For some interesting scholarly discussion regarding the Gospel of John one might check Richard Bauckham's two books: "The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple" and "Gospel of Glory".
John is presumed to be the "beloved disciple" in these books? If so, that is a strained reading. I prefer the suggestion that it's either Philip or Timothy.
@@jansteinvonsquidmeirsteen2256 The thematic connection between the Gospel, the letters, and even the Revelation is the victory of light over darkness. The question of authorship, whether it be John the Apostle or John the Presbyter or a different 'John' altogether is very academic, delving into the writings of the apostolic fathers, not as important as the message within, which dovetails neatly with Paul's writings and the other gospels.
The two types of grace articulated by Dr Anderson doesn't hold water. The rationale provided in the 10 Commandments #1 and 2 articulated by deity himself is that he is ruled by human emotions. There is no mention of anything resembling grace.
Paul too over the Christendom and created his fictitious Christ of the Cross, who centuries later was turned to god. He departed a thunder with the Disciples, from then on we heard very little about them if any. The crusaders destroyed the students and burnt their books being unitarians.
John (edit) is hilarious. Had a mystery favourite disciple and the bunch of other disciples not acting like they had really been with god or the son of god. They supposedly saw him run water into wine and the hundreds of fish out of thin air yet acted the way they did. Yeah ok ..
I have commented on my problems with John in the past, this hasn't changed. I am reminded of John 19:31-37. For this Roman soldier to pierce Christ on the lower right side indicates, to me, that Jesus was still alive. This was not an attempt to make certain the body was lifeless. Crucifixion caused death by asphyxiation, usually due to fluid buildup in the lungs. This spear thrust was done to keep Jesus alive by draining the plural fluids. John would have known this as he grew up in a time that edged weapons were the gold standard and the cross was understood as extreme punishment. John's use of 2nd person plural twice tells me that John was not there and chose to garnish this report to enhance his perspective and theo-political agenda. He has employed this literary 'slight of hand' on another occasion in order to make it appear that he is beyond scrutiny as a presumptive, yet inferential, "beloved apostle".
This channel has no singular thesis but invites numerous reputable scholars to discourse upon their work. . . with the exception of the rabbi comedian, from which one may infer what they will.
While discussing the quest for Jesus Jacob consider a nice week vacation to the beaches of Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic sunny beaches to work on some tanning some color so that the pale skin can get radiant and a bit of brown and afterwards a Presidente beer with some nicely cooked beef and rice and red kidney beans.!! 😂
_None_ of the gospels offer anything about a historical jesus. All serious historical scholars (as opposed to "biblical scholars" with no objective standards) acknowledge that the gospels and acts are at least mostly fictional; and if anything in them is not fictional, it can never be teased out.
As you suggest, many or perhaps most of the information *might* be fictional. However, it would be a complete leap to suggest that none of the gospels offer anything about a historical Jesus.
Thank you Dr Anderson, thank you Jacob for the discussion on the gospel of John.
Excellent interview.
It touches on so many questions I have about John.
For some interesting scholarly discussion regarding the Gospel of John one might check Richard Bauckham's two books: "The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple" and "Gospel of Glory".
John is presumed to be the "beloved disciple" in these books? If so, that is a strained reading. I prefer the suggestion that it's either Philip or Timothy.
@@jansteinvonsquidmeirsteen2256 The thematic connection between the Gospel, the letters, and even the Revelation is the victory of light over darkness. The question of authorship, whether it be John the Apostle or John the Presbyter or a different 'John' altogether is very academic, delving into the writings of the apostolic fathers, not as important as the message within, which dovetails neatly with Paul's writings and the other gospels.
Ah, Clement Atlee is back! I like him ...
If John is right, the Synoptics can’t and vice versa. These stories (words & narratives) are very different largely contradict each other.
The pretzel like gymnastics scholars make to blame the Romans or say John is pro...
RIDICULOUS.
The two types of grace articulated by Dr Anderson doesn't hold water. The rationale provided in the 10 Commandments #1 and 2 articulated by deity himself is that he is ruled by human emotions. There is no mention of anything resembling grace.
Paul too over the Christendom and created his fictitious Christ of the Cross, who centuries later was turned to god. He departed a thunder with the Disciples, from then on we heard very little about them if any. The crusaders destroyed the students and burnt their books being unitarians.
John (edit) is hilarious. Had a mystery favourite disciple and the bunch of other disciples not acting like they had really been with god or the son of god. They supposedly saw him run water into wine and the hundreds of fish out of thin air yet acted the way they did. Yeah ok ..
I have commented on my problems with John in the past, this hasn't changed. I am reminded of John 19:31-37. For this Roman soldier to pierce Christ on the lower right side indicates, to me, that Jesus was still alive. This was not an attempt to make certain the body was lifeless. Crucifixion caused death by asphyxiation, usually due to fluid buildup in the lungs. This spear thrust was done to keep Jesus alive by draining the plural fluids. John would have known this as he grew up in a time that edged weapons were the gold standard and the cross was understood as extreme punishment. John's use of 2nd person plural twice tells me that John was not there and chose to garnish this report to enhance his perspective and theo-political agenda. He has employed this literary 'slight of hand' on another occasion in order to make it appear that he is beyond scrutiny as a presumptive, yet inferential, "beloved apostle".
I found interesting all the references to Gospel of John being anti-Roman. I thought this channel took the view that the NT was pro Roman propoganda.
This channel has no singular thesis but invites numerous reputable scholars to discourse upon their work. . . with the exception of the rabbi comedian, from which one may infer what they will.
While discussing the quest for Jesus Jacob consider a nice week vacation to the beaches of Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic sunny beaches to work on some tanning some color so that the pale skin can get radiant and a bit of brown and afterwards a Presidente beer with some nicely cooked beef and rice and red kidney beans.!! 😂
_None_ of the gospels offer anything about a historical jesus. All serious historical scholars (as opposed to "biblical scholars" with no objective standards) acknowledge that the gospels and acts are at least mostly fictional; and if anything in them is not fictional, it can never be teased out.
As you suggest, many or perhaps most of the information *might* be fictional. However, it would be a complete leap to suggest that none of the gospels offer anything about a historical Jesus.
Lol who u really angry at 😂
Cope