Probably this is not something that we can settle through blog comments, and we’ll have to agree to disagree. But I’ve enjoyed talking to you too, I’ll have to reread the gospels some time with your comments in mind.

I guess I’m not entirely clear on what you’re suggesting, or where we disagree — I’m not saying that any of the gospel-writers have a fully fleshed-out doctrine of the trinity. I -am- saying that all of them assume the view that Jesus is coequal with God the Father. (The strongest case against this claim could be made from Mark, but I believe even Mark’s author assumes this view but couches it within his own rhetorical aims.) In all the synoptics, Jesus is either coequal with God or the world’s worst blasphemer; he is “worshipped” in numerous places and allows it to happen. Further, he implies that he has control of “his” angels, dictates Sabbath law, and says that tempting him is equivalent to putting God to the test. To me, reading anything but divinity into the synoptics is seriously against the grain. (Mind you, I have no problem with against-the-grain readings as a tool for getting new meaning out of a text for modern application, as in feminist and liberationist readings, but I draw the line at making anachronistic claims about the original author, compiler, or audience.)

So, I guess our main point of disagreement is what level of theological diversity in the new testament would support a view of the writings as representing entirely different faiths. I will gladly admit that many Christians have been very poorly educated about the Bible, and are therefore surprised by or very resistant to the idea of -any- theological diversity. This is a huge failing of the church in general, and especially the American church; as Duke ethicist Stanley Hauerwas famously said, “the worst thing the Reformation did was to put the Bible in the hands of individual Christians.” However, I believe the historical evidence doesn’t support a paranoid hermeneutic which would see rival factions at one another’s throats. What I see is a series of writings by people who are extremely diverse geographically, ethnically, and in worldview and philosophy — so it follows naturally that their theological conclusions would appear to be at odds with one another. All of them adhere to an essential “rule of faith.” Paul is clearly aware of the tensions, and his rule seems to be unity at almost any cost, but he won’t allow anything that would deny Jesus’s lordship. This is why the same collection of writings that boldly proclaims that there is neither slave nor free, Jew nor gentile, male nor female in Christ can accommodate writings that appear to be anti-female (in leadership) or anti-gay — although I would disagree with those interpretations, I’ll admit that they’ve were/have been the dominant interpretations for hundreds of years.

Anyway, sorry to be the longwinded comments guy, but I’ve enjoyed discussing this with you and Keera.

Best thing to do is hope he’s just doing it for show and for political points, and move on.

When I read the synoptics vs. John, the descriptions of Jesus are so significantly different that I’m suspicious of a claim they’re basically the same theology. And I’ve read two New Testament textbooks (admittedly, one by the ever-controversial Ehrman), that seem to back me up on this. Also, given the number of sects and disputes about the nature of Christ that went on well past the 1st century A.D., it doesn’t make sense to me that the synoptics would think that Jesus=Father, yet paint the portrait of Jesus that they do (”My lord, my lord, why have you forsaken me”???). They never state that Jesus=Father, and yet have many elements that would seem to make such an equivalence difficult (certainly not “extremely straightforward”) for a naive listener (of whom there must have been many at the time).

But the thing is, the Christology is vague and amorphous enough, that it’s not a good point of comparison. If we want to see whether the theology is the same throughout the New Testament, it makes more sense to look at things that are more fact-based and straightforward. Matthew thinks all Mosaic law is still binding on Christians (albeit with some surprising reinterpretations), and others disagree (as you’ve pointed out, in a couple of ways). Paul thinks some women are doing great in leadership positions in their local churches, while Pseudo-Paul thinks women should STFU. These are pretty significant differences.

@Keera: I’m not a spiritual person, so I don’t tend to take much stock in metaphysical interpretations of anything. As for whether or not Jesus actually existed, you’d be hard-pressed to find a scholar who would claim he didn’t. I think the new testament was extremely straightforward– to its original audiences. The message is clear: Jesus is Lord and King, Caesar is not, and if you want to be part of God’s kingdom, you have to love everyone, even your enemies– and this love is a practical thing, not a religious posture. It would be awesome if anybody (especially Christians) actually did that, but I’m certainly going to do my best to try.