Febble

How do you know it was a Markan invention? I understand that if you start from the assumption that there cannot have been an empty tomb, there can't have been any "eyewitness" to it. But that seems like circular reasoning to me.

What independent evidence is there that it was a Markan invention?

The reason I think the narrative sounds like an eyewitness account is that it contains those physical details. The details may well have been invented to make a particular point, but they also sound like the words of an eyewitness. My claim is simply that the writer of John seems deliberately to have made the narrative sound like an eyewitness account.

How do you know that the reason for the details was to give Peter primacy as witness?

Diogenes the Cynic

Also 12:42 and 16:2. The author of John thought that the followers of Jesus could not enter synagogues during his lifetime. That is not true.
That verse does not say that "he that saw" is the author of John. In fact, it refers to the alleged witness in the third person.

Febble

Ah, 12.42 was what I was looking for. 16.2 is a prediction.

So, your point is that there is no evidence that these things happened? During who's lifetime? I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just not seeing your point.

OK, we are still at cross-purposes. I do not think it is likely that the person who physically wrote St John's gospel was an eyewitness. All I am saying is that the way the gospel is written seems to imply eye witness authority - in fact it goes out of its way to do so.

In which case there seem to be two alternatives:

• The writer thought the eye witness accounts s/he was reporting were literally true.
• The gospel writer was attempting to deceive readers into believing the accounts were literally true.

Diogenes the Cynic

I have to leave my computer for a while and this requires a longer answer than I have time for but you can start here to get an idea of what the argument is.

Febble

Thank you. Talk to you later.

Hallandale

Take a look at the following ....John 5:2-8
2Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

3In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.

4For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

5And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.

6When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?

7The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.

8Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.

In recent years this place has been excavated in Jerusalem.
Since it was near Sheep Gate it was right next to the Temple Mount.
Take a closer look at verse 4.... 4For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
The Angel stirs the water...first guy in is healed....the rest are out of luck.
Does this seem like a system devised by a loving God? Or does this seem like a pagan scheme? Is this a system that harmonizes with Jewish religious practices? Would you expect the Jews to allow a pagan temple to stand next to their temple? Decide for yourself.

As you might expect, the pool was there from creation, but some archeologists date the five porches from the second century CE after the temple was destroyed and the Jews were expelled after the revolt of 125CE.
This would make John over 125 years old when he wrote his gospel.

Nick Hallandale
enterprisestrategy@earthlink.net

Febble

It sounds like pre-science. If there really was a pool, and it really was "troubled" from time to time I would not postulate an angel, but nor would I postulate that the writer of John would postulate, say, an intermittent spring, which I would consider more likely. I can readily believe that people believed that the troubled waters might promote healing, and might attribute the movement of the waters to a supernatural agent. People believe such things all too easily today. I don't believe God works like that. The recent finding of the non-efficacy of prayer in recovery from heart surgery would seem to support that view. I am sure you would agree.

Well, if the archaologists were right, yes, it would make the writer of the later. I am not particularly arguing, in any case, that the gospel cannot have been written later, merely that it may have drawn on an eye witness source. But I agree, if the archaological evidence you cite is correct, I am wrong. My own (limited) reading of the archaological evidence was that the porches preceded the fall of Jerusalem and were destroyed then. I do not have the citation, I will try to find it. Do you have a link for your evidence?

andrewcriddle

FWIW verse 4 is not found in many ancient manuscripts and is probably not part of the original text of John.

Andrew Criddle

NOGO

Right!
A loving God would not do that.
A loving God would kill all the newborn children in order to punish their parents. Now that is a loving God for you.
A loving God would save all who believe this absurd story, the rest are damned.

Since all your arguement hinges on the loving God point...
then I would say that you do not have an argument.

Rycke Brown

Buster Down: I only analyze the gospels by comparison with each other and my knowledge of the period. Regarding the words of Jesus on the cross, I regard the account in Matthew and Luke, "My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?" as much more plausible than Luke's philosophical discussions with thieves or giving his mother to his self-proclaimed "beloved disciple" John. There's no reason, from Matthew and Mark, to believe that his mother was even in Jeruselem. She had sons and daughters in Nazareth to look after; she didn't need to be following her famous son all over the country in her old age.

But I don't call the gospel of John one big fat lie just because it's obvious fiction, or even fiction presented as truth. One could do either and present Jesus' philosophy in a form consistent with the other gospels. What irritates me about John is his complete contradiction of Jesus' basic philosophical stances, personality, and tactics.

Throughout the first two gospels, Jesus preaches that actions are louder than words, that what matters to God is what you do, not what you say, that loving your neighbor is everything and that public piety is nothing. He also preached against the priests and lawyers that were sucking money and sacrifices out of the poor. He told the poor that the door to salvation was open to them, if they would only repent and keep a few simple laws. He performed miracles, but told people not to tell others, and they weren't the main show in his revival. He never called himself the Son of God, but only the Son of Man. He preached that anyone could be a son of God, if only he would follow God's rules. (Paul expanded on this point.) A subtext runs through it of subtly resisting stupid laws and taxes.

In John, his only message seems to be: I'm The Son of God, and you'd better listen to me, because he sent me and he'll be mad if you don't. In fact, all you have to do is believe in me and praise my name, and you'll be saved, (regardless of what you do.) He goes on at great and tedious length about it. And when he performs a miracle, he tells the person he healed to tell everyone about it, as though he wouldn't otherwise.

But most churches dote on the Gospel of John, and dismiss the main messages of the Synoptics.

Julian, Febble: "religion" is not synonymous with churches or belief in gods. Religion is what you believe is the truth, what you think about it, feel about it, do about it. My atheism is as religious as my Christianity and my natural gardening methods.