AgnosticBoy
Open-minded Skeptic
It was easy to follow, but I agree with you that scholarly sources would be more reliable.Your supporting evidence is a YouTuber named Paulogia. Not a recognized Bible scholar or theologian. A YouTuber. I'm sorry, I just cannot place much faith in a random YouTuber who claims to be a former Christian when such a being does not exist.On this I remember it’s the YouTube publisher “Paulogia” who likes to describe himself as “a former Christian looking at the claims of Christians.”
Here is a site with supporting evidence for John being the author. And this is an actual theological academic site: https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-the-gospel-of-john
Here's a short article with an easy answer on this topic... from the Biblical Archaeology Society:
Yet only one—the Gospel of John—claims to be an eyewitness account, the testimony of the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved.” (“This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true” [John 21:24]).
We do know that John is a gospel apart, however. Early Matthew, Mark and Luke are so alike in their telling that they are called the Synoptic Gospels, meaning “seen together”—the parallels are clear when they are looked at side by side.
...
John, however, does not include the same incidents or chronology found in the other three Gospels, and the fact that it is so different has spurred a debate over whether John’s Gospel is historical or not
I will also look for a source that's pro-Christian but still a good source.