In post #15129 some biblical passages were listed that would seem to be unlikely inventions. Here are some more biblical passages from the Gospel of John that seem unlikely to be made up.
From the article: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
by Frank Turek Chapter 10 (Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony About Jesus?)
___
39. Proper identification of Caiaphas father-in-law, Annas, who was the high priest from A.D. 6... (18:13)... the appearance before Annas is believable because of the family connection and the fact that former high priests maintained great influence.
40. John's claim that the high priest knew him (18:15) seems historical; invention of this claim serves no purpose and would expose John to being discredited by the Jewish authorities.
42. Identification of a relative of Malchus (the high priest's servant who had his ear cut off) is a detail that John would not have made up (18:26); it has no theological significance and could only hurt John's credibility if he were trying to pass off fiction as the truth.
43. There are good historical reasons to believe Pilate=s reluctance to deal with Jesus (18:28ff.): Pilate had to walk a fine line between keeping the Jews happy and keeping Rome happy; any civil unrest could mean his job (the Jews knew of his competing concerns when they taunted him with, AIf you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar,@ 19:12); the Jewish philosopher Philo records the Jews successfully pressuring Pilate in a similar way to get their demands met (To Gaius 38.301-302).
45. The Jews exclaiming We have no king but Caesar! (19:15) would not be invented given the Jewish hatred for the Romans, especially if John had been written after A.D. 70. (This would be like New Yorkers today proclaiming "We have no king but Osama Bin Laden!")
50. After the spear was thrust into Jesus= side, out came what appeared to be blood and water (19:34). Today we know that a crucified person might have a watery fluid gather in the sac around the heart called the pericardium.12 John would not have known of this medical condition, and could not have recorded this phenomenon unless he was an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness testimony.13
51. Joseph of Arimathea (19:38), a member of the Sanhedrin who buries Jesus, is an unlikely invention (more on this in the next chapter).
52. Josephus (Antiquities 17.199) confirms that spices (19:39) were used for royal burials; this detail shows that Nicodemus was not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead, and it also demonstrates that John was not inserting later Christian faith into the text.
53. Mary Magdalene (20:1), a formerly demon-possessed woman (Luke 8:2), would not be invented as the empty tombs first witness; in fact, women in general would not be presented as witnesses in a made-up story (more on this later as well).
55. "Rabboni" (20:16), the Aramaic for "teacher," seems an authentic detail because it's another unlikely invention for a writer trying to exalt the risen Jesus.
56. Jesus stating that he is returning to "my God and your God" (20:17) does not fit with a later writer bent on creating the idea that Jesus was God.
57. One hundred fifty-three fish (21:11) is a theologically irrelevant detail, but perfectly consistent with the tendency of fisherman to want to record and then brag about large catches.
58. The fear of the disciples to ask Jesus who he was (21:12) is an unlikely concoction; it demonstrates natural human amazement at the risen Jesus and perhaps the fact that there was something different about the resurrection body.
59. The cryptic statement from Jesus about the fate of Peter is not clear enough to draw certain theological conclusions (21:18); so why would John make it up? It's another unlikely invention.
{some obvious typos were corrected}
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643
