What Bible scholars really think about John’s gospel you will probably never hear from your pastor/minister/priest

I’m sorry to break the bad news to you: what scholars think of the historical value of John’s gospel is a million miles from what the man in the pew thinks:

J.D.G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press ,1985, pp. 31-32.

Dunn is a British New Testament scholar who was for many years the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham. He is a minister of the Church of Scotland and a Methodist local preacher.

Advertisements


Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity

72 replies

  1. EP Sanders (described by John B. Meier as America’s “most distinguished scholar” in the
    field of historical Jesus research) explains:

    “It is impossible to think that Jesus spent his short ministry teaching in two such completely different ways, conveying such different contents, and there were simply two traditions, each going back to Jesus, one transmitting 50 per cent of what he said and another one the other 50 per cent, with almost no overlaps. Consequently, for the last 150 or so years scholars have had to choose. They have almost unanimously, and I think entirely correctly, concluded that the teaching of the historical Jesus is to be sought in the synoptic gospels and that John represents an advanced theological development, in which meditations on the person and work of Christ are presented in the first person, as if Jesus said them.”

    E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure Of Jesus, 1993, Penguin Books, pp. 70-71.

    Like

  2. The “Man in the Pew” should THANK modern Biblical Scholarship for freeing them from the misunderstandings and false notions of their spoon fed devotional beliefs about the Bible. They should take this moment as an opportunity to distance Christian belief, away from original sin, lawless faith based redemptive atonement, Trinitarianism, and correct and reform it back in line with the Abrahamic belief in faith plus works, adherence to divine law, original forgiveness, and Unitarianism. That’s just for starters.

    I think it is important to emphasize that the problems with John as a direct historical witness, to the testimony and teachings of Jesus, is NOT something that was INVENTED, but was rather DISCOVERED by modern biblical scholarship. If the high Christology of John represents a more highly evolved evolution of the Gospel narrative by later Christians, then it brings into question long held Christian beliefs about the divinity of Jesus, which may actually be inaccurate since they are not actually related to the teachings and self understanding of the historical Jesus. As such, it is an issue that the man in the pew is forced to intellectually deal with, and which could have profound effects on the belief and attitude of millions of Christians or potential Christians.

    In regard to the “Mad, Bad, or God” argument, or C.S. Lewis Trilemma “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord”, are really nothing more than a “Hobson’s choice” designed to lead the unsuspecting into agreement with the questioner’s preferred answer when in reality there are other unstated options. C.S Lewis really presented a “false Trilemma.” It is hard to see how anyone, (outside of an avowed Trinitarian) could fall for such a transparent ruse.

    Liked by 2 people

    • ‘I think it is important to emphasize that the problems with John as a direct historical witness, to the testimony and teachings of Jesus, is NOT something that was INVENTED, but was rather DISCOVERED by modern biblical scholarship.’

      Precisely.

      Btw we can expect an avalanche of attacks on Islam…

      Liked by 3 people

    • As usual, instead of dealing with the facts and issues within their own religion, unreconstructed right-wing missionaries prefer to deflect by attacking Islam….as if THAT will address the serious issues that Biblical Scholarship has discovered.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Yup. Et tu quoque, Musulmane?

      Like

  3. Matthew chapters 5, 6, 7
    and
    Matthew 12-13
    and
    Matthew 18
    Matthew 23-24
    and
    Mark 7
    and
    Luke 12-13
    and
    Luke 15-18
    are not long discourses?

    The kingdom in John – John 3:3; 3:5; 18:36

    But thanks for confirming that Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 are historical and therefore refute Islam, along with several whole chapters on Jesus’ crucifixion and death, burial, resurrection.

    Like

    • they are composite sayings collected into chapters by Matthew as your master John Clavin recognised centuries ago.

      Luke rejected Mark 10:45. He was right. Jesus was not a sacrificial sin offering.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “therefore refute Islam”
      It doesn’t even in your dreams!

      Liked by 3 people

    • You people are so pathetic! All of this refutes your religion. Deal with that and stop trying to deflect to Islam. LOL, why does everything that refutes your Bible somehow refute Islam? You and Lassie must have come from the same pound!

      Liked by 2 people

    • it is not my fault if you guys affirmed the historicity of Matthew, Mark, and Luke by James D.G. Dunn.
      Therefore,
      Mark chapters 14, 15, 16:1-8; and Matthew chapters 26, 27, 28, and Luke chapters 22, 23, 24 all refute Islam. (because of Surah 4:157)

      Like

    • We know how secular historians think, Ken!
      Try to tell them that Jesus was born without a father!
      That matter is between you and us in the day of judgment. You need to prove, historcially, that Jesus’ mission was to claim his divinity to die for your sins. This is your task! So far, you have been failing miserably, and I’m telling you can’t do nothing about it.
      As a result, the doctrine of chrisinity is the biggest lie known in the history of humanity.

      Like

    • Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 and the “new covenant in My blood for the forgiveness of sins” passages in mark 14, Luke 22 and matthew 26 are very clear that Jesus’ purpose in coming was to be a ransom (substitutionary atonement) for sin.

      Also, Jesus clearly claimed Deity when He said He is the Lord of the Sabbath Day (a claim to be the LORD Yahweh Creator in Genesis 1-2, who rested on the seventh day) – Mark 2:28 and had the power and authority to forgive sins. “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Mark 2:7-11, etc.

      Matthew 14:33 – “they worshiped Him” and Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 – “don’t do that, only worship God” the angel said.

      Like

    • The historical value of your comment is a big zero, Ken.
      Also, it’s amazing how christians use jews’ accustations against Jesus,but they don’t use Jesus’ explanation for those false accusations!
      And please tell me, how that man was forgiven while he had no idea about the second person of the your trinity, and the best sacrifice(i.e which is god according to your nonsense belief) had not been offered yet!?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Any answer , Ken?

      Like

    • The man’s faith and desire to be forgiven was demonstrated by the efforts they went to get him down on the pallet from the ceiling – when an event takes place before the historical event of the cross and resurrection, and the full revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity, those truths are still realities, but mysteries and hidden seeds of truth within the simple faith of the man to reach out and trust Jesus Christ. A person does not have to know all the details of particular doctrines to have true saving faith.
      The sacrifice, Deity of Christ, Trinity doctrinal details are revealed later, so they are not mentioned in the historical narrative of Mark 2 and Matthew 9 and Luke 5. You have to account for progressive revelation.

      Like

    • what you said is made up. jesus thought that the kingdom of god was going to come in his life time. he went around attacking the religious leaders and telling them to stop hiding behind scape goats. the historical jesus did not believe he was going to become a scape goat for sins

      scapegoat
      ˈskeɪpɡəʊt/
      noun
      1.
      a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency

      Like

    • how you can make him into levitical animal sacrifice when the man himself condemns people to the harsh punishment in the hereafter

      how you can make him into levitical animal sacrifice when the man tells people to REPENT

      REPENT

      REPENT

      have some shame man.

      Like

    • “but mysteries and hidden seeds of truth within the simple faith of the man to reach out and trust Jesus Christ.”
      This means nothing!
      You just approved that a person can be forgiven without any sacrifice & without believing in your trinity!, which is something you cannot accept in your religion, and you cannot escape from those theological implications.
      Morover, why did you leave the answer of Jesus!? Jesus should have said for jews that because I’m God in the trinity which doesn’t contradict the oneness of God, I can forgive sins! Why did he say (which is easier)? What’s this supposed to mean? Jesus always missed the opportunity when he should have revealed the “reality” about himself while that “reality” was supposed to be the most important thing in his mission!
      That authority is the same authority that John the Baptist had in Mark 2:4! It’s the same authority that Jesus got asked about in Matthew 21:25-26!
      Let me ask you the same question that Jesus asked jews:
      “The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?”

      “He said He is the Lord of the Sabbath”
      Again, Jesus’ explanation is answer for the false implication raised by you and the jews! Why do you keep ignoring those explanations of Jesus and just stick yourself with jews’ accusations against Jesus!?
      Read Mark 2:25-26!

      “so they are not mentioned in the historical narrative”
      Your gospel are not historical narratives rather they are theological ones. You know that, don’t you?
      I discuss with you based on this fact! I’m asking about the theological implications!
      The historicity of narratives in your gospels makes your argument dead already!

      Like

  4. “it is not my fault if you guys affirmed the historicity of Matthew, Mark, and Luke by James D.G. Dunn.
    Therefore,
    Mark chapters 14, 15, 16:1-8; and Matthew chapters 26, 27, 28, and Luke chapters 22, 23, 24 all refute Islam. (because of Surah 4:157)”

    LOL, still not getting it? Your religion has been refuted. The Gospel of John is a fake gospel about Jesus. Ergo, your Bible is not “inspired” or “inerrant”. Instead of trying to deflect to Islam, why don’t you deal with this fact? Stop living in your denial.

    And by the way, Matthew and Luke copied Mark and Mark most likely copied from the Q gospel. The Q gospel said nothing about Jesus’ death.

    “…as Kloppenborg observes, the Q Gospel “…lacks any explicit description of Jesus’ death” (p. 65). So, it actually does not tell us much about his last days anyway.

    Moreover, Professor Daniel A. Smith of Huron University College explains that:

    “Assumption…was usually considered a bodily removal of a person from earth to heaven while still alive” (The Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q (New York: T&T Clark International, 2006), p.2)

    Smith, however, did argue that Jesus’ “assumption” occurred after he had died, basing this on “evidence from Graeco-Roman and Jewish sources that assumption language could be applied to someone who had died” (Ibid.). But it seems that Smith assumed Jesus’ “death” from the beginning, rather than determining this from the Q Gospel, which as we already pointed out, did not describe Jesus’ death at all. Furthermore, as Muslim scholar Shabir Ally observes, some scholars came to the conclusion that the Q Gospel implied that Jesus had been raised alive. Commenting on Daniel Smith’s claim that the assumption of Jesus occurred after his death, Ally states:

    “But whereas Smith insists that Jesus was taken up dead in the manner of Moses and Isaiah, his study also highlights the fact that the Q Gospel which served as a source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke do not speak of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The German scholar Deiter Zeller argues on the basis of the Q Gospel, that the early belief entailed the assumption of Jesus alive, as was the case with Enoch and Elijah” (http://shabirally.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/did-jesus-physically-rise-from-the-dead/)

    Therefore, the Q Gospel raises no serious objections to the Quranic view that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not die.” (http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/12/raymond-brown-and-resurrection-of-jesus.html#_edn44)

    Liked by 4 people

    • can you show any extant manuscript of the “Q” document?

      You cannot, it is a theory – hypothesis, based on why Matthew and Luke include only some things from Mark, etc.

      The Gospel of John is just as historical as the others; they are 4 different perspectives looking at the events of the life of Jesus from 4 perspectives. (like 4 witnesses of a car accident, one person on each of the four corners).

      Relying on Dunn, E.P. Sanders, Raymond Brown, etc. in order to put down the Gospel of John, backfires, because in doing so, it demonstrates that Matthew, Mark, and Luke affirm the death and resurrection of Jesus and it therefore, (along with Tacitus, Josephus, and the Jews own testimony in the Babylonian Talmud records and their own traditions), prove that Surah 4:157 is wrong.

      Like

  5. It’s about consistency. If you use a scholar to attack Christianity, then when this same scholar falsifies Islam, it is hardly our fault. No matter how much you try to dissect the bible, the historical and core facts of the gospel still prove Islam to be false. So I could theoretically throw GJohn in the bin and still prove Islam false. That’s what appealing to Dunn, Sanders et al does.

    Here is my theory: Muslims think that if they can just get Christians to question the Bible, that they will somehow automatically accept Islam. It’s a dream. These scholars do not hold to inerrancy, but they still refute Islam. It’s really quite funny actually

    Liked by 1 person

    • “the historical and core facts of the gospel still prove Islam to be false.”

      Just because the Gospels say so!

      How reliable are the Gospels?

      Bible scholars question the reliability of all the four anonymous Gospels, which included their core claims. This affects the Bible and Christianity alone, not Islam!

      Liked by 1 person

    • “So I could theoretically throw GJohn in the bin and still prove Islam false. That’s what appealing to Dunn, Sanders et al does.”

      So, throwing Gospel of John in the bin does not prove Christianity false but only somehow proves Islam false?!

      Dunn, Sanders et al are Bible scholars not Islamic scholars. Their researches are limited to the Bible.

      It is amusing that a Christian can throw the Gospel of John in the bin and thinks this only falsifies Islam!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Hey Lassie:

      Were the Canaanite babies innocent? Yes or no?

      😉

      The gospel of John is a fake according to scholars, both Christian and non-Christian. Thus, your Bible is also a fake. Not “inspired”. Not “inerrant”. Ergo, Christianity is a false religion. People are waking up to its lies. Where will you go? I could care less if you don’t become a Muslim, although it would be logical to become one. All I care about is exposing the Satanic lies of your religion and exposing the fake self-righteousness with which you try to judge others. Embarrassing you idiots makes my day! It’s really quite funny actually! 🙂

      Like

    • “Bible scholars question the reliability of all the four anonymous Gospels,”

      You won’t find a single scholar, professor or academic in any ancient history dept or NT dept that disputes that Jesus died on the cross. Go ahead- try and find one.

      “The gospel of John is a fake according to scholars, both Christian and non-Christian. Thus, your Bible is also a fake”

      Perfect example of a conclusion not following from a premise. Only a infant like yourself would write such a thing not realising how irrational and unconvincing it is.

      Like

  6. Lol

    The mindset of Christian missionaries: Whatever Bible scholarship refutes of the Bible or Christianity, it actually refutes Islam not Christianity!

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Evidence for the trial and crucifixion and death of Jesus, the gospel of John fragment P-52 from John 18, and the Jewish sources of admitting they had Jesus of Nazareth executed.

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/historical-evidence-for-jesus-trial/

    Like

  8. Expert Evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion:

    Like

  9. E.P. Sanders, in the book you have above “The Historical Figure of Jesus” affirms that Jesus of Nazareth was tried by the Jewish leadership, crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died on the cross, and was buried in a tomb . . .

    So, citing him and Dunn backfires for you and proves Islam wrong, because of Surah 4:157.

    Like

    • but if “God” does not know history -as in Surah 4:157, the Allah of Islam does not know history, nor does He know the doctrine of the Trinity which was already established for 500-600 years, and codefied in doctrinal statements from 325 AD onward, way before Islam), then this shows that the Allah of the Qur’an is not the true and living God.

      mind you, I have no problem with using the word “Allah” for God, but the doctrine of who Allah is in Islam is a false god, since He does not know history or what the Bible said, nor what church history already said.

      Like

    • bradley bowen says that all christian apologists do a crap job of proving that jesus died on the cross, i will quote him :

      For example, William Craig, Norman Geisler, and Gary Habermas all provide absolutely pathetic arguments for the death of Jesus on the cross. Craig and Geisler provide almost ZERO historical evidence in their arguments, and Habermas does only slightly better.
      All three IDIOTICALLY atttempt to prove the death of Jesus in just two or three pages. The resurrection of Jesus is one of the most important claims of Christianity, and yet these leading Christian apologists fall on their faces when arguing for the death of Jesus.
      Why? Because they are NOT preaching to educated skeptical critical thinkers. They are preaching to naive, gullible Christian believers who will accept any CRAP no matter how incredibly unthinking and unreasonable, as evidence for their beliefs.

      ..
      maybe you want to take up the challenge ken?

      Like

    • even agnostic radical skeptic Bart Ehrman, radical skeptic John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Raymond Brown, James D. G. Dunn, and E. P. Sanders believe in the crucifixion and death of Jesus on the cross.

      Who is Bradley Bowen?

      Like

    • “mind you, I have no problem with using the word “Allah” for God, but the doctrine of who Allah is in Islam is a false god, since He does not know history or what the Bible said, nor what church history already said.”

      williams lane craig said that jesus could have false beliefs .

      lol

      Liked by 1 person

  10. The Allah of Islam did know what the doctrine of the Trinity was, nor what the Christians meant by “Son of God”, etc. (Surah 5:116; 5:72-78; 6:101; 19:88-92)

    Like

    • Indeed. I’m glad these westernised Muslims are beginning to try and harmonise their faith though. Hopefully it leads away from the literalism that plagues Muslim thought and history

      Like

  11. quote:

    even agnostic radical skeptic Bart Ehrman, radical skeptic John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Raymond Brown, James D. G. Dunn, and E. P. Sanders believe in the crucifixion and death of Jesus on the cross.

    end quote

    funny thing is that ehrman does not believe that anyone heard jesus say “my god, my god, why have you forsaken me”?
    he thinks it ALL made up and put into jesus’ mouth by mark

    funny thing is that ehrman says NO ONE from his friends witnessed jesus’ getting nailed to the cross

    quote :

    Bart April 9, 2017
    I think just about everyone connected with Jesus had fled town and weren’t there, and so had no idea. And I don’t think dozens of others knew where he was buried, any more than they knew where the other two crucified that morning were buried, except to say that it was probably in whatever pit they threw crucified victims after their bodies had decomposed for some days.
    ftbond April 9, 2017
    Re: ..I don’t think dozens of others knew where he was buried, any more than they knew where the other two crucified that morning were buried, *except to say that it was probably in whatever pit they threw crucified victims*…”
    So, in other words, dozens *could* have seen that Jesus’ body (and, the other two bodies) were thrown into “whatever pit”?
    Bart April 10, 2017
    My sense is that no one was generally watching what happened to crucified victims. You *could* say dozens saw it; or you could say thousands did! My hunch is that no one paid attention since it was a common event. (We have to force ourselves from assuming that since it was Jesus, after all, lots of people were interested)

    uninterested
    no one paid attention

    friends ran away

    your friend bradley is located here

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2017/04/15/jesus-die-cross-part-2-finishing-off-geislers-case/

    Like

  12. Ken said:

    “can you show any extant manuscript of the “Q” document?

    You cannot, it is a theory – hypothesis, based on why Matthew and Luke include only some things from Mark, etc.

    The Gospel of John is just as historical as the others; they are 4 different perspectives looking at the events of the life of Jesus from 4 perspectives. (like 4 witnesses of a car accident, one person on each of the four corners).

    Relying on Dunn, E.P. Sanders, Raymond Brown, etc. in order to put down the Gospel of John, backfires, because in doing so, it demonstrates that Matthew, Mark, and Luke affirm the death and resurrection of Jesus and it therefore, (along with Tacitus, Josephus, and the Jews own testimony in the Babylonian Talmud records and their own traditions), prove that Surah 4:157 is wrong.”

    LOL!! Can you show any extant manuscript of your gospels from the 1st century?

    You are so pathetic! The gospel of John is a fake gospel. Your “4 perspectives” argument has been refuted by scholars. Only your brainwashed apologists continue to use this ludicrous argument as if it proves anything other that your blind faith.

    Even the resurrection was not accepted by all early Christians, including the Q community, and we have paleographical evidence of this. The Didache proves that the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus was not at all important to these people:

    “As shocking as it may be to Christians, it tells us nothing because the resurrection story is actually completely absent from this early source! In fact, even later sources like the Didache,[39] placed no importance on the resurrection and failed to even mention it, indicating a gradual development of the concept among Christians. As Russell Martin explains:

    “The Didache, the epistle of James, the Gospel of Thomas and Sayings Gospel Q represent a stage in Christianity when the crucifixion and resurrection had not yet achieved any importance. […] They show no significant interest in miracles as proof of Jesus’ divine status, and little influence of the Pauline teaching of justification by faith or the importance of the crucifixion or resurrection.”[40]

    So, Christianity developed the concept of the resurrection over time! The early Q community did not have such a concept. Rather, they emphasized the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the importance of attaining the “kingdom of God”.[41] As Mack explains:

    “Instead of people meeting to worship a risen Christ, as in the Pauline congregations, or worrying about what it meant to be a follower of a martyr, as in the Markan community, the people of Q were fully preoccupied with questions about the kingdom of God in the present and the behavior required if one took it seriously.”[42]” (http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/12/raymond-brown-and-resurrection-of-jesus.html)

    You might as well face the facts. Your religion has been falsified. Deflecting to Islam will not change that.

    Oh and as it has already been stated many, many times already (but what you idiots can’t seem to get through your heads) is that the Quran does not deny the crucifixion. It only states that Jesus was not crucified and that the unbelievers all believed he was. Thus, it is not surprising that Roman or Jewish sources would all say that Jesus was crucified! It’s really not that difficult once you let go of church propaganda and think critically.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Feel the love- “you are so pathetic” says Fail.

      Mind you, elsewhere he says this, “I also would like to declare that it is not my intention to insult Christians”

      Do you have bi polar Fail? Or do you just enjoy lying?

      Like

  13. “The Gospel of John is just as historical as the others; they are 4 different perspectives looking at the events of the life of Jesus from 4 perspectives. (like 4 witnesses of a car accident, one person on each of the four corners).”

    but none of the writers say they witnessed the accident . if you are a eyewitness, you don’t say “we know his testimony is true”

    do you go to the police and say “we know his testimony is true”

    ?

    the gospel writers are clearly using each other as a source. wordings of one gospel, sequence of one gospel is REPRODUCED in the others .

    try doing this in real life, follow the same system as the gospel writers and lets see if your eyewitness testimony would be reliable.

    ken, why do coppers separate witnesses at accidents ?

    why don’t they give witnesses time to communicate with each other? can you tell me

    Like

    • Nice refutation of Ken’s ridiculous and childish defense of his Bible.

      It’s like saying Bigfoot exists if 4 different people testified that they saw him, yet all 4 differ in their details. One say that it was 10 feet tall. Another says it was 5 feet tall. They both can’t be right. One says it was just standing there. Another says it was eating food. It’s not a matter of different “perspectives”. It’s a matter of the so-called “witnesses” not knowing what the hell they were talking about. And since they all purportedly “witnessed” something extraordinary, their contradictory accounts would not be taken seriously by anyone and Bigfoot would remain a myth. Why would anyone believe such an extraordinary claim based on 4 contradictory accounts?

      Like

  14. Lassie barked:

    “Perfect example of a conclusion not following from a premise. Only a infant like yourself would write such a thing not realising how irrational and unconvincing it is.”

    Lol!! Perfect example of Lassie not responding to the actual argument.

    If the gospel of John is a fake, then your entire Bible is a fake also since it’s claims to being “inspired” can be dismissed as a lie. Thus, the Bible is also fake and no one needs to take it seriously.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. “God knows better…”

    Which God? Why would you assume the god of Muhammad was correct when he contradicts known history and uses known gnostic fables?

    You are acting like a radical fundamentalist Bilal.

    Like

    • LOL…oh Lassie, your silliness knows no bounds!

      “Contradicts history”? Allah (swt), your God and whom you will meet on the Day of Judgement, knew there was a crucifixion. But He states that despite everyone’s assumption that Jesus (pbuh) was crucified, he actually was not. Jesus had been miraculously saved.

      Now if you want to talk about historical errors, let’s talk about about how your Bible claims that 2-3 million Israelites left Egypt with Moses (pbuh). That contradicts “known history” because we know there were no such numbers in those days:

      “According to Exodus 12:37, there were 600,000 Israelite men who left Egypt, a figure which implies that the total Israelite population was at least 2-3 million. This figure is more specifically stated as 603,550 in Exodus 38:26 and Numbers 1:46 and 601,730 in Numbers 26:51 (the latter was after God sent a plague upon the Israelites for committing sexual immoralities with Moabite women and worshiping their gods). However, historians have demonstrated that this figure cannot be accurate, and in fact, contradicts earlier and later verses in the Book of Exodus. As John Bright observed:

      “All the ancestors of the later Israel could hardly have participated in the exodus, for the number cannot have been large. To be sure, it is stated (e.g., Num. 1:46, 26:51) that Israel on the march could muster some six hundred thousand men of military age – which would mean some two or three million in all, counting women and children. This figure, which is high even for the population of Israel under the monarchy, is out of the question for the day of the exodus. Not only could seventy men have scarcely multiplied so in the time involved, but such a host even if marching in close order (as it did not) would more than have extended from Egypt to Sinai and back! It would have had no need to fear the Egyptian army! […] But the numbers are not to be taken literally. We see in the Bible itself a smaller group, whose needs are cared for by two midwives (Ex. 1:15-22), who cross the Reed Sea in a single night, and who cringe before a foe more numerous than they. The number that participated in the exodus was hardly more than a very few thousand; all of later Israel was scarcely physically descended from them” (Bright, op. cit., pp. 133-134).” (http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-exodus-from-egypt-part-i.html#_edn18)

      Or how about another error?

      “Exodus 13:17-18 states that God did not make the Israelites leave through “the road through the Philistine country”, which was shorter, but “around by the desert road toward the Red Sea/Sea of Reeds”. Yet, this passage contains a clear anachronism since the “Philistines” did not yet exist in Canaan. As author Jonathan Kirsch observes (emphasis in the original):

      “The reference to the Philistines in Exodus 13:7 is an anachronism that was inserted in the text of the Bible by a late author or editor, since these invaders from the Aegean did not establish themselves in Canaan until after the events depicted in the Book of Exodus, at least according to the strict chronology of the Bible” (Moses: A Life (New York: The Random House Ballantine Publishing Group, 1998), p. 183).”

      Or how about another? The book of Daniel mentions a certain “Darius the Mede”. Who was this guy?

      “As it turns out, there is no historical evidence of a ruler known as “Darius the Mede” who conquered the Babylonian Empire. In fact, “Darius” was a Persian name, not Median,[186] and the Persian Empire actually had three rulers named Darius, neither one of which was the first Persian king to conquer Babylon.[187] Interestingly, Darius I captured Babylon in 520 BCE after a rebellion.[188] Thus, scholars have theorized that the author possibly confused the capture of Babylon by Darius I with the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great almost 20 years earlier.[189] In any case, what is clear is that history does not know of a ruler known as “Darius the Mede”, who conquered the Babylonian Empire during the reign of Belshazzar, and the assertions made by apologists lack any solid basis.[190]” (http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-book-of-daniel.html)

      Known history contradicts your Bible many, many times. Will you accept the facts? Isn’t your religion false?

      Liked by 2 people

    • hey dog of the children,

      since jesus’ “mission” was to be a levitical animal “sacrifice ” for sins and since the only available manuscript available for hebrew animal slaughter is 1700 years after moses, do you believe jesus had the right beliefs? williams lane craig says that jesus could have had FALSE BELIEFS

      Liked by 1 person

    • since you like talking about history, i wanna know how accurate was jesus’ history since the guy probably believed in all the stories in the hebrew bible (emanual tov says there were DIFFERENT torahs even in his time . i quote : “These different scrolls were all authoritative Scripture copies despite the fact that they often differed from each other in major ways” (Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [third edition; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012], pp. 182-183).
      He also states (http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/u
      “In any event, the special sacred nature of the Torah, accepted by all sources and all scholars, did not prevent its exegetical-literary and textual development as reflected in its widely divergent textual branches from the third century B.C.E. onwards” (p. 19)
      “To our modern eyes, the opposite may have been expected, namely that the special sanctity of the Torah would create a conservative approach of not allowing any changes in the text, as expressed by b. Qidd. 30a: “The ancients were called soferim because they counted every letter in the Torah.”
      However, this statement reflects a time significantly later than that of the Qumran scrolls and it pertains only to the proto-Masoretic manuscripts. This talmudic dictum shows that our modern thinking is often wrongly influenced by the character of only one segment of the transmission history of the Pentateuchal text, namely the proto-Masoretic tradition” (p. 19-20).
      “In conclusion, when trying to understand the textual situation of the Torah in the Second Temple period, we are faced with a veritable textual plurality that is probably reflected in some ten different textual branches, more than in the other Scripture books” (p. 22).)

      Liked by 1 person

    • “he actually was not.”

      Exactly. Muhammad’s god contradicts known history. The claim is that Jesus was actually crucified and died. Every single historian accepts this as historical certainty. The Koran contradicts this.

      Like

  16. Lassie barked:

    “Exactly. Muhammad’s god contradicts known history. The claim is that Jesus was actually crucified and died. Every single historian accepts this as historical certainty. The Koran contradicts this.”

    Lol! Lassie, you’re so silly!

    Historians are not going to accept that a miracle had occurred, you ding bat! Given the choice, they will accept the commonly held notion that Jesus was crucified rather than the notion that he was saved and someone else was crucified in his place. The latter is a matter of faith.

    In contrast, the historical errors in your Bible cannot be refuted. So, your religion is false. Just admit it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • A miracle which first found its source in a completely foreign and unrelated document 600 years later from an illerate Arab old man who ran around marrying children. Yeah, your right, no historian would be that dumb.

      BTW, how is the Aussie sunshine today?

      Like

  17. “Indeed. I’m glad these westernised Muslims are beginning to try and harmonise their faith though. Hopefully it leads away from the literalism that plagues Muslim thought and history.”

    Lol, we don’t need to harmonise anything. You Christians need to harmonize your religion with the inconvenient truths that modern scholars have exposed.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Lassie barked:

    “A miracle which first found its source in a completely foreign and unrelated document 600 years later from an illerate Arab old man who ran around marrying children. Yeah, your right, no historian would be that dumb.

    BTW, how is the Aussie sunshine today.”

    Lol, Lassie, Lassie, Lassie…

    I thought you said that the story was from Gnostic sources? They didn’t come 600 years later did they? Epic holy spirit fail!

    Avoiding the historical errors in your Bible still?

    Were Caananite children innocent? Yes or no? 😉

    Still think I live in Australia? Holy Spirit fail!

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Lassie barked:

    “Feel the love- “you are so pathetic” says Fail.

    Mind you, elsewhere he says this, “I also would like to declare that it is not my intention to insult Christians”

    Do you have bi polar Fail? Or do you just enjoy lying?”

    LOL, oh the irony!!

    This is coming from a dude who routinely maligns Islam, Muhammad (pbuh) and Muslims.

    I don’t intend to insult Christians who are interested in a calm, civilized discussion and who don’t resort to demonizing Islam. In fact, I have had numerous such discussions. But Gentile dogs like you don’t fit the bill. Get it?

    Now, will you actually answer my questions? Or will you keep chasing your own tail? 😉

    Like

    • But I’m touched that you have read my blog, Lassie! Maybe one day, you will get educated. 😉

      Like

    • Given the spat of comments you must be really upset!! You always say one thing, are shown to be lying, a hypocrite, or both, and then need to come qualify your own double standards. Like I said, I’m glad you Muslims are finally starting to harmonise the problems in your faith and apologetics.

      Like

    • Lol, still avoiding the questions? Oh Lassie, this seems to be your favorite tactic. Deflect and distract and then run away with your tail between your legs. Come on now…Why don’t you ask the holy spirit to help you answer my questions? While you are at it, why not ask it where I actually live (Hint: it’s not Australia). Looking forward to hearing from you…;)

      Like

  20. Lassie barked:

    “Nip, never said that. But the Koran does include other gnostic fabrications- e.g talking from the cradle. The unhistorical rejection of Jesus’ death by Allah’s deception was just another of Muhammad’s satanic verses.”

    LOL, except that Gnostics did believe that Jesus had not been crucified.

    The unhistorical nonsense in your Bible are the true Satanic verses. No wonder you keep avoiding them. Run, boy, run!

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Brother Heath said:

    “satanic verses?
    satan was baptising jesus for 40 days in the wilderness.”

    LOL, and he was also offering him all the kingdoms of the world if only he would worship him! Imagine that!

    And somehow, the earth was flat back then I guess. Hahahaha!

    Liked by 2 people

  22. David Waltz has collected together a lot of great resources that defend the historicity of the Gospel of John and the authorship as by John the apostle, eyewitness of the life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Al Masih. A lot of older scholarship that refutes the liberal enlightenment skepticism and unitarianism critics.

    J. B. Lightfoot,

    B. F. Westcott

    Frederic Louis Godet

    Christoph Ernst Luthardt

    more modern:
    Leon Morris

    William Hendrickson

    A more modern commentator who has written 2 commentaries on the Gospel of John and is still alive:

    Andreas Kostenberger

    and others.

    http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-gospel-of-john-introduction-to.html

    Like

    • john the baptist was a jew who used to dunk ppl in water for the forgiveness of sins.
      if we could go back in time, how would we disprove the following statement:

      “this is the lamb of god who takes away sins”

      now we can understand that a christian would say this , but what is the evidence that a jew who dunked people in water would see another human as a levitical animal sacrifice?

      the only gospel which attributes the statement to john is the 4th gospel.

      if this statement if proven to be a lie, then we have evidence that christians were inventing things and putting words in famous peoples mouths.

      Like

  23. John 1:29 – the teaching that Jesus is the substitutionary ransom sacrifice (like a lamb in the OT sacrifices and prophesies – Isaiah 53) is the same basic truth as Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28, and the Lord Supper statements (Mark 14:22-24; Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:19-20), so there is no contradiction whatsoever.

    Like

    • i don’t think john the baptist who used to DUNK people in water could have said what the 4th gospel attributed to him.

      john did not see isaiah 53 referring to a jew as a levitical animal sacrifice, maybe mark did and then look had a problem with marks interpretation and took the idea of substitution animal sacrifice away.

      did john really say what the 4th gospel puts in his mouth?

      Like

    • did the baptiser who baptised your god, think he was baptising a “lamb of god who takes away sins” ?

      Like

    • in the first 3 gospels there is not even a hint that john the baptist thinks that jesus is “the lamb who takes away sins”
      luke cannot mention it because he does not have jesus as a substitutory sacrifice
      mark does not have john the b react to anything when jesus comes out of the water
      matthew rips off mark and neither doth he have any reaction
      all seems very strange
      what is even stranger is john the b has doubts about jesus.

      Like

Trackbacks

  1. What Bible scholars really think about John’s gospel you will probably never hear from your pastor/minister/priest | kokicat

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: