William Lane Craig: Post Resurrection Appearences

Brian Flemming: Failure to Communicate.

Recently, I have been attempting to contact Brian Flemming (the man who made the film: “The God Who Wasn’t There”). My goal in reaching out to him is to acquire direct access to the “primary sources” he used in the making of his film. His film project makes some pretty incredible claims and it is said that these postulates carry with them incredible historical and scholarly support. Yet, as someone who has a keen interest in ancient history and background information I have yet to come across a single primary source that would corroborate any of Mr. Flemmings claims.

I have e-mailed him numerous times and have yet to receive any kind of response. After doing a little research I found that I am not the first person to make just such a request for primary sources to which Mr. Flemming has failed to respond. If Brian would like to have us believe this film is more than what it appears to be (nothing more than an illogical rant against the Christian faith) then he needs to provide this supposed mass of evidence against the Christian faith. I’m sorry but quoting secondary sources by authors that have been proven by secular scholarship to be fraudulent does not cut it!

As a result of this situation I ask that all my readers take the time to e-mail Brian Flemming and to make the same request for primary sources. Mr. Flemming’s address will be listed below:

vagrant@slumdance.com

Mitt Romney in a heated debate regarding Mormon ethics.

Benny Hinn the FALSE PROPHET

This represents just a few false prophecies by Benny Hinn.

Christ as Logos

INTRODUCTION     

Undoubtedly, the most controversial gospel within the New Testament canon is the Gospel of John. No other gospel-account presents as clear a picture and as strong a declaration of Christ’s deity. As a result, critics focus many of their attacks upon the historical reliability, authorship, date of writing, and content found within the fourth gospel. Responding to all these objections to John’s account would take volumes, and the vast majority of these issues have already been handled by many capable scholars. Therefore, the primary focus of this paper will be to briefly examine the manner in which Christ is presented as the logos, while also discussing some of the most basic objections to Johinianne authorship.   PRELIMINARY CONCERN: AUTHORSHIP     

 Establishing the author of a given gospel (especially in this case) is critical in evaluating not only the value of its contents but also the proper interpretation of its text. In other words, in order to grasp the author’s intended meaning behind words such as logos, one must first understand who is writing and when. Any attempt to confirm exact authorship of John’s Gospel must deal with the incredible amount of material presented by the biblical-critical community. For this project, however, space does not allow for a thorough investigation of the proposed authorship theories, and must focus instead on giving a basic defense for John the Apostle being this gospels author.[1]     

At face value the internal evidence from John’s gospel clearly states that the author is “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). While many scholars have observed the possibility of this being someone besides one of the twelve disciples, this is highly unlikely.[2] Instead, it would seem far more plausible that this disciple would have been one of those noted throughout the synoptic gospels as the closest of the twelve to Christ.[3]  Further, the failure to differentiate between John the Baptist (who was killed far too early to be the author of this gospel) and the John who authors this gospel suggests that his readers would have undoubtedly associated his intimations of personal identity with someone readily known to posses some form of apostolic authority.[4]  This coupled with the external evidence provided by Eusebius’ quoting of Papias’ statement stating authorship of the gospel by the Apostle John would seem to posit an early tradition in which the John of the inner circle is held to be the author of this gospel.[5]      

There are some critical scholars who find this evidence to be less than compelling. However, early support for authorship by John in church tradition can be easily presented. For instance, Justin Martyr refers to the gospel accounts in the plural tense; however, this only makes sense if the author of John’s gospel was in fact one of the twelve.[6] As is universally acknowledged, neither Mark nor Luke were apostles; this implies it was clear to Justin that John’s gospel was indeed penned by John the Apostle.[7]  By the second century, John’s gospel is universally accepted as an orthodox account authored by one of the apostles.[8] This is attested to by its inclusion in The Diatesseron, Tatian’s harmony of the gospels. Further, the prologue in the Muratorian Canon attributes the fourth gospel to being the work of the apostle John.[9]       With neither early, primary source, information available to contradict any such tradition, nor any legitimate theory which presents a serious problem to the vast amount of circumstantial internal evidence, one is left to conclude that the John of the inner circle authored this gospel. Therefore, all material within its text was recorded by an eyewitness to the described events. This is vitally important. If this material was penned by a first-hand witness, then the presentation of Christ’s deity within its text does not come from a second generation community, but rather one of the fathers of the Christian faith.      

Many critics and skeptics today desire to classify the high Christology within John’s gospel as a second generation invention resulting from 60-100 years of theologizing, which culminated in presenting Christ explicitly as God. However, as has been shown, by the second century it was clearly and widely understood that this account was written by John the apostle and represented the clear and precise Christology that the church has preached from her inception. In light of this it would now be appropriate to examine exactly what lengths John goes in order to present Christ as the divine Son of God in his work.  

CHRIST AS THE LOGOS IN JOHN 1:1-4

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.”[10]     

 John’s use of the term logos to describe Christ has inspired what seems to be endless debate regarding his intended meaning and its practical application in understanding biblically based Christology. Further, its use in various philosophies and its misuse by many cults in justifying their twisted Christology have caused many today to avoid dealing with the topic of the logos at all. However, given the fact that John believed the presentation of Christ as the logos to be of such great importance that he made it the very theme of his prologue should compel the church to grapple with what John was attempting to convey.     

What must be said and readily admitted prior to any study of John 1 and its repeated use of logos (The Word) is that this concept was not foreign to the ancient world and was commonly and frequently utilized by those within the field of philosophy in John’s day.[11] As Dr. Blomberg notes, “Logos was a widely used term to refer to the way that God or the gods revealed themselves and communicated with humankind.”[12] Therefore, it would be beneficial to seek a basic definition of logos in this functional form. In a very general way it “refers to a spoken word, with emphasis on the meaning conveyed, not just the sound.”[13] However, John’s meaning is clearly designed to go beyond how this term was used in function and is instead meant to tap into the ideas of current and past philosophical and theological discussion. Namely, as Dr. Blomberg pointed out, how Christ using the idea of the logos was to be equated with God.     

The background to the Hebrew understanding of logos should prove more vital to this survey than by providing an in-depth discussion of what competing worldviews and philosophies would have intended in utilizing such a term. In the pre-Christian apocryphal text, Wisdom of Solomon[14], wisdom is to some degree equated with attributes and qualities unique to God, including creator and judge.[15] In the Targum[16] and specifically the Targum Onqelos, the memra (the Aramaic equivalent of logos) represented a direct expression of God’s mind and is often used in place of God’s name![17]      

Scripturally speaking, the Psalmist states in Psalm 33:6 that “by the word [LXX] of the Lord were the heavens and the earth made…” This very distinctly indicates that even Old Testament writers understood the logos to be equated with God and/or His effectual power. Further evidence is scattered throughout the Old Testament[18], including references that present the memra as a healer (Psalm 107:20), a messenger (Psalm 147:15), and a divine vehicle for divine decrees (Isaiah 55:11). It can clearly be seen that in the Hebrew mind, to equate the term logos with God or to present the Word as God Himself is not a totally foreign concept.      

 Commenting on this very fact, Darrell Bock states that “John’s concept of the Word incarnate is unique and represents significant development from this Jewish backdrop, but his audience did posses some understanding of the imagery that John used, to appreciate both the nature of the claim and the comparison.”[19] One appraisal of the material presented by John in verse one of his opening chapter states that the apostle was doing nothing less than declaring Christ to be “part of God Himself, eternal and uncreated.”[20] Therefore, John’s gospel presentation of Christ as the logos should not be feared and seen as some form of Hellenistic interpolation into his Hebrew worldview (although if such an intrusion could be proven, it would not negate the facts presented), but rather as a definite expression and declaration of Christ possessing full deity.       

 All of this is not to say that John’s use was completely devoid of any Hellenistic implications. To say as much would be foolish considering the Greek milieu in which he was writing. While he was certainly not attempting to present “Christianized” Greek and Stoic philosophy, there would seem to be no doubt that in addressing a concept familiar to Hebrew as well as Greek minds, he was calling upon a principal whose implication was nearly universally understood to present Christ as not just a Hebrew figure of social, political, and religious significance, but rather as the savior and redeemer of all those present in the world.[21] Speaking to this very concept Dr. Merrill Tenney states that “John did not superimpose the philosophical concept [of the logos] on the person of Christ, but he adopted the Greek term as the best medium of expressing the nature of Christ.”[22] He did so to make a clear statement regarding the deity of Christ that would be readily recognized by both Jew and Greek alike.      Directly speaking, John’s designation of Christ as logos in the first verse of his prologue conjured up imagery that would be equated with deity. His declaration that the logos was in fact God, while also being with God, would immediately imply a plurality within the Godhead. The logos principle which is commonly associated directly with Yahweh is still seen as being in a sense Yahweh but also distinct from Him. This idea seems astonishing to some who study pre-Christian Judaism, but it should not be. Plurality or the possibility thereof within the Godhead as seen in pre-Christian Hebrew thought is often misrepresented as being completely absent from theological discussion. However, this is simply not the case. The possibility of plurality existing in a monotheistic Godhead was a quite active topic in pre-Christian Jewish theology.[23]      

 While it is unlikely that John was referencing the following passage, it should be stated that in Daniel 7:9 there are thrones (plural), not just one throne presented as belonging to God. Further, in examining Old Testament passages referring to “The Angel of the Lord” it is seen that this being readily receives worship reserved exclusively for Yahweh.[24] While such discussion could prove irrelevant to the issue at hand it at least provides for the possibility that John was not only attempting to declare the universality of Christ as Messiah by using the term logos, but he also may have been attempting to capitalize on a pre-existing and on-going discussions regarding the balance of Shema-based monotheism and the clearly scriptural possibility of plurality in the Godhead.       

This possibility is made more plausible by John declaring the logos to be both preexistent as well as the creator Himself in 1:3. This clearly referenced the Genesis 1:1 account of the origin of all things and immediately declares the plurality in the creative act of the Godhead, placing Christ as part of that plurality. This is an inescapably Trinitarian presentation of the nature of God.[25] Further, as a preliminary statement to the forthcoming presentation of Christ as the divine Messiah in John’s gospel, placing Christ alongside Yahweh as the creator would seem to deny any subordination in deity that could potentially be misunderstood within the actual gospel account. Instead, with John 1 as the foundation, it must be understood that Christ’s seemingly subordinate actions are in mode of operation for the redemption of man rather than in position of deity. Summarily speaking, regardless of how one intends to interpret John’s purpose behind his opening statement in verse one, his grammatical construction is quite clear. Based upon the exact Greek construction he used what was written could actually, and quite possibly should be, translated; “What God was, the Word was.”[26] John could not have been any more precise in his rendering of the relationship between the logos and Yahweh.     

 Further, it rules out any possibility that Christ is part of the created material order. Instead, just as the Father, He is separate from this creation and stands as the uncaused cause of the created order. In fact, by stating in verse four that all life depends upon Him, John has ruled out any possibility to consider Christ as the created creator, or demiurge. What John has done is set up a philosophical argument for the eternality of Christ that would have been understood in the Hebrew mind as matching the eternality of Yahweh, and in the Greek mind as a development upon already existing arguments from logic regarding the nature of contingent beings. Simply stated, John is setting forth the following argument: (1) All beings that exist within creation depend upon something outside the creation for their existence. They are contingent beings. These contingent beings posses what is called potentiality; that is to say the potential to exist or to simply not exist. In order for them to exist, this potentiality must be acted upon in such a way as to actualize the potential for existence into actual existence. In other words, their existence is not necessary and depends wholly upon the existence of a being who is outside the created order. This being must be one who posses’ pure actuality but no potentiality because this beings existence is necessary. This means that the being has no potential to not exist, for all actual existence depends upon this being that possesses pure actuality. (2) This necessary being would be by definition God. It would be the creator and originator of all contingent beings and things in the created order. God by definition must be an uncaused cause and therefore a necessary being. (3) There can only be one God. If there were multiple, wholly separate beings that were necessary beings they would need to posses exactly the same qualities and attributes in order to be necessary beings; they could not lack anything needed to be a necessary being. Therefore, if there would and could be no distinction among these beings’ attributes, there could be no truly separate entity that is eternal and necessary, for in order for something to be different from something else it must possess or lack a quality or attribute that the other has or lacks. In the case of necessary beings, if a necessary being lacks anything, they are no longer the necessary being, especially when compared to a being that lacks nothing. Logically, only one necessary being actually exists. (4) All life depends upon the logos, therefore the logos is that uncaused cause, uncreated creator, and necessary being.[27]      

Without a doubt, John has fortified the walls of Christology with a philosophically inescapable conclusion. There is plurality of persons in this necessary being (God) that makes no distinction in level of deity (this would create illogical contradictions). Therefore, this necessary being who is obviously composed of plurality (seeing as the logos is presented as both separate from God and yet God) must be one in essence and substance of deity. John’s presentation is theologically and philosophically sophisticated and as well as flawless.

JOHN 1:14 – THE LOGOS BECOMES FLESH

“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”       

This is quite striking when taking into account John’s further claim that this wholly other member of the Godhead, who is outside the created order, made an intrusion into the created order. In verse fourteen John makes a statement that would have been unthinkable to the Hebrew mind: that this Word (logos) has become physical flesh–God incarnate if you will. The idea of the Word of God manifesting itself or encountering mankind would not have been totally foreign to the Hebrew mind; however, the idea of this logos taking human, fleshly form would have been nearly unthinkable.[28] As Dwight Pentecost has noted, the Hebraic term memra was used in description of any revealer of truth seemingly from God; further, as the Hebrews moved away from speaking the name Yahweh, they adopted the word memra in place of God.[29] Therefore, John’s proclamation that the memra, or Word, became flesh would not only reinforce his previous intimation of explicit plurality in the Godhead but also declare that in a very real sense, God Himself has come and taken upon Himself flesh and bone.       Interestingly, contrary to what some cultists such as the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints say, John notes in verse fourteen a distinct contrast to the nature of the logos in verse one. In verse one we see that the operative term regarding the Word is “was.” However, in verse fourteen the focus then changes to “became.”[30] This is significant because it denotes that the pre-incarnate Christ was not of flesh and bone and his time of being in the fleshly world was to be only temporary.[31] This again reinforces the concept that Christ as the Word is outside the material world and preexists all created things. In fact, the very concept behind the statement “[dwelling] among us” relays the idea of a temporary dwelling in a tent.[32] Further, and continuing to bolster the case for apostolic authorship of this gospel, the statement that follows; “having seen His glory,” relates the fact that this information and what was to follow is coming via a first-hand experiential witness.[33]      

Some scholars believe that John’s inclusion of this verse in his prologue was designed not only to show that God had made an entrance into His created order but to show this in such a way as to combat a growing philosophy that denied this possibility. At the time John penned this gospel (whether one holds to a mid 60’s date or a mid 80’s date is irrelevant; from Paul’s letter to the Colossians we can see this was an issue very early in the history of the church), there was a growing movement called Gnosticism that sought to portray the material world as evil. Therefore, if all matter is evil then Christ could not be fully man and yet fully God because matter and spirit would have intermingled. It is possible that in order to counter this docetic approach by Gnostic Christology, John was writing to declare once and for all that Christ (the logos) had entered into fleshly form if even for only a brief time.[34]     

A further concept that John stresses here as he did in his opening statement is the relationship between the logos and Yahweh. In verse fourteen, however, John elucidates the already clear concept of the logos being fully deity. He explains the nature of this relationship by utilizing the phrase “only begotten” (monogenes). Commenting on this phrase Dr. Bock states; It stresses the unique and close relationship to the Father as the manifestation of the Father’s presence. Thus, the idea is not that Jesus was born, 1:1 has already ruled out that point. Rather it is that the relationship that exists between Father and Word-become-flesh operates uniquely at a level involving nothing but deity. The only begotten is a being who is uniquely connect to God.[35]In employing this specific Greek term, John has solidified not only the fact that Christ is the uncaused cause of the universe, as well as the fact that He is God in the same way as Yahweh is God, but also that their interaction is unique in that Christ as the logos is entirely one of a kind in relation to the Father and equal in deity. Again, John has left no room for doubt regarding exactly how he personally viewed the nature of Jesus Christ based upon his first hand interaction with Him. What John saw and heard led him to truly believe this man from Nazareth was one with the God of the universe, Yahweh.

CONCLUSION     

 Any and all attempts to fully interact with the material in the first chapter of John would require a much more in-depth discussion.  A brief survey and establishment of pertinent facts must be sufficient. First, contrary to what many critical scholars claim, the overwhelming evidence is that an apostle named John penned this gospel as early as the mid 60’s and assuredly not later than the early 90’s. This is quite important given the type of material the author deals with. Obviously, speaking to the subject at hand, the logos, the author’s comments are only valid if what he personally experienced led him to believe that this Jesus of Nazareth was in fact the logos, or more specifically God incarnate. Such a claim would lose its impact, theological implications, and value had it been penned by another author generations removed from the community who originally interacted with the man Jesus Christ. Secondly, the presentation of Christ as the logos in the first four verses of the prologue undeniably declares the basic outline for biblically-based Christology. Christ is presented as outside the material universe, the originator of the universe, the co-eternal member of the triune Godhead (although John does not develop the concept of the paraclete in this specific passage), and as the necessary being to which sound philosophy points. Finally, the logos is presented as temporarily taking upon Himself flesh and bone in order to bring about the redemption of man. In making such an assertion, John has directly challenged Gnosticism and all other docetic schools of “Christian” thought by declaring that indeed it was Christ as creator (not a demiurge) and Christ in full deity who stepped down to the material world to fully reveal the Father to man.      

What is quite apparent from this brief survey is the incredible, highly developed Christology that permeates the gospel of John. This is a clear Christology that, contrary to what secular scholars claim, had little time to develop. One is led to conclude that John made these claims and presented Christ this way not after multiple generations of philosophical and theological reflection upon a past teacher named Jesus, but by necessity had close contact with Christ Himself. John’s gospel must have been a direct representation of what was very apparent to all those who walked with Christ for three years—those who witnessed the validity of His message by experiencing the greatest testimony to who He really is: the resurrection.     
 

---

      [1] For a thorough handling of material pertinent to dispelling many ad hoc claims regarding authorship by critical scholarship see Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001)

      [2] Craig Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 170. Dr. Blomberg makes note that in recent years some scholars have suggested that the identity of this disciple could be anyone from Lazarus, whom Christ raised from the dead, to doubting Thomas 

      [3] Those mentioned as closest to Christ were Peter, James, and John. See Mark 9:2, 14:33. 

      [4] Blomberg, Ibid. 

      [5] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4 

      [6] Justin Martyr, First Apology 67.4 

      [7] Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2001), 24. 

      [8]D.A. Carson & Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 232.  

      [9] Ibid.

      [10] All Scripture quotations are in New American Standard (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005) 

      [11] This is especially true of Stoic and Platonic thought. For many, including the famous Philo of Alexandria, the logos was seen in terms of a dualistic principle that existed eternally alongside God. 

      [12] Craig Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 162. 

      [13] Tenney Merrill, Frank Gaebelein, Ed. The Expositors Bible Commentary: Volume 9- John & Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 28. 

      [14] See especially Wisdom of Solomon 7:21-22,25-29; 9:1-2, 9; 18:4-6; Baruch 3, 4:1-4 

      [15]  Darrell Bock & Gregory J. Herrick, Jesus in Context : Background Readings for Gospel Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 205. 

      [16] See Targum Onqelos to Exodus 4:12 and Peshahim 54. (Quoted from Bock & Herrick, Jesus in Context: Background Readings for Gospel Study, 205.) 

      [17] Ibid  

      [18] See Psalms 3:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalms 119:105, Job 28:12, Proverbs 8, 9. 

      [19] Darrell Bock, Jesus According to Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 410. 

      [20] John W. Pryor, John: Evangelist of the Covenant People: The Narrative and Themes of the Fourth Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 8. 

      [21] Tenney, Ibid. 

      [22] Ibid, 33 

      [23]See especially Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1988) 

      [24] See Gen. 16:10, Ex. 3:2-6, 14:19, 25; Jos. 5:14; Zech. 1:12.

      [25] It is just such references that led early church councils to make a firm statement regarding the full deity of Christ and to then adopt the Trinitarian formula for discussing the manner in which a rigidly monotheistic faith such as Judaism could have a God who possessed plurality. 

      [26] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 267-269.

      [27] For a full discussion of God’s actuality, necessity, and lack of potentiality see Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology Volume 2: God & Creation (Minneapolis, MN: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 30-73. 

      [28] Bock, 412. 

      [29] Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 29. 

      [30] Tenney, 33. 

      [31] According to Merrill Tenney allusions to this fact can be seen through John’s Gospel, including: 3:17; 6:38-42, 51; 7:29; 8:23; 9:5; 10:36; 16:28. 

      [32] Tenney, Ibid. 

       [33] Ibid. 

       [34] Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary, 75 

       [35] Bock,  414-415