I would the say the Q hypothesis could probably help the reliability of the gospels since this would be a VERY early source. Although it can't be proved to have existed.
Licona has an interesting view on Q He speculates that it is Matthews notes that he took of Jesus teachings while He was still alive. That would explain why there is isn't narrative nor resurrection. It also makes it super reliable and it would make sense why Mark didn't use it but Matthew and Luke did. But that is just speculation
Going after the synoptic problem is ambitious. The Q gospel theory actually solves alot of problems not just with John but Mark and Luke to. There is a Q plus theory that gives John an extra source for his gospel.
The picture of Jesus looking like he was rolling his eyes! 😂 Definitely going to read Lydia McGrew's "The Eye of the Beholder" soon. I am so thankful you've introduced me to her work- it's excellent.
I would say a huge part of the supposed difference may be due to the different locational settings. In the Synoptics, it's entirely focused on Jesus's Galilean ministry, people who by and large were must less educated than those in Jerusalem. So I would expect Jesus to speak and talk a little differently in the Synoptics...and they only report about a one year ministry in Galilee. In John on the other hand, it's almost entirely focused on a Judean/Jerusalem ministry with about 3 years in mind. Jesus probably spoke a bit differently in Jerusalem, although the same truths can be found in all four.
More examples of other important direct or indirect connections about Jesus and what he said: Part of John the Baptist's testimony: Mark: "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie" John: "I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know, even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” Baptism in/with the Holy Spirit: Mark "..he(Jesus) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” John "He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain (Jesus), this is he (Jesus) who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Part of following Jesus: Luke "For whoever would save his life(soul) will lose it, but whoever loses his life(soul) for my sake will save it" John "Whoever loves his life(soul) loses it, and whoever hates his life(soul) in this world will keep it for eternal life." Authority to Bind and Lose/forgive Matt "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Context of a brother sinning against you. John "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”
Read the synoptics and compare them to John vs comparing them to gospels like Thomas, Judas and Peter. You will realize that John and the synoptics are pretty close when compared to other so called gospels.
Out of all of those, I think Kostenberg would be the one I'm most interested in. I don't know if I could pull off getting NT. I'd be interested in talking NDEs with Dr. Habermas.
The fact that John at the end of his Gospel account writes: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” - 21.25 Shows that he both recognizes that the earthly ministry of the Messiah involved many things beyond what his singular work provides and implies that there are already other books, which he considered this book as complementary & corroboratory to, but not contradictory or different. If he considered his work a stand-alone and exhaustive in its detail he won’t be making reference to other books.
I think Bart Ehrman's next move is to claim Jesus was a space alien. He's pretty much exhausted all other avenues to pursue in his quest to read between the lines and twist the gospels, so I think it's time for a bit of Space Jesus for Bart. Great post. Thanks for refuting all the BS.
@Testify You could write a legendary book series ripping into Gospel ureliability arguements and you giving reason & facts as to why the Gospels can be trusted! Using all of your accumulated knowledge, of course
I think people forget that the “high Christology” was already an apparent theme before the Synoptics were wrote, you can see this in Paul’s epistles in Phillipans 2:5-7 and Colossians 2:9
The one thing I notice similar to Matthew and John is the long discourses. I have heard that Matthew, as a tax collector, would have been required to learn shorthand, the Bible term being a ready writer. An interesting, unprovable theory would be that John received Matthew's library when he died, explaining John's late date, his long discourses, and the comment on the volumes it would take to record everything being a comment on the large amount of material he received, even though it was probably a small fraction of what Jesus said.
I have it, it's interesting. I'm not sure I'm totally sold on his theories but I like a lot of what he has to say. I think I'm going to re-read it soon.
The fact that there are a few of the same sayings of Jesus is not a convincing response to the “horse of a different color” assertion. John treats Jesus and belief in him totally different than the Synoptics.
People call John's gospel into question because John specifically addresses certain heresies that are still popular today, and does it more specifically than the other gospels (in general). John's gospel is different in certain ways, but it doesn't give us a different Jesus. The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, and Luke does not conflict with the Jesus of John in any way; instead, we get a fuller picture of Jesus when John is included, including much more of his direct words. In John's gospel we have Jesus declaring that he is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life. That he is the Good Shepherd, the Bread of Life, the Water that satisfies forever. Which of these declarations conflicts with anything Jesus says in the other gospels? (Hint: none of them). But of course people who don't believe John is divinely inspired and inerrant don't really believe the rest of the Bible is, either.
The most glaring contrast between Johns gospel and the others is john elevates Jesus to only begotten son and Jesus as a deity also in John he introduces grace over faith and works and this is not in the other gospels
One thing who hold a different Jesus view have to defend is why is Jesus in John mentioning a cup before his arrest . It makes perfect sense if he was just praying about the cup as we in the Synoptics . John never tells what Jesus said in the high priest house because likely he knew what Jesus said already because the Synoptics have Jesus saying he is the Son of God but low and (this just came to my mind thank Holy Spirit ) the Pharisees say to him we have a law where he must die because he claimed to be the Son of God.
John wrote his gospel after he wrote Revelation. He had a completely different insight into Jesus and his mission on earth and in heaven. If it sounds a bit different it's because it is. It's written to all who believe after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple for all eternity.
@Scully, are you aware how very, very different the writing of the gospel of John and Revelation are (in the original Greek)? Very few bible scholars, evangelical or secular, believe they were written by the same person.
@@truncated7644 well scholars are idiots then cause he tells you in the first chapter it was the same John who bore record of Jesus Christ. John was a witness of Jesus from the beginning of his ministry till the end. Also he was in his inner circle. Nobody else named John was this close to Jesus. The reason revelation is different is because it's a vision given in the spirit by God. It's not coming from his memory like his gospel does. It doesn't take a degree in theology to figure these things out.
@@Nov_Net Very. Here is a quote from Wikipedia, which by itself isn't a reliable source, but you can run down the citations to see the scholarship. "Mainstream scholars conclude that the author did not also write the Gospel of John because of wide differences in eschatology, language, and tone.[29] The Book of Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities whereas the Gospel and Epistles are all stylistically consistent which indicate its author may not have been as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel/Epistles's author.[81] Contemporary scholars note that when Revelation and the Gospel refer to Jesus as "lamb" they use different Greek words, and they spell "Jerusalem" differently. There are differing motifs between the book and the Gospel: use of allegory, symbolism, and similar metaphors, such as "living water", "shepherd", "lamb", and "manna". The Book of Revelation does not go into several typically Johannine themes, such as light, darkness, truth, love, and "the world" in a negative sense. The eschatology of the two works are also very different.[82] Still, the author uses the terms "Word of God" and "Lamb of God" for Jesus Christ, possibly indicating that the author had a common theological background with the author of John.[29]
I'm on the fence. Im lost as to why the woman at the well story is only in John and not the others, because this is such a critical account of Jesus being the living water and such...
As a Muslim id require 4 witnesses for some situations. So I thought it would be interesting to apply this to the 4 gospels. Here is the summary…. 1:Jesus Begins His Ministry in Galilee 2:Jesus gives all he has, and subsequently Five Thousand people were fed 3: Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem 4:Jesus Foretells of a Betrayer in the Midst 5: Peter Denies Jesus 6: Pilate Pronounces Sentence Upon Jesus 7: They (The Ruling authorities) Crucified Jesus as “The King of The Jews” 8:Jesus Dies 9: Jesus is Buried in a Tomb (Sepulchre) 10:Some of his disciples Went to the Tomb (Sepulchre)and his body was not there
@@josephpchajek2685 so you are not doing interpreting here? If you are not, then you need to be some sort of objective person. We are all interpreters, even Jesus was. If we cannot enter into the world of mirashim we will impose our own meaning.
Yes. Totally. The rest of the bible, both the old testament and the new testament only emphasizes the grace of the God of the bible, but John's Gospel emphasizes only the law. When John says do not work for food that perishes, but work for food that does not perish, it simply means work at keeping the laws and the statues of the God of the bible. Work at not lying, not stealing, not cheating ,not killing. Rather work and fight to have victory over and to vanquish all of those demons and all of those devils. Work at building and developing and having an impeccable character. These are all the bare minimum. The Jesus in John's Gospel is able to make bread out of thin air to feed the multitudes and have enough baskets as leftovers for each of the disciples to take home, he is able to walk on water, he is able to be present physically in the flesh in several places at the same time. He is able to heal the sick. He is able to raise the dead and to quicken the flesh. But despite being a witness to all of these miracles, all of Israel including his disciples doubted him and he also knew what was in all of their hearts. So that is why he scolds his disciples saying , truly I tell you that you came searching for me not because you saw the miracles but because you ate the food. Try and delight more in God than in food, so that slowly but surely you will become perfect like him and be transformed into his image, from glory to greater glory. He is saying, there is all sufficiency in him, and if you yourself are truly eager, truly willing to take that leap of faith and with his guidance and with his help also able to make that leap of faith of putting your good confidence and your good trust solely in him always, then he himself is more than eager, more than willing, more than able to prove himself to you and to justify your faith in him. Work at walking by faith in God and not by what you see in this world. Do not depend on and look to this world for anything, but depend solely and purely on God for everything including for eternal good. In that sense, being the exact opposite of the rest of the bible,it is certainly the odd one out. But personally I would rather take the word of the gospel of John even though it only be the words of John himself and not the words of Jesus himself.
In order to understand the Bible one must be saved by grace through faith without works, Ephesian 2:8-9, faith in Christ's completed work on crisis, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul himself says that he who is carnal cannot understand what is of the spirit, God has preserved His Word perfectly as He promised in KJV 1611, and there is no Q Gospel that is lost.
Thanks for the video. I respect your efforts. You highlighted though what things are similar. Things which makes you think John and the synoptic are portrayals of the same Jesus. You of course, didn't make a video listing the many, many points why almost every scholar holds John to be the last gospel written and portrays a very different Jesus. You engage in apologetics, give reasons to believe. You're not applying the most probable explanation given the historical data. I understand fully why Christians love John but even when I was a Christian I could not understand how someone, even a direct eye witness could record dialogues of Jesus which were sometimes a couple of chapters long. And even if they did have a photographic memory how would they do that? When Jesus prays alone in the Garden for example, nobody else was there . The most likely historical thing to have survived would be indeed sayings of Jesus. Things people shared what they remember Jesus saying. Q for example. Not two chapter long dialogues. I mean try and repeat verbatum a 15 min dialogue you had yesterday. 3 year ministery vs 1. Very advanced theology when Jesus is speaking about himself, not Paul postulating in the 50s but Jesus speaking about himself. Much of Jesus' dialogues in John also show strong evidence, according to scholars, that they were not translations of Aramaic but were originally composed in Greek. To name just a few.
@@TestifyApologetics I am curious why you put so much stock in Lydia. People complain about Bart's popular publications, but they are based on his peer reviewed work and that of others. On these topics, as far as I know, Lydia has only published popular, unrefereed books on these specific topics. While I am interested to see what ground you cover with her, it is less interesting than your engagement of the work of people who subject their views to vigorous debate via peer review.
@@truncated7644 Lydia's books have been endorsed by plenty of scholars and she has had publications published that are peer reviewed. And I think the field of NT studies could greatly benefit from an outsider who specializes in epistemology. Especially considering the current state of things. I'm more curious why people are so enamored with modern biblical scholarship.
@@TestifyApologetics I appreciate the reply. I agree that if your arguments are solid, you don't need a Ph.D. to be correct. I just wish that she would apply her hard work in this specific topic to the scholarly field of debate in top-ranked peer reviewed journals. I am not an expert on these issues either, but I can follow scholarly arguments. You don't get that in the same way with books (even Bart's).
@josephpchajek2685 it's not the same Jesus in all the gospels. Just some quickly comes to mind: Mark 4 Jesus speaks in parables so that people WON'T understand. In other gospels he speaks so that they WILL understand. In Mark Jesus is adopted as God's son at his Baptism, in John he is God before the foundation of the world. In Mark the disciples are idiots and never understand anything. That is reversed in the other gospels. Those are just quickly of the top of my head but making a combined Jesus from a mash up of all 4 gospels is a theological excesise not an historical one. Each gospel writer should be given his own voice. If they contradict so what
This video is disingenuous Noone ever said there wasn't similarities between John and the other gospels the claim is that there's a stark contrast between who Jesus is in John's gospel as opposed to the other gospels.That was never explained in this video
How so? Because John and the synoptic have many similarities, John just wrote about Jesus from a different angle. If you were right Jesus in John wouldn't comtradict the synoptics
On a serious note (starting with the puns already), musicologists talk about how a person can make Beethoven sound like a loving people-friendly saint, or a grumpy angry-with-the-world hermit depending on the sources. Listening to his music, you can clearly hear both sides of Beethoven's personality. Humans are complex. Some people describe me as being extremely nice, while others say I have problems controlling my anger. What might seem "out of character" may make perfect sense if we understand a person's deepest psychology.
Although I do think that an eyewitness wrote the gospel of John, Paul Anderson wrightly observes that if the gospel of John is the closest and most accurate account of Jesus, we will have a lot of problems (specially for conservative and evangelical Christians). In fact, I think that John gospel is more something like a “interpretation” of Jesus's ministry. Great video, Btw!
Well, for what it's worth, Paul Anderson heartily endorsed my book. That doesn't of course mean that he has to agree with everything in it. But he wrote, among other things, "In this philosophic critique of Gospel ahistoricity, the author forces critical scholars to doubt their doubts as well as default alternatives to traditional views. A worthy contribution to the field."
I'm curious to what problems would arise if the gospel of John is the closest gospel which actually no one holds, we all know that its the last gospel to be written and is dated to 90s AD. However why exactly would accepting the gospel of John cause problems for evangelicals? Is there any part of its theology that contradicts evangelicals
@@majestyhype9605 I haven't read that comment by Anderson in its context, so I wouldn't want to speak for him, but if I saw a scholar say that without further context I would probably *guess* that the scholar means something to the effect that there *are* some tensions or discrepancies between John and the Synoptics that cannot be resolved and that thus taking John to be the "closest and most accurate" would create multiple problems for the accuracy of the Synoptics. As I said, I have not read what Dr. Anderson may have said along those lines. I myself do not believe that there are anything more than a few quite trivial intractable discrepancies between John and the Synoptics. (One of these, for example, is whether Jesus was anointed in Passion Week on the Saturday the day before the Triumphal Entry or on the following Wednesday.) Certainly not enough to create "a lot of problems." Another important point is that in my view, which I argue for, even these discrepancies if they cannot be resolved resulted from good-faith attempts to tell the truth of what happened while, at most, making some minor error such as any highly reliable witness may occasionally make. *Not* from deliberate alteration, which I argue John and the Synoptic authors never did.
@@LydiaMcGrewChannel I also think that your book is an excellent work on John. What I do not think is that it is a “reportage” (in the most common sense). John (a minor disciple) is an eyewitness and presents a faithful portrait of Jesus.
A pun? Where did you learn your grammar and language. The example, Luke 13:15-16, is hardly a pun. The subject matter and the use of the word, "hypocrites," clearly shows Jesus is not joking around. He repeated an ideal of loosening, the first of animals to be watered and the second a woman bound by infirmity. This is hardly joking material - Hey, did you hear the one about the woman paralyzed in a car accident?) Instead, he was comparing two events with a singular idea, loosening. This is called contrast and comparison. It is not a pun. "I have shown you man good works; for which do you want to stone me?" (This is literary irony, related to but not necessarily sarcasm.) I can go on, but hopefully you get the picture. Your assertions are rather misplaced. There is far more to grammar and language than you seem to know. Moreover, since Jesus was God, the creator or grammar, he used grammar most effectively and even cleverly. We find this throughout the gospels. Nonetheless, the only joke I've read him make was about the sons of thunder. Then, again, he was among friends, and friends pick at their friends. As for the subject of the video: Each of the four gospel writers focused on a different aspect of Jesus and his mission. Any four writers could do the same with any individual of any place and time. The differences in the gospels are an issue only because men who don't want to believe make it so (Or, the gospels don't fit the predetermined beliefs religious men make). All these men are, as they say, cutting their own pattern from whole cloth.
![โฮ่ง! (SUGOI) - LYKN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nFp4zjAARFs/mqdefault.jpg)
To clarify, I'm quite skeptical the Q gospel ever existed. I'm just saying on Ehrman's own view, the Johannine thunderbolt is early.
I would the say the Q hypothesis could probably help the reliability of the gospels since this would be a VERY early source. Although it can't be proved to have existed.
Licona has an interesting view on Q
He speculates that it is Matthews notes that he took of Jesus teachings while He was still alive.
That would explain why there is isn't narrative nor resurrection. It also makes it super reliable and it would make sense why Mark didn't use it but Matthew and Luke did.
But that is just speculation
Going after the synoptic problem is ambitious. The Q gospel theory actually solves alot of problems not just with John but Mark and Luke to. There is a Q plus theory that gives John an extra source for his gospel.
@@vinnygiggidy yeah but I don't really get why its called the synoptic "problem". I don't see why its a problem. Even if Q exist, then so what?
@Testify
If you think Q didn’t exist, than do you think Matthew and Luke relied upon each other, or that they relied on the same tradition.
Regarding the emotions displayed by Jesus in John: Jesus wept.
Man, I was told yesterday that John was not historical, at least in the same way that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are! So funny that this came up today.
Praise God brutha. Glad it was timely.
"Horse of a different color" is interesting considering John wrote about horses of different colors.
Just discovered your channel, you're just what the church needs right now.
If it's good it's grace. Thanks for the sub.
The picture of Jesus looking like he was rolling his eyes! 😂 Definitely going to read Lydia McGrew's "The Eye of the Beholder" soon. I am so thankful you've introduced me to her work- it's excellent.
Yep, and I'll be interviewing her later this month!
@@TestifyApologetics !!! That's going to be awesome!
I would say a huge part of the supposed difference may be due to the different locational settings. In the Synoptics, it's entirely focused on Jesus's Galilean ministry, people who by and large were must less educated than those in Jerusalem. So I would expect Jesus to speak and talk a little differently in the Synoptics...and they only report about a one year ministry in Galilee.
In John on the other hand, it's almost entirely focused on a Judean/Jerusalem ministry with about 3 years in mind. Jesus probably spoke a bit differently in Jerusalem, although the same truths can be found in all four.
The only differences in the gospels are the writers. Obviously.
This is a great video. I always hear skeptics say John’s Gospel is the least reliable out of the 4 and is the most legendary.
More examples of other important direct or indirect connections about Jesus and what he said:
Part of John the Baptist's testimony:
Mark: "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie"
John: "I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know,
even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.”
Baptism in/with the Holy Spirit:
Mark "..he(Jesus) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
John "He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain (Jesus), this is he (Jesus) who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.
Part of following Jesus:
Luke "For whoever would save his life(soul) will lose it, but whoever loses his life(soul) for my sake will save it"
John "Whoever loves his life(soul) loses it, and whoever hates his life(soul) in this world will keep it for eternal life."
Authority to Bind and Lose/forgive
Matt "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Context of a brother sinning against you.
John "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”
You should really continue the series of supposed contradictions within the Bible, especially regarding the tomb and resurrection of Christ.
Read the synoptics and compare them to John vs comparing them to gospels like Thomas, Judas and Peter. You will realize that John and the synoptics are pretty close when compared to other so called gospels.
I like Jesus. And I love Jesus. And I didn't know the gospels showed Jesus character too.
2:52 Testify is a fellow chosen fan I see 😏
Yes, I too am a man of culture.
Some interview suggestions:
- Craig A. Evans
- Andreas J. Köstenberg
- N.T. (Tom) Wright
- Gerald O. Collins
- Michael Licona
- Gary Habermas
Out of all of those, I think Kostenberg would be the one I'm most interested in. I don't know if I could pull off getting NT. I'd be interested in talking NDEs with Dr. Habermas.
The fact that John at the end of his Gospel account writes:
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” - 21.25
Shows that he both recognizes that the earthly ministry of the Messiah involved many things beyond what his singular work provides and implies that there are already other books, which he considered this book as complementary & corroboratory to, but not contradictory or different.
If he considered his work a stand-alone and exhaustive in its detail he won’t be making reference to other books.
I think Bart Ehrman's next move is to claim Jesus was a space alien. He's pretty much exhausted all other avenues to pursue in his quest to read between the lines and twist the gospels, so I think it's time for a bit of Space Jesus for Bart.
Great post. Thanks for refuting all the BS.
That's actually what it might look like when He returns.
This belief is based on the way Hollywood portrays and invading alien race..
@Testify You could write a legendary book series ripping into Gospel ureliability arguements and you giving reason & facts as to why the Gospels can be trusted!
Using all of your accumulated knowledge, of course
Sure, maybe someday.
Thank you…these questions have plagued me forever
I think people forget that the “high Christology” was already an apparent theme before the Synoptics were wrote, you can see this in Paul’s epistles in Phillipans 2:5-7 and Colossians 2:9
Please interview Father Stephen de Young!
I'm not familiar, why should I interview him?
@@TestifyApologetics he is a biblical scholar, he is quite knowledgeable about 2nd Temple Jewish theology too
The one thing I notice similar to Matthew and John is the long discourses. I have heard that Matthew, as a tax collector, would have been required to learn shorthand, the Bible term being a ready writer. An interesting, unprovable theory would be that John received Matthew's library when he died, explaining John's late date, his long discourses, and the comment on the volumes it would take to record everything being a comment on the large amount of material he received, even though it was probably a small fraction of what Jesus said.
What’s your opinion on the book ‘Why the four gospels’ by David Alan Black. His presentation makes the 4 gospels look very concise and historical
I have it, it's interesting. I'm not sure I'm totally sold on his theories but I like a lot of what he has to say. I think I'm going to re-read it soon.
I have an interview suggestion! Richard Bauckham!
He might be hard to get. I have a growing list.
this seems to only talk about the many commonalities between John and the Synoptics but not the supposed dissimilarities.
If Irenaeus claims John wrote his gospel… it is likely John did XD.
Keep up the great work Testify
The fact that there are a few of the same sayings of Jesus is not a convincing response to the “horse of a different color” assertion. John treats Jesus and belief in him totally different than the Synoptics.
Thanks for this!
@Testify On what grounds are thry saying John is 'a horse of a different color'?
People call John's gospel into question because John specifically addresses certain heresies that are still popular today, and does it more specifically than the other gospels (in general). John's gospel is different in certain ways, but it doesn't give us a different Jesus. The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, and Luke does not conflict with the Jesus of John in any way; instead, we get a fuller picture of Jesus when John is included, including much more of his direct words.
In John's gospel we have Jesus declaring that he is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life. That he is the Good Shepherd, the Bread of Life, the Water that satisfies forever.
Which of these declarations conflicts with anything Jesus says in the other gospels? (Hint: none of them).
But of course people who don't believe John is divinely inspired and inerrant don't really believe the rest of the Bible is, either.
The most glaring contrast between Johns gospel and the others is john elevates Jesus to only begotten son and Jesus as a deity also in John he introduces grace over faith and works and this is not in the other gospels
Thank you Brother 👍👍👍
The Gospel of John is my favorite gospel
One thing who hold a different Jesus view have to defend is why is Jesus in John mentioning a cup before his arrest . It makes perfect sense if he was just praying about the cup as we in the Synoptics .
John never tells what Jesus said in the high priest house because likely he knew what Jesus said already because the Synoptics have Jesus saying he is the Son of God but low and (this just came to my mind thank Holy Spirit ) the Pharisees say to him we have a law where he must die because he claimed to be the Son of God.
John wrote his gospel after he wrote Revelation. He had a completely different insight into Jesus and his mission on earth and in heaven.
If it sounds a bit different it's because it is. It's written to all who believe after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple for all eternity.
@Scully, are you aware how very, very different the writing of the gospel of John and Revelation are (in the original Greek)? Very few bible scholars, evangelical or secular, believe they were written by the same person.
@@truncated7644 well scholars are idiots then cause he tells you in the first chapter it was the same John who bore record of Jesus Christ. John was a witness of Jesus from the beginning of his ministry till the end. Also he was in his inner circle. Nobody else named John was this close to Jesus.
The reason revelation is different is because it's a vision given in the spirit by God. It's not coming from his memory like his gospel does.
It doesn't take a degree in theology to figure these things out.
@@truncated7644 how vastly different are they in the original Greek?
@@Nov_Net Very. Here is a quote from Wikipedia, which by itself isn't a reliable source, but you can run down the citations to see the scholarship.
"Mainstream scholars conclude that the author did not also write the Gospel of John because of wide differences in eschatology, language, and tone.[29] The Book of Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities whereas the Gospel and Epistles are all stylistically consistent which indicate its author may not have been as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel/Epistles's author.[81] Contemporary scholars note that when Revelation and the Gospel refer to Jesus as "lamb" they use different Greek words, and they spell "Jerusalem" differently. There are differing motifs between the book and the Gospel: use of allegory, symbolism, and similar metaphors, such as "living water", "shepherd", "lamb", and "manna". The Book of Revelation does not go into several typically Johannine themes, such as light, darkness, truth, love, and "the world" in a negative sense. The eschatology of the two works are also very different.[82] Still, the author uses the terms "Word of God" and "Lamb of God" for Jesus Christ, possibly indicating that the author had a common theological background with the author of John.[29]
@@truncated7644 so all the manuscripts had these same grammatical errors?
I'm on the fence. Im lost as to why the woman at the well story is only in John and not the others, because this is such a critical account of Jesus being the living water and such...
Thank you
Could you make a video responding to objections about Jesus being the messiah
As a Muslim id require 4 witnesses for some situations. So I thought it would be interesting to apply this to the 4 gospels.
Here is the summary….
1:Jesus Begins His Ministry in Galilee
2:Jesus gives all he has, and subsequently Five Thousand people were fed
3: Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem
4:Jesus Foretells of a Betrayer in the Midst
5: Peter Denies Jesus
6: Pilate Pronounces Sentence Upon Jesus
7: They (The Ruling authorities) Crucified Jesus as “The King of The Jews”
8:Jesus Dies
9: Jesus is Buried in a Tomb (Sepulchre)
10:Some of his disciples Went to the Tomb (Sepulchre)and his body was not there
Jesus does say some out of character things. The Eucharist dialogue in John 6 is super weird.
And un-Jewish
@@josephpchajek2685 John 6 is an odd dialog for any Jew during the Second Temple Period - even one with a messianic self awareness.
@@josephpchajek2685 That's your interpretation, sure.
@@josephpchajek2685 so you are not doing interpreting here? If you are not, then you need to be some sort of objective person. We are all interpreters, even Jesus was. If we cannot enter into the world of mirashim we will impose our own meaning.
Love these videos. Commenting for the algorithm.
Yes
Yes. Totally. The rest of the bible, both the old testament and the new testament only emphasizes the grace of the God of the bible, but John's Gospel emphasizes only the law. When John says do not work for food that perishes, but work for food that does not perish, it simply means work at keeping the laws and the statues of the God of the bible. Work at not lying, not stealing, not cheating ,not killing. Rather work and fight to have victory over and to vanquish all of those demons and all of those devils. Work at building and developing and having an impeccable character. These are all the bare minimum. The Jesus in John's Gospel is able to make bread out of thin air to feed the multitudes and have enough baskets as leftovers for each of the disciples to take home, he is able to walk on water, he is able to be present physically in the flesh in several places at the same time. He is able to heal the sick. He is able to raise the dead and to quicken the flesh. But despite being a witness to all of these miracles, all of Israel including his disciples doubted him and he also knew what was in all of their hearts. So that is why he scolds his disciples saying , truly I tell you that you came searching for me not because you saw the miracles but because you ate the food. Try and delight more in God than in food, so that slowly but surely you will become perfect like him and be transformed into his image, from glory to greater glory. He is saying, there is all sufficiency in him, and if you yourself are truly eager, truly willing to take that leap of faith and with his guidance and with his help also able to make that leap of faith of putting your good confidence and your good trust solely in him always, then he himself is more than eager, more than willing, more than able to prove himself to you and to justify your faith in him. Work at walking by faith in God and not by what you see in this world. Do not depend on and look to this world for anything, but depend solely and purely on God for everything including for eternal good. In that sense, being the exact opposite of the rest of the bible,it is certainly the odd one out. But personally I would rather take the word of the gospel of John even though it only be the words of John himself and not the words of Jesus himself.
In order to understand the Bible one must be saved by grace through faith without works, Ephesian 2:8-9, faith in Christ's completed work on crisis, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul himself says that he who is carnal cannot understand what is of the spirit, God has preserved His Word perfectly as He promised in KJV 1611, and there is no Q Gospel that is lost.
Thanks for the video. I respect your efforts. You highlighted though what things are similar. Things which makes you think John and the synoptic are portrayals of the same Jesus. You of course, didn't make a video listing the many, many points why almost every scholar holds John to be the last gospel written and portrays a very different Jesus. You engage in apologetics, give reasons to believe. You're not applying the most probable explanation given the historical data.
I understand fully why Christians love John but even when I was a Christian I could not understand how someone, even a direct eye witness could record dialogues of Jesus which were sometimes a couple of chapters long. And even if they did have a photographic memory how would they do that? When Jesus prays alone in the Garden for example, nobody else was there .
The most likely historical thing to have survived would be indeed sayings of Jesus. Things people shared what they remember Jesus saying. Q for example. Not two chapter long dialogues. I mean try and repeat verbatum a 15 min dialogue you had yesterday.
3 year ministery vs 1.
Very advanced theology when Jesus is speaking about himself, not Paul postulating in the 50s but Jesus speaking about himself.
Much of Jesus' dialogues in John also show strong evidence, according to scholars, that they were not translations of Aramaic but were originally composed in Greek.
To name just a few.
I'll be interviewing Lydia McGrew later this month and we'll cover a lot more ground, including some of the points you've raised. Stay tuned.
@@TestifyApologetics I am curious why you put so much stock in Lydia. People complain about Bart's popular publications, but they are based on his peer reviewed work and that of others. On these topics, as far as I know, Lydia has only published popular, unrefereed books on these specific topics. While I am interested to see what ground you cover with her, it is less interesting than your engagement of the work of people who subject their views to vigorous debate via peer review.
@@truncated7644 Lydia's books have been endorsed by plenty of scholars and she has had publications published that are peer reviewed. And I think the field of NT studies could greatly benefit from an outsider who specializes in epistemology. Especially considering the current state of things. I'm more curious why people are so enamored with modern biblical scholarship.
@@TestifyApologetics I appreciate the reply. I agree that if your arguments are solid, you don't need a Ph.D. to be correct. I just wish that she would apply her hard work in this specific topic to the scholarly field of debate in top-ranked peer reviewed journals. I am not an expert on these issues either, but I can follow scholarly arguments. You don't get that in the same way with books (even Bart's).
@josephpchajek2685 it's not the same Jesus in all the gospels.
Just some quickly comes to mind: Mark 4 Jesus speaks in parables so that people WON'T understand. In other gospels he speaks so that they WILL understand.
In Mark Jesus is adopted as God's son at his Baptism, in John he is God before the foundation of the world.
In Mark the disciples are idiots and never understand anything. That is reversed in the other gospels.
Those are just quickly of the top of my head but making a combined Jesus from a mash up of all 4 gospels is a theological excesise not an historical one. Each gospel writer should be given his own voice. If they contradict so what
This video is disingenuous Noone ever said there wasn't similarities between John and the other gospels the claim is that there's a stark contrast between who Jesus is in John's gospel as opposed to the other gospels.That was never explained in this video
How so? Because John and the synoptic have many similarities, John just wrote about Jesus from a different angle. If you were right Jesus in John wouldn't comtradict the synoptics
Wow, Jesus was sarcastic and puny? I'm more Christ-like than I thought!
On a serious note (starting with the puns already), musicologists talk about how a person can make Beethoven sound like a loving people-friendly saint, or a grumpy angry-with-the-world hermit depending on the sources. Listening to his music, you can clearly hear both sides of Beethoven's personality. Humans are complex. Some people describe me as being extremely nice, while others say I have problems controlling my anger. What might seem "out of character" may make perfect sense if we understand a person's deepest psychology.
Although I do think that an eyewitness wrote the gospel of John, Paul Anderson wrightly observes that if the gospel of John is the closest and most accurate account of Jesus, we will have a lot of problems (specially for conservative and evangelical Christians).
In fact, I think that John gospel is more something like a “interpretation” of Jesus's ministry.
Great video, Btw!
Well, for what it's worth, Paul Anderson heartily endorsed my book. That doesn't of course mean that he has to agree with everything in it. But he wrote, among other things, "In this philosophic critique of Gospel ahistoricity, the
author forces critical scholars to doubt their doubts as well as default alternatives to traditional views. A worthy contribution to the field."
I'm curious to what problems would arise if the gospel of John is the closest gospel which actually no one holds, we all know that its the last gospel to be written and is dated to 90s AD. However why exactly would accepting the gospel of John cause problems for evangelicals? Is there any part of its theology that contradicts evangelicals
@@majestyhype9605 I haven't read that comment by Anderson in its context, so I wouldn't want to speak for him, but if I saw a scholar say that without further context I would probably *guess* that the scholar means something to the effect that there *are* some tensions or discrepancies between John and the Synoptics that cannot be resolved and that thus taking John to be the "closest and most accurate" would create multiple problems for the accuracy of the Synoptics. As I said, I have not read what Dr. Anderson may have said along those lines. I myself do not believe that there are anything more than a few quite trivial intractable discrepancies between John and the Synoptics. (One of these, for example, is whether Jesus was anointed in Passion Week on the Saturday the day before the Triumphal Entry or on the following Wednesday.) Certainly not enough to create "a lot of problems." Another important point is that in my view, which I argue for, even these discrepancies if they cannot be resolved resulted from good-faith attempts to tell the truth of what happened while, at most, making some minor error such as any highly reliable witness may occasionally make. *Not* from deliberate alteration, which I argue John and the Synoptic authors never did.
@@LydiaMcGrewChannel I also think that your book is an excellent work on John. What I do not think is that it is a “reportage” (in the most common sense). John (a minor disciple) is an eyewitness and presents a faithful portrait of Jesus.
@@LydiaMcGrewChannel wow a reply from THE Dr McGrew, super excited to pickup your book The Mirror or the Mask. Thank you for all you do, God bless!
No the fundamental things are very very different. Some similarities arent an excuse
So is speaking in tongues ceased?
No. What does that have to do with this video?
A pun? Where did you learn your grammar and language.
The example, Luke 13:15-16, is hardly a pun. The subject matter and the use of the word, "hypocrites," clearly shows Jesus is not joking around.
He repeated an ideal of loosening, the first of animals to be watered and the second a woman bound by infirmity. This is hardly joking material - Hey, did you hear the one about the woman paralyzed in a car accident?) Instead, he was comparing two events with a singular idea, loosening. This is called contrast and comparison. It is not a pun.
"I have shown you man good works; for which do you want to stone me?" (This is literary irony, related to but not necessarily sarcasm.)
I can go on, but hopefully you get the picture. Your assertions are rather misplaced. There is far more to grammar and language than you seem to know. Moreover, since Jesus was God, the creator or grammar, he used grammar most effectively and even cleverly. We find this throughout the gospels. Nonetheless, the only joke I've read him make was about the sons of thunder. Then, again, he was among friends, and friends pick at their friends.
As for the subject of the video: Each of the four gospel writers focused on a different aspect of Jesus and his mission. Any four writers could do the same with any individual of any place and time. The differences in the gospels are an issue only because men who don't want to believe make it so (Or, the gospels don't fit the predetermined beliefs religious men make). All these men are, as they say, cutting their own pattern from whole cloth.
John gospel is relialble. Case closed