Who met Jesus first, Andrew or Simon?

[teixidoj]

Does anyone know why these scriptures are different?

John 1:40
John 1:41
John 1:42

Matthew 4:18
Matthew 4:19
Matthew 4:20

[Canuckster1127]

Likely describing two separate events. They aren't mutually exclusive. If Jesus had met them before and relationship established that might explain why they left so readily. That's a possible explanation but it's not necessarily the only one.

[jlay]

Jesus didn't put a magic spell on Peter and Andrew.
When Jesus called to them, they were well aware of who He was. Based on their reaction.
In fact the phrase, "come follow me," would have had significant meaning to a Jew. We are talking about men, totally willing to leave their livelihood. So it stands to reason that they were already personally acquinted with Jesus. In fact the two different accounts would support such a conclusion.

[teixidoj]

Jesus didn't put a magic spell on Peter and Andrew.
When Jesus called to them, they were well aware of who He was. Based on their reaction.
In fact the phrase, "come follow me," would have had significant meaning to a Jew. We are talking about men, totally willing to leave their livelihood. So it stands to reason that they were already personally acquinted with Jesus. In fact the two different accounts would support such a conclusion.

You obviously did not read the scriptures, one scripture says that Jesus met Andrew and Simon together, while the other scripture says that Jesus met Andrew first and that Andrew brought Simon to meet Jesus.

[Canuckster1127]

Jesus didn't put a magic spell on Peter and Andrew.
When Jesus called to them, they were well aware of who He was. Based on their reaction.
In fact the phrase, "come follow me," would have had significant meaning to a Jew. We are talking about men, totally willing to leave their livelihood. So it stands to reason that they were already personally acquinted with Jesus. In fact the two different accounts would support such a conclusion.

You obviously did not read the scriptures, one scripture says that Jesus met Andrew and Simon together, while the other scripture says that Jesus met Andrew first and that Andrew brought Simon to meet Jesus.

What makes you certain that this is describing the same event?

[Gman]

Does anyone know why these scriptures are different?

John 1:40
John 1:41
John 1:42

Matthew 4:18
Matthew 4:19
Matthew 4:20

"The first passages indicate Jesus' initial interview of the disciples, not their permanent call. As a result of this first contact they only stayed with Jesus "that day" (John 1:39), after which they returned to their homes and regular employment. The later passages indicate the time they left their former jobs and took up their full-time ministry as disciples of Christ." - Geisler and Howe

[teixidoj]

Jesus didn't put a magic spell on Peter and Andrew.
When Jesus called to them, they were well aware of who He was. Based on their reaction.
In fact the phrase, "come follow me," would have had significant meaning to a Jew. We are talking about men, totally willing to leave their livelihood. So it stands to reason that they were already personally acquinted with Jesus. In fact the two different accounts would support such a conclusion.

You obviously did not read the scriptures, one scripture says that Jesus met Andrew and Simon together, while the other scripture says that Jesus met Andrew first and that Andrew brought Simon to meet Jesus.

What makes you certain that this is describing the same event?

What makes you certain that they are not the same event?

[Canuckster1127]

Jesus didn't put a magic spell on Peter and Andrew.
When Jesus called to them, they were well aware of who He was. Based on their reaction.
In fact the phrase, "come follow me," would have had significant meaning to a Jew. We are talking about men, totally willing to leave their livelihood. So it stands to reason that they were already personally acquinted with Jesus. In fact the two different accounts would support such a conclusion.

You obviously did not read the scriptures, one scripture says that Jesus met Andrew and Simon together, while the other scripture says that Jesus met Andrew first and that Andrew brought Simon to meet Jesus.

What makes you certain that this is describing the same event?

What makes you certain that they are not the same event?

Well, first of all, you're the one making the claim positively that they are he same events and so the onus is upon you to demonstrate your point. Responding like that makes me believe you're just using this thread to try and attack and raise doubts and not really committed to engaging in the conversation that you yourself started. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Perhaps you'll show me otherwise.

Neither John or Matthew, nor any Gospel for that matter claims to be a full record of everything that Jesus said or did. It makes perfect sense to me that the formal calling was made in a different setting and event. The synoptics agree with one another about the event described that you chose the passage from Matt. Luke is actually more thorough in his treating of this particular event. John, as I suspect you know, is quite different from the Synoptics in terms of its purpose and layout. The calling of all the disciples are not recorded in John. John is much less about a purely historical account and instead brings in information is it ties into the themes that are being woven as to who Jesus is.

So, there's nothing in the text that makes the claim in John that this is the first time either Simon or Andrew met Jesus. In fact, Andrew was likely already a disciple of John the Baptist and in that context certainly had met or know of Jesus before then. There's nothing in the text that points to this being the first time ever that Jesus met them. In fact, it makes sense that they knew him before. John is focused on the conversation that took place and the change of name given to Peter.

Now, again, the onus is on you to show why you believe these are conflicting accounts. What is there in the text that leads you to believe these passages are making conflicting claims? Are you assuming that just because the passage in John mentions Andrew and Simon for the first time that that follows that it's making the claim that they've never met before? Seems pretty weak to me.

[B. W.]

Jesus didn't put a magic spell on Peter and Andrew.
When Jesus called to them, they were well aware of who He was. Based on their reaction.
In fact the phrase, "come follow me," would have had significant meaning to a Jew. We are talking about men, totally willing to leave their livelihood. So it stands to reason that they were already personally acquinted with Jesus. In fact the two different accounts would support such a conclusion.

You obviously did not read the scriptures, one scripture says that Jesus met Andrew and Simon together, while the other scripture says that Jesus met Andrew first and that Andrew brought Simon to meet Jesus.

What makes you certain that this is describing the same event?

What makes you certain that they are not the same event?

Teixdo - have you ever been part of a court trial as a witness or at least seen how testimony is done in a court of law. No two accounts of the same event will be the same. There will be non-important differences but the crux of the testimonies by each witness remains intact. In fact, try this game out - have eight friends and six sit in different parts and distances in the same room. Have two players play act a silent skit of some even only they know about. After acting, have the others write down what they saw.

You'll have six different accounts of the same event. No two will be alike. Such is the truth of eyewitness testimony. Likewise, the gospel accounts are eyewitness testimonies and by such point of the truth of what each testified about. If the gospel accounts were all carbon copies of each other, then they would lead no one to the testimony's testament and in essence are not eyewitness accounts at all. The bible is unique in that it allows eyewitness testimony of the truth each saw and heard pointing out who and what Christ is and is about.

The bible does not tell you - it instead lets you think and come to your own conclusions about the testimony it proclaims. If all the gospel accounts were carbon copies then you have plagiarism and not truth. Much like the boycott protest letters sent to Glen Beck's sponsors based on plagiarist responses.
-
-
-