Historical Evidence in John That Skeptics Ignore

[@TestifyApologetics]

Here is the Amazon link to Lydia's book on John. amzn.to/4dcCIRj She covers a lot of objections to the reliability of John as well, be sure to check it out.

[@paulblase3955]

Sigh. Another book to get for the shelf! (I already picked up Ramsey's and Smith's books). Keep 'em coming!

[@paulblase3955]

@@Michelle-Davis And your evidence for that is? Of course John, like Luke, had the Gospel accounts of Matthew and Mark available.

[@thomasprice1320]

Why do ppl systematically love to attack authors of the Bible? The Scriptures are written for spiritual ppl and not for those who think their intelligence surpasses that of Almighty YHVH. For God uses the basest of ppl to confound the wisdom of the wise in their own conceit. John not only wrote 4 books of Scripture, he penned the book of Revelation dictated by Yeshua Messiah Himself. You who think you are so scholarly are really quite inane! I once knew a theologian who preached from his brain and not from the heart. This is the scholarly approach to Biblical truth. They don't really know the truth.

[@thomasprice1320]

@bassguitar-oe8mk Yes he did. Why do you say he didn't? Revelation chapter 1 says that John was given revelation directly from Yeshua Messiah.

[@thomasprice1320]

@bassguitar-oe8mk Yes John wrote Revelation as a scribe. He got direct Revelation from Yeshua Messiah. Why do you say that John never wrote the book of Revelation?

[@bobbymann101]

I love how thoroughly the Bible has been studied for generations, yet there is no credible scholarship that can debunk it. No other religious text comes close to holding up under even half the scrutiny.

[@solelysoul8543]

How does it help in spirituality.

[@valkyrestudios416]

This is true, even the Quran which is only written by one man, copies off the Bible, and is much shorter. Even that book crumbles tremendously under the scrutiny that the Bible faces Not a single historical account is held to a higher standard than the life of Jesus, you could show historians a 4k recording and they still wouldn’t believe you

[@solelysoul8543]

The user manual of my earlier mobile was thoroughly written. No other mobile manual came close to holding up under even half the scrutiny. No scholar, credible or otherwise, could debunk it. I thoroughly studied the manual and I totally believed it. Disgusted with the working, I threw it in the dustbin. There is many a slip between the manual and the product. I don't believe anymore. I am not an atheist. I came across another product which said, the proof of the pudding is in eating it. Scholars may debunk it. It may not withstand even 1% of scrutiny. What I care. My product is great. But, yes. My earlier manual was great.

[@oscarfabi_]

@@valkyrestudios416 Of course they won't believe "In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2 Corinthians 4:4. They could literally see the Lord Jesus Christ and not believe, as the unrepentant scribes and people at our Lord's time on earth.

[@logicianbones]

@@solelysoul8543 It helps to not die.

[@suge6969]

300 views in 1 mins. Crazy that thats basically a whole village. Keep up the grind bro

[@TestifyApologetics]

Some sneaky people saw it early, as well as a handful of legit channel members and patreon members

[@noahalban6384]

@@TestifyApologeticsyour channel has been exploding recently and I’m so glad! By far the most underrated apologist. Keep up the amazing work, I can tell the Holy Spirit guides you🙌🏽

[@AndyZach]

Now 1379 in 1 hour. I love this channel.

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@TestifyApologeticsTestify - I've said this before but as a fellow believer-in-Jesus I've got to commend you again for your constantly lifting up our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ. And honoring him by using your heart & mind & strength to do so. I don't mean to Proverbs 29:5 you but you have, imo, absolutely the best apologetic channel on showcasing the Bible's historicity. Please continue your manner of research which I consider refreshingly independent & creative. You don't strike me as someone just parroting what others have said. > Good work brother! Shalom

[@TheGreatLlamaJockey]

9000 views is basically a small town

[@kitturtle6629]

It's my personal opinion that because secular scholars seem to have so much beef with John's Gospel for some reason, it is indeed the strongest of the four.

[@kiwisaram9373]

To be honest scholars have to say something outrageous otherwise they are nothing and have to get jobs.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

Secular scholars like Origen? The guy who assembled the Greek Old testiment? read his comment. The criticism of John came from the beginning, Iraneaus found the text amoung several gnostic codices of the late first century. The text resembles so other writings like the secret sayings. Moreover some secular scholars like James Tabor thinks the gospel of John brings back facts that the author of Mark got wrong (I.e. he just lied and made stuff up). The gospel of John is written in layers and the author of Each layer had a literary agenda. If you want a full discussion of the matter in a Christian context look up Gospel of John Lectures by John Homer at Centerplace YT channel. My opinion is the third layer, the beloved disciple layer, which sort of finishes off the major body of the work was a strictly elect text for Christian mystics in the late revolt period. It was not intended for mass consumption. It became so when protoorthodox started reading into the text their worldviews during the 3rd century. If you really want to understand the text, you need to understand Philo of Alexandria and the evolution of Middle to Neoplatonism within the context of Asia Minor at the end of the first century. It also would not hurt to understand hermetic philosophy of the period and the Bacchic and Alusenian cults. The gospel of John fixes obvious errors Mark made in the writing of his passion narrative, but it also adds a lot of fictive narrative. None the less, for what the gospel is attempting to do I rank it up there with Luke in terms of narrative style and literary skill. Some people praise the abrupt ending of Mark, but I see this only as Mark struggling to create a pejorative against the Jerusalem followers. The problem with John that clearly needs to be stated is that it is, in its second layer, mostly anti- Semetic rhetoric. The gospel of John is a mystical doorway, for those who are careless it’s a doorway to delusion. Take heed of the warning of Rabbi Akiva, diving into heaven carries risks.

[@ajs3122]

Although John is my favorite of the gospels I’d argue they all serve their purpose: Matthew: to prove all the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, Mark- to display the works of Jesus, Luke- To show the gospels to non-jews, and John- him being in Jesus’ innermost circle showing more details on his works. That’s why all of the gospels explain different details

[@TheCatholicNerd]

​@@kiwisaram9373" You've never worked in the private sector, they expect results"

[@Fede_uyz]

Love how every other religion has to DEAL WITH history (mormonism, islam, buddhism), Christianity just keeps being proven true at every turn with history.

[@pislikeller]

especially Islam lol, muslims cannot get their religion to make sense at the most elementary level without engaging in historical conspiracy theories.

[@paulblase3955]

John's Gospel account was primarily written as a defense of Jesus' deity against the Gnostics, which is why it has the overall format and emphasis that it does.

[@stephengray1344]

Is there any reason to believe that gnosticism existed as early as the first century?

[@jerrybessetteDIY]

@@stephengray1344 Yes. Early forms of it.

[@HartyBiker]

​@stephengray1344 it seems in some of Pauls writings (Colossians if I recall) that Paul is addressing some early Gnosticism. It's likely that some middle eastern spiritualism adopted Christian ideas and began to blend them in a pluralistic way which became Gnosticism, but I'm speculating.

[@RC15O5]

@@stephengray1344 Book of Acts, Peter finds and rebukes a charlatan cult leader named Simon the Magician, or Simon Magus. While it's closely aligned occultist persuasion Hermeticism predates Simon Magus, the formula of Gnostic thought originates from Simon Magus and his lover, who he justified sleeping with by concocting doctrine right there about how his lover is the incarnation of Gnosis that was hidden by deceiving angels. After Peter humiliated him and many of his followers in Judea left him, Peter would later find Simon Magus in Rome where he had adapted his cult into saying that he was an incarnation of the river Tiber (which the heathens saw rivers as being living lesser gods). Here in Rome, Peter rebuked him again. Far later some medieval legends describe the second encounter between St. Peter and Simon Magus as being like some big anime battle between holy divinity and evil magic that was even fought between the two in the sky, but this is absurd just like the Song of Roland's great battle of the world at the end of that story.

[@RC15O5]

@@stephengray1344 Also, St. John began what would become his Revelation by writing letters to the Asian churches to rebuke them for falling into gnostic heresies, before an angel appeared and commanded John to unthinkingly write down everything that would be shown to him.

[@ultramarinechaplain88]

Hits after hits move the skeptics goalposts further and further back

[@mgvilaca]

They gonna start hurting the fans in the stands at this point

[@F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w]

You don't see many of them in the chat nowadays. Just the random troll. They don't have much of a leg to stand on.

[@F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w]

@@Greyz174 how did you get all that from me talking about anti christian comment trolls ... you know that's what we mean by "skeptics" right ... the ones that come at us with multiple debunked "gotcha's" in an attempt to fire dopamine responses that have long since been fried by short form video's and excessive masturbation.

[@retrictumrectus1010]

I hope these so-called skeptics finally realize that they are moving goalposts and the reason is their faulty lack of coherent methodology in assessing the evidence. Goalposts won't move if they have a coherent and objective way of assessing evidence.

[@fgamez1857]

😆 ... Know the Truth. Love the Truth. The Light is The Truth. The Light guides you and enables one to see and see also the dark. The Light overpowers darkness . He is The Light . The Light of the world 🌎. JESUS.

[@danielwestlund6172]

There's also the bit about how John seems to have been either in or very familiar with the high priest's household, and calls out Malthus by name (the guy who got his ear cut off). Thanks for these videos, and for pointing out Lydia McGrew's book.

[@potatopoison1130]

Whats your opinion on the guard at Jesus' tomb who "didn't see" the Stone move

[@potatopoison1130]

@thomasprice1320 they weren't tho. Guard duty is legit made for you to stay awake. Usually 4 hour shifts

[@kiwisaram9373]

Matthew 28:2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

[@ggpt9641]

The Gospel of John is a favorite because its different in many ways. The drive for knowledge, truth, the many conversations Jesus has with people. John also loved Jesus so much he was the only disciple at the cross and even got an order from his Savior. "Son, behold thy mother. Mother, behold thy son." It is thought John was later writing his material because he had the mother of Jesus to care for, and who should criticize care for the mother of Jesus?

[@ultimatespidybawlz2198]

It’s possible that John could have also wrote the book of revelation while he was exiled

[@Simon-1965]

Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonades. NIV The use of the word 'IS' as opposed to 'was' suggests a pre AD70 date for authorship.

[@AndyZach]

Could be. Or it could be old notes of John, pre-70, that were compiled into the gospel in the 80s-90s for the Ephesian church. That's what the contemporary historian Piapas said.

[@Simon-1965]

@@AndyZach that's a bit of a straw man argument. Take into account the cost of writing materials and the lifestyle of the author then understand how far fetched your point is. Bless you.

[@thadofalltrades]

@@AndyZach that still makes the source material of John's Gospel pre-70 and means John is the primary source who was an eyewitness of the events.

[@MrMortal_Ra]

I wouldn’t say that the entirety of John from this passage should be dated pre-70, as John seems to be aware of the death of Peter which took place sometime in the mid or late 60s. And John also seems to be somewhat aware of the destruction of the temple, from his recurring emphasis on Jesus being the new temple. However, those two points do not discount a pre-70 date for earlier sections of John. So your cold hold to a middle position if you will.

[@annemurphy9339]

@@MrMortal_Ra. Simply understanding the gospel is enough to repeatedly refer to Jesus being the new temple, sans any knowledge of the literal second temple destruction.

[@CDiPaola04]

Your recent videos on the gospels have been some of the most compelling I've ever seen on this platform. I really enjoy the way you make the information easily digestible and referenceable. Please continue to make these if your heart desires it, because these videos are doing lots of good for people, both believers and non-believers. God bless you!

[@Pyr0Ben]

Watching this is much more interesting than studying for my physics exam in 6 hours :D

[@ruanlabuschagne452]

Have been there, good luck brother :), be faithful in your studies, it will all work out if you apply yourself.

[@ItsJustAdrean]

Well, to be fair you'll only need physics as long as you work in a related field. But as long as you're breathing, you need the peace of Jesus Christ!

[@Pyr0Ben]

@@ItsJustAdrean Update: I got an 80! 🥳🥳

[@Pyr0Ben]

@@KenCunkle I'm gonna be a civil engineer, so I'll at least need physics 1

[@ItsJustAdrean]

@KenCunkle We *think* it corresponds to reality. Nothing in all of science is 100% mathematical proof, except of course mathematics. We still don't have 100% certainty of the big bang or the theory of relativity. We just have 95+ percent certainty. But we have the same amount of proof for the fact that people come back from the dead occasionally and report facts that are verified by 3rd parties, such as what instruments were used during their surgeries, a shoe out on a windowsill, or what a nurse was wearing on her wrist, their family was doing 5 miles away, all while clinically dead. There are hundreds if not thousands of these reports. If that doesn't open your mind to question everything you thought you knew, I don't know what will. It's called veridical perception NDE phenomenon. And if that's happening to folks when they die, I reckon I better start investigating the things, i.e. faiths, that have something to tell me about what happens when I die to narrow it down. Jesus just happened to have the most weight of evidence for his claims.

[@riverwildcat1]

You’ve found a truly deep groove in these well-worn NT Gospels; a profound insight we’ve never heard before. Keep up the great work! 🦁

[@Greg4510able]

So glad I just discovered this channel. Great work man, God bless you.

[@Lurkingdolphin]

Thing I love about Erik is how funny he is but how humble he is .

[@JoshFederico]

My the Lord Jesus continue to bless you and you’re work. Amen ❤

[@dw3403]

The Jews at that time understood what he was saying. The scriptures were called Gods word. John was reinforcing to those who had not seen Jesus (as a witness) that the word became flesh and walked among us. Jesus told the pharisees they search the scriptures and think they have found eternal life. Yet the eternal one was right in front of them. The one they should have been looking for.

[@Mattwatch5]

I am a subscriber to many channels…but only Testify do I drop everything and click play immediately!

[@Crazychickenlady448]

I don't know exactly why or how you showed up in my feed, but by God's great grace and blessing, you did! I am studying the book of John now (in Bible Study Fellowship, if anyone is curious, though we're currently wrapping up the study. A study on Revelation is coming this fall) and these topics have come up in our discussions. I'm absolutely going to share this video with my friends in the class. Thank you for the work and research you put in to make this content possible, it is truly a blessing! ❤

[@MrOrtmeier]

Thank you. That was great. Tbh I personally think John's gospel is the best of all and it's so rich with spiritual understanding that it's incredible. Only John hones in on the spiritual aspect of Jesus' life and teaching. In just 2 sentences he describes the nature and origin of Jesus. Yet scholars are still arguing to this day as to whether he is God or not, how He came into being, whether He was a man or God/man, whether He had a virgin birth or not etc. John 1:1-2 answers so much and all the rest of it is filled with spiritual understanding. I love John. He's my favourite disciple.

[@georgehart8179]

John put into his gospel only what he personally saw or heard. In 2 cases, John relied on reliable witnesses; cousin of man whose ear Peter cut off who told John that Peter did deny that he knew Jesus and Mary of Magdalene who told John and Peter that the tomb in which Jesus was placed was empty. One third of John's Gospel, chapters 13 through 19, was about the one day Jesus was crucified (using the Jews' way of determining days- from sundown to the subsequent sundown). John made it abundantly clear that Jesus was truly a man who turned out to be the Jews' Messiah. John said that he saw, touched, heard, and dearly loved Him.

[@jonathanwu6508]

Loving this series so much

[@lsixty30]

You’re a blessing to the message of Truth.

[@Edwin38397]

Perfect timing!

[@donpanco9659]

Support from munich! Keep up the good work!

[@NathanSletner]

Two videos in, and I’m subscribed. Thank you for this.

[@DanielFernandez-jv7jx]

Thank you for this and for the reading recommendation. I will be following your channel.

[@ryanparris1021]

Hit after hit brother. We ARE getting a lot out of this series. Thank you glory to God!

[@godsgospelgirl]

Love hearing some apologetics for the Gospel of John!

[@itsnevertoolatetodotherigh3271]

Just found yr channel, and am liking it so far ama binche watch a bunch of yr videos ...

[@TCM1231]

Thank you for all the catechesis work you do, sir you’ve helped me remain Christian and I thank you

[@dennisravndal]

I really love the content you have been making, has helped me alot

[@ItsJustAdrean]

You're doing great! Keep it coming!

[@FreeLevant-b1d]

Happy to see your last few videos having a great bump in viewership.

[@telosbound]

Incredible work lately

[@PrimitiveChristian-m3p]

Hey you're doing great, man! Keep it up!

[@CooperTheGoosebumpsGuy]

Amen keep up the great work 👍🏻❤

[@thatscrawford]

Keep these up bro

[@thomaswayneward]

John is the most mature Gospel and yet it has some of the earliest sayings and hymns of Christianity. The first five verses in John are an example of early sayings or hymns. The book of John and 1st John should be read together.

[@leopardone2386]

No need to elaborate, subbed.

[@bretiker7868]

same

[@HartyBiker]

This stuff is a goldmine. Thanks brother

[@carbiv]

Thank you for making these videos that teach the Bible and strengthen my faith. I haven't been to church in a while but I am grateful to you and others online for making content like this that has brought me closer to God.

[@Sjsg68]

Moreover, John's topography of Jerusalem is very good, his description of Jewish customs and holidays surpasses Mark's, his description of Pontius Pilate's location, and his relationship between Ananias and Caiaphas are much more precise than the Synoptics. As for the claims of divinity in John, the matter is very clear even in the Synoptic Gospels. When Jesus’ ministry is in Galilee, he almost avoids any claims of divinity or even Messianicism, but in Jerusalem he unleashes himself. Even the Synoptic Gospels record Jesus’ statements in Jerusalem as highly Christological. Like Hosea, son of David, where Jesus compares himself to Jehovah in the Old Testament, but because the Synoptics do not focus on any service in Jerusalem (except for Holy Week), it is natural not to see claims of divinity, because Jerusalem is the city from which Christ must depart, all of them. “The Christs” in Josephus almost performed their greatest work in Jerusalem because it was “the city of the great king.”. For philosophical naturalists, what's wrong with calling a Jewish person God? Doesn't everyone believe the story of Marcus Gaul, who revolted and claimed to be God shortly after Jesus? Otherwise, your admission that Jesus claimed to be God gives a realistic explanation to the question of why the theological doctrines around Jesus reached a very strange form in the following centuries. I mean, if Jesus was only a crucified Jew, then why do we enter into theological depths about his heavenly relationships?

[@lemonsvcuts56]

Thank you for helping us understand our god and the people he chose

[@sophiacristina]

Times.goes and goes and the gospel shows to be legit everytime. Yet skeptics are going to be stubborn in not seeing how many times they got wrong and PRAY with big FAITH that the 0.0000001% part of the bible that we can't have evidence is a lie. Which is very unlikely that something that never lied until now would be lying in the minimal just because it sounds absurd for skeptics.

[@AndyZach]

The Bible is like an anvil and the critics are hammers. Over thousands of years many hammers have been worn out but the anvil is still here.

[@sophiacristina]

@@AndyZach loved this analogy! :)

[@PastPresented]

Except what John does is use a mass of circumstantial details, including many which would be known to readers, to proclaim that it's absolutely authentic. That's a known forgery technique, providing plenty of trivial details the reader knows to be true so that they assume other details which they haven't encountered before (because they are entirely fictional) are also true.

[@sophiacristina]

@@PastPresented But the amount of factors for that would be very very unlikely. As far as i know, nobody did such "scam" at that level. You need to push to unbelievable levels that this is a lie. Especially at that time that would be hard for them to hold up too much lies in their memory and still make connections to one and another factors. You are just stubborn.

[@PastPresented]

@@sophiacristina I'm thinking of oddities like the chronological relocation of the Cleansing of the Temple and the Miraculous Catch of Fish, both of which are far less plausible than the Synoptic accounts, but feature otherwise unrecorded "eyewitness details" like the whip, and the number of fish.

[@camillewilliams3185]

There are a lot of things in scripture that we may not understand but that's no reason to distrust scripture. And seeing achaeology back up biblical accounts, we can indeed have faith and confidence in a scripture.

[@alfgand8040]

On the water theme... Consider the water coming out of Ezekiel's temple... and the water flowing from Christ's side. Also, when Christ was twelve years old (12 tribes' time fulfilled), He was lost in the Temple for 3 days and He was teaching Scripture. After being found there, He says: "didn't you know I must be about my Father's?" and proceeds to leave to Galilee. But after being lost in the Sepulcher, on the third day He was also teaching Scripture in the road to Emmaus. And He was found in the breaking of the bread. So 3 steps: 1. Being lost in Temple or Sepulcher (both are similar, since the old religion leads to death) 2. "Opening up Scripture" 3. Being found and moving out, towards Galilee of the gentiles. Because the sacrifices ("His Father's") no longer take place in the Temple (specially after it being destroyed) The sacrifice went out from to Temple (even Calvary is outside the city walls), to the gentiles (symbolized by fish in Ezekiel and elsewhere), and takes place in every Holy Mass.

[@TheStarshipGarage]

Another awesome video

[@jamessheffield4173]

Irenaeus and Tertullian recorded that Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus Florinus I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse - his going out, too, and his coming in - his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.-Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1. Irenaeus who was a Greek

[@KalonOrdona2]

"boop! go wash!" hahaha!

[@markpolo97]

The nonsense about dismissing John because the final form of the book was later than the others is just that, nonsense. There are so many of these details that point to an eyewitness account that you really have to bend over backwards to ignore it.

[@robertsettipane9805]

Excellent!

[@Justsomeguy42069]

Wait till he reads the Odyssey and discovers how many locations from that story are in the real world. Skeptics mention these things all the time, one thing that makes fiction more fun and realistic is using exhausting people and locations to make it relatable.

[@CoderMedia]

That's just the Spider-Man straw man...

[@sjappiyah4071]

The crying wojack at 1:48 😂😂😂 Great analysis

[@lordbebech]

This was pure GOLD😂

[@thetastybacon21]

After so many videos watched, yours and InspiredPhylosophy and many others, i can tell that my faith grew much more stronger. Thank you very much

[@nobodyknowsme3324]

Forgive me Lord

[@MatthewChenault]

The detail concerning Bethany being “nigh on Eight Furlongs” from Jerusalem is also relevant to the narrative because - at that point - Jesus has already become a wanted man in Judea for his actions at the temple. This is a major concern for the disciples for they knew about this. However, it’s Thomas who decides to follow along, even though he’s expressing his doubt on whether they will live or not. So, for the narrative, the fact Bethany is less than two miles from Jerusalem is extremely important to convey just how deep in danger they are.

[@benabaxter]

The portico thing may indeed have allegorical meaning. It's just written into history, not merely as a literary device.

[@Joe-bx4wn]

Thanks for the golden nuggets.

[@mgvilaca]

I found your channel on Easter Sunday and since then it's been growing on views and followers at a rocketing rate. This is so great to see. God bless you Erik!

[@samuelcallai4209]

So good! Unfortunately, I don't understand everything you say. Not sure if its a microfone/setup problem, a diction problem or unusual slangs for me, since I'm not a native English speaker. So it's sometimes hard for me to watch without subtitles. Just wanted to give you that feedback, maybe it can help. I can understand other people speaking in English very easily, though.

[@michaelhaywood8262]

Bethany is now within the boundaries of modern Jerusalem, so is Ein Karem, birthplace of John the Baptist. [I visited the Holy Land in 1999].

[@rayhanakram9912]

very nice

[@aliciadupuy9228]

Wow. I love this!!! I don’t suppose you are gonna do this for the whole bible?

[@jabohabo3821]

Seems to be desperation by people who deny John because his is the first to show the importance of baptism. John 3:5

[@mgvilaca]

Who gave all thse skeptics a platform?

[@YeshuaIsTheTruth]

It's interesting that Jesus was teaching his wisdom in Solomon's portico since Solomon was known for his wisdom. (But Yeshua/Jesus gave Solomon that wisdom).

[@donjezza]

Love the portico one! The false dichotomy of John being either 100% true or 100% fiction is always worrying though

[@ieattwiceaday4116]

When is the kitchen sink installation video dropping?

[@MarcWilliams-v9w]

John's Gospel is the greatest of all Scripture. Read it, and you will likely agree.

[@dennisravndal]

Paulogia made a reply to J. Warner Wallace related to the scribes based on the accounts of the church fathers, however paulogia says that we have no way of knowing the tradition of the scribes based on the scribes, what is your opinion about that? how do we know that history has remained the same since the death of christ to this day?

[@RyanGoutbeck]

I started with the book of john

[@ryanrockstarsessom768]

Thank you

[@RickyMasterChiefLaw]

John should also have been written before 70AD

[@wesmckenna8287]

John is my favourite

[@johnschuh8616]

Loisy was like som many miodernshs overly impressed by Modern’ science. by the process of “methodical doubt”. This ends in such things as “deconstruction”.

[@glennsimonsen8421]

Thanks!!

[@oscaralegre3683]

this is so much wisdom

[@HatsoffHistory]

Although the White Fathers site does seem to be the Pool of Bethesda, it's not completely certain. And there is dispute about whether there are remains of any porticoes/porches there. I was reading an article by Ingo Broer ("Knowledge of Palestine in the Fourth Gospel?", pp.83-90 in Jesus and Johannine Tradition) who cites a number of studies casting doubt on the earlier nineteenth century "enthusiasm" for the site. In my opinion, a better defense of John's accuracy of the five porticoes can be found in the various third/fourth/fifth century Christian writers who themselves attest to the ruins of the pool before they were completely lost, e.g. Eusebius and the Bordeaux pilgrim. It's not as exciting as archaeology, though, I grant.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Good to see you again man. Send me the papers you're mentioning. I still think it's more probable than not but I like the written evidence too.

[@HatsoffHistory]

@@TestifyApologetics Yup, good video by the way. I sent you the stuff in discord, as I don't recall your email.

[@nanettie]

I love your style

[@noelpucarua2843]

Who decided which books should and should not be included in the Bible?

[@altaccount1393]

the biblical canon was not decided on or even discussed by the council of nicea. the canon was later complied by the early church and was based on the reliability of the text and wether or not os was divinely inspired

[@noelpucarua2843]

@@altaccount1393 So what? I never mentioned Nicea. You are saying a group of human beings decided something as vital as what is, and what isn't, the word of God and you base your belief on human opinion. Now, I asked WHO decided which books should and should not be included in the Bible. You didn't tell me WHO. You didn't even show why you believe the Bible is based on the "reliability" ( who is doing the relying, and what you mean by reliability? ) of human opinions. Please name the people and tell my why they are reliable in judging God, because that is what they are doing. They are deciding what God is supposed to have said. They are putting words in God's mouth, so surely you know, or want to know, exactly who they were. You are relying on their judgment. Why?

[@altaccount1393]

@@noelpucarua2843 i said who: the early church. when i said reliability, i meant that the writings lined up with what was known: the teachings and orally spread stories of the apostles themselves, and they were led by the spirit

[@noelpucarua2843]

@@altaccount1393 You didn't say who. You said the early church. You didn't say who decided the "orally spread stories of the apostles" were real or accurate or not based on faulty memories or not just simply made up. Someone must have decided which books to include and which to exclude and you haven't named a single person. How do you know what "lined up with what was known"? Who was doing the knowing? How do you know what they did and didn't know? The very fact that someone about two thousand yeas ago claimed to "know" something while there was widespread disagreement among the people involved is an indication of pride and cocksureness. What was "known" about the nature of Christ in the first century after Christ? How do you know, and expect others to accept, that, "they were led by the spirit"? What is your evidence for that claim? I can't imagine how you would, or could, prove it. But, give it a try! You just made an unsubstantiated claim and you think it is OK to do so. Maybe those who decided which books to include in the Bible were doing exactly what you are doing, making an unsubstantiated claim.

[@kalmac6255]

I dig it. Thank you.

[@rev.stephena.cakouros948]

Spot on

[@DallyQuinYahu]

John 10 is not about Hanukkah. It’s the temple dedication of Herod. And it wasn’t really winter. It was just just before the month of Passover so it was right at the beginning of the new year. There are only two seasons in the Bible winner and Summer.

[@geraldjohnson8871]

The devil and Satan has been creating doubt ever since Jesus was Resurrected, and will continue to do so until Jesus Returns in the Last Days after Tribulation which will be Satans last chance For quite a while. AMEN. Never Doubt even a small amount when comes to God, all things are possible To them that believe. Amen.

[@thomaswayneward]

Don't worry about anything, just read your Bible and believe. You can spend your whole life "proving up" the Bible and you will get nowhere. "Blessed are those who believe but have not seen."

[@TestifyApologetics]

Jesus said that to someone who should've believed based on the testimony he was given, which is evidence not blind faith

[@thomaswayneward]

@@TestifyApologetics the Bible is your evidence, just believe it and don't worry.

[@LawofMoses]

The Narrow Gate 13 “You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell[f] is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. 14 But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it. The Tree and Its Fruit 15 “Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves. 16 You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. 19 So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. 20 Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions. True Disciples 21 “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. 22 On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ 23 But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’

[@vls3771]

I have wondered some things sbout jesus ...he was such a historical figure with many followers and theres so little solid facts and evidence what i mean is i studied anchient Egypt for a scholarship dating back up to 8000 years on ancient Egyptians and they 7:09 have So much in honour of their leaders ...carvings/ sculptures stone writings/ thousands of names and statues carved in stone and wood and gold respect to leaders and those passed ...with Christ being around only just over 2000 years ago and nothing has been found in his honour no one bothered to make anything at all? He himself was a carpenter who would have known all the other carpenters in his town no one caarved/ built/ or made anything for him ? Its reasonable to think there shoud be thousands of artifacts for him but nothing has been found .

[@altaccount1393]

hundreds of years after christ, constantine converted when the roman empire was less than 5% christian. before then, christianity was illegal and/or heavily persecuted. not only was there not a lot of christians, they were surrounded by hostility and unable to worship publicly.

[@Kridez23]

New subscriber here

[@skyr4tMusic]

This is quality stuff

[@G_Singh222]

I'm going through a doubting phase, can I ask a question ? I really need help

[@TestifyApologetics]

Sure. Also be sure to check out talkaboutdoubts.com for 1 on 1 counseling. It's free and they have a team of experts

[@G_Singh222]

@@TestifyApologetics I’m actually new in faith (3 weeks) and you do play a part in this especially responding to Bart Ehrman so I’m thankful for that but my question is: why did Jesus call a gentile woman dog when she asked for him healing her daughter ? And Jesus saying afterwards about only being there for the nation of Israel, does that mean that it’s actually all about only Jewish people ? The reason why Jesus came and died ?

[@G_Singh222]

@@TestifyApologetics and I really appreciate it, the link 🙏

[@brayanxd4547]

​@@G_Singh222i think because Jesus was sent to show himself to the jews first, and then get rejected, to fulfill the prophecies. Then, in his death, the gentiles could be saved too

[@Rebeccab215]

@Team_GreenII What ​brayanxd8442 said! Here's two cents: I think it's symbolism, He's not calling her inferior (the entirety of the gospels and NT show Jesus' character and shut down that idea). "There is no Jew nor Gentile, no male nor female in Christ." One huge controversy with Christianity from the beginning was that it was for everyone, Jewish or not. Jesus' specific mission at the time was to do miracles and teach in Israel, leading up to His death. But He was still merciful enough to help the woman. Although it wasn't His specific mission, He gave her "table scraps" of a miracle (which is still pretty good as far as those go -- no less of a miracle). I guess the quesion is why did He say He came only for Israel. Because it can seem unloving. It could be Him simply explaining the situation (btw, the disciples wanted to send the women away, but it seems like Jesus heard her out?) She seemed to understand it too, but she nevertheless asked. And he made a exception. Jesus was a man (100% God, but also man). He could only do so much (sure He did miracles, but He still willingly lived with the physical limits of a human), and He had to focus on the Jewish people for his ministry (it makes sense since He is the Messiah written in their scripture). My yapping is over.

[@stanislawrutkowski6456]

What brothers me with John is that it's the only gospel to mention raising of Lazarus. It's a big event, possibly the thing that got Jesus killed, why wouldn't any other evangelist mention it?

[@stanislawrutkowski6456]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu that's an answer i already came up with, I'd rather have a believer try to defend their standpoint

[@TestifyApologetics]

This is an argument from silence and its also addressed in the book in the pinned comment

[@stanislawrutkowski6456]

​@@TestifyApologeticsI don't have a problem with other events being mentioned in one gospel and not in another, but this just feels too big to overlook. Anyway, when it comes to the book, I'll try looking at it when i find time, although it would be nice to get a response here.

[@JM-19-86]

This used to bother me too, but there's an interesting hypothesis to explain it - protective anonymity. When the synoptic gospels were written, Lararus was likely still alive and living in Judea. We are told that the Pharisees - while they plotted againt Jesus - made plans to kill Lazarus also (John 12.10) because many were believing in Jesus on account of Lazarus' resurrection. These plans to kill Lazarus were probably shelved because the excitement surrounding Jesus own death, resurrection and ascension (which happened just a few weeks later) took center stage in the minds of everyone, and Lazarus was off the limelight. Now fast forward 20-30 years. The synoptics are being written. If they mention the raising of Lazarus it will likely bring the focus back onto him and his family and with that, the danger of getting killed by the bad guys. Jesus isn't on earth to raise him from the dead - again. So they left Lazarus out of their narratives for his own safety. By the time John was written, Lazarus was likely dead - so he is able to openly record this greatest of all miracles of Jesus' public ministry. But if you read Mark carefully, he does sort of skirt around it: --- Mark 14:3-9 And being in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, as He sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster flask of very costly oil of spikenard. Then she broke the flask and poured it on His head. But there were some who were indignant among themselves, and said, “Why was this fragrant oil wasted? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they criticized her sharply. But Jesus said, “Let her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work for Me. For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me you do not have always. She has done what she could. She has come beforehand to anoint My body for burial. Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.” --- We know from John that this woman was none other than Mary, sister of Lazarus. Interestingly Mark doesn't mention her name, but he seems to highlight her act of anointing - Jesus says that what she did will told throughout the world in memory of her. But for John we wouldn't know who this woman was and what motivated her act of devotion.

[@stanislawrutkowski6456]

@@JM-19-86 thank you for taking your time to make such a lengthy response. I feel like this hypothesis has some merit, however wouldn't it be enough to not name Lazarus, but still keep the story with vague detail? I suppose there are reasons to not put the story in at all, but i think it will never fully sit right with me.

[@DonaldFranciszekTusk]

Too chaotic imo. I can't understand it enough deep (I'm not native English speaker). It should be even more like teaching kids. But great work.

[@lordbebech]

Listen more daily, you will get used to.

[@Human-hs8sp]

Don't worry though, clear biblical texts explaining actual locations, niche behaviors of the time periods and scientific principles not known at the time is total fiction. Totally.

[@S.Sanjay-uv6mz]

New subscriber

[@ChrisMusante]

It's not 'false' but it is 'gnostic' or at least was considered so as it was not accepted until 180 AD. The 'word' or logos was a gnostic principle, which really isn't off if you look at it in the proper context. Is anything 'made' wirhout some sort of desire and then the command of the 'body' to 'do it'? Jesus is called 'Lord' and 'the word'. Read Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) for an idea as to the extent of what the Lord 'does'. What should be noticed is the obvious contrast between the things of 'works' against the things 'created'. This is why there are (2) creation stories, one is creating and the other forming (man) and making (woman). This 'duality' between Elohim and the LORD is displayed all throught ALL of scripture. Even Book of Jonah, 1 fish in the sea, and many fish on the land. Ninevah means 'House of Fish' and takes 3 days to cross. Yeah. Yeah. Pairs. Everything in pairs. Two sides. One coin. ~ 'Rain Man'

[@t8br00k36]

Did Paul meet Jesus?

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Yes, on the road to Damascus.

[@t8br00k36]

@@Berean_with_a_BThah of course. Divine revelation. 😂

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

​​@@t8br00k36 Not divine revelation but an actual encounter. Although it's unlikely Paul _met_ Jesus before the crucifixion, it's quite possible that, being a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) at the Jerusalem temple, he had seen Jesus. It's unlikely Paul was unaware of who Jesus was in a general sense before the crucifixion.

[@jperez7893]

john and revelations was a two volume book written back to back, like luke and acts. the fact that the olivet discourse is not in john gives you a hint that john was written before the neronian persecutions of 64 and revelation was written shortly after 64 or 66 with the outbreak of the jewish war and revelation was completed shortly at the end of 67

[@markaxworthy2508]

Errrrrr.........nobody disputes that John, Acts, etc., were written in a particular historical context in the 1st Century. It is the god bit that is in question. The fact that John accurately describes a piece of geography, architecture, or human activity of the time does nothing to reinforce evidence for the existence of a god.

[@Charlllot]

Plenty of people try to accuse the NT documents of being late legends not written by anyone living at the time of Jesus. They're wrong, but LOTS of internet skeptics try this argument. No one claimed that the historical authenticity of a document in and of itself determines that God exists. If that's the information you're looking for, why did you come to a video about historical evidence for the book of John?

[@markaxworthy2508]

@@Charlllot Who, specifically, says the Gospels were "not written by anyone living at the time of Jesus"? And suggesting that someone go somewhere else is just to advocate "confirmation bias". NOTHING should be unquestionable and, if one wants to be unquestioned, one shouldn't put videos up on public platforms like this with open comments sections. You are arguing against the ethos of freedom of speech, public debate and the presentation of evidence. It is an authoritarian mindset.

[@edwinasencio5727]

Historical tidbits by writers who were arguably familiar with the location and tradition suddenly means Jesus turned water into wine is also historical? As if it was impossible for the gospels to be a combination is historical and fictional elements. This is the main claim from skeptics, arguing that educated skeptics think John is entirely fictional is another strawman argument.

[@vakk985]

no dude you gotta understand that archeologists digging up this one pool totally answers for the several men who rose from their graves and of which only 2 verses were written in the bible, with no historical evidence whatsoever. I guess they were too dumbfounded to write it down, like ever

[@edwinasencio5727]

​​@@vakk985based on what i've been able to find. The pools may have acted as mikveh used for healing or spiritual purification. It was believed by jewish people that it had special properties and this was used for centuries before and after Jesus. So its fine that this place exists, the author of John was probably someone who was familiar with these places. And if you read those passages, Jesus performs those miracles in the pools (the invalid and the blind) but he doesnt use the pools at all, he tells the invalid to rise and he mixes mud and saliva to heal the blind. And in both stories they take place on the sabbath which ironically triggers the Pharasees and their antagonism towards Jesus (as apperently that was always the case). Oh and in both stories Jesus mysteriously dissapears and is not found at the moment. To use a comparison. The Ganges river is a real site that Hindus consider holy water and use it essentially as a large mikveh same way the jews used the pools. Thats like saying a Jesus character performed a miracle at the steps of the Ganges. The site is historical but the event in question can be a result of myths or legends circulating. The proof of the existence of the site bears little weight in proving the events depicted also occured. As much as Apologetics hate the analogy, this still classifies as a Spooderman fallacy. Is that not a fair argument from the skeptics side? .

[@edwinasencio5727]

​@@vakk985​​ based on what i've been able to find. The pools may have acted as mikveh used for healing or spiritual purification. It was believed by jewish people that it had special properties and this was used for centuries before and after Jesus. So its fine that this place exists, the author of John was probably someone who was familiar with these places. And if you read those passages, Jesus performs those miracles in the pools (the invalid and the blind) but he doesnt use the pools at all, he tells the invalid to rise and he mixes mud and saliva to heal the blind. And in both stories they take place on the sabbath which ironically triggers the Pharasees and their antagonism towards Jesus (as apperently that was always the case). Oh and in both stories Jesus mysteriously dissapears and is not found at the moment. To use a comparison. The Ganges river is a real site that Hindus consider holy water and use it essentially as a large mikveh same way the jews used the pools. Thats like saying a Jesus character performed a miracle at the steps of the Ganges. The site is historical but the event in question can be a result of myths or legends circulating. The proof of the existence of the site bears little weight in proving the events depicted also occured. As much as Apologetics hate the analogy, this still classifies as a Spooderman fallacy. Is that a fair argument from the skeptics side?

[@edwinasencio5727]

@@vakk985 ​​ based on what i've been able to find. The pools may have acted as mikveh used for healing or spiritual purification. It was believed by jewish people that it had special properties and this was used for centuries before and after Jesus. So its fine that this place exists, the author of John was probably someone who was familiar with these places. And if you read those passages, Jesus performs those miracles in the pools (the invalid and the blind) but he doesnt use the pools at all, he tells the invalid to rise and he mixes mud and saliva to heal the blind. And in both stories they take place on the sabbath which ironically triggers the Pharasees and their antagonism towards Jesus (as apperently that was always the case). Oh and in both stories Jesus mysteriously dissapears and is not found at the moment. To use a comparison. The Ganges river is a real site that Hindus consider holy water and use it essentially as a large mikveh same way the jews used the pools. Thats like saying a Jesus character performed a miracle at the steps of the Ganges. The site is historical but the event in question can be a result of myths or legends circulating. The proof of the existence of the site bears little weight in proving the events depicted also occured. As much as Apologetics hate the analogy, this still classifies as a Spooderman fallacy. Is that a fair argument from the skeptics side?

[@edwinasencio5727]

@@vakk985 ​​based on what i've been able to find. The pools may have acted as mikveh used for healing or spiritual purification. It was believed by jewish people that it had special properties and this was used for centuries before and after Jesus. So its fine that this place exists, the author of John was probably someone who was familiar with these places. And if you read those passages, Jesus performs those miracles in the pools (the invalid and the blind) but he doesnt use the pools at all, he tells the invalid to rise and he mixes mud and saliva to heal the blind. And in both stories they take place on the sabbath which ironically triggers the Pharasees and their antagonism towards Jesus (as apperently that was always the case). Oh and in both stories Jesus mysteriously dissapears and is not found at the moment. To use a comparison. The Ganges river is a real site that Hindus consider holy water and use it essentially as a large mikveh same way the jews used the pools. Thats like saying a Jesus character performed a miracle at the steps of the Ganges. The site is historical but the event in question can be a result of myths or legends circulating. The proof of the existence of the site bears little weight in proving the events depicted also occured. As much as Apologetics hate the analogy, this still classifies as a Spooderman fallacy. Is that a fair argument from the skeptics side?