Ignatius of Antioch (written around 107 AD) alludes to the Gospel of John in his Epistle to Ephesians (7:2 with John 1:14; 9:1 with John 12:32 & John 1:4-5; 17:1 with John 12:7; 20:2 with John 6:51) and his Epistle to the Philadelphians (7:1 with John 3:8; 7:2 with John 17:21). Also, John 5:2 uses the present tense for there "is" a pool near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem, suggesting that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
You beat me to this comment. Alex needs to read the early church fathers a bit more. Ignatius' reference to John 3:8 is far too close to call it a coincidence.
@@cannabros surely you must realize that whether justin quotes john's gospel or not is highly disputed. im certain that if ruslan had brought this up, alex would have had something to say on it
What else he failed to mention is that Polycarp claimed to have been a disciple of John the Apostle; this information primarily comes from the writings of Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp himself.
The early church fathers were referencing the gospel of John in the late second century. I don't know how any one could date it later than that. It also has parallels to the book of revelation which is dated in the 90s. I think it's also important to recognize that there is a clear chain of custody between from John to polycarp to Ireanus.
John’s gospel (or whoever wrote John; most likely it was John) was most likely written between 60 and 90 AD. Alex simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about here.
@@FloofyMinari I think a good guess is that it was written by Johns followers. It would explain there being multiple writers, the chain of custody that leads to Ireanus, and how they refer to him as the beloved disciple.
It is accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and historians that the gospel of John was written prior to 100 AD, agruably prior to 70 AD because it likely before the fall of Israel in 70 AD. Gary Habermas who is one of the most respected and reliable scholars has spoke on this topic for reference.
@SterlingTate I understand thats what google says, but thats not the scholarly consensus. Problem is that there is no mention of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Most scholars see this as evidence it is prior to 70 but still still probably the last gospel written.
@@chaisehodge9639 You are talking conservative evangelicals, which the majority of those do... however Mark still remains favored as the earliest gospel 70 ad with John being the last not before 90 ad. I only focused on biblical studies at my christian university so what do i know?
@@SterlingTate not questioning your intelligence my friend, as Im sure we are brothers in Christ. However, you should understand that it is accepted that the gospels (mark being first, john last) were written prior to 70 AD. There are many reasons for this. Another reason being that the gospels were cited by Paul. Luke was a friend of Pauls and Paul referred to Lukes gospel. Paul died in the late 60s AD.
The best part for me is that the points Alex raised are his main reasons against Christianity. Not just these, but I’ve seen and heard his other videos. I think we have more evidence for the resurrection than against it. The issue with Alex is that he asks the right questions, which is an admirable trait, but he doesn't truly seek the answers. It seems that the only way he will believe is if he witnesses a miracle in his own life.
He doesn’t conclude the answer you want to hear. Most Christians walk with blinders on (faith). Clouding yourself to see outside perspectives and other views and religions. Study other ancient texts. If you have really listened to Alex, he finds so many holes in the gospels. Some Christians: - the world is 5000 years old - Adam and Eve were not neanderthals - every word of the Bible is true with no error Please get beyond your practice and truly study outside your bubble.
@@jasenjahn Many have done such, and have concluded, as former atheists; that Christ is risen. Theres great evidence for a young earth such as astroids, c14 in diamonds, the recession of the moon and so on. Jasen, I also say the same to you, that wes huff and others don't conclude the answer you want to hear. Most unbelivers walk with blinders on (faith); faith in the scientific method, even though theres no basis for believeing that abstract entites such as the laws of logic are uniform, invarient and universal in a chance universe. No way of knowing that the sun will rise tomorrow without God Who telling us in Genesis 8:22 (He is outside of time and is therefore in a position to know). Unbelivers just take it on faith that it will rise, and that the basic cycles of nature will continue in the future as they have in the past.
@ I could say the same to you about all the evidence for the resurrection. It's not the answer you want to hear, so you will reject it and look for another way to explain it.
@@jasenjahn That's intriguing. I assume you watch Alex quite often. Do you remember one of the holes in the Bible he ever said? Just tell me the gist. Because probably the holes he said he found never existed or were refuted many decades before he even said it.
@@yafethtb I recently came across Alex and have only listened to about 40 - 60 hours of his content so far. I’ll dig deeper and get back to you with specific discussions or “holes.” He specifically cites his resources. And yes, most of his rebuttals have been brought up. However, he does a good job bringing up subjects and adding news thoughts/perspectives that have been recently hashed out-last 200 years. If you check out his channel, his discussion on 1 Timothy is particularly intriguing. That said, when listening to Alex on this channel, try to focus on content that’s uncut or minimally edited-heavily edited pieces can sometimes be misleading. On another note, have you ever researched or studied Physical or Biological Anthropology?
The toughest part about listening to Alex is the fact that he always takes the most extremely sceptical position. I also cant stand the "scholarly consenus" crap that he loves to spit out.. Agnostics / atheists are supposed to be the arbiters of truth, show us the evidence Alex.. how many scholars are saying this and who are they? What are their credintials?
This is what we do as humans though. When examining history we listen to all the points and go with what’s more likely. Don’t get mad at atheists cause we are going with what we are convinced of.
@omnikevlar2338 that's ridiculous, you may listen to both sides but you definitely do not go off the "evidence." If you name 5 scholars that date John into the late 2nd century, I can name 5 that date it into late 1st century. Where is this consensus that Alex speaks of? If he was an honest person he would say "scholars are on both sides of the fence on this subject." Instead, like I stated before, he goes with the most fringe almost conspiracy-like idea and runs with it. He admits that he isn't educated on the topic but then states "I have a theory that John 21 is a later addition." Get out of here with your "we go where the evidence leads" bull crap.
@ Handsome if you noticed Alex said at the beginning that the evidence for when these gospels were written is very speculative. This is very true. Do you sincerely think if evidence came out confirmed the John to the 1st century this wouldn’t convince Alex? This is the problem is when dogmatic thinking gets mixed into history. Muslims, LDS, and other religions do the same thing you are as well. In-group out-group thinking.
@@jeremiahgranatowski1400 there have been THOUSANDS of bible scholars around the world. It's easy to cherry pick your favorite takes. The truth is there has never been a strong consensus around dating...if you truly want to see for yourself, use *Google Scholar* and start reading through the thousands of papers exploring this topic. Good luck!
Love both Alex and Ruslan! And I want to point out how humble Ruslan was in this debate, great job and very good video! Pray for Alex to be saved and pray for Ruslan so he spreads the word to many more people. Jesus is King ✝️☦️
He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” Luke 16
@@WilborArthur it’s just never satisfied. Like he just searching for more and more like how can you trust your self and thinking if you just continue this questioning cycle Questioning is good until it gets to this point then it’s unhealthy
Seek and ye shall find. I think it is quite the noble quest for truth. I am not going to judge against that in case I am wrong. I cant judge his heart but the Holy Spirit tells me there is a seed planted somewhere in all this. There is opposition in all things. The opposition in his mind is a battle I am sure he will overcome one day. This is a much more common battle than you realise and can last a lifetime. I find it almost ignorance to have no patience in this matter. Salvation is a personal matter. Let him work it out on his own with God. Alot of people wrestle with God in their minds and hearts before they come to believe.
The intellectual dishonesty of Alex is how he loves to argue the Christian literature but avoid Plato, Socrates or others who have much less evidence. That to me is pathetic.
@@watersabove.below7 historians don’t believe that every single word attributed to Plato and Socrates were actually said by them. Also Plato was said to be the son of the god Apollo. I doubt you believe this claim.
13:30 So many people are mad at Ruslan for his interuptions but honestly it made this feel like less of a debate and more, "friends hanging out". I dont think ive ever seen Alex have this much fun talking about the bible. 😅
I personally don't even care if the Gospel's were full eyewitness accounts. The mere fact that we are debating them is significant enough as a reason to validate their value
@@davidmoh175 kinda true, I’d personally say when we’re dealing with manuscripts that are of the best documentation of a figure of that time and the fact that there SO old it kinda is pretty validating
If p52 is the first copy of John, it wouldn't take long to its resting place. But if it's a copy of a copy of a copy, then its resting place puts John is 1st century
Alex is so intelligent but he clearly has some sort of beef with Christianity that makes him want to discredit it. Imagine if he had the courage and desire to put the same energy towards disproving Islam
I don’t see how people come to this conclusion unless you just aren’t familiar with a lot of Alex’s content. He has talked positively about Christianity so often, and also often states he wish it were true. His bar for converting is much lower than most atheists today, he’s constantly said he just needs one example of the Holy Spirit acting in him or some sort of miracle happening to himself that he can verify is miraculous. He often pushes back against atheists he has on his shows when he doesn’t believe them to be correct especially Bart Ehrman. He’s gone to church, he’s prayed, he’s inquisitive about Christianity. He also gives more credence to plenty of arguments for Christianity than a lot of atheists do, regardless if he doesn’t think they’re true or completely compelling. Yet I’ve seen many comments like the one you’ve left, so I’m just very intrigued as to why you believe that
@ I don't know much about Alex, but from conversations I have had with atheists, they simply do not want to believe there is a God. Since they reject God, they are unable to understand the supernatural realm. There is plenty of evidence to show that God exists and there is something beyond the material world. Also, the atheist wants to verify a miracle by a naturalistic method. One cannot prove a supernatural (miracle) event by natural methods.
Mad respect to Ruslan for inviting Alex on and for being so respectful and fair during this interaction. Also, just have to say that I like Alex and I think he is a weapon when it comes to philosophy. I love that he is also trying to be respectful and open and seems to be honestly trying to seek truth, which means he will find Jesus. God bless Alex and Ruslan. 🙏
A fragment of John's gospel that was discovered in Egypt and came to light in 1934 has been dated as early as AD 120. The original gospel must have been written at least by this time and probably much earlier, since ample time was needed for it to gain popularity and circulate from Asia Minor all the way to Africa. Likewise, Ignatius of Antioch seems to allude to the teaching of the Fourth Gospel in a collection of letters written about AD 107. This makes it probable that John's Gospel was composed by at least AD 100. Whether it can be dated much earlier than this is a matter of dispute. A date in the 60s is a viable option given the casual statement in 5:2 that there "is" (present tense) a pool near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem, and is unlikely that John would have described this pool as though it were intact if it was buried beneath a heap of rubble after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Regardless, most scholars prefer to date it in the 90s of the first century.
‘There IS a pool near the sheep gate’ is a fascinating bit we find in John’s gospel to be sure. There is more soft evidence that it was penned closer to 90 AD than there is hard evidence it was penned in the AD 60s which is my scholars favor the former. However I myself find sheep gate reference quite compelling dare I say even damming for anything north of the 60s AD since the temple and sheep pool were decimated in 70 AD.
As a person in the scholarship world, I can tell you what’s used and abused…. The phrase scholarly consensus especially when academia has a large variety of opinion on the matter. John’s gospel throughout history has such an array of dating and most of it 80AD-100AD. The view of it being in 200AD or after is VERY NEW and is 100000% not the consensus as scholars are still interacting with that claim and fleshing out the ideas of it. I agree also that you can not more prove it written in early first century as you can disprove it written later. But scholarship from its inception was ever designed to be the end all. It is an abstraction and honest view of data, it is up to the scholar or learned reader to decide their beliefs after being presented with the facts. Also most scholars are comfortable with a view someone holds after knowing the data so the claim “you cannot definitively say it’s dated early” is inaccurate and appealing to the reasoning of because of the people who you read not thinking that and because of the variety of views you can’t have confidence in your own lol.
You’re absolutely right to question whether the claim of bias is entirely fair, as the early dating of P52 is not exclusively the product of Christian scholars. Here’s a nuanced explanation of why some argue for the possibility of bias while also acknowledging broader scholarly involvement: Early Dating and Non-Christian Scholars 1. Non-Christian Paleographers Involved: • The initial dating of P52 (c. 125-150 CE) was supported by Colin H. Roberts, a respected paleographer, whose expertise was not confined to religious texts. • Roberts compared P52 to several Greek documentary texts (non-Christian in nature) from the 2nd century and concluded that the fragment’s handwriting fit within that timeframe. • Other paleographers and classical scholars, not exclusively Christian or religious, accepted this early dating. 2. Independent Affirmation: • Subsequent studies by paleographers outside of theological circles have generally corroborated Roberts’ analysis, lending weight to the earlier date without necessarily being influenced by theological concerns. The Claim of Bias: Why It’s Raised 1. Christian Historical Interests: • P52, as the oldest known fragment of the New Testament, holds immense significance for Christian history. An early 2nd-century date places the fragment very close to the composition of the Gospel of John (traditionally dated c. 90 CE). • Scholars like Brent Nongbri argue that this proximity
Yes, it’s entirely possible that Nongbri’s critiques could be influenced by his own biases or motivations, as no scholar operates in a vacuum free from external pressures or personal interests. Here’s a breakdown of this perspective: Potential Bias in Nongbri’s Argument 1. Career and Recognition: • Publishing a book that challenges long-standing views can elevate a scholar’s visibility and reputation, especially if the topic is highly significant (as with P52). • Critiquing widely accepted traditions (e.g., the early dating of P52) can position a scholar as a critical thinker, potentially appealing to certain academic or social circles that value revisionism. 2. Non-Theological Agenda: • Nongbri’s work often aims to separate textual studies from theological narratives, which can itself reflect a bias toward skepticism of traditional views. • By emphasizing uncertainties in the dating of P52, he may inadvertently attract attention from secular or non-religious scholars and readers who prefer interpretations that challenge Christian historical claims. 3. Book Sales and Popularity: • A controversial argument, such as questioning the dating of a key biblical artifact, can attract interest and boost book sales. This doesn’t discredit his work outright, but it’s worth considering that provocative claims often gain more traction than affirmations of the status quo. Balancing Nongbri’s Critique 1. Scholarly Methodology: • While Nongbri raises valid points about the limitations of paleography, these critiques apply broadly and are not unique to P52. His argument for later dating often hinges on the inherent uncertainty of paleographic methods rather than presenting definitive evidence for a specific later date. • This makes his critique more about methodology than a direct refutation of the early date, which could itself reflect a desire to shift the conversation rather than prove a new hypothesis. 2. Challenging Bias with Bias: • Accusing others of bias (e.g., Christian scholars promoting an early date) doesn’t absolve Nongbri of potential bias in his arguments. His preference for questioning traditional datings might align with broader academic trends of skepticism, which could influence his conclusions. The Reality of Academic Debate Bias, to some degree, exists in all scholarship, whether it’s overt or subtle. Both the early dating of P52 and Nongbri’s critique reflect different perspectives influenced by scholarly and social contexts. The key is to evaluate their arguments on their own merits: • Roberts’ Early Dating: Based on standard paleographic comparisons, but acknowledges the inherent imprecision of the method. • Nongbri’s Later Dating: Highlights valid concerns about paleographic limitations but doesn’t definitively prove a later date. Ultimately, while both sides may have biases, the debate enriches the academic conversation and underscores the importance of examining evidence critically.
That was a nice way of brining it to the point, was Jesus raised from the dead and what does a person do with that truth. Alex just doesn't want to believe the truth.
So many of the comments in here that are trying to articulate that Alex is "willingly or ignorantly denying evidence/choosing not to be convinced" can ultimately be boiled down to "Just believe it bro." It does nothing for your case & is as disingenuous as your claiming Alex to be.
Alex says he needs a religious experience to believe. Butnif he has that experience, what is he going to do regarding the slavery and Caananite issue he has always been arguing about? Is he all of a sudden just going to accept the apologetic answers to those questions? If so, it shows there is already enough legitimacy in the answers to warrant a rebuttal and he should never bring them up again.
@@Marvin-zv6md I think he would adopt the skeptical theist position that he alluded to elsewhere in this interview: "I still don't understand how these commands are compatible with a loving God, but now that I have strong independent evidence of the existence of a loving God (through my personal experience), I should accept that there must be some valid justification in God's mind that I simply cannot perceive." So he would still consider the answers given by human beings to be inadequate, but he would come to believe that there must be some answer that is inaccessible to our limited human understanding.
@tarunium So based on this, I should never expect to see from Alex going forward: The brushing away of "God's ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts" even if it's just for the sake of argument that God is real. The issue is that the problem of evil is one that argues from the premise that God exists in order to demonstrate that he does not (reductio ad absurdum). The response to that should just be "skeptical theism" and it seems like it's no longer a "problem".
@@Marvin-zv6md Alex doesn't think that skeptical theism is very compelling. It is ultimately a cop-out, a refusal to meet difficult arguments head on. The argument from evil relies on the premise "If God exists, then there would be no avoidable evil in the world." The skeptical theist responds to the argument by saying "That premise must be false, but I can't tell you why." Alex doesn't think that is a good response, since it is basically a substanceless cop out, but he seems to think all the substantive theodicies simply don't work. It is perfectly compatible for Alex to say "Skeptical theism is not a great response to the problem of evil, since it doesn't really deal with the problem head on" while also saying "If I had very strong independent reasons to believe in God, then skeptical theism would be the only 'out' available to me to deal with the problem of evil, so I would have to accept it, despite how unsatisfactory it is."
He keeps saying, "He thinks." Does he know, or does he not know? This is the game of planting doubts without presenting critical peer review evidence .
When you don’t have definitive evidence, the language of doubt becomes your most powerful tool. Like a skilled lawyer addressing a jury, you can use carefully chosen words and questions to plant uncertainty in the minds of others. This strategy isn’t about seeking truth; it’s about creating just enough room for people to question the evidence in front of them. Once doubt takes hold, you can introduce your own conclusion as the more reasonable or plausible option, subtly steering perception in your favor. While this approach is effective for making a case, it’s not a method for uncovering objective truth-it’s a calculated technique for persuasion.
Matthew, Mark and Luke were written within 10-25 years of the resurrection because the internal evidence strongly indicates it. They would have all mentioned the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. and certainly they would not have spoke as if it was not destroyed. John was written during his older age in A.D. 80-90 before his exile in Patmos.
The first and primary way you would date something would be the internal contents of a document or artefact. This applies to everything except the Bible.
@jesserochon3103 when you find a written document, it represents itself at face value. It is objectively true that you have the document. Presuming who, what, when, why, how, is a subjective opinion. The document is the first place you go to establish these things. It's not dependent on the belief of the audiences that come afterwards. We could all choose to believe or reject what that document says, but the document speaks for itself regardless. The subject of scholars includes the study of the scholars themselves. They primarily fall into two camps, does who believe in miracles and the supernatural and does that don't. Their beliefs and bias determine how they report it. Higher criticism is fine, but it is conducted by the beliefs of the scholars.
No - the gospel of John could not have been written closer to 200AD, Alex. We have the Gospel of John in the Muratorian Fragment, which is dated from 170AD to (the absolute latest) 200AD. If it appears on that fragment it’s cos that book (GoJ) had 1. Already been written and disseminated to Christian communities across the empire, and 2. Had been recognized as Scripture, or the speech of God. To say all that could have happened in the same year (and that’s granting that the Muratorian Fragment is from its latest possible date) is just absurd. Alex has only a surface level understanding of these texts and their history.
Clearly from the first second of this video Alex’s point is that 1. Dating can be a difficult task, and 2. He is skeptical that it was a 1st century document…so yes, while the 200AD date was specifically in reference to P52, the context of the convo is the Gospel itself, and how Alex thinks it could be later. Alex clearly thinks the Gospel was written closer to the turn of the 3rd century, which, as I said, is just ignorant.
1. Lee Martin Macdonald makes a credible case for the Muratorian fragment to be a 4th century document. 2. Alex doesnt date John to late 2nd century, he states that we cannot have confidence as to the dating of p52, and that there is a wide possible range for that document.
1. John doesn’t mention the destruction of the temple in 70. 2. John 5:2 describes (in the authors present time) details of the temple (colonnades). These two evidence pieces point to an early date. What evidence points these later?
It's amazing how closed minded and clueless christians are to thinking outside of their own. Maybe your evidence is only good to you because you can't think for yourself.
Alex is a master of sophistry. He has moments of brilliance to be sure (philosophically). But other than that he's nothing more than a Pied Piper with some charm, a British accent and a tankful of communication skills. He's made up his mind that he's right, which is why he cannot be corrected. The fact that he embraces Barty boy and challenges Wes and men like him, says all you need to know about him. He's a charlatan and nothing else. His theology is diabolical. But it's what happens when dead men try to interpret the 'Living Word' You'd have to be an uninformed Atheist to believe him. When I first started to watch him years ago, I liked him. But over the years I've witness an Alex that is far from objective.
In 3:24-3:26, Alex said, "like I say that the consensus is pushing that more towards like 200 now." Since the consensus is pushing in that direction, the consensus of p 52, dated to the 3rd century, is not there yet. Isn't it possible to suggest based on the language that Alex himself said that at the present time, the dating of p 52 is in the early 2nd century and Wes Huff is right? Alex can't use language like pushing or changing (don't know if he actually said this I thought I heard him but the transcript indicates he didn't say it) to appeal to a scholarly consensus of 3rd-century dating of p 52.
The Gospel of John, along with the letters of 1, 2, and 3 John, and Revelation, are often attributed to John the Apostle, though the authorship is not explicitly stated in all of them. Scholars generally place the writing of the Gospel of John in the late 1st century or early 2nd century AD, with estimates ranging from around 90-110 AD. ????
In John’s gospel Chapter 5 the author (probably John lol) describes the sheep pool at the temple which is also called the Bethesda pool (where Jesus performed several alleged miracles) He describes it in the present tense: “Now there is the sheep pool by the temple’s entrance with its five pillars…” We also know the temple was destroyed utterly including the sheep pool. It was all raised to the ground and only rubble remained. John would have almost certainly been aware of this significant event. As such, it seems very odd that he would describe the temple sheep pool the way he did if he penned his Gospel AFTER the temple was destroyed in 70AD. This is why I personally believe it was written before 70AD. The only argument scholars use against this hard evidence is that there’s a lot more SOFT evidence that suggests it was written much later. But again it’s soft evidence, not hard evidence like the sheep pool reference.
Also didn't father ocallaghan who handled the dead sea scrolls also say that he found fragments of all branches of the new testament books found along side the dead sea across which date between 40s or 50s to 60s?
We could know for a fact that the gospels were written in 35 AD and it would not matter for Alex. It's the claims made in the NT of a crucified and risen God, that Alex rejects. Even if the gospels and copies were written in 200 AD, they would still be the most historical writing in history. Fact is we have over 20,000 copies within 150 years of the originals in multiple languages.
Ruslan your patience is admirable. Very humble. Honestly all this comments people talking about you interrupting is big big BS because you let him talk almost 19 minutes out of 21minute video.
Gospel of John is way too familiar with 2nd temple period judaism to be a purely second century text. The temple was destroyed in 70 AD. From there the clock starts ticking.
Correct. But dissenting scholars argue that just was not using the actual present tense but rather the ‘historic present tense’ There’s no evidence of this by the way and the passage does read as the actual present tense.
As I watch this, Alex is upset about a phrase word for word and insists Wes is wrong…but Alex who “fact checked” Wes was off by over 1,000 inaccuracies..but he won’t admit he was wrong?
All love to Alex, but its interesting to see how he handles this. It seems like if this were any other historical document, he wouldn't have much of an issue with the dating but bc its the Bible there's so much skepticism.
Who cares about the gospel of Peter, and whether it's 2nd or 3rd century. We have the true gospel of Peter and it's called the Gospel of Mark and it was written first very close to the mid first century.
Ruslan, you need to brush up on your manuscript knowledge. The useful chart TH-cam channel who gets all of their info from actual scholars have P52 dated around 120AD by most scholars and some even have it late 1st century within 30 years of the original. They even say the Dead Sea scrolls are identical to our modern day bibles with minor changes that doesn’t change the message. Alex is using word salad to make it seem as he’s on to something that scholars disagrees with him. He’s not saying anything valid.
7:35 None of the books write about the destruction of the temple. Jesus did accurately predict the end of the old covenant age. Dispensationalism is flawed. Jesus “returned” in judgement upon Israel in 70 AD.
I just started seeing this Alex guy but every time I look into what he talks about he is wrong or only gives part truths. I think we have to start double checking what people say. I do think Alex is a good speaker but he’s full of bullshit. The funny part is that I’m not Christian and I think he’s garbage lmao.
Take it for what you will Christian New Testament Scholars Dr Hugo 90s to 110s is within the main stream on the dating of John. It would seem Atheist New Testament scholars agree with this dating as well.
Bible Forgery Verses -------- 1. Matthew 28:19 The Trinitarian formula is questioned due to its absence in early Christian writings. Retained in Esv, Niv, and Kjv, but questioned. --- 2. 1 John 5:7 Known as the "Johannine Comma," absent in early Greek manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 3. Acts 8:37 Absent in earlier manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Rsv. Footnoted in Nrsv. --- 4. Mark 16:9-20 Labeled as a later addition. Bracketed in Esv and Niv. Footnoted in Rsv and Nrsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 5. 1 Timothy 3:16 Changed from "God" to "He" based on earlier manuscripts. Adjusted in Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Retained as "God" in Kjv. --- 6. Colossians 1:14 The phrase "through his blood" is missing in earlier manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 7. Hebrews 1:3 Doctrinal shifts in later manuscripts. Adjusted in Esv, Nrsv, and Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 8. John 5:4 Absent in early Greek manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. --- 9. Luke 23:34 Missing in early manuscripts. Removed from Esv and Nrsv. Footnoted in Niv and Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 10. Matthew 27:52-53 Heavily debated as potentially legendary. Retained in Esv, Niv, and Kjv. Footnoted in Nrsv and Rsv. --- 11. Mark 15:28 Absent in early manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 12. John 21:24-25 Questioned for stylistic differences. Retained in Esv, Niv, and Kjv. Footnoted in Nrsv and Rsv. --- 13. John 8:1-11 (The story of the adulterous woman) Bracketed in Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 14. Revelation 22:18-19 Noted as a possible late addition. Retained in Esv, Niv, and Kjv. Footnoted in Nrsv and Rsv. --- 15. Romans 16:24 Absent in earlier manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Rsv. Footnoted in Nrsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 16. Luke 22:43-44 Missing in early manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Nrsv, and Niv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 17. Matthew 6:13 The doxology is absent in early manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Nrsv, and Niv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 18. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Debated for interrupting the flow of the text. Footnoted in Esv, Rsv, and Nrsv. Retained in Kjv and Niv. --- 19. Matthew 17:21 Absent in early manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 20. Matthew 18:11 Absent in early manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 21. Mark 9:44 & Mark 9:46 Repeats part of Mark 9:48 but absent in early manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 22. Luke 17:36 Absent in earlier manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 23. Acts 15:34 Absent in early Greek manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 24. Acts 24:6-8 A portion of the passage is removed. Footnoted or removed in Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 25. Acts 28:29 Absent in early manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 26. 1 John 4:3 Some early manuscripts dose not have "that Jesus has come in the flesh." Adjusted or footnoted in Esv and Nrsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 27. Revelation 20:5 Some early manuscripts dose not have part of the verse about the "first resurrection." Footnoted in Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
Agreed. Chapter 5 talking about the temple sheep pool existing in the present tense is pretty damning to those who put John sometime after 70AD since that’s when the temple was ruthlessly decimated.
It seems to me that Alex is running rings around these guys. Why? Because they're ham strung by a prior commitment, not to God in Christ, but to a cart load of metaphysical mumbojumbo which should have been jettisoned decades ago.
O'Connor has no clue what he's talking about, but he wants to sound so confident. He is making stuff up. In other words what the Karen dreamt about, came about. He is a dishonest liar. Like any other Atheist. Ruslan on the other hand is the last person that should talk to him. Dr. James White would straighten him up with his ridiculous lies.
Hey now, John is THE BEST MOST AWESOMEST APPOSTLE EVER!!!!!!!! 😂😂😂😂.....dont forget now, he was the one who Jesus loved!!!!!!!!!!!! Better chec yo-self before u wreck yo-self, ALEX. ......my name is Jonathan and i have SPOKEN.😂😂😂😂
Although it's not related but Alex actually has a very irritating voice to me. But that's my personal taste. But I can't help but kept noticing and getting really irritated by his voice. It will probably improve if he soften his accent & speak more closely to an american accent
Get Your Virtual Bless God Summit Ticket Here: blessgod.shop
PLEASE GET WILLIAM LANE CRAIG on to talk with Alex! PLEASE for the love of God.
Ignatius of Antioch (written around 107 AD) alludes to the Gospel of John in his Epistle to Ephesians (7:2 with John 1:14; 9:1 with John 12:32 & John 1:4-5; 17:1 with John 12:7; 20:2 with John 6:51) and his Epistle to the Philadelphians (7:1 with John 3:8; 7:2 with John 17:21). Also, John 5:2 uses the present tense for there "is" a pool near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem, suggesting that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Yes the evidence available is in favor for John being written pre 70 AD, same with Revelation I’d argue.
You beat me to this comment. Alex needs to read the early church fathers a bit more. Ignatius' reference to John 3:8 is far too close to call it a coincidence.
Justin Martyr died in 165 AD and quotes John's Gospel in his writings, he quotes John 3 : 3......
Yeah that is a fun way to see a minimum date of a scripture when is the earliest quote you can find of it.
Good catch brother
Alex knows this.. he just decides to not give his opponent this information.. if Ruslan doesnt know or speak about then Alex cones out on top
@@cannabros surely you must realize that whether justin quotes john's gospel or not is highly disputed. im certain that if ruslan had brought this up, alex would have had something to say on it
What else he failed to mention is that Polycarp claimed to have been a disciple of John the Apostle; this information primarily comes from the writings of Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp himself.
The early church fathers were referencing the gospel of John in the late second century. I don't know how any one could date it later than that. It also has parallels to the book of revelation which is dated in the 90s. I think it's also important to recognize that there is a clear chain of custody between from John to polycarp to Ireanus.
Late second century? They were referencing it in the early 2nd century my boy!
John’s gospel (or whoever wrote John; most likely it was John) was most likely written between 60 and 90 AD. Alex simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about here.
you can tell even by the people agreeing with you here, that these claims are nowhere near settled, so be humble in your proclamations
@@jesserochon3103 most likely it was not John.
We dont know who wrote John...like at all.
@@FloofyMinari I think a good guess is that it was written by Johns followers. It would explain there being multiple writers, the chain of custody that leads to Ireanus, and how they refer to him as the beloved disciple.
Ruslan, I give you props for taking on the "Final Boss" of religious rebuttals 😊
Oh this is not the final boss.
It is accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and historians that the gospel of John was written prior to 100 AD, agruably prior to 70 AD because it likely before the fall of Israel in 70 AD. Gary Habermas who is one of the most respected and reliable scholars has spoke on this topic for reference.
The general consensus is around 90 to 110.
@SterlingTate I understand thats what google says, but thats not the scholarly consensus. Problem is that there is no mention of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Most scholars see this as evidence it is prior to 70 but still still probably the last gospel written.
@@chaisehodge9639 You are talking conservative evangelicals, which the majority of those do... however Mark still remains favored as the earliest gospel 70 ad with John being the last not before 90 ad. I only focused on biblical studies at my christian university so what do i know?
@@SterlingTate not questioning your intelligence my friend, as Im sure we are brothers in Christ. However, you should understand that it is accepted that the gospels (mark being first, john last) were written prior to 70 AD. There are many reasons for this. Another reason being that the gospels were cited by Paul. Luke was a friend of Pauls and Paul referred to Lukes gospel. Paul died in the late 60s AD.
The best part for me is that the points Alex raised are his main reasons against Christianity. Not just these, but I’ve seen and heard his other videos. I think we have more evidence for the resurrection than against it. The issue with Alex is that he asks the right questions, which is an admirable trait, but he doesn't truly seek the answers. It seems that the only way he will believe is if he witnesses a miracle in his own life.
He doesn’t conclude the answer you want to hear. Most Christians walk with blinders on (faith). Clouding yourself to see outside perspectives and other views and religions. Study other ancient texts. If you have really listened to Alex, he finds so many holes in the gospels.
Some Christians:
- the world is 5000 years old
- Adam and Eve were not neanderthals
- every word of the Bible is true with no error
Please get beyond your practice and truly study outside your bubble.
@@jasenjahn Many have done such, and have concluded, as former atheists; that Christ is risen. Theres great evidence for a young earth such as astroids, c14 in diamonds, the recession of the moon and so on.
Jasen, I also say the same to you, that wes huff and others don't conclude the answer you want to hear. Most unbelivers walk with blinders on (faith); faith in the scientific method, even though theres no basis for believeing that abstract entites such as the laws of logic are uniform, invarient and universal in a chance universe. No way of knowing that the sun will rise tomorrow without God Who telling us in Genesis 8:22 (He is outside of time and is therefore in a position to know). Unbelivers just take it on faith that it will rise, and that the basic cycles of nature will continue in the future as they have in the past.
@ I could say the same to you about all the evidence for the resurrection. It's not the answer you want to hear, so you will reject it and look for another way to explain it.
@@jasenjahn That's intriguing. I assume you watch Alex quite often. Do you remember one of the holes in the Bible he ever said? Just tell me the gist. Because probably the holes he said he found never existed or were refuted many decades before he even said it.
@@yafethtb I recently came across Alex and have only listened to about 40 - 60 hours of his content so far. I’ll dig deeper and get back to you with specific discussions or “holes.” He specifically cites his resources. And yes, most of his rebuttals have been brought up. However, he does a good job bringing up subjects and adding news thoughts/perspectives that have been recently hashed out-last 200 years. If you check out his channel, his discussion on 1 Timothy is particularly intriguing. That said, when listening to Alex on this channel, try to focus on content that’s uncut or minimally edited-heavily edited pieces can sometimes be misleading.
On another note, have you ever researched or studied Physical or Biological Anthropology?
The toughest part about listening to Alex is the fact that he always takes the most extremely sceptical position. I also cant stand the "scholarly consenus" crap that he loves to spit out.. Agnostics / atheists are supposed to be the arbiters of truth, show us the evidence Alex.. how many scholars are saying this and who are they? What are their credintials?
He's uber skeptical about everything, BUT his own atheist "academic consensus"
This is what we do as humans though. When examining history we listen to all the points and go with what’s more likely. Don’t get mad at atheists cause we are going with what we are convinced of.
@omnikevlar2338 that's ridiculous, you may listen to both sides but you definitely do not go off the "evidence." If you name 5 scholars that date John into the late 2nd century, I can name 5 that date it into late 1st century. Where is this consensus that Alex speaks of? If he was an honest person he would say "scholars are on both sides of the fence on this subject." Instead, like I stated before, he goes with the most fringe almost conspiracy-like idea and runs with it. He admits that he isn't educated on the topic but then states "I have a theory that John 21 is a later addition."
Get out of here with your "we go where the evidence leads" bull crap.
@ Handsome if you noticed Alex said at the beginning that the evidence for when these gospels were written is very speculative. This is very true. Do you sincerely think if evidence came out confirmed the John to the 1st century this wouldn’t convince Alex?
This is the problem is when dogmatic thinking gets mixed into history. Muslims, LDS, and other religions do the same thing you are as well. In-group out-group thinking.
@@jeremiahgranatowski1400 there have been THOUSANDS of bible scholars around the world. It's easy to cherry pick your favorite takes. The truth is there has never been a strong consensus around dating...if you truly want to see for yourself, use *Google Scholar* and start reading through the thousands of papers exploring this topic. Good luck!
Love both Alex and Ruslan! And I want to point out how humble Ruslan was in this debate, great job and very good video!
Pray for Alex to be saved and pray for Ruslan so he spreads the word to many more people.
Jesus is King ✝️☦️
If we found everything Alex want, He still will found something that he disagree.. He just dont want to believe...
He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Luke 16
True
@@WilborArthur it’s just never satisfied. Like he just searching for more and more like how can you trust your self and thinking if you just continue this questioning cycle
Questioning is good until it gets to this point then it’s unhealthy
Seek and ye shall find. I think it is quite the noble quest for truth. I am not going to judge against that in case I am wrong. I cant judge his heart but the Holy Spirit tells me there is a seed planted somewhere in all this. There is opposition in all things. The opposition in his mind is a battle I am sure he will overcome one day. This is a much more common battle than you realise and can last a lifetime. I find it almost ignorance to have no patience in this matter. Salvation is a personal matter. Let him work it out on his own with God. Alot of people wrestle with God in their minds and hearts before they come to believe.
@@Crikey420except he's not just wrestling against God in his mind. He's also wrestling against other Christians and makes a living on it.
The intellectual dishonesty of Alex is how he loves to argue the Christian literature but avoid Plato, Socrates or others who have much less evidence. That to me is pathetic.
@@watersabove.below7 historians don’t believe that every single word attributed to Plato and Socrates were actually said by them.
Also Plato was said to be the son of the god Apollo. I doubt you believe this claim.
13:30
So many people are mad at Ruslan for his interuptions but honestly it made this feel like less of a debate and more, "friends hanging out". I dont think ive ever seen Alex have this much fun talking about the bible. 😅
I personally don't even care if the Gospel's were full eyewitness accounts. The mere fact that we are debating them is significant enough as a reason to validate their value
But that applies to almost anything, to find the Truth
@@davidmoh175 kinda true, I’d personally say when we’re dealing with manuscripts that are of the best documentation of a figure of that time and the fact that there SO old it kinda is pretty validating
If p52 is the first copy of John, it wouldn't take long to its resting place. But if it's a copy of a copy of a copy, then its resting place puts John is 1st century
Professing to be wise, they became fools.
You talking about Rus?
And then they got re-elected to the White House.
Alex is so intelligent but he clearly has some sort of beef with Christianity that makes him want to discredit it. Imagine if he had the courage and desire to put the same energy towards disproving Islam
Maybe he has church hurt.
I don’t see how people come to this conclusion unless you just aren’t familiar with a lot of Alex’s content. He has talked positively about Christianity so often, and also often states he wish it were true. His bar for converting is much lower than most atheists today, he’s constantly said he just needs one example of the Holy Spirit acting in him or some sort of miracle happening to himself that he can verify is miraculous. He often pushes back against atheists he has on his shows when he doesn’t believe them to be correct especially Bart Ehrman. He’s gone to church, he’s prayed, he’s inquisitive about Christianity. He also gives more credence to plenty of arguments for Christianity than a lot of atheists do, regardless if he doesn’t think they’re true or completely compelling. Yet I’ve seen many comments like the one you’ve left, so I’m just very intrigued as to why you believe that
@ I don't know much about Alex, but from conversations I have had with atheists, they simply do not want to believe there is a God. Since they reject God, they are unable to understand the supernatural realm. There is plenty of evidence to show that God exists and there is something beyond the material world. Also, the atheist wants to verify a miracle by a naturalistic method. One cannot prove a supernatural (miracle) event by natural methods.
You think Atheist are afraid of Islam?
he won't he is a chicken
Mad respect to Ruslan for inviting Alex on and for being so respectful and fair during this interaction. Also, just have to say that I like Alex and I think he is a weapon when it comes to philosophy. I love that he is also trying to be respectful and open and seems to be honestly trying to seek truth, which means he will find Jesus. God bless Alex and Ruslan. 🙏
A fragment of John's gospel that was discovered in Egypt and came to light in 1934 has been dated as early as AD 120. The original gospel must have been written at least by this time and probably much earlier, since ample time was needed for it to gain popularity and circulate from Asia Minor all the way to Africa. Likewise, Ignatius of Antioch seems to allude to the teaching of the Fourth Gospel in a collection of letters written about AD 107. This makes it probable that John's Gospel was composed by at least AD 100. Whether it can be dated much earlier than this is a matter of dispute. A date in the 60s is a viable option given the casual statement in 5:2 that there "is" (present tense) a pool near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem, and is unlikely that John would have described this pool as though it were intact if it was buried beneath a heap of rubble after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Regardless, most scholars prefer to date it in the 90s of the first century.
‘There IS a pool near the sheep gate’ is a fascinating bit we find in John’s gospel to be sure. There is more soft evidence that it was penned closer to 90 AD than there is hard evidence it was penned in the AD 60s which is my scholars favor the former. However I myself find sheep gate reference quite compelling dare I say even damming for anything north of the 60s AD since the temple and sheep pool were decimated in 70 AD.
As a person in the scholarship world, I can tell you what’s used and abused…. The phrase scholarly consensus especially when academia has a large variety of opinion on the matter. John’s gospel throughout history has such an array of dating and most of it 80AD-100AD. The view of it being in 200AD or after is VERY NEW and is 100000% not the consensus as scholars are still interacting with that claim and fleshing out the ideas of it. I agree also that you can not more prove it written in early first century as you can disprove it written later. But scholarship from its inception was ever designed to be the end all. It is an abstraction and honest view of data, it is up to the scholar or learned reader to decide their beliefs after being presented with the facts. Also most scholars are comfortable with a view someone holds after knowing the data so the claim “you cannot definitively say it’s dated early” is inaccurate and appealing to the reasoning of because of the people who you read not thinking that and because of the variety of views you can’t have confidence in your own lol.
A debate between Alex O’Connor and Wes Huff needs to happen.
Love Alex but hes wrong, we have John Ryland's papyrus dated to 125ad, earliest at 117ad due to how far out was found geographically in Africa.
You’re absolutely right to question whether the claim of bias is entirely fair, as the early dating of P52 is not exclusively the product of Christian scholars. Here’s a nuanced explanation of why some argue for the possibility of bias while also acknowledging broader scholarly involvement:
Early Dating and Non-Christian Scholars
1. Non-Christian Paleographers Involved:
• The initial dating of P52 (c. 125-150 CE) was supported by Colin H. Roberts, a respected paleographer, whose expertise was not confined to religious texts.
• Roberts compared P52 to several Greek documentary texts (non-Christian in nature) from the 2nd century and concluded that the fragment’s handwriting fit within that timeframe.
• Other paleographers and classical scholars, not exclusively Christian or religious, accepted this early dating.
2. Independent Affirmation:
• Subsequent studies by paleographers outside of theological circles have generally corroborated Roberts’ analysis, lending weight to the earlier date without necessarily being influenced by theological concerns.
The Claim of Bias: Why It’s Raised
1. Christian Historical Interests:
• P52, as the oldest known fragment of the New Testament, holds immense significance for Christian history. An early 2nd-century date places the fragment very close to the composition of the Gospel of John (traditionally dated c. 90 CE).
• Scholars like Brent Nongbri argue that this proximity
Yes, it’s entirely possible that Nongbri’s critiques could be influenced by his own biases or motivations, as no scholar operates in a vacuum free from external pressures or personal interests. Here’s a breakdown of this perspective:
Potential Bias in Nongbri’s Argument
1. Career and Recognition:
• Publishing a book that challenges long-standing views can elevate a scholar’s visibility and reputation, especially if the topic is highly significant (as with P52).
• Critiquing widely accepted traditions (e.g., the early dating of P52) can position a scholar as a critical thinker, potentially appealing to certain academic or social circles that value revisionism.
2. Non-Theological Agenda:
• Nongbri’s work often aims to separate textual studies from theological narratives, which can itself reflect a bias toward skepticism of traditional views.
• By emphasizing uncertainties in the dating of P52, he may inadvertently attract attention from secular or non-religious scholars and readers who prefer interpretations that challenge Christian historical claims.
3. Book Sales and Popularity:
• A controversial argument, such as questioning the dating of a key biblical artifact, can attract interest and boost book sales. This doesn’t discredit his work outright, but it’s worth considering that provocative claims often gain more traction than affirmations of the status quo.
Balancing Nongbri’s Critique
1. Scholarly Methodology:
• While Nongbri raises valid points about the limitations of paleography, these critiques apply broadly and are not unique to P52. His argument for later dating often hinges on the inherent uncertainty of paleographic methods rather than presenting definitive evidence for a specific later date.
• This makes his critique more about methodology than a direct refutation of the early date, which could itself reflect a desire to shift the conversation rather than prove a new hypothesis.
2. Challenging Bias with Bias:
• Accusing others of bias (e.g., Christian scholars promoting an early date) doesn’t absolve Nongbri of potential bias in his arguments. His preference for questioning traditional datings might align with broader academic trends of skepticism, which could influence his conclusions.
The Reality of Academic Debate
Bias, to some degree, exists in all scholarship, whether it’s overt or subtle. Both the early dating of P52 and Nongbri’s critique reflect different perspectives influenced by scholarly and social contexts. The key is to evaluate their arguments on their own merits:
• Roberts’ Early Dating: Based on standard paleographic comparisons, but acknowledges the inherent imprecision of the method.
• Nongbri’s Later Dating: Highlights valid concerns about paleographic limitations but doesn’t definitively prove a later date.
Ultimately, while both sides may have biases, the debate enriches the academic conversation and underscores the importance of examining evidence critically.
Read *The Story of the Bible by Frederic Kenyon*, keeper of the manuscripts for the British museum. He was Wes Huff before Wes Huff was Wes Huff
That was a nice way of brining it to the point, was Jesus raised from the dead and what does a person do with that truth. Alex just doesn't want to believe the truth.
So many of the comments in here that are trying to articulate that Alex is "willingly or ignorantly denying evidence/choosing not to be convinced" can ultimately be boiled down to "Just believe it bro."
It does nothing for your case & is as disingenuous as your claiming Alex to be.
Alex says he needs a religious experience to believe. Butnif he has that experience, what is he going to do regarding the slavery and Caananite issue he has always been arguing about? Is he all of a sudden just going to accept the apologetic answers to those questions? If so, it shows there is already enough legitimacy in the answers to warrant a rebuttal and he should never bring them up again.
@@Marvin-zv6md I think he would adopt the skeptical theist position that he alluded to elsewhere in this interview: "I still don't understand how these commands are compatible with a loving God, but now that I have strong independent evidence of the existence of a loving God (through my personal experience), I should accept that there must be some valid justification in God's mind that I simply cannot perceive." So he would still consider the answers given by human beings to be inadequate, but he would come to believe that there must be some answer that is inaccessible to our limited human understanding.
I certainly wouldn't consider "you just believe in God bc you WANT to" a convincing argument so I reject the inverse as well lol
@tarunium So based on this, I should never expect to see from Alex going forward:
The brushing away of "God's ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts" even if it's just for the sake of argument that God is real. The issue is that the problem of evil is one that argues from the premise that God exists in order to demonstrate that he does not (reductio ad absurdum). The response to that should just be "skeptical theism" and it seems like it's no longer a "problem".
@@Marvin-zv6md Alex doesn't think that skeptical theism is very compelling. It is ultimately a cop-out, a refusal to meet difficult arguments head on. The argument from evil relies on the premise "If God exists, then there would be no avoidable evil in the world." The skeptical theist responds to the argument by saying "That premise must be false, but I can't tell you why." Alex doesn't think that is a good response, since it is basically a substanceless cop out, but he seems to think all the substantive theodicies simply don't work.
It is perfectly compatible for Alex to say "Skeptical theism is not a great response to the problem of evil, since it doesn't really deal with the problem head on" while also saying "If I had very strong independent reasons to believe in God, then skeptical theism would be the only 'out' available to me to deal with the problem of evil, so I would have to accept it, despite how unsatisfactory it is."
Majority of scholars date P52 to the early 2nd century, specifically around 100-150 AD.
He keeps saying, "He thinks." Does he know, or does he not know? This is the game of planting doubts without presenting critical peer review evidence .
When you don’t have definitive evidence, the language of doubt becomes your most powerful tool. Like a skilled lawyer addressing a jury, you can use carefully chosen words and questions to plant uncertainty in the minds of others. This strategy isn’t about seeking truth; it’s about creating just enough room for people to question the evidence in front of them. Once doubt takes hold, you can introduce your own conclusion as the more reasonable or plausible option, subtly steering perception in your favor.
While this approach is effective for making a case, it’s not a method for uncovering objective truth-it’s a calculated technique for persuasion.
Did God really say you shall die if you eat of the fruit??
Ruslan was asking Alex on his opinion, so yeah saying "I think...." In this case is valid
Well said @@troymarks1657
Matthew, Mark and Luke were written within 10-25 years of the resurrection because the internal evidence strongly indicates it. They would have all mentioned the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. and certainly they would not have spoke as if it was not destroyed. John was written during his older age in A.D. 80-90 before his exile in Patmos.
L after L to Alex O' Con-man
The first and primary way you would date something would be the internal contents of a document or artefact.
This applies to everything except the Bible.
Why doesn’t it apply to the biblical corpus? I’ve never understood that bro. Please explain.
@jesserochon3103 when you find a written document, it represents itself at face value. It is objectively true that you have the document. Presuming who, what, when, why, how, is a subjective opinion. The document is the first place you go to establish these things. It's not dependent on the belief of the audiences that come afterwards.
We could all choose to believe or reject what that document says, but the document speaks for itself regardless.
The subject of scholars includes the study of the scholars themselves. They primarily fall into two camps, does who believe in miracles and the supernatural and does that don't. Their beliefs and bias determine how they report it. Higher criticism is fine, but it is conducted by the beliefs of the scholars.
No - the gospel of John could not have been written closer to 200AD, Alex. We have the Gospel of John in the Muratorian Fragment, which is dated from 170AD to (the absolute latest) 200AD. If it appears on that fragment it’s cos that book (GoJ) had 1. Already been written and disseminated to Christian communities across the empire, and 2. Had been recognized as Scripture, or the speech of God. To say all that could have happened in the same year (and that’s granting that the Muratorian Fragment is from its latest possible date) is just absurd. Alex has only a surface level understanding of these texts and their history.
He is talking about the dating of p52 not the gospel itself
Rewatch the video
He says it multiple times
Clearly from the first second of this video Alex’s point is that 1. Dating can be a difficult task, and 2. He is skeptical that it was a 1st century document…so yes, while the 200AD date was specifically in reference to P52, the context of the convo is the Gospel itself, and how Alex thinks it could be later. Alex clearly thinks the Gospel was written closer to the turn of the 3rd century, which, as I said, is just ignorant.
1. Lee Martin Macdonald makes a credible case for the Muratorian fragment to be a 4th century document.
2. Alex doesnt date John to late 2nd century, he states that we cannot have confidence as to the dating of p52, and that there is a wide possible range for that document.
1. John doesn’t mention the destruction of the temple in 70.
2. John 5:2 describes (in the authors present time) details of the temple (colonnades).
These two evidence pieces point to an early date. What evidence points these later?
Alex is not stupid... He must have seen all the valid information out there but choses to stand against it deliberately. This is unfortunate.
Agreed. He's actively choosing to be against and that's his choice; an unfortunate choice.
It's amazing how closed minded and clueless christians are to thinking outside of their own. Maybe your evidence is only good to you because you can't think for yourself.
Alex is a master of sophistry. He has moments of brilliance to be sure (philosophically). But other than that he's nothing more than a Pied Piper with some charm, a British accent and a tankful of communication skills. He's made up his mind that he's right, which is why he cannot be corrected. The fact that he embraces Barty boy and challenges Wes and men like him, says all you need to know about him. He's a charlatan and nothing else. His theology is diabolical. But it's what happens when dead men try to interpret the 'Living Word' You'd have to be an uninformed Atheist to believe him. When I first started to watch him years ago, I liked him. But over the years I've witness an Alex that is far from objective.
In 3:24-3:26, Alex said, "like I say that the consensus is pushing that more towards like 200 now." Since the consensus is pushing in that direction, the consensus of p 52, dated to the 3rd century, is not there yet. Isn't it possible to suggest based on the language that Alex himself said that at the present time, the dating of p 52 is in the early 2nd century and Wes Huff is right? Alex can't use language like pushing or changing (don't know if he actually said this I thought I heard him but the transcript indicates he didn't say it) to appeal to a scholarly consensus of 3rd-century dating of p 52.
I think Alex has been reading the Bible. That's a great thing, praise the Lord!
dude of course he has, he has a theology degree
May be I have missed it but what is Alex’s resource?🤔
The Gospel of John, along with the letters of 1, 2, and 3 John, and Revelation, are often attributed to John the Apostle, though the authorship is not explicitly stated in all of them. Scholars generally place the writing of the Gospel of John in the late 1st century or early 2nd century AD, with estimates ranging from around 90-110 AD. ????
In John’s gospel Chapter 5 the author (probably John lol) describes the sheep pool at the temple which is also called the Bethesda pool (where Jesus performed several alleged miracles) He describes it in the present tense: “Now there is the sheep pool by the temple’s entrance with its five pillars…”
We also know the temple was destroyed utterly including the sheep pool. It was all raised to the ground and only rubble remained. John would have almost certainly been aware of this significant event. As such, it seems very odd that he would describe the temple sheep pool the way he did if he penned his Gospel AFTER the temple was destroyed in 70AD.
This is why I personally believe it was written before 70AD.
The only argument scholars use against this hard evidence is that there’s a lot more SOFT evidence that suggests it was written much later. But again it’s soft evidence, not hard evidence like the sheep pool reference.
Also didn't father ocallaghan who handled the dead sea scrolls also say that he found fragments of all branches of the new testament books found along side the dead sea across which date between 40s or 50s to 60s?
Alex is a Sheldon type of a nerd. May he find Jesus soon.
We could know for a fact that the gospels were written in 35 AD and it would not matter for Alex. It's the claims made in the NT of a crucified and risen God, that Alex rejects.
Even if the gospels and copies were written in 200 AD, they would still be the most historical writing in history.
Fact is we have over 20,000 copies within 150 years of the originals in multiple languages.
Alex is a contrarian, period.
Ruslan your patience is admirable. Very humble. Honestly all this comments people talking about you interrupting is big big BS because you let him talk almost 19 minutes out of 21minute video.
I’m gonna feel sad for him when we’re walking bye him heading to the pearly gates. We tried to save you.
I think Alex needs to listen to Chuck Missler. Everything in the bible is connected. It truly is the inspired word of God
Gospel of John is way too familiar with 2nd temple period judaism to be a purely second century text. The temple was destroyed in 70 AD. From there the clock starts ticking.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools
Alex denialism is saddening and
Wes may have been referencing the other apocryphal books of Peter not the gospel.
Will he be able to move on beyond this topic???
Alex is in sinking Titanic (🇬🇧) and doesn’t think the lifeboat ( ⛪️)that’s gonna save him is real.
John writes as if the Temple is still standing so that would put it before 70 AD.
Correct. But dissenting scholars argue that just was not using the actual present tense but rather the ‘historic present tense’
There’s no evidence of this by the way and the passage does read as the actual present tense.
I think Ruslan needs to slow down a little bit.
IMO, but Alex is trying to stay relevant by trying to discrediting anything he can.
As I watch this, Alex is upset about a phrase word for word and insists Wes is wrong…but Alex who “fact checked” Wes was off by over 1,000 inaccuracies..but he won’t admit he was wrong?
I can appreciate that Ruslan posts his L’s
Undersigned coincidences and references with the other gospels make it likely that John was written in the late first century.
Alex is right in everything he says
All love to Alex, but its interesting to see how he handles this. It seems like if this were any other historical document, he wouldn't have much of an issue with the dating but bc its the Bible there's so much skepticism.
The only reason there is more skepticism with the Bible is because in it is contained extraordinary claims.
the difference in ages of p52 is a couple generations no more than 3 generations of people
Who cares about the gospel of Peter, and whether it's 2nd or 3rd century. We have the true gospel of Peter and it's called the Gospel of Mark and it was written first very close to the mid first century.
Ruslan, you need to brush up on your manuscript knowledge. The useful chart TH-cam channel who gets all of their info from actual scholars have P52 dated around 120AD by most scholars and some even have it late 1st century within 30 years of the original. They even say the Dead Sea scrolls are identical to our modern day bibles with minor changes that doesn’t change the message. Alex is using word salad to make it seem as he’s on to something that scholars disagrees with him. He’s not saying anything valid.
7:35 None of the books write about the destruction of the temple. Jesus did accurately predict the end of the old covenant age. Dispensationalism is flawed. Jesus “returned” in judgement upon Israel in 70 AD.
Wes should debate Alex
I just started seeing this Alex guy but every time I look into what he talks about he is wrong or only gives part truths. I think we have to start double checking what people say. I do think Alex is a good speaker but he’s full of bullshit. The funny part is that I’m not Christian and I think he’s garbage lmao.
Alex goes down so many rabbit holes
Oh! how we just focus on seeking for lil details and forget the beauty of the whole picture. Alex, take a rest. It is exhausting. God bless you.
Take it for what you will Christian New Testament Scholars Dr Hugo 90s to 110s is within the main stream on the dating of John. It would seem Atheist New Testament scholars agree with this dating as well.
Alex wouldn't believe in Christ even if he literally shows up to his house and perform all sorts of miracles in front of him.
Bible Forgery Verses
--------
1. Matthew 28:19
The Trinitarian formula is questioned due to its absence in early Christian writings.
Retained in Esv, Niv, and Kjv, but questioned.
---
2. 1 John 5:7
Known as the "Johannine Comma," absent in early Greek manuscripts.
Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
Footnoted in Rsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
3. Acts 8:37
Absent in earlier manuscripts.
Removed from Esv, Niv, and Rsv.
Footnoted in Nrsv.
---
4. Mark 16:9-20
Labeled as a later addition.
Bracketed in Esv and Niv.
Footnoted in Rsv and Nrsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
5. 1 Timothy 3:16
Changed from "God" to "He" based on earlier manuscripts.
Adjusted in Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
Retained as "God" in Kjv.
---
6. Colossians 1:14
The phrase "through his blood" is missing in earlier manuscripts.
Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
7. Hebrews 1:3
Doctrinal shifts in later manuscripts.
Adjusted in Esv, Nrsv, and Rsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
8. John 5:4
Absent in early Greek manuscripts.
Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
Footnoted in Rsv.
---
9. Luke 23:34
Missing in early manuscripts.
Removed from Esv and Nrsv.
Footnoted in Niv and Rsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
10. Matthew 27:52-53
Heavily debated as potentially legendary.
Retained in Esv, Niv, and Kjv.
Footnoted in Nrsv and Rsv.
---
11. Mark 15:28
Absent in early manuscripts.
Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
Footnoted in Rsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
12. John 21:24-25
Questioned for stylistic differences.
Retained in Esv, Niv, and Kjv.
Footnoted in Nrsv and Rsv.
---
13. John 8:1-11
(The story of the adulterous woman)
Bracketed in Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
Footnoted in Rsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
14. Revelation 22:18-19
Noted as a possible late addition.
Retained in Esv, Niv, and Kjv.
Footnoted in Nrsv and Rsv.
---
15. Romans 16:24
Absent in earlier manuscripts.
Removed from Esv, Niv, and Rsv.
Footnoted in Nrsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
16. Luke 22:43-44
Missing in early manuscripts.
Removed from Esv, Nrsv, and Niv.
Footnoted in Rsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
17. Matthew 6:13
The doxology is absent in early manuscripts.
Removed from Esv, Nrsv, and Niv.
Footnoted in Rsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
18. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Debated for interrupting the flow of the text.
Footnoted in Esv, Rsv, and Nrsv.
Retained in Kjv and Niv.
---
19. Matthew 17:21
Absent in early manuscripts.
Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
Footnoted in Rsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
20. Matthew 18:11
Absent in early manuscripts.
Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
Footnoted in Rsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
21. Mark 9:44 & Mark 9:46
Repeats part of Mark 9:48 but absent in early manuscripts.
Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
Footnoted in Rsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
22. Luke 17:36
Absent in earlier manuscripts.
Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
Footnoted in Rsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
23. Acts 15:34
Absent in early Greek manuscripts.
Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
Footnoted in Rsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
24. Acts 24:6-8
A portion of the passage is removed.
Footnoted or removed in Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
25. Acts 28:29
Absent in early manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
Footnoted in Rsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
26. 1 John 4:3
Some early manuscripts dose not have "that Jesus has come in the flesh."
Adjusted or footnoted in Esv and Nrsv.
Retained in Kjv.
---
27. Revelation 20:5
Some early manuscripts dose not have part of the verse about the "first resurrection."
Footnoted in Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
William Lane Craig is the authority I would appeal to; even Bart Ehrman's claims are wisely debated by Mr. Craig...
Alex needs to invest more time in reading the early church fathers. This belief of a 3rd century John is nuts.
Ruslan seemed like an unbeliever
Again, this channel milks off Alex’s audience with his content but you silence us in the comment section.
Ok Alex, now take a deep dive into islam
He is too chickens
He’s got his 50 foot pole in his bag
Why would he? They are on the same team serving the same master and rebelling against the same God.
You will forget your sin
John's gospel is maximum 70ad
Agreed. Chapter 5 talking about the temple sheep pool existing in the present tense is pretty damning to those who put John sometime after 70AD since that’s when the temple was ruthlessly decimated.
It seems to me that Alex is running rings around these guys. Why? Because they're ham strung by a prior commitment, not to God in Christ, but to a cart load of metaphysical mumbojumbo which should have been jettisoned decades ago.
Alex is making a living off the back of Christian’s. Stop giving him a platform. Who cares what he says or what he thinks?? Not me.
Debate Wes 🐓
O'Connor has no clue what he's talking about, but he wants to sound so confident. He is making stuff up. In other words what the Karen dreamt about, came about. He is a dishonest liar. Like any other Atheist. Ruslan on the other hand is the last person that should talk to him. Dr. James White would straighten him up with his ridiculous lies.
Alex is anti great commission.
I think the time has come to stop trying to be nice to Alex. His methodology is very weak and hypocritical
This guy dngaf, remove his perception and his audience and he would run with the sand. Disrespectful istsooh!
Alex “I do not think it is 1st century even though it could be”
Read foxes book of martyrs. Talks about johns gospel written in 96ad
OH PLEASE DO YOURSELVES A FAVOR, AND CHECK OUT WHAT BILLY CARSON JUST UPLOADED! Thank me later & God bless! Billy needs to let this lie…
He so full of shit no cap
Hey now, John is THE BEST MOST AWESOMEST APPOSTLE EVER!!!!!!!! 😂😂😂😂.....dont forget now, he was the one who Jesus loved!!!!!!!!!!!! Better chec yo-self before u wreck yo-self, ALEX. ......my name is Jonathan and i have SPOKEN.😂😂😂😂
Although it's not related but Alex actually has a very irritating voice to me. But that's my personal taste. But I can't help but kept noticing and getting really irritated by his voice. It will probably improve if he soften his accent & speak more closely to an american accent