Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Adrift]

Exactly.

The person I was rebutting claimed that it was established fact that John was a completely independent source.

Uh, Gary... This is what I said,

John is so unlike the Synoptics (sharing only around 8% with the Synoptics about the life of Jesus, but nothing verbatim) that it is considered an entirely unique source (though some scholars believe that John may have been at least vaguely aware of some of the synoptics in one form of the other, but does not rely on them).

And then I cited the following three scholars on the subject:

Source: The Gospel and Letters of John: Interpreting Biblical Texts Series by R. Alan Culpepper

The differences are so great (between John and the Synoptics) that John can hardly have drawn on the Synoptics as a major source for his material. John clearly relies on an independent source of tradition for his Gospel, one that he attributes to the Beloved Disciple. The similarities, such as they are, are more easily explained on the assumption that John used early Christian tradition that had developed its own peculiar turns of thought and expression in relative isolation from the Synoptic traditions.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: The Gospel According to John by D. A. Carson

The thesis of Gardner-Smith has taken hold of much of Johannine scholarship. Gardner-Smith argued that John is quite independent of the Synoptics, i.e. that there is no evidence that the Fourth Gospel was written as a theological 'correction' or 'addendum' to one or more of the Synoptic Gospels...The majority of commentators hold that John is independent of the Synoptic Gospels...

© Copyright Original Source

Source: A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume V by John P. Meier

As indicated throughout the first four volumes of A Marginal Jew, I hold that John's Gospel represents a tradition similar to but independent of the Synoptics. The treatments of the Passion tradition by C.H. Dodd (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1963] 21-151) and at much greater length by Raymond E. Brown (The Death of the Messiah [AYBRL; 2 vols; New York: Doubleday, 1994]) offer, in my view, convincing arguments in favor of this position, especially in regards to the Passion tradition. The view that John is basically independent of the Synoptics has been reexamined historically and defended exegetically by D. Moody Smith in the revised and updated version of his John among the Gospels (2d ed.; Columbia: University of South Carolina, 2001); see esp. pp. 195-241. More to the point, John's independence of the Synoptics has been examined and vindicated numerous times in the various volumes of A Marginal Jew, both in the sayings material (e.g., the Baptist's saying about baptism by water and by spirit [vol. 2, pp. 32-39]; Jesus' saying about saving or losing one's life [vol. 3, pp. 56-64]) and in narratives (e.g., the healing of the royal official's son/centurion's servant, the walking on the water, and the feeding of the five thousand [vol. 2, pp. 718-26, pp. 905-24, and pp. 950-67 respectively]).

© Copyright Original Source

And then psstein said,

Gary, the question is pretty settled. Almost everyone today holds to either 2 or 4. Kingsley Barrett was a great scholar who did great work. He was wrong on John.

There are also more views than the ones Porter mentions...

Where exactly do you find disagreement between our posts so that you have this mini-crow of "Exactly" as though you won some sort of challenge?

[psstein]

Uh, Gary... This is what I said,

Where exactly do you find disagreement between our posts so that you have this mini-crow of "Exactly" as though you won some sort of challenge?

The strongest argument I've seen for John depending on anything else is Bauckham's contention that John had heard Mark preached at some point, which is possible.

Meier, Culpepper, and Carson are three outstanding scholars, and Meier refers to several other top works. Those guys are the best of the best.

[Gary]

The strongest argument I've seen for John depending on anything else is Bauckham's contention that John had heard Mark preached at some point, which is possible.

Meier, Culpepper, and Carson are three outstanding scholars, and Meier refers to several other top works. Those guys are the best of the best.

The author heard Mark preach or just heard that stories that the author of Mark wrote in his book?

[One Bad Pig]

Let's take a look at CULTwatch and expose Adrift for what he is:


The modern definition of a mind control cult is any group which employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques. In other words cults trick people into joining and coerce them into staying. This is the definition that most people would agree with. Except the cults themselves of course!

Key Point: Character assassination, especially of ex-members, is a key tool of cults.

Source: http://www.cultwatch.com/howcultswork.html

Adrift's conservative Christianity:

Deceptive Recruiting Techniques: "Jesus looooooves you so much! We loooooooove you so much! Believe in Jesus and he will give you peace that passes all understanding. Believe in Jesus and you will get a mansion in heaven and a golden crown! Believe in Jesus and you will live forever...after you die!"

Mind Control: "If you ever leave Christianity, you will be damned (tortured in some fashion)...forever and ever!"



Cult! Cult! Cult!

By the way: If you suffer from neck, back, knee, hip or joint chronic pain; have tried physical therapy, steroid injections, NSAIDs, pain specialists, I strongly urge you to investigate prolotherapy and Platelet Rich Plasma therapy. It has helped a lot of people!

Thank you to Adrift and Little Pixie for allowing me to share these treatment options with the Theology Web viewership!

Gary, your posts like this (which come particularly when your ox gets gored) make it very difficult to take you at all seriously. Wildly attacking instead of defending yourself makes it look like you're just trying to divert attention away from your own beliefs. Your repeated attempts to smear all conservative Christians as fundamentalists doesn't help much either.

[psstein]

The author heard Mark preach or just heard that stories that the author of Mark wrote in his book?

Bauckham argues that "John" heard Mark read in the church, but was unfamiliar with the physical text.

[lilpixieofterror]

I answered your question. Once you graduate from college, I'm sure you will then understand.

Sorry Gary, but it doesn't matter what my education level is. Quack medicine is still quack medicine and my sources of information are those who are doctors and scientist. What do they know though, they disagree with the great Gary, so they have to be wrong.

[lilpixieofterror]

So is there any punishment whatsoever to someone who rejects Jesus as their Lord and Savior and dies?

If you say, no, then we can shake hands and call it a day. I could care less what superstitions you choose to believe as long as you are not telling the rest of us that we are going to be punished in some fashion for not accepting your belief system, and, you are not trying to force your supernatural-based morality on secular society (denying gays equal rights, etc.).

If you are a universalist, there is no need for us to debate each other.

I'm not a universalist, but it is quite telling that you're mind isn't capable of anything beyond black/white. You must either believe in eternal punishment or you're a univeralist, no in-betweens in Gary's universe. Yet, I'm suppose to believe you're a doctor when you think in such black/white terms?

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't think any Christian here is stupid. You all seem intelligent. But I think those of you who are fundamentalist/conservative Christians are brainwashed and I am trying to help you see that.

In other words, people who disagree with Gary, must be brainwashed. No other answer exist, beyond that. Still battling your fundamentalist past?

[lilpixieofterror]

Gary, your posts like this (which come particularly when your ox gets gored) make it very difficult to take you at all seriously. Wildly attacking instead of defending yourself makes it look like you're just trying to divert attention away from your own beliefs. Your repeated attempts to smear all conservative Christians as fundamentalists doesn't help much either.

What makes it hilarious is the fact that his source was written by a bunch of Christians (who most likely hold beliefs not all that different from Adrift).

[Gary]

Bauckham argues that "John" heard Mark read in the church, but was unfamiliar with the physical text.

So isn't possible that the author of John heard the stories in the Gospel of Mark in church and used them as a core for his story, without any other sources?

[Gary]

I'm not a universalist, but it is quite telling that you're mind isn't capable of anything beyond black/white. You must either believe in eternal punishment or you're a univeralist, no in-betweens in Gary's universe. Yet, I'm suppose to believe you're a doctor when you think in such black/white terms?

So what happens to the person who rejects Jesus as their Lord and Savior and dies????????

[Adrift]

So isn't possible that the author of John heard the stories in the Gospel of Mark in church and used them as a core for his story, without any other sources?

Gary...we realize that in your own little solipsist world nothing can be certain, and everything may or may not be possible (with the exception of the miraculous), but that's not how historians work. Historians follow evidence. They don't simply speculate on vague possibilities with no basis. The question you should be asking is, "is there any evidence that John heard GoM being read in a church?" And if the answer is no then you ought to accept it. Most academic professionals don't live in this strange world of "anything is possible" that you do. Most people in general don't live in that world. If you really are the man of science and reason that you claim you are, you should know this. It's usually only new agey types with their heads in clouds of purple haze that think that way, or super-skeptics who always ask "what if", but don't really care about real answers.

[Adam]

So isn't possible that the author of John heard the stories in the Gospel of Mark in church and used them as a core for his story, without any other sources?

No, The basics of the Gospel of John were written before Mark as we know it was written, perhaps far away in Rome.
John seems to share the Passion Narrative with the Synoptics, but its other sources are independent of the Synoptics. But John 18 to 20 is precisely the part leading up to and involving the Resurrection, so this common source is relevant.

[Adam]

So what happens to the person who rejects Jesus as their Lord and Savior and dies????????

I'm perceiving a mixed message here.
Elsewhere you asked whether we believe non-Christians can avoid going to Hell. That's one answer (and clear "Yes" from me). Now you seem to be asking a quite different question, what happens to someone who specifically REJECTS Jesus? Given so much about Calvinism and/or other Predestination, maybe those are indeed the non-Elect. But does that mean annihilation, reincarnation, or Hell? (Given that I don't believe anyone I know of has free will, it would be quite much to say that they all go to Hell.)

[Gary]

Gary...we realize that in your own little solipsist world nothing can be certain, and everything may or may not be possible (with the exception of the miraculous), but that's not how historians work. Historians follow evidence. They don't simply speculate on vague possibilities with no basis. The question you should be asking is, "is there any evidence that John heard GoM being read in a church?" And if the answer is no then you ought to accept it. Most academic professionals don't live in this strange world of "anything is possible" that you do. Most people in general don't live in that world. If you really are the man of science and reason that you claim you are, you should know this. It's usually only new agey types with their heads in clouds of purple haze that think that way, or super-skeptics who always ask "what if", but don't really care about real answers.

Ridiculous and preposterous.

Of course we have to consider any and all possible explanations for similarities in two ancient books. Did they share a common source or sources? Did one author copy or at least borrow concepts from the other? Or were they completely independent eyewitness testimonies of real events?

My point is that Christians cannot prove that John is an independent eyewitness testimony of the Resurrection. The author of John could well have simply built his story around a core Jesus story he had already heard, stories which originated in the earlier three gospels. For all we know, the author of Mark invented the empty tomb. The author of Matthew invented the Roman guards. The author of Luke invented the trip to Bethany. And the author of John invented the story of the appearance on the shores of the Sea of Tiberius. Maybe these stories were never meant to be taken literally. They were theological embellishments. Everyone knew that Jesus' body had been tossed into an unmarked common grave. The earliest belief in a Resurrection was due to perceived post-death appearances in visions, dreams and misperceptions of natural phenomena (bright lights), not an empty tomb. It wasn't until the second century, when all the eyewitnesses were dead, that Christians came to view the Empty Tomb and the detailed appearance stories in the Gospels as literal.