My non-Christian parents named me Ivan, or John in Slavic language. They just thought it was a cool name but now I as a new Christian know its meaning. I first heard the Gospel through John 3: 16. Eventually I confessed my faith in Christ on a Good Friday, like John was present at crucifixion. At first I was doubting the intercession of saint because my first gateway to Christianity is evangelic and protestant church but there are too many coincidences. There's no doubt that God used St. John's intercession to lead me to Christ. God Himself chose St. John as my patron saint. Now if another Christians want to pray or not to the saints in heaven I can't forbid or force them to do so. Ultimately what matters most is our relationship with God. If it can improve your relationship with God then go on, pray with the saint whom you have connection with. God bless, from a beloved disciple.
Hallelujah! All the angels are rejoicing because you have chosen to put your total trust in Jesus as your Savior and your God!! Please do continue to keep your heart and mind focused on Jesus Christ who is the Author and the Finisher of your faith, who reveals the heavenly Father to you by the Holy Spirit, for one day you will see Him face to face!!!
Welcome to the faith 🙂. I just wanted to address that I haven’t seen a verse in the Bible before where the saints intercede for us, nor believers asking for intercession. Rather (Romans 8:26) “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.”
@@John3-16_ I wasn't asking for intercession nor seeking God as an atheist. I just heard that God so loved the world and deep down I wanted love, agape, which is different from humans' (mostly) transactional love. And who's the perfect person to show me the fullness of God's love in Christ Jesus other than the beloved disciple himself?
@@John3-16_ In Revelation, the Saints (with the angels) surround the throne of God and present the prayers of the faithful to the Lord as incense. And, of course, Revelation was supposedly written by John, as well (according to tradition). The scriptures refer to the Christian deceased as a "cloud of witnesses" as though there were alive and aware of happenings on Earth. This harmonizes with what Christ said: "Have you not heard what God said? 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.'" But you don't actually need specific scriptural verses to infer the idea that those who died in communion with God experience an elevated communion with God. That they share in His knowledge of the Divine Will and therefore know of the things in the world (at least so far as those things pertain to them). From that, they would have knowledge of the petitions for their intercession and, as loving servants of God, they would proceed to intercede for us as to participate in the Divine Plan of redemption.
You are doing stellar work, lucid, well argued, structured, intelligent and with nuances so that individual arguments are not overstated. I have followed your work for a while now (since COVID). It amazes me how you can handle both historical and philosophical questions. Your series on the reliability of the Gospels is great. The local knowledge of John and the Synoptics compare favorably with Caesar in The Gallic and Civil wars, with Velleius and with the Bellum Africanum (written clearly by an eyewitness). There is not nearly the same level of accuracy in Plutarch, in Tacitus or Appian.
@@davethebrahman9870 Because that kind of local information doesn't stay available for long in the ancient world. People didn't have libraries detailing what life in such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time was like, the way we do today. If someone in the ancient world got minute details about a time and place right, it's either because they had been there, or knew someone who was.
@davethebrahman9870 how exactly is it more likely to be a later theological work? The overwhelming consensus from the early church is that it was written by John the apostle.
@@davethebrahman9870 good and valid question. It would be possible if there were excellent sources and if the author of John followed them closely. IP mentions that possible explanation toward the end of his video. However that would still make the Gospel a very important source to the life, deeds and teachings of Jesus. I mention in my comment as an example of a work, where local knowledge is used to argue that the author is an eyewitness Bellum Africanum (on Caesar in Africa) - the good local knowledge in this work corresponds to Caesar himself in the Gallic war (hence Bellum Africanum is ascribed to an eyewitness). Both are in contrast to the much less detailed local knowledge in Bellum Alexandrinum (on Caesar in Egypt etc), which, so the argument usually goes is not written by an eyewitness. There are references to John prior to c. 180 - Marcion for example knew the Gospel of John and critiqued it in his Anthitheses (cf. Tertullian, Against Marcion book 4.
@davethebrahman9870 As one would expect an elderly john with extensive time in the faith, would speak more of Christ's divinity than the earlier accounts. Also, it's very disingenuous to assume that everyone just copied Ireneous's statement.
Awesome work as always I.P. I honestly believe when it comes to evidence. We will always have to deal with objections, but things are moving positively in the right direction for Christianity and you play a huge role in helping the public understand this God bless you.
Pulling all this together into a single video effectively brings the overwhelming weight of evidence and arguments in a felt and convincing manner. This will be a powerful tool to help people sift out the yeast of the modern Sadducees to hear the raw power again of the voice of the eyewitness. It's sharp, clear and convincing. Good work!
@@davethebrahman9870Caesar wrote his Commentary in the third person. It is not unusual, unless you're willing to state Julius Caesar wrote about some other Julius Caesar who alsp happened to be Consul stationed in Gaul at the exact same time....
@@davethebrahman9870 Is Latin somehow more trustworthy than Koine Greek? And we have even mote reasons, as stated by IP, to believe they are eyewitness accounts (like the pool at the temple John describes nobody bought, until it was indeed discovered recently)
A priori, a man CANNOT be a god otherwise you are a blasphemous idolatrous. I can’t believe you still believe a man who ate food and answered the call of nature was a god. Shame on you. You’re just following people who lost their way by committing a mortal sin. God is one. Never forget that. Jesus was just a prophet and messenger of God.
Thank you for the video, a lot of people don't like the gospel of John because of the overly critical view of it makes it look mythical. I have always loved the gospel of John because it feels the most personal. I am 100% sure that it's one of the best eyewitness accounts in history. God bless ✝️
Thank you so much mike, ive been waiting for this one. Ive been watching your channel for maybe a year, year and a half maybe. Your presentations of the evidence is what literally forced me into the Church, after 20 years of rebellion. God bless you
Good video, man. I'd say the case you presented here wasn't as strong as the ones you put forward for the synoptic gospels but still, really interesting arguments, quite persuasive. I must admit, also, that the section about the oral (and hence, indirectly literary) relationship between Lk and Jn was, simply put, superb. Thanks for this video, Michael, I appreciate all the effort you make for the Christian community and society in general, bolstering our faith and presenting rational arguments for being a follower of Jesus (which, in and of itself, I consider it as an continuous act that goes beyond reason, but without contradicting it).
Praise the Lord! Great work, I am inspired by the amount of small details I have seen all my life are what make the Gospel reliable, which has been my conclusion all my life. I can see it all in a bigger picture and skeptics might be intrigued by this. God bless you and have a great day.
We know John was "unschooled" according to Acts 4:13, but maybe he later attended a University and learned to write Greek. He could have studied the classics and mastered the art of story composition.
Very good, the only thing that would also be interesting to explore is the unique "I am" statements in John's Gospel, and his relationship to the high priest.
I love this! Looking forward to a series of New Testament authorship! Soon, Old Testament authorship. Praying for you and your channel in my rosaries that it would reach out to all ex Christians and nonbelievers!
I'm only halfway through the video, but I was interested in the section that discussed the common oral tradition between John and Luke. It seems that this could be pretty easily explained. It has long been church tradition that John and Mary The mother of Jesus settled in Ephesus. The synodal letter of the council of Ephesus from 431 states this explicitly, and other pieces of evidence support this as well. If so, Luke and John would have certainly crossed paths if Luke was indeed Paul's travelling companion. Paul was in Ephesus on more than a couple of occasions for long periods of time according to Acts, and even said special goodbyes to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20. Paul's correspondence with Timothy (who remained in Ephesus according to 1 Timothy chapter 1) mentioned Luke to Timothy, suggesting they knew each other. It's pretty easy to imagine that John and Luke would have known each other well and possibly attended the same church (of Ephesus) for a time, maybe even for decades as church tradition maintains that Luke also lived to an old age as John did.
Michael, you side with the dating of John to 90CE or so. I've been persuaded by the internal evidence that John was writing before 70CE, since he gives accounts of events in places that in his time still existed before the destruction of Jerusalem, for example John 5:2 the pool of Bethesda. I've also heard that John was written in parts, so that the pool of Bethesda could have been written prior to 70CE while other parts were written after 70CE. Do you have any thoughts about this?
Matthew and John were eye witnesses to Jesus. They wrote the gospels attributed to them. I’m glad that I subscribed to this channel. It’s good that this information is getting out there, despite all the objections out there
@@KostaFatsis They were written decades after the alleged events by which time, Matthew and John would have been dead. Matthew 9:9 refers to Matthew by name, rather than by us the word "I", which is the word the word the author would have used if the author was Matthew.
@@lylez00 Scholars and historians place Matthew and Mark to be written around 40 A.D. According to church tradition, Mark was most likey the first gospel to be written. The events being a part of history and the fact that the Bible is true, that is the reason why Muslims and people of different faiths are coming to Jesus. The church father Tertullian said the New Testament was written within a few decades of when the events happened, while the eye witnesses were still alive. Matthew and John were eye witnesses to Jesus. They met and spent time with Jesus. John, of all the disciples was the closest to Jesus. Mark was not an eye witness but the church fathers say he got his information from the Apostle Peter. The Apostles died brutal deaths for what they believed. No one would willingly die for something they knew was not true. When the gospels say "I", "We" or in the third person "They", that doesn't negate their authorship
@@KostaFatsis "Scholars and historians place Matthew and Mark to be written around 40 A.D." That's incorrect. Since TH-cam will not allow me to include URLs in comments, In TH-cam, search for "Dr. Bart Ehrman Destroys The Crucifixion and The Resurrection History". It's a video which addresses these topics quite well by a world-renounced expert. It's under 12 minutes. "According to church tradition, Mark was most likely the first gospel to be written. The events being a part of history and the fact that the Bible is true, that is the reason why Muslims and people of different faiths are coming to Jesus." It is not a "fact" that the Bible is true. It's full of contradictions and statements that we know for a cold hard fact to be wrong. "The church father Tertullian said the New Testament was written within a few decades of when the events happened, while the eye witnesses were still alive." You don't know that at all. You don't know there were any eye witnesses. The whole thing was probably made up from scratch. "Matthew and John were eye witnesses to Jesus." According to anonymous authors who lived long after the alleged events. They based their writings on myth and hearsay. The Bible is nothing more than glorified graffiti. "They met and spent time with Jesus. John, of all the disciples was the closest to Jesus. Mark was not an eye witness but the church fathers say he got his information from the Apostle Peter." I couldn't care less what the church fathers say. They'll say anything to dupe the public into believing their lies so that they'll continue to get donations, and thus, not have to get real jobs and work for a living. Do you believe everything Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert, and the rest of that ilk tell you? "The Apostles died brutal deaths for what they believed." Says who? What are you basing that on? It's just a church myth. "When the gospels say "I", "We" or in the third person "They", that doesn't negate their authorship" Where does the new testament have a sentence of the form, "I saw Jesus do a miracle"? The only one I can think of is Paul, and he saw a vision by his own admission, one that his travel companions did not see. He was blind for several days afterwards. That's a very strong indication that what really happened was that he had a stroke or a seizure. Matthew 9:9 refers to Matthew by the name Matthew. If Matthew really wrote it, he would have said "I", not "Matthew". Watch all videos by the TH-camr Paulogia. He does an excellent job deconstructing the various Christian myths.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Hi the video is Ex Muslim seeking Christianity talks with logic. I saw it on a channel called Religious Insight. Your channel is really helping me in crease the little knowledge I do have about the Gospel. Thank you 🙏🏿
Great work as usual, Michael. John is one of my favorite gospels. Question: could you do a video on your thoughts about Yeshuah and John the Baptist's relationship with the Jewish sect known as the Essenes? As of late, I've become more and more convinced that they were influenced by them in some way, as there seems to be a lot of overlap between their teachings. Though I can't seem to figure out the theological significance of this, if true. Thanks.
@catalyst3713 The Qumran community believed in two messiahs . A suffering servant priest messiah and King messiah . They were wrong. They realised after jesus . It's the same messiah coming twice . First as a servant and then as a ruling king . It developed as a direct consequence of jesus
Can we assert that the names of the Gospel authors are correctly attributed in the writings of Irenaeus, given that he was a disciple of Polycarp, who himself was a hearer of John? As though John had taught that he was indeed the author of that book?
The Gospels consistently have the same Authors attributed to them. Compare it to the Epistle of the Hebrews where there's multiple attributions in the Archeological record (from Paul, to Timothy, etc). Also another reason to trust the record is why would anyone attribute stuff to Mark and Luke? They weren't apostles, Luke even seems to have been a gentile or at least a half uncircumcised gentile. He certainly wouldn't have won the Jewish hardliners in the Christian community over.
Hi I have a question, I wanted to know how it can be that the sun was created after the earth but science says something different. Have a blessed day everyone ❤
@@SirMicahBroch I'm aware luke is the author, I listen to these accounts not only because of the evidence it existed but also I pay attention to the details of the accounts Michael presents, the style of writing, how it fits with historical facts and information etc.
Pointing out that Luke prioritized the Johannine account is interesting. I wonder if there is a connection to the episode of the woman caught in adultery since it actually seems to fit in the Lucan account better...
Except the _Pericope Adulterae_ (John 7:53-8:11) is a later addition, not written by John. The evidence against its authenticity is overwhelming. It: • is absent from many early manuscripts, including P66 (2nd/3rd-century), P75, (3rd-century), Sinaiticus (4th-century), Vaticanus (4th-century); • is marked-off and/or annotated in many _Greek_ manuscripts to indicate that it is suspect; • has a style and vocabulary that differs from the rest of the Gospel, showing that someone else wrote it; • interrupts the flow of the text from John 7:52 to 8:12; • is missing from the Sahidic manuscripts and from the oldest Syriac, Georgian and Boharic manuscripts; and • is placed after John 7:44 or John 21:25 in some manuscripts and is even found in one Lukan manuscript, after Luke 21:38 (not that this supports the idea that Luke wrote it either).
Very good summary of the witness of the church fathers on the authorship of the 4th gospel. Two issues make me skeptical. Chapter 21 reads like a tag on. Almost as if the or an author realised that he had not specifically mentioned that he was an eye witness. The other issue was the raising of Lazarus. Raising a dead person after 4 days was one the 3 signs expected of the Messiah. John explicitly says that Jesus waited for several days before going to Bethany to raise Lazarus. So clearly a key event in John’s gospel. But it is not mentioned in the synoptic gospels. How come?
I think some verses are still a question for me for example Matthew 24:10,11,12 especially 10 th verse says "At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other" What does it mean to "turn away from faith"? In the continuation of the verse, it says, "But the one who stands firm to the end will be saved." What does this mean? Does it imply that one can lose their salvation? How can a person turn away from faith if they don't even have faith? If a person loses faith, how can they stand firm until the end? And if they don’t stand firm until the end, doesn’t that mean, according to this verse, they won’t be saved? If we say that only those with genuine faith can endure to the end, how can anyone have assurance of salvation before facing any trials? Wouldn’t they constantly fear whether their faith is truly genuine or not? If we say that this verse doesn't speak about the salvation of souls but about flesh and give explanations then it is completely meaningless. What can we say to this brother?
would be interested in a video addressing Carrier’s “well actually the Gospels are all complete and total fictions, and every historian & scholar of NT history in the last 100 years is just wrong” stance. Do we start with the late 20th century & 2000s scholarship on genre, that decisively argued that the gospels were Greco-Roman biographies at least attempting to convey history as they understood it?
Unknown as to his age. It was written before 70 AD since there is no mention of the temple's destruction and there is a mention of an intact pool at Bethesda, which was destroyed in 70 AD.
Given that St. Luke implies that he interviewed Eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2), and given that many think one of those eyewitness was Mary the mother of the Lord (St. Luke for instance even reporting on her inner states "she kept all these things and pondered them in her heart") and given that St. John and the Mother of God resided together (John 19:27) having been committed to each other as mother and son by Jesus as he hung on the cross (John19:26-27); it seems more likely too that the parallels with the Johanine account rather than being based eighther on literary dependance on the 4th Gospel or on more diffuse Johanine oral traditions, come rather from St. John like Mary (again they after all resided together and if one had been available for interview so most likely would have been the other) having been the subject of one of St. Luke's interviews of eyewitnesses and thus he could have gotten such details directly from the horse's mouth.
IP, please answer that where from the *Jesus and the woman taken in adultery* story came from. In today's sevaral versions of bible this story is not erased, it is taken in brackets. Was this incident not happen ??
I don’t think anyone knows where it came from. But I did read that stylistically the story matches the writing style of Luke. So there is speculation that Luke originally wrote it, and then decided not to include it in his gospel, and then it was later decided by someone else that it did belong in the Bible but they were unsure where it belonged. My sources for this hypothesis are Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace.
I've heard that view before, and did some research on it, and what I found was there would some historical inaccuracies specifically in revelation if it was written prior to the destruction of the temple.
Is this the final installment in this series? If not, will the next installment be something along the lines of providing supporting evidence that Acts is a reliable record on early church history?
@@InspiringPhilosophy BTW I heard from a ReligionForBreakfast video that the ancient evidence overall doesn’t support a Jewish-Samaritan animosity. It seems to indicate that the Samaritans were considered religiously iffy and potentially problematic, but still valid members of the house of Israel.
I wouldn't say powerful, but there is a case to be made for some historical memory on John. Scholars know this stuff and still generally reject most of John for good reason, I think.
Not any good reason really. The most common argument in scholarship for why John is supposedly late or later than the synoptics was the supposedly high christology and "Greek influence". All of the Greek influence however can be traced back to pre-Christian times and the influence of wisdom traditions included in the apocrypha. The christology of John's gospel also isn't any "higher" than that of Paul. Quite a number of scholars think that parts of the gospel can be dated to around the 40s of the first century. At least two scholars have even argued for John being the first gospels - the German catholic theologian Klaus Berger and the Anglican theologian John A. T. Robinson ("The priority of John"). Both make very good points for rethinking the origins of John's gospel. Even though I myself (as a theologian) don't believe that John came first. But it's very likely early and preserves old and original Jesus traditions.
@MrSeedi76 Sure, that's where historical memory comes in. But John seems to be written in a univocal narrative contemporary with other Mediterranean literature (if I'm remembering correctly).
@@MrSeedi76 And how doo you justify that so many significant events r only noted by john - raising of lazarus, before abraham was i am, i and the father are one
Christ Jesus did not serve for certain languages. He served everyone. You should also open the subtitle language translation function to all languages in your videos. This will not cause any extra cost to you. Levent Şeker from Asia Minor.
Do you think John attended a university to master the greek language, philosophy and story composition? This is some high-level stuff for an unschooled fisherman.
@@ryanrevland4333 I think that assuming that John wrote it himself is perhaps a stretch, but there’s reason to believe that-being a businessman in a heavily Gentile area-it’s possible that he had access to a measure of rhetorical training both religious and secular, or the church had access to those with such training. But John’s Greek is relatively simple, it’s his concepts that tend to cause problems.
@JLCProductions1976 It seems to me, the author is a Hellenized Jew bridging Greek philosophy and Jewish theology...brilliantly. Philo of Alexandria attempted this as well, interpreting Scripture using the Logos theology of the Stoics and the dualism of the Platonists. Which inspired other Hellenized Jews, like the author(s) of John. Where Philo failed, they improved. This abstract and impersonable mediator called the Logos became incarnate. The Word of God made Flesh. Now that's a back story! John doesn't even bother with a Bethlehem to Nazareth explanation. Jesus existed before time itself. The Gentiles were loving this version of the Gospel. The Jews...not so much.
@@ryanrevland4333 I think John was a highly literate Jew who knew what he believed and how to articulate it in a coherent manner (or had access to those who did)...forgoing your rather blatant anachronism.
I likes the vidoe but what about the clame thst John was illiterate and other similar clames that i don’t remember at the moment but will write them in a edit? Also what sbout john seems to be fluent in greek in these gospel which is kinda wierd. Any way loved the vid god bless
@@kristgromgrom7821Even if John was illiterate, he could have dictated his writings to amanuenses. This was quite common and Paul's own epistles demonstrates his use of them. See, for example, Romans 16:22.
The Johannine literature has pretty simple koine greek, unlike Luke. So it's relatively easy for those studying greek to understand (besides from Revelation with all its unusual symbolism). This indicates that the author doesn't come from a background where they speak greek fluently
IP your content is so helpful, unfortunately sometimes i get more confused with what i am hearing, did you say Jesus quoted Zachariah & Ezekiel that were not apart of the OT ?
@Inquisasist15 actually, it's the Lutheran Study Bible. Im more fond of the apostolic churches myself but if you're a protestant in want of a protestant Bible, this one published by Concordia press is solid.
Inspiringphilosophy doesn’t publically share his denomination, and uses red harrings like catholic rosaries, orthodox bibles, and Protestant phrases in order to throw us off. He tells us in a short
@@Broliterallymadeyou but I do think it is important to note that he is most involved in Evangelical circles, and I don't think that would be a red herring to "throw us off"
IP I haven’t even watched the video but I know it will be good. But why the late dating of John . I don’t think John allows that with John 5:2. There is nothing wrong with placing John 65-70. All the other writers have the same chrisrogoly .
John's composition of his Gospel may have spanned many years. Discontinuities in the text point to it not all being written at the same time. Hence, some parts could have originated in the 40s and 50s, decades before they and parts written down later were organized into a single manuscript.
@@Berean_with_a_BThdo you really think that is plausible that John leaves material in chapter 5 that makes him sound honkers His readers would be like “John you do know Jersualem was absolutely destroyed 20 years ago why don’t you check over stuff before you send it “ He would have read over what he was writing he wasn’t stupid (not saying you are mate either I just can’t see this at all ) . John was a Jew . You think he would take notice if the city of David was flattened .
@@Berean_with_a_BTh 2 Now THERE IS in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades John uses a present tense in Greek to denote this area is still there . Jerusalem was utterly destroyed according to Josephus with pretty much nothing being left standing or what was left was submerged in rubble . Meaning when John wrote Jersusalem was not destroyed. This why both John AT Robertson liberal scholar and Bernier both dated John Pre 70 Is this not great news brother this means pretty much means all Synoptics are pre 70 aswell with John .
@@Lurkingdolphin The destruction, though devastating, wasn't total. Josephus gives an account of parts being spared (Wars 7.1.1). John's reference to the location of the (demolished) Sheep Gate and the pool (which wasn't filled in till centuries later) remained accurate even after the Roman conquest.
this poisonous fiction of unbelievers that john was written post 70 must stop. vatican folio #140 was known to have been a complete copy of the gospels in aramaic written during the 3rd bishop of edessa and the scribal colophon dated it to the year 389 of the greeks, i.e., 78 ad. furthermore, the comment of john about peter, after the resurrection, by the sea of galilee, implied that the writer knew of peter's death during the neronian persecution. moreover, the olivet discourse is the only section missing vis a vis the synoptics. but just as luke was a 2-volume work, john became a 2-volume work consisting of the gospel and revelation. the lack of a report on the destruction of jerusalem is the greatest omission of all. this means that the gospels and revelation were written in a condensed period between the great fire of rome 18th july 64 AD and the start of the neronian persecution in 64 to before the death of nero in the spring of 68. taking practical and realistic logistics forensically and the profile of the two books, you can deduce that revelation was written after news of the death of peter and paul was confirmed and hearing the news of the first jewish war, most likely after april 67 AD when vespasian landed 4 legions in ptolemais to execute the war. it is more naturally probable that as a prominent leader of the christian church that john was exiled much earlier during the reign of nero. why? because the gematria of nero is evident from the manuscripts identifying him as the 666 and 616. it is quite moronic to warn and prophesy against an event that has been completed already
@@davethebrahman9870 the internal evidence points to it, it is more consistent with history, and early narratives can be reconstructed to disambiguate the most probable sequence of events. This same methodologies are applied to writings about caesar, alexander the great, socrates, and other ancient personalities with much later attributions. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander
@@davethebrahman9870 the internal evidence of the text points to the lack of recording the destruction of the temple. Contrast that to the epistle of barnabas that was written after the fall of Jerusalem. The testimony of a completed prophecy in the book of acts is also very indicative.
What do you think of Witherington’s argument that the gospel of John was possibly finally edited/compiled by John (or one of the early church John’s) but are primarily the recollections of Lazarus - the only one the narrative tells us is the disciple Jesus loved? Witherington explains here: th-cam.com/video/zTx6A2pncIY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=z9LgaQ2REewHPTZY
@@OrthodoxJokerassume naturalism is true, make fun of Christians, say "because the bible says so" when a Christian makes a good point. That's his playbook.
@@rayhanakram9912 imagine making a TH-cam channel as your life goal to promote meaninglessness and nihilism. Hey guys it’s Paul here! Let’s remove the religion that gives people purpose by stawmanning us based on a heretical evangelical view
@@OrthodoxJokerThe fact that you want life to have purpose and meaning does not in any way support the claim that Christianity is true. It only proves that you want life to have purpose and meaning. You can give your own life purpose and meaning without depending on a religion of questionable veracity.
@@lylez00 no, many historians believe that some of the original 12 disciples were around 15-21. Of John were on of those people, then he would of been around 70 or 80 when his Gospel was recorded
Which church? The Catholic Church does not dogmatically teach John Son of Zebedee, simply "John". The John Mark or John the Elder theories are acceptable in Catholicism. I'm not sure about the East.
Considering all of the eyewitness details in John, I seriously doubt that it was actually the last Gospel account written. An eyewitness narrative? Most definitely!
You're a clown, theres NOTHING NEW here. Just delusion trying to propose invalid arguments in an attempt to validate their delusion. john DOESN'T accurately portray the historical jesus. It is FICTION, period.
@@FollowAtheism-wk7jy😂 lol. That would mean that you do know what the "historical Jesus" was actually like. The search for the ipsissima verba has largely failed however. The historical Jesus is the Jesus depicted in the gospels. If you don't like it - tough luck. But no Christian will be impressed by the ignorant arguments of someone who gaslighted himself into believing there is no God.
@@MrSeedi76 Quote: *"That would mean that you do know what the "historical Jesus" was actually like."* Response: bart ehrman and others such like him present the most rational take on the historical jesus, which is a man who advertised that the end was going to come DURING THE 1ST CENTURY and that to get into it would be to do good works and follow the torah.
@@MrSeedi76 Quote: *"The historical Jesus is the Jesus depicted in the gospels."* Response: WRONG, only certain parts of gospels do that. The parts which show him to be apocalyptic, advertising a 1st century end, upholding torah, etc. John CERTAINLY is by far fictitious, because jesus certainly isn't some word made flesh or whatever. Among other things. And he definitely wasn't born under some star, no roman authority made it a big deal to find him as an infant and "exit him", and there is no evidence of some nationwide census either! Quote: *" If you don't like it - tough luck."* Response: No if YOU don't like the fact that the source of your silly beliefs is demonstrable and clearly absurd, then TOO BAD! Quote: *" But no Christian will be impressed by the ignorant arguments of someone who gaslighted himself into believing there is no God."* Response: You're conflating gaslighting with following logic and reason and EVIDENCE. I don't see you actually proving I'm gaslighting myself, you're just CLAIMING that in order to pretend TO YOURSELF that you have a good excuse for your silly belief! I know that physics runs everything and that evolution is real and life is absurd, thats crystal clear to me. And I can present a rational argument for my case. But there's a saying: its hard to win an argument against a smart person and IMPOSSIBLE to win against an DELUDED person!
@@FollowAtheism-wk7jy 1. Bart D. Ehrman (agnostic New Testament scholar): “The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedent. It was made up in the 18th century.” 2. Maurice Casey (atheist New Testament scholar): “The suggestion that Jesus did not exist is extremely implausible and, indeed, not worth any further consideration.” 3. Gerd Lüdemann (atheist historian): “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.” 4. Michael Grant (atheist classical historian): “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.” 5. Christopher Hitchens (atheist author): “I would say that the existence of Jesus as a person, as a historical figure, is overwhelmingly likely.” 6. E. P. Sanders (agnostic biblical scholar): “There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life.” 7. Richard Carrier (atheist historian, not a mythicist): “Although I have been interested in mythicism, I do not think the case for Jesus’ existence is untenable. There is still evidence for a historical Jesus.” 8. Shlomo Pines (Jewish philosopher): “There are no compelling reasons to doubt that Jesus existed.” 9. A. N. Sherwin-White (agnostic Roman historian): “For most historians, the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted.” 10. Paula Fredriksen (Jewish scholar of early Christianity): “I think that we need have no doubt, as to the fact that Jesus existed.”
The only thing certain about the authors of the 4 gospels is that we have no idea who they were, the content of this video notwithstanding. All 4 gospels are anonymous. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were attached to them later by Ireneaus and other church fathers. So of course the church fathers, as you cite, are going to agree with one another on the authorship, but their agreement proves nothing. I highly recommend reading Bart Ehrman or watching his videos. He is a biblical scholar with few peers, and much more knowledgeable on these issues than IP.
I suggest you look into the published works of Richard Bauckham, Craig Blomberg, Peter Williams, Simon Gathercole , Gregory Boyd, and several other scholars who argue for traditional authorship of the Gospels - people with better credentials than Bart Ehrman...
Furthermore, John was written around 90 AD, 60 years after Jesus died. John the son of Zebedee would likely be dead by then, or a feeble 90 year old at best. And he was a fisherman. Fishermen in those days were illiterate. The gospel of John was written in greek in a sophisticated style. John would not have known greek and again, he was almost certainly illuterate even in his own language. So the consensus of biblical scholars, including most Evangelical scholars, is that John was not the author of this gospel and the actual author was not an eyewitness.
@@QCMPI'm not sure there is any evidence for Zebedee being "middle class" but it would not matter even if he were. John was a fisherman. Fisherman were not educated in those days. They didn't go to school until age 18 and learn Greek. They began their career as fishermen when they were children. So they were almost entirely illiterate.
"This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true" The "we" are the group of people who wrote it. They are not John. Hence it is tail written by different people, no lt Jonh himself, whoever he is.
Paul's letter to the Romans names a scribe at the end. It could be as IP explains, a historic literary device to switch to third person plural, or it could be the scribes, but it doesn't mean John wasn't present or composing the gospel.
@@telephonebear21 It is interesting to see, how you need to go outside the text, twist and bend the reality to fit it in your dogmas. An honest reading of the text does not give you that.
@@celiopessoajunioran honest reading of the text as you put it still points to the disciple as being the one who wrote it as it says that the disciple *who*witnessed these things and *who*wrote it and the "we" verify his testimony Also adding proper context for understanding how literature was written and understood in a certain time period isn't twisting or bending it If anything only using the modern style of writing and understand to understand a work written in the 1st century would be twisting and bending it
🙏 DONATE: inspiringphilosophy.org/give/
PATREON: www.patreon.com/c/inspiringphilosophy/posts
TH-cam MEMBERSHIP: www.youtube.com/@InspiringPhilosophy/membership
LOCALS: inspiringphilosophy.locals.com/
My bro glad your on our side
My non-Christian parents named me Ivan, or John in Slavic language. They just thought it was a cool name but now I as a new Christian know its meaning. I first heard the Gospel through John 3: 16. Eventually I confessed my faith in Christ on a Good Friday, like John was present at crucifixion. At first I was doubting the intercession of saint because my first gateway to Christianity is evangelic and protestant church but there are too many coincidences. There's no doubt that God used St. John's intercession to lead me to Christ. God Himself chose St. John as my patron saint. Now if another Christians want to pray or not to the saints in heaven I can't forbid or force them to do so. Ultimately what matters most is our relationship with God. If it can improve your relationship with God then go on, pray with the saint whom you have connection with. God bless, from a beloved disciple.
Hallelujah!
All the angels are rejoicing because you have chosen to put your total trust in Jesus as your Savior and your God!! Please do continue to keep your heart and mind focused on Jesus Christ who is the Author and the Finisher of your faith, who reveals the heavenly Father to you by the Holy Spirit, for one day you will see Him face to face!!!
Welcome to the faith 🙂. I just wanted to address that I haven’t seen a verse in the Bible before where the saints intercede for us, nor believers asking for intercession. Rather (Romans 8:26) “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.”
@@John3-16_ I wasn't asking for intercession nor seeking God as an atheist. I just heard that God so loved the world and deep down I wanted love, agape, which is different from humans' (mostly) transactional love. And who's the perfect person to show me the fullness of God's love in Christ Jesus other than the beloved disciple himself?
@@John3-16_ In Revelation, the Saints (with the angels) surround the throne of God and present the prayers of the faithful to the Lord as incense. And, of course, Revelation was supposedly written by John, as well (according to tradition).
The scriptures refer to the Christian deceased as a "cloud of witnesses" as though there were alive and aware of happenings on Earth. This harmonizes with what Christ said: "Have you not heard what God said? 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.'"
But you don't actually need specific scriptural verses to infer the idea that those who died in communion with God experience an elevated communion with God. That they share in His knowledge of the Divine Will and therefore know of the things in the world (at least so far as those things pertain to them). From that, they would have knowledge of the petitions for their intercession and, as loving servants of God, they would proceed to intercede for us as to participate in the Divine Plan of redemption.
@@lc4n333 Juan (Spanish form of John) in Latin would be written Ivan
You are doing stellar work, lucid, well argued, structured, intelligent and with nuances so that individual arguments are not overstated. I have followed your work for a while now (since COVID). It amazes me how you can handle both historical and philosophical questions. Your series on the reliability of the Gospels is great. The local knowledge of John and the Synoptics compare favorably with Caesar in The Gallic and Civil wars, with Velleius and with the Bellum Africanum (written clearly by an eyewitness). There is not nearly the same level of accuracy in Plutarch, in Tacitus or Appian.
@@davethebrahman9870"no one mentions the gospel until 180 or so"
What do you mean by this?
@@davethebrahman9870 Because that kind of local information doesn't stay available for long in the ancient world. People didn't have libraries detailing what life in such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time was like, the way we do today. If someone in the ancient world got minute details about a time and place right, it's either because they had been there, or knew someone who was.
@davethebrahman9870 how exactly is it more likely to be a later theological work? The overwhelming consensus from the early church is that it was written by John the apostle.
@@davethebrahman9870 good and valid question. It would be possible if there were excellent sources and if the author of John followed them closely. IP mentions that possible explanation toward the end of his video. However that would still make the Gospel a very important source to the life, deeds and teachings of Jesus. I mention in my comment as an example of a work, where local knowledge is used to argue that the author is an eyewitness Bellum Africanum (on Caesar in Africa) - the good local knowledge in this work corresponds to Caesar himself in the Gallic war (hence Bellum Africanum is ascribed to an eyewitness). Both are in contrast to the much less detailed local knowledge in Bellum Alexandrinum (on Caesar in Egypt etc), which, so the argument usually goes is not written by an eyewitness. There are references to John prior to c. 180 - Marcion for example knew the Gospel of John and critiqued it in his Anthitheses (cf. Tertullian, Against Marcion book 4.
@davethebrahman9870 As one would expect an elderly john with extensive time in the faith, would speak more of Christ's divinity than the earlier accounts. Also, it's very disingenuous to assume that everyone just copied Ireneous's statement.
Awesome work as always I.P.
I honestly believe when it comes to evidence. We will always have to deal with objections, but things are moving positively in the right direction for Christianity and you play a huge role in helping the public understand this
God bless you.
This series has been fantastic.
Pulling all this together into a single video effectively brings the overwhelming weight of evidence and arguments in a felt and convincing manner.
This will be a powerful tool to help people sift out the yeast of the modern Sadducees to hear the raw power again of the voice of the eyewitness.
It's sharp, clear and convincing. Good work!
"this is the testimony of an Apostle and an eye witness, and this testimony is true"
John 21:24
@@davethebrahman9870Caesar wrote his Commentary in the third person.
It is not unusual, unless you're willing to state Julius Caesar wrote about some other Julius Caesar who alsp happened to be Consul stationed in Gaul at the exact same time....
@@davethebrahman9870 Is Latin somehow more trustworthy than Koine Greek?
And we have even mote reasons, as stated by IP, to believe they are eyewitness accounts (like the pool at the temple John describes nobody bought, until it was indeed discovered recently)
@@davethebrahman9870 don't see what writing in Latin has to do with it. Xenophon wrote his book Anabasis in third person as well, in Greek.
A priori, a man CANNOT be a god otherwise you are a blasphemous idolatrous. I can’t believe you still believe a man who ate food and answered the call of nature was a god. Shame on you. You’re just following people who lost their way by committing a mortal sin. God is one. Never forget that. Jesus was just a prophet and messenger of God.
@@BenM61so you claim that God isn't almighty then?
Thank you for the video, a lot of people don't like the gospel of John because of the overly critical view of it makes it look mythical. I have always loved the gospel of John because it feels the most personal. I am 100% sure that it's one of the best eyewitness accounts in history. God bless ✝️
Thank you for the donation.
@@InspiringPhilosophy 2 Chronicles 32:31 Deuteronomy 13:1-5 Deuteronomy 8:1-2 Hosea 8:4 Job 1:7, 2:2 Numbers 22:9 Genesis 32:22-30 Genesis 6:6Genesis 3:8-13 ,these verses suggest Yahweh isn't omniscient,I have been doubting my faith because of this,can you debunk it?
Thank you so much mike, ive been waiting for this one. Ive been watching your channel for maybe a year, year and a half maybe. Your presentations of the evidence is what literally forced me into the Church, after 20 years of rebellion. God bless you
The Beloved Apostle of my Lord and Savior! Love this account man ❤
🗣🗣ACTS OF THE APOSTLES NEXT!!!
Testify has a great playlist on Acts.
@CCofCK That would be great!!
@@KostaFatsis Another great one would be Judges Rediscovered (a sequel to Exodus Rediscovered).
All the epistles please Sir michael jones
@@rayhanakram9912 Can't believe that at one point Testify and IP along with sources they provided were the only reasons why I was still a christian
Good video, man. I'd say the case you presented here wasn't as strong as the ones you put forward for the synoptic gospels but still, really interesting arguments, quite persuasive. I must admit, also, that the section about the oral (and hence, indirectly literary) relationship between Lk and Jn was, simply put, superb. Thanks for this video, Michael, I appreciate all the effort you make for the Christian community and society in general, bolstering our faith and presenting rational arguments for being a follower of Jesus (which, in and of itself, I consider it as an continuous act that goes beyond reason, but without contradicting it).
Praise the Lord! Great work, I am inspired by the amount of small details I have seen all my life are what make the Gospel reliable, which has been my conclusion all my life. I can see it all in a bigger picture and skeptics might be intrigued by this. God bless you and have a great day.
We know John was "unschooled" according to Acts 4:13, but maybe he later attended a University and learned to write Greek. He could have studied the classics and mastered the art of story composition.
“You’re telling me an eye witnessed these accounts?”
@slimeinabox Yes, supported by history
Wonderful job, IP!
And thanks be to God
Finally one for John! Love your videos, IP.
Thankyou IP this is amazing 👏
My favorite Gospel.
Praise be to our LORD Yeshua the
Anointed One for forgiveness and
grace. Amen. 🙂🙏✝️🕎✡🇺🇸🇮🇱❤
Very good, the only thing that would also be interesting to explore is the unique "I am" statements in John's Gospel, and his relationship to the high priest.
1:01 i like the idea John could write without looking at the page
@@codygillard it’s actually easier than you think.
@@Quafuple_Bonjular I lik the idea that his hand is just doing that and he's not aware of it
Lmao 😂❤
Great work, IP! There have to be like 100 reasons John is authentic in this video ...
I love this! Looking forward to a series of New Testament authorship!
Soon, Old Testament authorship. Praying for you and your channel in my rosaries that it would reach out to all ex Christians and nonbelievers!
I'm only halfway through the video, but I was interested in the section that discussed the common oral tradition between John and Luke. It seems that this could be pretty easily explained. It has long been church tradition that John and Mary The mother of Jesus settled in Ephesus. The synodal letter of the council of Ephesus from 431 states this explicitly, and other pieces of evidence support this as well.
If so, Luke and John would have certainly crossed paths if Luke was indeed Paul's travelling companion. Paul was in Ephesus on more than a couple of occasions for long periods of time according to Acts, and even said special goodbyes to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20. Paul's correspondence with Timothy (who remained in Ephesus according to 1 Timothy chapter 1) mentioned Luke to Timothy, suggesting they knew each other.
It's pretty easy to imagine that John and Luke would have known each other well and possibly attended the same church (of Ephesus) for a time, maybe even for decades as church tradition maintains that Luke also lived to an old age as John did.
Where are the doubters??
Great work IP ❤
Praise be The LORD ☦️🤍
Thank you Mike🙏 Great Work as always
Brilliant report. Its such a beautiful Gospel. Glad to see it defended so well.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
Glad I caught this live
Great vid! Thanks!
Great information! Thanks for doing the research and putting it all together in one video. I’ve saved it for future reference.
Absolutely Fantastic research!
Watching your videos and learning church history helped ne become greek orthodox.
Michael, you side with the dating of John to 90CE or so. I've been persuaded by the internal evidence that John was writing before 70CE, since he gives accounts of events in places that in his time still existed before the destruction of Jerusalem, for example John 5:2 the pool of Bethesda.
I've also heard that John was written in parts, so that the pool of Bethesda could have been written prior to 70CE while other parts were written after 70CE.
Do you have any thoughts about this?
I agree. I suspect that John was penned between 50-70 AD.
Matthew and John were eye witnesses to Jesus. They wrote the gospels attributed to them. I’m glad that I subscribed to this channel. It’s good that this information is getting out there, despite all the objections out there
You're making utterly baseless claims.
@@lylez00 Show me what you have to refute my claim
@@KostaFatsis They were written decades after the alleged events by which time, Matthew and John would have been dead. Matthew 9:9 refers to Matthew by name, rather than by us the word "I", which is the word the word the author would have used if the author was Matthew.
@@lylez00 Scholars and historians place Matthew and Mark to be written around 40 A.D. According to church tradition, Mark was most likey the first gospel to be written. The events being a part of history and the fact that the Bible is true, that is the reason why Muslims and people of different faiths are coming to Jesus. The church father Tertullian said the New Testament was written within a few decades of when the events happened, while the eye witnesses were still alive. Matthew and John were eye witnesses to Jesus. They met and spent time with Jesus. John, of all the disciples was the closest to Jesus. Mark was not an eye witness but the church fathers say he got his information from the Apostle Peter. The Apostles died brutal deaths for what they believed. No one would willingly die for something they knew was not true. When the gospels say "I", "We" or in the third person "They", that doesn't negate their authorship
@@KostaFatsis "Scholars and historians place Matthew and Mark to be written around 40 A.D."
That's incorrect. Since TH-cam will not allow me to include URLs in comments, In TH-cam, search for "Dr. Bart Ehrman Destroys The Crucifixion and The Resurrection History". It's a video which addresses these topics quite well by a world-renounced expert. It's under 12 minutes.
"According to church tradition, Mark was most likely the first gospel to be written. The events being a part of history and the fact that the Bible is true, that is the reason why Muslims and people of different faiths are coming to Jesus."
It is not a "fact" that the Bible is true. It's full of contradictions and statements that we know for a cold hard fact to be wrong.
"The church father Tertullian said the New Testament was written within a few decades of when the events happened, while the eye witnesses were still alive."
You don't know that at all. You don't know there were any eye witnesses. The whole thing was probably made up from scratch.
"Matthew and John were eye witnesses to Jesus."
According to anonymous authors who lived long after the alleged events. They based their writings on myth and hearsay. The Bible is nothing more than glorified graffiti.
"They met and spent time with Jesus. John, of all the disciples was the closest to Jesus. Mark was not an eye witness but the church fathers say he got his information from the Apostle Peter."
I couldn't care less what the church fathers say. They'll say anything to dupe the public into believing their lies so that they'll continue to get donations, and thus, not have to get real jobs and work for a living. Do you believe everything Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert, and the rest of that ilk tell you?
"The Apostles died brutal deaths for what they believed."
Says who? What are you basing that on? It's just a church myth.
"When the gospels say "I", "We" or in the third person "They", that doesn't negate their authorship"
Where does the new testament have a sentence of the form, "I saw Jesus do a miracle"? The only one I can think of is Paul, and he saw a vision by his own admission, one that his travel companions did not see. He was blind for several days afterwards. That's a very strong indication that what really happened was that he had a stroke or a seizure.
Matthew 9:9 refers to Matthew by the name Matthew. If Matthew really wrote it, he would have said "I", not "Matthew".
Watch all videos by the TH-camr Paulogia. He does an excellent job deconstructing the various Christian myths.
Awesome work as always IP!
Just found this channel thanks to GodLogic. 🙏🏿🙏🏿
What video of his?
@@InspiringPhilosophy Hi the video is Ex Muslim seeking Christianity talks with logic. I saw it on a channel called Religious Insight.
Your channel is really helping me in crease the little knowledge I do have about the Gospel. Thank you 🙏🏿
Excellent.
Great work as usual, Michael. John is one of my favorite gospels.
Question: could you do a video on your thoughts about Yeshuah and John the Baptist's relationship with the Jewish sect known as the Essenes? As of late, I've become more and more convinced that they were influenced by them in some way, as there seems to be a lot of overlap between their teachings. Though I can't seem to figure out the theological significance of this, if true. Thanks.
@@catalyst3713 I would like to make a distinction .
Johns relationship with the Qumran community .
Who may not be Essenes
@@RamadaDiver Yes, that's what's in question as well.
@@catalyst3713
Proto Christians
@catalyst3713
The Qumran community believed in two messiahs .
A suffering servant priest messiah and King messiah .
They were wrong.
They realised after jesus . It's the same messiah coming twice . First as a servant and then as a ruling king .
It developed as a direct consequence of jesus
@@RamadaDiver Interesting.
Why is everyone ignoring 2 Peter 1:16-18 as a blatant eyewitness testimony? 🤔
It even uses the term "eyewitness" for God's sake!!!
The academic consensus is that 2 Peter is a forgery. Give it a quick google for all the reasons why scholars believe this
Can we assert that the names of the Gospel authors are correctly attributed in the writings of Irenaeus, given that he was a disciple of Polycarp, who himself was a hearer of John? As though John had taught that he was indeed the author of that book?
yes and on this same basis we can say Jesus was around 50 years old
The Gospels consistently have the same Authors attributed to them. Compare it to the Epistle of the Hebrews where there's multiple attributions in the Archeological record (from Paul, to Timothy, etc). Also another reason to trust the record is why would anyone attribute stuff to Mark and Luke? They weren't apostles, Luke even seems to have been a gentile or at least a half uncircumcised gentile. He certainly wouldn't have won the Jewish hardliners in the Christian community over.
@@RestingJudge all of the apocryphal gospels and epistles only have one author attributed to them
@@davethebrahman9870it’s not the Gospel.. but the 3rd John was debated about.
@@davethebrahman9870 you should actually read more bud... like I said it’s 3 John that was debated about.
What do you guys think about Sam Shamoun dating the gospel of John to before 70 a.d? I think he got some evidence for that.
You are my favorite channel. You dont know how much you influence me
Good job
This evidence is like no other
Hi I have a question, I wanted to know how it can be that the sun was created after the earth but science says something different. Have a blessed day everyone ❤
Great video, waited a long time for it haha. But i was wondering would you make a video for the credibility of Paul?
BASED testimony
I would like to see Michael Jones do a video on the Gospel of Kailedy.
The Book of the Natsarim.
Acts next please
acts forms a unity with luke, the two of them would be done concurrently
Not wholly needed as Acts has the same author as Luke.
@@SirMicahBroch I'm aware luke is the author, I listen to these accounts not only because of the evidence it existed but also I pay attention to the details of the accounts Michael presents, the style of writing, how it fits with historical facts and information etc.
@@davidtakyi14 fair enough that is actually an excellent point
Pointing out that Luke prioritized the Johannine account is interesting. I wonder if there is a connection to the episode of the woman caught in adultery since it actually seems to fit in the Lucan account better...
Except the _Pericope Adulterae_ (John 7:53-8:11) is a later addition, not written by John. The evidence against its authenticity is overwhelming. It:
• is absent from many early manuscripts, including P66 (2nd/3rd-century), P75, (3rd-century), Sinaiticus (4th-century), Vaticanus (4th-century);
• is marked-off and/or annotated in many _Greek_ manuscripts to indicate that it is suspect;
• has a style and vocabulary that differs from the rest of the Gospel, showing that someone else wrote it;
• interrupts the flow of the text from John 7:52 to 8:12;
• is missing from the Sahidic manuscripts and from the oldest Syriac, Georgian and Boharic manuscripts; and
• is placed after John 7:44 or John 21:25 in some manuscripts and is even found in one Lukan manuscript, after Luke 21:38 (not that this supports the idea that Luke wrote it either).
@@Berean_with_a_BTh It seems to come from papius
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Interesting. Thanks for the info!
Very good summary of the witness of the church fathers on the authorship of the 4th gospel. Two issues make me skeptical. Chapter 21 reads like a tag on. Almost as if the or an author realised that he had not specifically mentioned that he was an eye witness. The other issue was the raising of Lazarus. Raising a dead person after 4 days was one the 3 signs expected of the Messiah. John explicitly says that Jesus waited for several days before going to Bethany to raise Lazarus. So clearly a key event in John’s gospel. But it is not mentioned in the synoptic gospels. How come?
Can you give the citation for the expectation that the Messiah will raise the dead after 4 days?
for all the true Christian’s- I recommend reading Nonnus. His commentary on the book of John will change your life. I promise.
I think some verses are still a question for me for example
Matthew 24:10,11,12 especially 10 th verse says "At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other"
What does it mean to "turn away from faith"? In the continuation of the verse, it says, "But the one who stands firm to the end will be saved." What does this mean? Does it imply that one can lose their salvation?
How can a person turn away from faith if they don't even have faith? If a person loses faith, how can they stand firm until the end? And if they don’t stand firm until the end, doesn’t that mean, according to this verse, they won’t be saved? If we say that only those with genuine faith can endure to the end, how can anyone have assurance of salvation before facing any trials? Wouldn’t they constantly fear whether their faith is truly genuine or not? If we say that this verse doesn't speak about the salvation of souls but about flesh and give explanations then it is completely meaningless.
What can we say to this brother?
The verse just says what it says, it's not that complicated.
Do a video on Lazarus
5:00 It says " *This* is the disciple...". It does not say "I am the disciple".
would be interested in a video addressing Carrier’s “well actually the Gospels are all complete and total fictions, and every historian & scholar of NT history in the last 100 years is just wrong” stance.
Do we start with the late 20th century & 2000s scholarship on genre, that decisively argued that the gospels were Greco-Roman biographies at least attempting to convey history as they understood it?
04:55 - None of those quotations says, "I am the author of John and I was an eyewitness", or anything even close to that!
hey ip i wanted to ask you whe do you think about the new organiod brains and everyone saying they are conscious do you think they really are?
How old was he when he was with Jesus? How old was he when he wrote the gospel?
Unknown as to his age. It was written before 70 AD since there is no mention of the temple's destruction and there is a mention of an intact pool at Bethesda, which was destroyed in 70 AD.
Thanks, my brother in Christ, I’ve been awaiting this one especially so… great job!
Day 1 of asking IP to Make a series on John’s Revelation
John was an eyewitness, and probably my favorite eyewitness!
Given that St. Luke implies that he interviewed Eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2), and given that many think one of those eyewitness was Mary the mother of the Lord (St. Luke for instance even reporting on her inner states "she kept all these things and pondered them in her heart") and given that St. John and the Mother of God resided together (John 19:27) having been committed to each other as mother and son by Jesus as he hung on the cross (John19:26-27); it seems more likely too that the parallels with the Johanine account rather than being based eighther on literary dependance on the 4th Gospel or on more diffuse Johanine oral traditions, come rather from St. John like Mary (again they after all resided together and if one had been available for interview so most likely would have been the other) having been the subject of one of St. Luke's interviews of eyewitnesses and thus he could have gotten such details directly from the horse's mouth.
Can you make a video on Jephtah and the supposed sacrifice of his daughter as a burnt offering ik a lot of people are confused about that story
IP, please answer that where from the *Jesus and the woman taken in adultery* story came from. In today's sevaral versions of bible this story is not erased, it is taken in brackets.
Was this incident not happen ??
I don’t think anyone knows where it came from. But I did read that stylistically the story matches the writing style of Luke. So there is speculation that Luke originally wrote it, and then decided not to include it in his gospel, and then it was later decided by someone else that it did belong in the Bible but they were unsure where it belonged. My sources for this hypothesis are Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace.
I believe the entire new testament was written prior to 70 AD
I've heard that view before, and did some research on it, and what I found was there would some historical inaccuracies specifically in revelation if it was written prior to the destruction of the temple.
Honest question. Why is the raising of Lazarus only in John? Surely such an act wouldve made the other gospels.
His name is Yohn, Geneva Bible 1560.
Do you have a video on YHEH being pronounced by our breaths?
Is this the final installment in this series? If not, will the next installment be something along the lines of providing supporting evidence that Acts is a reliable record on early church history?
I have one more and then two videos that will function as appendices for this series.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Thanks for the response IP.
@@InspiringPhilosophy BTW I heard from a ReligionForBreakfast video that the ancient evidence overall doesn’t support a Jewish-Samaritan animosity. It seems to indicate that the Samaritans were considered religiously iffy and potentially problematic, but still valid members of the house of Israel.
I wouldn't say powerful, but there is a case to be made for some historical memory on John. Scholars know this stuff and still generally reject most of John for good reason, I think.
Not any good reason really. The most common argument in scholarship for why John is supposedly late or later than the synoptics was the supposedly high christology and "Greek influence". All of the Greek influence however can be traced back to pre-Christian times and the influence of wisdom traditions included in the apocrypha. The christology of John's gospel also isn't any "higher" than that of Paul. Quite a number of scholars think that parts of the gospel can be dated to around the 40s of the first century. At least two scholars have even argued for John being the first gospels - the German catholic theologian Klaus Berger and the Anglican theologian John A. T. Robinson ("The priority of John"). Both make very good points for rethinking the origins of John's gospel. Even though I myself (as a theologian) don't believe that John came first. But it's very likely early and preserves old and original Jesus traditions.
@MrSeedi76 Sure, that's where historical memory comes in. But John seems to be written in a univocal narrative contemporary with other Mediterranean literature (if I'm remembering correctly).
@@MrSeedi76 And how doo you justify that so many significant events r only noted by john - raising of lazarus, before abraham was i am, i and the father are one
Christ Jesus did not serve for certain languages. He served everyone. You should also open the subtitle language translation function to all languages in your videos. This will not cause any extra cost to you.
Levent Şeker from Asia Minor.
Cue the skeptical “REEEEEE” in 3…2…
Do you think John attended a university to master the greek language, philosophy and story composition? This is some high-level stuff for an unschooled fisherman.
@@ryanrevland4333 I think that assuming that John wrote it himself is perhaps a stretch, but there’s reason to believe that-being a businessman in a heavily Gentile area-it’s possible that he had access to a measure of rhetorical training both religious and secular, or the church had access to those with such training. But John’s Greek is relatively simple, it’s his concepts that tend to cause problems.
@JLCProductions1976 It seems to me, the author is a Hellenized Jew bridging Greek philosophy and Jewish theology...brilliantly. Philo of Alexandria attempted this as well, interpreting Scripture using the Logos theology of the Stoics and the dualism of the Platonists. Which inspired other Hellenized Jews, like the author(s) of John.
Where Philo failed, they improved. This abstract and impersonable mediator called the Logos became incarnate. The Word of God made Flesh. Now that's a back story! John doesn't even bother with a Bethlehem to Nazareth explanation. Jesus existed before time itself.
The Gentiles were loving this version of the Gospel. The Jews...not so much.
@@ryanrevland4333 You're not very familiar with Philo or Stoic phiolosphy, or 2nd temple Debar/Logos theology are you?🤨
@@ryanrevland4333 I think John was a highly literate Jew who knew what he believed and how to articulate it in a coherent manner (or had access to those who did)...forgoing your rather blatant anachronism.
I likes the vidoe but what about the clame thst John was illiterate and other similar clames that i don’t remember at the moment but will write them in a edit? Also what sbout john seems to be fluent in greek in these gospel which is kinda wierd. Any way loved the vid god bless
The claim that John was illiterate has no evidentiary basis.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh yea i know but he also was a fissherman and lived in a time when litiracy wasn’t comon
@@kristgromgrom7821Even if John was illiterate, he could have dictated his writings to amanuenses. This was quite common and Paul's own epistles demonstrates his use of them. See, for example, Romans 16:22.
@@Berean_with_a_BThaight ty brother for clearing it for me hahaha. But it would have been cool if IP mention it but still thanks alot and god bless
The Johannine literature has pretty simple koine greek, unlike Luke. So it's relatively easy for those studying greek to understand (besides from Revelation with all its unusual symbolism). This indicates that the author doesn't come from a background where they speak greek fluently
IP your content is so helpful, unfortunately sometimes i get more confused with what i am hearing, did you say Jesus quoted Zachariah & Ezekiel that were not apart of the OT ?
Wait a minute IP...... I recognize that Bible at 0:11 :)
OSB right?
IP says that he purposely puts in contradictory clues to make sure people don't know what denomination he is a part of.
@Inquisasist15 actually, it's the Lutheran Study Bible. Im more fond of the apostolic churches myself but if you're a protestant in want of a protestant Bible, this one published by Concordia press is solid.
Inspiringphilosophy doesn’t publically share his denomination, and uses red harrings like catholic rosaries, orthodox bibles, and Protestant phrases in order to throw us off. He tells us in a short
@@Broliterallymadeyou but I do think it is important to note that he is most involved in Evangelical circles, and I don't think that would be a red herring to "throw us off"
Michael Jones can you do a video responding to this documentary? It’s called the creation of Christianity. and it is by ancient. Astronaut activity.
wasn't Saint Matthew also an eyewitness?
Indeed he was.
Yes. He has a video in the series.
No he wasn't, the REAL author of matthew was likely some high classman that got convinced of the jesus hype. He objectively wasn't an eyewitness.
@@FollowAtheism-wk7jy Objectivity being something that doesn't feature in your life.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh That doesn't make any sense. People cannot physically escape the truth. The truth is self existent and dominant.
IP I haven’t even watched the video but I know it will be good.
But why the late dating of John . I don’t think John allows that with John 5:2.
There is nothing wrong with placing John 65-70. All the other writers have the same chrisrogoly .
John's composition of his Gospel may have spanned many years. Discontinuities in the text point to it not all being written at the same time. Hence, some parts could have originated in the 40s and 50s, decades before they and parts written down later were organized into a single manuscript.
@@Berean_with_a_BThdo you really think that is plausible that John leaves material in chapter 5 that makes him sound honkers
His readers would be like “John you do know Jersualem was absolutely destroyed 20 years ago why don’t you check over stuff before you send it “
He would have read over what he was writing he wasn’t stupid (not saying you are mate either I just can’t see this at all ) . John was a Jew . You think he would take notice if the city of David was flattened .
@@Lurkingdolphin Why would anything in John 5 be out of place after the temple was destroyed?
@@Berean_with_a_BTh 2 Now THERE IS in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades
John uses a present tense in Greek to denote this area is still there . Jerusalem was utterly destroyed according to Josephus with pretty much nothing being left standing or what was left was submerged in rubble . Meaning when John wrote Jersusalem was not destroyed.
This why both John AT Robertson liberal scholar and Bernier both dated John Pre 70
Is this not great news brother this means pretty much means all Synoptics are pre 70 aswell with John .
@@Lurkingdolphin The destruction, though devastating, wasn't total. Josephus gives an account of parts being spared (Wars 7.1.1). John's reference to the location of the (demolished) Sheep Gate and the pool (which wasn't filled in till centuries later) remained accurate even after the Roman conquest.
this poisonous fiction of unbelievers that john was written post 70 must stop. vatican folio #140 was known to have been a complete copy of the gospels in aramaic written during the 3rd bishop of edessa and the scribal colophon dated it to the year 389 of the greeks, i.e., 78 ad.
furthermore, the comment of john about peter, after the resurrection, by the sea of galilee, implied that the writer knew of peter's death during the neronian persecution. moreover, the olivet discourse is the only section missing vis a vis the synoptics. but just as luke was a 2-volume work, john became a 2-volume work consisting of the gospel and revelation. the lack of a report on the destruction of jerusalem is the greatest omission of all. this means that the gospels and revelation were written in a condensed period between the great fire of rome 18th july 64 AD and the start of the neronian persecution in 64 to before the death of nero in the spring of 68. taking practical and realistic logistics forensically and the profile of the two books, you can deduce that revelation was written after news of the death of peter and paul was confirmed and hearing the news of the first jewish war, most likely after april 67 AD when vespasian landed 4 legions in ptolemais to execute the war. it is more naturally probable that as a prominent leader of the christian church that john was exiled much earlier during the reign of nero. why? because the gematria of nero is evident from the manuscripts identifying him as the 666 and 616. it is quite moronic to warn and prophesy against an event that has been completed already
@@davethebrahman9870 the internal evidence points to it, it is more consistent with history, and early narratives can be reconstructed to disambiguate the most probable sequence of events. This same methodologies are applied to writings about caesar, alexander the great, socrates, and other ancient personalities with much later attributions. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander
@@davethebrahman9870 the internal evidence of the text points to the lack of recording the destruction of the temple. Contrast that to the epistle of barnabas that was written after the fall of Jerusalem. The testimony of a completed prophecy in the book of acts is also very indicative.
@@davethebrahman9870 one can reject any concept if they try . Are you an athiest?
I just read john for the first time this is surprisingly coincidental 😂
No such thing as coincidence 😉
What do you think of Witherington’s argument that the gospel of John was possibly finally edited/compiled by John (or one of the early church John’s) but are primarily the recollections of Lazarus - the only one the narrative tells us is the disciple Jesus loved? Witherington explains here: th-cam.com/video/zTx6A2pncIY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=z9LgaQ2REewHPTZY
It was written before 70AD.
Paulogia's been real quiet since these bangers dropped...
If he “refutes them” there are only so many arguments he can make.
@@OrthodoxJokerassume naturalism is true, make fun of Christians, say "because the bible says so" when a Christian makes a good point. That's his playbook.
@@rayhanakram9912 imagine making a TH-cam channel as your life goal to promote meaninglessness and nihilism. Hey guys it’s Paul here! Let’s remove the religion that gives people purpose by stawmanning us based on a heretical evangelical view
@@OrthodoxJoker yes more nihilism yes please, keep misquoting Niche keep spreading depression and a departure from foundational principles ⚛️⚛️⚛️
@@OrthodoxJokerThe fact that you want life to have purpose and meaning does not in any way support the claim that Christianity is true. It only proves that you want life to have purpose and meaning. You can give your own life purpose and meaning without depending on a religion of questionable veracity.
Hello there and I hope you can read this. Can you react to the videos of "Biblical Unitarian" ?. They make videos disproving the Holy Trinity.
They don't make videos _disproving_ the Trinity; they make videos _disputing_ the Trinity.
So the author was over 100 years old?
@@lylez00 no, many historians believe that some of the original 12 disciples were around 15-21. Of John were on of those people, then he would of been around 70 or 80 when his Gospel was recorded
Btw the church says it's John The Son Of Zebidee
Church also says the Pope holds the authority of God on earth. Do you believe that as well?
Which church? The Catholic Church does not dogmatically teach John Son of Zebedee, simply "John". The John Mark or John the Elder theories are acceptable in Catholicism. I'm not sure about the East.
Considering all of the eyewitness details in John, I seriously doubt that it was actually the last Gospel account written. An eyewitness narrative? Most definitely!
GUN STUFF. Thanks. By the light of Spirit John - close disciple of Jesus Christ - certainly wrote the Gospel of John
Atheists are NOT gonna like this 😂
You're a clown, theres NOTHING NEW here. Just delusion trying to propose invalid arguments in an attempt to validate their delusion. john DOESN'T accurately portray the historical jesus. It is FICTION, period.
@@FollowAtheism-wk7jy😂 lol. That would mean that you do know what the "historical Jesus" was actually like. The search for the ipsissima verba has largely failed however. The historical Jesus is the Jesus depicted in the gospels. If you don't like it - tough luck. But no Christian will be impressed by the ignorant arguments of someone who gaslighted himself into believing there is no God.
@@MrSeedi76 Quote: *"That would mean that you do know what the "historical Jesus" was actually like."*
Response: bart ehrman and others such like him present the most rational take on the historical jesus, which is a man who advertised that the end was going to come DURING THE 1ST CENTURY and that to get into it would be to do good works and follow the torah.
@@MrSeedi76 Quote: *"The historical Jesus is the Jesus depicted in the gospels."*
Response: WRONG, only certain parts of gospels do that. The parts which show him to be apocalyptic, advertising a 1st century end, upholding torah, etc.
John CERTAINLY is by far fictitious, because jesus certainly isn't some word made flesh or whatever. Among other things. And he definitely wasn't born under some star, no roman authority made it a big deal to find him as an infant and "exit him", and there is no evidence of some nationwide census either!
Quote: *" If you don't like it - tough luck."*
Response: No if YOU don't like the fact that the source of your silly beliefs is demonstrable and clearly absurd, then TOO BAD!
Quote: *" But no Christian will be impressed by the ignorant arguments of someone who gaslighted himself into believing there is no God."*
Response: You're conflating gaslighting with following logic and reason and EVIDENCE. I don't see you actually proving I'm gaslighting myself, you're just CLAIMING that in order to pretend TO YOURSELF that you have a good excuse for your silly belief!
I know that physics runs everything and that evolution is real and life is absurd, thats crystal clear to me. And I can present a rational argument for my case.
But there's a saying: its hard to win an argument against a smart person and IMPOSSIBLE to win against an DELUDED person!
@@FollowAtheism-wk7jy 1. Bart D. Ehrman (agnostic New Testament scholar): “The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedent. It was made up in the 18th century.”
2. Maurice Casey (atheist New Testament scholar): “The suggestion that Jesus did not exist is extremely implausible and, indeed, not worth any further consideration.”
3. Gerd Lüdemann (atheist historian): “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”
4. Michael Grant (atheist classical historian): “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.”
5. Christopher Hitchens (atheist author): “I would say that the existence of Jesus as a person, as a historical figure, is overwhelmingly likely.”
6. E. P. Sanders (agnostic biblical scholar): “There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life.”
7. Richard Carrier (atheist historian, not a mythicist): “Although I have been interested in mythicism, I do not think the case for Jesus’ existence is untenable. There is still evidence for a historical Jesus.”
8. Shlomo Pines (Jewish philosopher): “There are no compelling reasons to doubt that Jesus existed.”
9. A. N. Sherwin-White (agnostic Roman historian): “For most historians, the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted.”
10. Paula Fredriksen (Jewish scholar of early Christianity): “I think that we need have no doubt, as to the fact that Jesus existed.”
wake up ip posted!!
Jesus was here only for the Jews. He said, I have come for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Inspiringphilosophy could you explain to us why John Chrystostom says that there are missing books in the old Testament
That's an easy one. The Tanakh mentions several boos that no longer survive. Like the Book of Jasher the Righteous.
29:00
1:40
The only thing certain about the authors of the 4 gospels is that we have no idea who they were, the content of this video notwithstanding. All 4 gospels are anonymous. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were attached to them later by Ireneaus and other church fathers. So of course the church fathers, as you cite, are going to agree with one another on the authorship, but their agreement proves nothing. I highly recommend reading Bart Ehrman or watching his videos. He is a biblical scholar with few peers, and much more knowledgeable on these issues than IP.
I suggest you look into the published works of Richard Bauckham, Craig Blomberg, Peter Williams, Simon Gathercole , Gregory Boyd, and several other scholars who argue for traditional authorship of the Gospels - people with better credentials than Bart Ehrman...
Furthermore, John was written around 90 AD, 60 years after Jesus died. John the son of Zebedee would likely be dead by then, or a feeble 90 year old at best. And he was a fisherman. Fishermen in those days were illiterate. The gospel of John was written in greek in a sophisticated style. John would not have known greek and again, he was almost certainly illuterate even in his own language. So the consensus of biblical scholars, including most Evangelical scholars, is that John was not the author of this gospel and the actual author was not an eyewitness.
John's father Zebedee had multiple hired servants - he was middle-class at least.
@@QCMPI'm not sure there is any evidence for Zebedee being "middle class" but it would not matter even if he were. John was a fisherman. Fisherman were not educated in those days. They didn't go to school until age 18 and learn Greek. They began their career as fishermen when they were children. So they were almost entirely illiterate.
"This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true"
The "we" are the group of people who wrote it. They are not John. Hence it is tail written by different people, no lt Jonh himself, whoever he is.
Paul's letter to the Romans names a scribe at the end. It could be as IP explains, a historic literary device to switch to third person plural, or it could be the scribes, but it doesn't mean John wasn't present or composing the gospel.
@@telephonebear21 It is interesting to see, how you need to go outside the text, twist and bend the reality to fit it in your dogmas. An honest reading of the text does not give you that.
@@celiopessoajunioran honest reading of the text as you put it still points to the disciple as being the one who wrote it as it says that the disciple *who*witnessed these things and *who*wrote it and the "we" verify his testimony
Also adding proper context for understanding how literature was written and understood in a certain time period isn't twisting or bending it
If anything only using the modern style of writing and understand to understand a work written in the 1st century would be twisting and bending it