads who watched him walk out of his fucking tomb. Not to mention the embellishment by their descendants probably did the most embellishing.
    • But how did they miss his name? Big old phonetic difference between "Jahn" and "Gee-zuss,"especially since they wrote it down.
      • What, you think the name John was around some thousands of years ago? Obviously the guy would have to change his name occasionally.
      • New testament. Fourth book. The gospel according to John.
      • The person who wrote the gospel was called Iohannes in Latin. It would have been יוֹחָנָן (Yḥānān), which is the shortened form of יְהוֹחָנָן (Yəhḥānān)]], not "John" as it's written in the English bible. And John explicitly says his name was always pronounced John, not Iohannes like gospel John's name. The closest Greek pronunciation of John is Dion, which means God. It's Dios, but it's Dion in object form or as a neutral noun.
      • Yeshua was the Aramaic proper name of Jesus. Yeshua was the name "Joshua," as we know it now. So it's not a stretch to go from Joshua to John over years.
    • Maybe Jesus is his chosen surname or he decided to have a rest and use some creative names. John Jesus sounds pretty normal for a 1st century name...
    • A bit of a stretch here, but John claims that he was trying to bring Buddhism from the East as Jesus. Gnosticism does have much in common with Buddhism and other Eastern religions. Who's to say the Gnostics weren't John's actual followers as Jesus? Basically, not only did he ended up having to fake his death but his actual followers got killed by people who completely missed the point.
    • I feel like people are commenting here that didn't actually watch the movie. The entire transition from John to Jesus is explained by John in the movie. Allow me to reemphasize: This whole explanation for the name Jesus is IN THE MOVIE. I can't find the direct paragraph long quote, but it's a couple of corruptions along with some honorifics thrown on.
      • He explicitly says that he went by John not only at the time, but since the beginning of his life, and that the whole Jesus thing was a completely external corruption that happened years after his "death"/"resurrection".

  • On another note, why would the Romans make an exception for John and not nail him to a cross? It's standard Roman procedure to use nails, and then to use a spear to pierce the lungs, in order to see the victim has drowned in their own bodily fluids yet. There appears no reason for the Romans to go kind on him.
    • John himself debunks this, saying that the Romans actually tied their victims to the crosses, and that the nails and blood just made for better religious art work.
      • To clarify what the above troper wrote, crucifixion is death by public torture. The body is tied to the cross in the hot sun in public and have his ankles broken. Then he/she is left for days outside to die a slow painful death via hypothermia, dehydration, and pain. Stabbing a guy through the nails on his hands will result in a relatively quick death via blood-loss. It is also note that nailing a person to a cross is actually PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, as due to the weight of the human body, odds are the hands will just slide off or be torn off the nails.
      • It's been clarified that a victim would have to be nailed through the wrists, not hands, as only the latter could support the weight. Nailing someone actually was an act of mercy, as it caused them to die faster (as was spearing them through the lungs, which the Bible depicts Jesus as undergoing). The Romans sometimes would add a base beneath the feet if they wanted to prolong the torture, or break the legs of the victim so they'd collapse and die faster. Purportedly, Julius Caesar was once kidnapped by pirates as a young man, who were punished with crucifixion after he was rescued. He allegedly cut their throats to spare them prolonged torment. Crucifixion was the Roman punishment for any crime against their state or its citizens.

    Mayfly December Romance 

  • Okay, so if John laments having to always eventually leave the women he's married to and the children he's fathered, why does he keep doing it?
    • It gets lonely...
    • He's a person. Every now and again he's going to do things that he knows might not be wise, like we all do, and he has a lot of time to do them in.
    • Because in between marrying them and leaving them, he gets a few years at least of happiness, companionship and family.
      • Frankly, what everybody forgets when they talk about MayflyDecemberRomances is the fact that the immortal partner isn't sprinting through eternity, they just never stop walking. They wake up an experiences every day in Real Time. Why wouldn't they want to experience love and happiness during some 60+ years of those days?
MamaHeadscratchers/FilmMan of Steel

random
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy
8421
39