Blindness and Light - The Fourth Gospel Survives the Biblical "Scholars"

I began Greek by mistake. Freshmen at Augustana College were not allowed to take the Greek class, lest it strain their mental capacities so early in the program. But I signed up and began taking the class from an Augustana Synod pastor, Harry Johnson, buying the textbook we use for Bethany's Greek classes - Paine.

That put me on an early course of facing false and dubious claims about the Scriptures and seeing the claims refuted. No one said, "Read Lenski," perhaps because the LCA and WELS agreed about Lenski (against) and UOJ (for!) even then.

 Paine

False claims about the Gospel of John:

1. The Gospel was written very late, 300 AD or later, because of obvious influences from Hellenistic philosophy;
2. It is not very reliable;
3. John does not agree with Matthew-Mark-Luke;
4. We have to rely on the Gospel of Mark for the rawest version of the life of Jesus;
5. John does not teach the Virgin Birth;
6. Tischendorf was a great scholar because he discovered Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the earliest New Testament manuscripts.

Very Late?

• The earliest scrap of NT manuscript is in the Rylands Library, dated at around 100 AD, making it impossible to date John several centuries later.
• The style of Jesus' sermons is Hebraic, as if thinking in Hebrew while writing in Greek.
• The poetic style of Jesus' sermons makes them appear genuine, because that is the OT style and is easily remembered. In addition. some have translated the Greek into Aramaic.
• The geography of John is accurate, difficult to manage at a distance. If someone asks about the Round House in Watertown, he has been there.

Not Reliable?
This claim comes from the evolutionary philosophy of the 19th century. An early Gospel supposedly would not emphasize the divinity of Christ, "because we know Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Messiah or the Son of God. Those words were placed on the lips of Jesus."
Call it special pleading, circular reasoning, or begging the question - the assumption is self-serving and necessarily leads to false claims. Therefore, the Fourth Gospel is widely ignored - like Lenski and Luther.

John Does Not Agree with the Synoptics
Here we have a built-in contradiction among the modern scholars. The Synoptics (Matthew-Mark-Luke) agree all the time, but the multiple witnesses to the Virgin Birth and Resurrection are not taken seriously.
John clearly supplements what we already know from the Synoptics, without teaching against them. They have more prose narrative while the Fourth Gospel has more poetic sermons.

We Have To Rely on the Gospel of Mark

1. Like the pyramids, we have to wonder which came first - the famous three pyramids, perfect beyond belief, or the crumbling badly designed ones. Could those "early pyramids" actually be an attempt to make Egypt great again? 
2. Likewise, Mark could easily be a harmony of Matthew and Luke, not the "historical outline" of Matthew and Luke. Almost every word of Mark is found either in Matthew or Luke or both Gospels.
3. Mark's action-packed with " straightway: or "immediately" Gospel has plenty of miracles per chapter and relatively few sermons. Given a little more editorial removal, an apostate can peel away the real content to find The Historic Jesus. In other words, they create what they want to find.

John Does Not Teach the Virgin Birth

• Nor does Paul, except in the opening of his most doctrinal letter, Romans, where he also teaches UOJ rather than Justification by Faith. Yuk. Yuk. Romans 1 teaches the Two Natures, just as Exodus 3 does.
• John 1 transcends the Virgin Birth (assumed knowledge) and teaches the pre-existence of the Son and the Son's role as the Creating Word of Genesis 1. 
• With Paul and John, what the scholar does not see is the same as what he does not believe to be true. Almost all Biblical scholars are 100% rationalists, blind guides who cannot comprehend what is before them.

Tischendorf Was a Great Scholar - But Do Not Take Him Camping

1. Tischendorf made his reputation by claiming that the monks were warming the library by burning the leather NT manuscripts he rescued. OK, folks. When you need a brisk warming fire out in the woods, set fire to some old leather boots. Feel the glow? No? Tischendorf was a liar and his fans were fools to believe him.
2. Once again, rationalists trust only those documents that seem to agree with their perspective. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are outside the main tradition of manuscripts, so they must be the best.
3. Try this explanation - the manuscripts are for Christian worship so they would preserve the best ones and use them. Don't we still preserve and use The Lutheran Hymnal?