This is why the Bible is full of depth… you can read it for years over and over and if you’re really seeking Him you’ll find new things you’ve missed before. It’s like a form of revelation. A personal revelation.
When a secular reporter asked President Reagan about the one book he'd want to have, if stranded on an island, he answered, "the Bible." The reporter didn't like that answer and immediately fired back, "Why the Bible?" President Reagan responded, "Because every time I read it, I get something new out of it." Actually, that was a slight paraphrase but you get the point.
It reminds me of easter eggs in movies. The more you watch it you start to notice little hidden things in the background and the same with the Bible the more you read it more revelations begin to reveal themselves. TC
I work in insurance and if several people witness an accident they will see it from several perspectives, it’s the same accident but all will see it differently
Sean, I just want to say, that you are a great interviewer, you asked the right questions every time. I have read Dr Licona’s book but left with so many questions after. And you truly spot on those questions, I still have some questions tho, but this interview was excellent… Dr Licona always go around the direct answers but you insisted on some particular answers… great job.
As a writer, I use the “compositional device” of simplifying all the time. As a matter of fact, the more I can distill a big scene to its essential components-the more impactful it will be! Around 30 minutes into the video they get hung up on whether the “writers knew they were using compositional devices.” And whether “ they stated that to the reader explicitly.” This is not a big deal at all. Writers craft stories all the time completely unaware that the techniques they intuitively utilize have been formalized into technical terms. In 500 years, people will look back at the 21st century and see unique patterns to our communication and storytelling that we use intuitively and unconsciously but never gave a formal name to.
The biggest issue with simplifying as an argument, is that it is not clear at all that Luke was written before Matthew. Many scholars believe that Mark was written first, then Matthew then Luke. If you entertain this theory as being true, all of a sudden instead of simplification being a trivial literary device, we have Luke adding to the story, and ret conning things that didn't quite add up in the earlier account.
@@ThespianGamrwhy does it matter what order they were written? Often times we only ever offer up the simplified version of something. Why would someone adding in the details later make any of the details untrue?
@@tonyabrown7796 While it doesn't inherently make them untrue, it certainly makes it less likely. Furthermore, if someone is using an argument that, "it is totally natural to simplify an account" it at least seems to me to be very unnatural to add details to an account particularly in this manner, where details are subtly changed. Unless, of course, they had a motive for doing so. Let's use the example in the video of the centurion going in himself, or sending someone else in. Would it not be reasonable, that if the first account had the centurion going in, and many people questioned, "Why is the centurion going in? He would have surely sent on of his men in instead." Then the later account leaving the centurion outside is a "trivially changed" but importantly now non-condradictory to what would have been expected in that time.
@@ThespianGamr my first instinctive response was to sort of agree with your point. I used to not like those seeming contradictions, and then I thought about it more and realised it was a simplistic and hypocritical way of looking at it. For example, I told my extended family that I couldn't make it to a lunch because I was going away for the weekend. I told my work that I couldn't work on Friday or Monday because I was travelling to a netball carnival. I told my husband and inlaws even more specific details so we could organise child care. In each account I added details and yet each account was true. In one account I had even contracted the time frame, just like in one of the examples from the video. With regards to simplicity, I told my netball team I was driving to Coffs Harbour....but actually I didn't. My husband drove. Yet when he gave an account to someone else he informed them that we drove up together to pick up a work vehicle and we each drove a car back. People actually make these technically untrue simplified statements all the time. In fact, I've just done another similar thing. We don't do it "all the time", we just know it means we do it often. So making technically untrue statements to communicate truth is a very common way of communicating. With regards to your point about the centurion regarding wouldn't they have asked about something like that. Maybe that was something they would have assumed and so your point is moot. Or maybe it was simplified according to the purpose as in my lunch/work example. Or maybe it was because it was a case of one person giving a more detailed account than the other. Their general consistency, together with the common use of those communication methods is why I ultimately accepted the accounts, even though I didn't want to. I don't think you have a case to say the timing of the accounts has any relevance to their veracity.
@@tonyabrown7796 For one, your "All the time" example isn't simplicity, it's hyperbole, and although in theory it should be able to he determined what writing is and is not hyperbole, for me, the mere fact that there is SO MUCH disagreement and staunch opinions about inerrency, and what is or is not literally true and what is hyperbole or metaphor etc. is what started to drive me from the faith in the first place. Inconsistencies are usually brought up to combat the claim of inerrency, and both imprecise writing that causes "trivial inconsistencies" and literally impossible to determine levels of symbolism vs literal account made inerrancy an impossible claim in my mind. Further the centurion example is one that makes sense for both accounts to be basically true, with it not mattering who went into the city, but there still examples where polar opposites are claimed, such as whether or not to take a staff, being declared absolutely do and do not in different books.
The Fourth Gospel is special. Unique and intimate in its reporting. Its flow feels like that of an admirer but one who is close...not necessarily one who is cataloguing events and a narrative but written by one who had a particular relationship with Jesus. Lazarus. The insights to Jesus' heart are told by someone who wants the reader to know Jesus as God, man and personally. This is worth exploring. Thank you, Dr. Licona and Sean McD, !
I whole heartedly agree! John wants his readers to know that Jesus is God. And that we must put our trust in Him. (There I paraphrased John 20:31). When I teach the gospel of John I do have the students explore the narratives of the synoptics to compare, however we don't try to harmonize them because they were each trying to communicate different aims. Familiarity with the gospels only helps us. In our culture we are obsessed with exactitude. I was watching a football game last night. They stopped the game to review a call. They showed the play over and over and even slowed it down in order to parse out nanoseconds and still they didn't agree that the player had control of the ball before he was pushed out of bounds. In the end they agreed that he did not have control and overruled the call. This is what we expect. No one did that in the first century. That's why we need the Holy Spirit to help us, and we need to submit our selves to the veracity of the Scriptures.
I'm more impressed by the high percentage of harmony between the 4 Gospels with each other, and with the Old and New Testaments, than with the small percentage of apparent contradictions. The high percentage of harmony suggests a "Mastermind!"
If you read the Gospels many time, pay attention, form your own. I am not sure what contradictions he mean and explaining it away. Those so called contradictios are what makes me think it is so real. The best explanations are how eyewitnesses remember. When it no longer turns to contradictions but an important point being made. I do not believe that Mathew simplified and vice versa, there are glaring differences. Using Genres as an explanation is a cop out. @ThespianGamr
@@Logic807 Then I guess it just fascinates me that people can read the same document and one can say, "Wow this high percentage of harmony helps convince me it's real." While someone else goes, "wow, these subtle differences in perspectives of 'eye witness' accounts convince me it's real."
That’s a bunch of baloney. In the old testament a profit had to be 100% accurate or they would stone him. He didn’t get away with being mostly accurate.
They didn't have audio recorders back then but Jesus and the apostles travelled to many many towns in Israel with Jesus giving the same teachings over and over again. Jesus also sent the 12 and the 72 out on their own. Presumably they knew Jesus' message well enough to repeat it on their trips. I realised after attending one particular healing evangelist's meetings frequently. Each time his message was a bit different but there was a lot of overlap and after a while I could have quoted a lot of what he said over time.
I don’t usually disagree with you Sean. Move past the inerrancy question. This WOULD undermine the resurrection, perhaps not eliminate it in total, but certainly undermine. You talked about your guest’s conversation with Habermas where he said “did Jesus rise” and then dismissed the concerns. However, without the historical record, you can’t prove that Jesus raised. The entire focus of Paul’s account in I Corinthians is to list the eyewitnesses to the resurrection, and only at the end of that includes his own interactions. Paul doesn’t hide or dismiss his own experience, but he doesn’t lead with that. He leads with the historical evidence. If our historical evidence which sits fully in the historicity of the Gospels fails, then you have no proof. At best you could say Christianity is on the same level as other religions in which some people claim to have had personal enlightenment or spiritual encounters that made their life better. Christianity sits alone on its historical record. That is why a book like this is crucial. The faith DOES hang in the balance on its historical claims.
Christianity (and scripture) isn't dependent on proof but rather trust, and even then only as given thru revelation from the holy Spirit. I believe it is true but not because it has been proven historically, but because God has opened my heart to it's truth.
I'm grateful that I was always taught to acknowledge the minor discrepancies and in fact to see them as evidence that the multiple witnesses are telling the truth. Witnesses always differ when recounting an event, always. When they don't, it's often collusion (as Wright and many others have pointed out).
@@learnenglishwithblaine9604 Try this on. I liked it immediately when I read it 25 years ago: "These stories aren't true because they're in the Bible. They're in the Bible because they are true." - Peter Gomes (I think, lol)
I believe that the three accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are different for a specific purpose. That these are each written to a specific group. Yet written simultaneously for us all. For we will encounter each group and be called to minister to them as He leads us to. Also we may move from one group to the next as we mature in our relationship with Christ Jesus!
Jim has strengthened my faith with his unique perspective. I consider him an expert in the field of "evidence.". I especially like his video... "Jesus: Person of Interest"(1:06)
At the end of this video, all I can think is it might be good to be open to whatever the simplest and most verifiable explanation may be for “contradictions,” whether it’s harmonizing or chalking it up to literary tools. I don’t feel as strongly as Mr. Licona about how much liberty we should be comfortable with to just say “oh, no need to harmonize, it just wasn’t a literal description of events/words” as a blanket assessment, but I do see where it is necessary and fruitful. (Same with harmonizing and the discussion of undesigned coincidences- it can’t explain/solve everything we don’t understand.) Synergy of *all* the interpretative tools we have is something that shouldn’t be discounted. Of course, I don’t think Mr. Licona would disagree, but it’s just a matter of degrees/how much we synergize from what I can tell. 🤷♀️ A very interesting interview all the same!
QUESTION: How do you define the inerrancy of the Bible in light of the greater differences and interpolations in our Bible today (e.g 1 John 5:7 and the “pericope adulterae”) ?
If you regard those passages as authentic, then it's a matter of modern scholars simply being wrong in their assessment (though the latter is found in most Bibles).
It is helpful to distinguish between inerrancy and preservation. Inerrancy applies to the original text not to modern reconstructed copies (or to paraphrases, bad translations and commentaries). It is however also true that the text has been preserved well enough that we know with high certainty what the originals said and what was changed or added later, which is why you know that the story of the woman caught in adultery was probably not in the original text. The fact that you know it does not undermine inerrancy. Similarly one could argue that everything that Jesus said was inerrant, but most of it is lost to time (no preservation). If you're interested in preservation perhaps look up the work of Dan Wallace. I would also recommend the work of James White for a broader understanding of how this should impact our theology.
"Inspiration" is a gift of a human-divine partnership through the Spirit. We have a process in place which allows us to get back reliably to the inerrant original, to which we don't have access. The Bible is true, trustworthy, and without error 'in everything that it teaches.' Anything the Bible claims to be true -- is true.
To understand how difference between the gospels actual verify the gospels, listen to some of J Warner Wallace's talks at cold-case Christianity. J was a cold case detective for many years in LA. He learned that authentic eye witnesses always bring out different details. So, difference tell us that we are hearing from authentic eyewitnesses.
Along the topic of scriptural genres , it would fantastic to see you interview Dr. Brad Young. Lots of work on Jesus Parables, Paul and examining the idea of a Lukan priority.
Thank goodness we have people like Licona to help us understand what is meant in John 19:35: "He who saw it has borne witness-his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth-that you also may believe" . I mean, it's not like this has anything to do with, oh, say, people being saved by believing in the veracity ("conformity to fact or truth; accuracy") of the Scriptures and what is recorded therein. That would be, like, quite important, so thank goodness such books don't do any real harm to the advancement of Christ's Kingdom.
I don't agree with Dr. Licona's conclusion (as I'm not a Christian), but there is no doubt about his knowledge and scholarship being top-notch. He also seems like a friendly and likable fellow.
Something neither of you mentioned: the Word of God is inspired (breathed) by the Holy Spirit. So how does this fit in with the issues you both raised? Some, yes, others, not so much. At least I don't understand.
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26 - Licona probably doesn't take this as being either something Jesus said and/or that there is a Holy Sprit who did exactly this.
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants." @dannylgriffin I think what you understand is all that's needed. Sometimes intelligence is a stumbling block.
20:58 Mark's gospel, chapter 1: Mark quotes Isaiah to say that Jesus's contemporary, namley, John the Baptist, was that voice crying in the wilderness, "Prepare ye the way of The Lord, YHWH" If Mark indicates that John the Baptist is preparing the way for Jesus.. Then Mark is describing Jesus as the promised Messiah of Isaiah
Sean, I agree with you about harmonization being given priority over Licona's ancient biography theory, which convinces me that my decision not to spend my time with Licona's ancient biography book was a good move. Licona's conclusion that the Gospels overlap 100% with Greco-Roman biographies falls short. Why resort to Licona's theory over harmonization?
The problem with Sean is that he is bound to the modernist framework of scientific understandings and infusing them with a particular theology of Scripture. IMO, inspiration is a theolougmemon not not be tied to a specific "technology" which grounds the authority of Scripture.
I actually don’t think Licona is arguing that the gospels represent 100% overlap with Greco-Roman biography, just that their style and literary techniques seem to echo other works of the period. If the gospel writers were trained similarly to other contemporary authors, they’d naturally employ similar techniques. Viewing the gospels through that literary lense makes good sense of the differences we see, and minimizes the amount of scriptural gymnastics needed to harmonize seemingly contradictory elements. It does engage the troubling idea that certain details of the gospels might be “made up”, and asks the uncomfortable question of how we can know what is factual and not about Jesus’ words and ministry. But, as my grandfather used to ask me in the midst of my spiritual doubts “Did the man get up?” Did Jesus rise from the dead? And the unequivocal answer from all Christians in the first century is YES. In the light of the historical bedrock of the resurrection, the minor details become less important.
I’m not sure what the point of this episode is. It sounds like he said you can’t believe what is written in John. Am I wrong on this? There’s no way I’m reading his book. I’m actually more confused now. I seriously doubt any of the Gospel authors were using any techniques .
I've had issues with some of Licona's ideas for a while. He seems to do mental gymnastics on this subject. That's not to say that he's wrong on every example, but certainly his idea of inerrancy is foreign to me.
@@sorenpx At one point in this episode, Licona does this double speak of using part of John then later he says, discard this other part. He basically said that one of the gospels is made up. Did I misunderstand?
Licona is saying we shouldn't read the Gospels as if they were written in the 21st century [style]. Licona claims the Bible is true, trustworthy, and without error in everything that it teaches. Anything the Bible claims to be true -- is true. Thus, Licona says 21st-century believers should rather read the Gospels through a 1st-century lens, in the same way/style in which 1st-century people wrote.
@@IndianaJoe0321 I get that, but that isn’t what he said here. I’ve listened again and I understand more what he was saying.. such as the, “I am”statement in John. He’s saying Jesus implied but John made the statement explicit.
Also I think it’s important when we study historical backgrounds of people that Jesus said in Mark 6:4… But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. Why do you suppose that is? The more you know about a person and their flaws in the flesh, the more difficult it is to believe. But that’s how God seems to work. He uses the unlikeliest of person for the job. He brings low the prideful and lifts up the humble.
When I was a little girl a neighbor named Mr. Dobbs took my portrait in pastels. He finished it off by putting a little, white bow in my hair. This was an accurate representation of me, but there was no actual bow in my hair, and the pastel style isn't like a photograph. But, it was me! This is how we can look at the Bible as a whole. It's an accurate representation of God, so we needn't worry so much about minutiae that does't take away from His character. Don't "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel".
Thinking about what you wrote -- and applying it to the Bible -- the Bible is true, trustworthy, and without error in everything that it teaches. Anything the Bible claims to be true -- is true. Am I understanding your example?
Papias circa 70-163 AD wrote about 100 to 130 AD in five volumes ‘Oracles of the Lord’, we only have fragments recorded by Eusebius 339 AD. Papias was an elder at Hierapolis. According to Irenaeus Papias received what he wrote from the apostle John. Eusebeus also tells us, that Papias recorded that Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew tongue, (Aramaic) and that Mark was the interpreter of Peter and wrote down accurately all that Peter mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, however not in order. Whereas Luke is often shown to be more precise concerning historical facts.
35:46 "It's okay to adapt certain characters" - The word _adapt_ is doing a lot of work there, Sean. If you mean the authors had authorial license to make their story what they wished, then sure. However, if you are going to take that position then also own up that this is undermining how most fundamentalists view the idea of inerrancy.
Licona does not seem to give any credence to the idea that God would help the apostles remember what was said (in particular, @1:13). In addition to the fact that Jesus very likely gave the same/similar speech a bunch of times, which would explain the similarities and differences in the gospel's records of Jesus' speeches. Sure, he has other arguments/examples of one-time events. But it reveals something about his view of inspiration.
I have dealt with contradictions the same way all my life. I've been reading the Bible for 65 years and have all my life believed in God's word. I deal with things I don't fully understand with FAITH. It's also what gets me to heaven. I do not have authority to disagree or doubt God's word.
If someone of a different religion used this same logic and just said “I’ve always done it this way, and when it gets hard just believe harder” I’d be saddened for them. Knowing they can never be show truth. I’d just caution you from this type of logic. Have a blessed day and if you will it a long life.
The ghost writer is The Holy Ghost!! -Acts 1:16 the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David -Acts 28:25 The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet -2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed
There is a YT video of Sean McDowell and Dr. Titus Kennedy discussing this among other things called The Archaeological Evidence for Jesus: A Conversation with Dr. Titus Kennedy.
I am genuinely puzzled by discussions like this. Do Christians ever stop to consider why such conversations are even necessary? As a non-Christian I'd just offer the observation that it is very strange that an omniscient, and omnipotent, God could make such a bad job at transmitting his message down through the decades. Most Christians would say that the Bible is "God inspired" yet it seems self-evident that a Perfect Being has done an imperfect job of transmitting his message. Can any honest Christian deny this? The stakes couldn't be higher Salvation or Damnation, yet it seems like lots of things aren't clear. Isn't it more likely that the Bible was written by late bronze age people with a limited understanding of things rather than a God? As I say, it simply puzzles me that Christians seem so willing to enter into discussions like these without first stepping back and asking themselves why they are having to do so.
I am saying this as a Christian, this shouldn’t be surprising. While God is perfect, this doesn’t mean He cannot allow humans to mess up here or there concerning the writing of the Bible. I don’t see this dichotomy the more I see beyond only “humans wrote this with no supernatural help” or “God wrote this with 100 percent perfection”. Maybe because I’m Catholic I don’t see this very Protestant-Evangelical-looking idea of the Christian scriptures.
With the help of ChatGPT, this is what I think about salvation from a Catholic position. “The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is possible for Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians, though it views the fullness of truth as residing within the Catholic Church. This understanding is expressed in several key documents and teachings: ### 1. **Protestants:** The Catholic Church acknowledges that many Protestant Christians have valid baptisms and a sincere faith in Christ. The Second Vatican Council's document *Lumen Gentium* states that those who are baptized and believe in Christ but are not in full communion with the Catholic Church are still "joined to the Church in a certain, though imperfect, way" (LG 15). This means that, while the Catholic Church sees Protestant denominations as lacking the fullness of the sacraments and teaching authority, it does not deny that Protestants can be saved. The Catholic Catechism (paragraph 818) further clarifies that those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." Salvation for non-Catholics is understood through the concept of *invincible ignorance*, meaning that if someone, through no fault of their own, does not fully understand or accept the Catholic Church but sincerely seeks God, they can attain salvation. ### 2. **Eastern Orthodox:** The Catholic Church has a closer relationship with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as both share a valid apostolic succession, meaning they have valid sacraments, including the Eucharist, and a shared tradition going back to the early Church. The Catholic Church considers the Eastern Orthodox Churches to be true particular Churches, with valid priesthoods and sacraments, and that their members can attain salvation. According to *Unitatis Redintegratio* (Vatican II), while there is a schism between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Catholic Church believes that Orthodox Christians are part of the one Church of Christ, though in a separated communion. As a result, Eastern Orthodox Christians are seen as being much closer to the fullness of the Christian faith and salvation than Protestants. In summary, the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is possible for both Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians, though it believes the fullness of salvation and truth is found within the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is possible for non-Christians, though it is understood differently than for Christians. This belief is rooted in the idea that God's grace and mercy extend beyond the visible boundaries of the Church. The Church does not teach that non-Christians are automatically excluded from salvation, but it emphasizes that Jesus Christ is the ultimate source of salvation for all people. ### Key Points from Catholic Teaching: 1. **Jesus Christ as the Universal Savior:** The Catholic Church holds that salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone. The Second Vatican Council's document *Lumen Gentium* (16) explains that "those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation." 2. **Non-Christian Religions:** - **Jews:** The Church has a special relationship with the Jewish people, recognizing that they were the first to receive God's covenant and that God's promises to them have not been revoked (*Romans 11:29*). The Church rejects any form of anti-Semitism and prays for the salvation of the Jewish people, understanding them as "elder brothers" in faith. - **Muslims:** The Church acknowledges that Muslims worship the one, merciful God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and holds them in high esteem. *Lumen Gentium* (16) states that Muslims "profess to hold the faith of Abraham," and though there are significant theological differences, they are included in God's plan of salvation. - **Other Religions:** The Catholic Church teaches that those who seek God sincerely in other religious traditions and try to live morally upright lives are not excluded from God's saving grace. The Church prays that all people come to the fullness of truth in Christ, but it acknowledges that God can work in mysterious ways in the lives of those who do not explicitly know or accept Christ. 3. **Invincible Ignorance and Natural Law:** The concept of *invincible ignorance* applies to those who, through no fault of their own, are unaware of the Gospel or the Church but seek truth and live according to their conscience. Such individuals can still be saved because they follow the natural law, which the Church believes God has written on every human heart. 4. **No Salvation Outside the Church - Explained:** The traditional Catholic teaching "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" ("outside the Church there is no salvation") has been understood in a nuanced way since the Second Vatican Council. The Church teaches that while the fullness of the means of salvation exists within the Catholic Church, this does not mean that only Catholics can be saved. Non-Christians who respond to God's grace through conscience and moral action can still receive the fruits of salvation, even if they do not explicitly recognize Christ. ### In Summary: The Catholic Church teaches that non-Christians can attain salvation if they seek God sincerely, live according to their conscience, and are open to God's grace. While the Church believes that salvation comes through Christ, it recognizes that God's mercy is not limited to those who explicitly know Him and that people of other faiths and even those without faith may be saved through God's mysterious and just ways.”
@@YTuser2019 Many thanks for your two replies. I really appreciate the trouble you have taken, but honestly I can’t understand why you should give such an extensive explanation of what the Catholic church believes about Salvation when the point I was making in my posts was that because of the very flawed nature of the transmission of the message we can't know with any degree of certainty what God thinks about Salvation, what Jesus said or did, etc. What we do have - the Bible - which contains so many errors and contradictions it would seem strange that it was inspired by a God who cares anything about truth. Even worse, the Bible portrays a God who condones slavery, commits genocide, commands genocide, instructs his people to take young virgin girls as sexual slaves, and does and says very many morally reprehensible things. I'm sorry, but it is all so obviously ancient history and mythology, nothing to do with an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. Incidentally, I do understand your point about the Catholic church being less concerned with a literal reading of the Bible, but there is just so much wrong with the Bible that no amount of well-meaning interpretation can save it To end on a positive note, there is some good news. I always tell Christians that we can all be better and more moral than their God because we can all forgive without the need for torture, without the need for a blood sacrifice of anyone’s life, without requiring that someone worship us, love us, or obey us, without making our love or forgiveness conditional upon threats of Damnation and promises of Salvation. Unlike the Christian God, we can all simply forgive.
I never understood the differences in the gospels until 2 years ago when the Lord led me to watch Alain's videos on his YT channel Ministry Revealed. This was the revelation I was missing and all my questions were answered.
I have read several Licona's books with pleasure. I partially agree with Licona's argument. However, it seems that it is not convincing that the authors of the gospel intervened in the transformation based on ancient writing techniques. If that is correct, the contents of the gospels would have taken on a much different appearance when compared to each other. As far as I can tell, it is more reasonable to think that the oral traditions and recorded materials passed on to their hands were originally slightly different than the intentional transformation of the authors or editors. (Of course, the differences could be an error in memory or a characteristic of ancient writing.) -from South Korea
Are ye all good? Lord many indeed will try to find blame nor to point fingers unto All thy New FEET! Gratitude and Honor will follow thee! Yes, remember thy given seats will follow thee!
Really disappointed to see Sean McDowell give a platform to someone (Licona) who is increasingly claiming that many parts of the Gospels are not historically accurate and who makes the false claim that the NT writers used "literary devices" rather than reporting facts. Either God's words are from him or they are not. Inerrancy is not "wooden."
They are correct and the differences are most likely from very early translations and early book writers might have made a small mistake but many of the so called differences are false.
When I say there's not enough sugar in my tea, we consider it reasonable to assume I'd like more. Yet when skeptics say there's not enough evidence for Jesus' resurrection, it's not reasonable to assume they'd like more. Interesting, but not surprising.
Logos Context ( who was it written to and their understanding ) , context( time and period), context( understanding in relation to the textual passage ). Rema- Are you interpreting with a renewed Christ mind (Godly framework) or with a sinful Adam selfserving fallen mind. Might find most or nearly all error disappears.
@ 1:38:32 So if your not sure what is cannon and your putting in "brackets" and we are learning to take it with a grain of salt then Why are writings quoted in the bible not in cannon? Your pulling at a string on a cheap sweater and guess what it is unraveling cannon.
“The Bible was not given to increase our knowledge, but to change our lives.” For it is written : “I thought to myself, “I have become much wiser than any of my predecessors who ruled over Jerusalem; I have acquired much wisdom and knowledge.” So I decided to discern the benefit of wisdom and knowledge over foolish behavior and ideas; however, I concluded that even this endeavor is like trying to chase the wind! For with great wisdom comes great frustration; whoever increases his knowledge merely increases his heartache.” Ecclesiastes 1:16-18 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. Rm 15:4
Who taught the disciples to write in this format of the ancients...they were Jews. If we remove the "divne" from the influence of the writen word...then we will question the divinity, doctrin, and teachings of Jesus. For..."He"may or may not have said that, or may have said it differently. Creating a reasonable doubt. God wanted the preservation of the Truth exactly as we have . We don't have the originals but we do have a wealth of manuscript to pull from and with out any doubt we can see the work of the Holy Spirit. If we belief that it is a spiritual kingdom then at some point we must believe that the Spirit will open our eyes to the writen truth and feed us spiritual food. Thank God for the Bible.
I kind of don't like that it does that, but then I realised I've done the time scrunch one myself this morning and regularly do the simplification thing.
21:38 In Mark 4: Jesus casts out demons and is accused by the religious authorities of doing so by the power of Beazelbub/ Lucifer. Jesus refutes their false reasoning by giving the example that robbing a powerful man can only be accomplished by binding that man first.. In short, Jesus can bind Lucifer and order demons to leave a human being.
21:32 In Mark 3, Jesus calms the wind and the waves/a storm on the sea of Galilee by simply speaking. In the old testament the creator God is the one who calms the storm.
You guys are fairly interesting, however, so pedantic that its hard to keep listening. What difference does it make who actually put quill to papyrus? When it comes right down to it, it was God who is ultimately responsible for all that was written. Things have been edited +/- . Yet the message comes through although exegesis is sometimes very helpful. Assigning what genre is this or that is irrelevant.
Luke is the only gospel writer who claims specifically that he was recording events chronologically. Jesus repeated his teachings, so it's not unreasonable to think that he could have told half a dozen would-be disciples , "Let the dead bury their own dead" since inheritance were extremely important in the ancient world. Probably Jesus told the stories stories in slightly different ways at different times. There may have been fewer compositional devices than we think.
Yes, to bring to remembrance and comfort concerning all thy shared clay FEET MIXED WITH IRON resting upon all dry grounds. GROUNDED! Honor and Gratitude upon thy shared Feet
Very interesting but I find it difficult to believe the gospel writers were schooled in these devices or even read enough ancient literature besides their Torah to be so well developed in these techniques to then write in that way. Maybe the exception would be Luke as being a doctor perhaps more educated in the classical form this would require.
There are no contradictions in the bible. The different timelines the writers witness some accounts and the individual way the writers wrote contributed to the minor perceived difference in the accounts, but the message and narrative has no difference nor discripancies.
The gospels are a COMPLETE harmony of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. No contradiction, only a beautiful 4 perspective collective , historic, Holy Spirit inspired record of first hand eyewitness, or close associates of. The synoptic gospels and John- perfectly harmonized. See Macarthur’s “One Perfect Life”
Jesus walked with his disciples over a 3 YEAR period. The amount of this time recorded in any one gospel is quite small. So we shouldn't be surprised when one writer focuses on different issues than the other 3.
I can’t believe I’m hearing this. This reasoning just seems so circular to me. We know the resurrection is true because it’s true. Well How do we know it’s true if the accounts contradict each other? It is the accounts of the gospels that tell us that it’s true and if they contradict each other then how do we know it is true?
I find it so funny that people even ask that question. So, I have a question for them: if you took a classroom of students on a field trip, and then told them all to write a paper on the experience, what would you think if they all wrote exactly, verbatim, the exact same thing??? Yeah, you’d think they cheated and copied one person’s work for their own. So technically, the fact that the stories are told from several different perspectives actually proves its authenticity. Only if someone wanted to fool people would the gospels be exactly alike. People crack me up when they don’t think these things through.
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26 - probably another thing that John (or whomever) made up about what Jesus said - so the whole Holy Spirit thing allowing the apostles to remember, just didn't happen did it.
Conversations come here in front! Lord thy Time! Many shortcomings from wrong to correct! Thy shared "i" AM awaken! Given ABLE to have SINCERE CONVERSATIONS= SINCERE ANSWERS!
I disagree with the assumption that the gospels were dictated and edited by secretaries. We know that Paul had a physical disability or chains on his wrists that at times hindered him from writing himself, but all the authors of the New Testament were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). Also, the Pharisees commented on the wisdom of these "uneducated" fisherman when they preached in the power if the Spirit (Acts 4:14), noting that they had been with Jesus. Jesus Himself promised that the words/wisdom would be given them when they needed it (John 21:15).
21:21 Mark chapter 2: Jesus heals a paralytic and then proceeds to forgive the man's sins. The act of forgiving sin riles up the religious leaders of the day because only YHWH/GOD can forgive sin.
What they mean by contradiction ,do they mean that Mathew give view of Jesus opposite of that why have Luk Marc and John and viz versa ? If no it is redicoul to say they have contradiction
@@TheDanEdwards I did but only think I got that they said scholars said ...do you think scholar they are. Jewish more than the writers...or why they bring all those myths about Jesus ...I believe in HIM you became like sheeps
2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
@@IndianaJoe0321 2315 theopneustos Theo- God Pneo- breathed out Also translated God inspired, but that’s lacking color… John 19:11 says Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” Also John 3:27 says John answered and said, "A man is able to receive not one thing if it is not given to him from heaven.
@@IndianaJoe0321 the revelations they received after Christ ascended were given to them. Knowledge and wisdom comes from our creator. The enemy copies what is already there and defiles it. He twists and bends. He is the father of all lies. For there is nothing new under the sun.
@@IndianaJoe0321 there is also ore than one heaven according to the Bible. So though something comes from heaven, we must use the gifts that God has enabled us to receive to discern that which is of Him and that which is dark.
@@josephberndt6907 wrote, "the revelations they received after Christ ascended were given to them." The Hebrew Bible was compiled long before Messiah arrived, so what is your view of the Hebrew Bible? Do you not consider that to be inspired Scripture?
Science and meteorology say what rain is and what type it is and how hard it is and how many inches there are.. You and a person from Seattle talking about rain and your opinions don't change those metrics.
22:09 Mark 5: Jesus raises the dead and cures the sick. This was only done by prophets of old who were empowered by YHWH/GOD. Jesus proves by his actions that he is not just a prophet; but, he is indeed Deity/God.
22:17. Mark 6: Jesus walkes out on water in a storm, gives Peter permission to come out to him, rescues Peter from going under, they both climb back into the boat, and then Jesus calms the storm! All of these actions can only accomplished by Deity. Specifically, by the God of the Old Testament.
This is why the Bible is full of depth… you can read it for years over and over and if you’re really seeking Him you’ll find new things you’ve missed before. It’s like a form of revelation. A personal revelation.
Amen
The Word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword…
When a secular reporter asked President Reagan about the one book he'd want to have, if stranded on an island, he answered, "the Bible."
The reporter didn't like that answer and immediately fired back, "Why the Bible?" President Reagan responded, "Because every time I read it, I get something new out of it." Actually, that was a slight paraphrase but you get the point.
It reminds me of easter eggs in movies. The more you watch it you start to notice little hidden things in the background and the same with the Bible the more you read it more revelations begin to reveal themselves. TC
funny how you christians can't agree on what your silly bible even means. So much for "revelation".
I work in insurance and if several people witness an accident they will see it from several perspectives, it’s the same accident but all will see it differently
Sean, I just want to say, that you are a great interviewer, you asked the right questions every time. I have read Dr Licona’s book but left with so many questions after. And you truly spot on those questions, I still have some questions tho, but this interview was excellent… Dr Licona always go around the direct answers but you insisted on some particular answers… great job.
Love your spirit, Sean 🙌🏻 (13:58 in the video 🤣). Great interview as always, really appreciate your channel!
As a writer, I use the “compositional device” of simplifying all the time. As a matter of fact, the more I can distill a big scene to its essential components-the more impactful it will be!
Around 30 minutes into the video they get hung up on whether the “writers knew they were using compositional devices.” And whether “ they stated that to the reader explicitly.” This is not a big deal at all. Writers craft stories all the time completely unaware that the techniques they intuitively utilize have been formalized into technical terms.
In 500 years, people will look back at the 21st century and see unique patterns to our communication and storytelling that we use intuitively and unconsciously but never gave a formal name to.
The biggest issue with simplifying as an argument, is that it is not clear at all that Luke was written before Matthew. Many scholars believe that Mark was written first, then Matthew then Luke. If you entertain this theory as being true, all of a sudden instead of simplification being a trivial literary device, we have Luke adding to the story, and ret conning things that didn't quite add up in the earlier account.
@@ThespianGamrwhy does it matter what order they were written? Often times we only ever offer up the simplified version of something. Why would someone adding in the details later make any of the details untrue?
@@tonyabrown7796 While it doesn't inherently make them untrue, it certainly makes it less likely. Furthermore, if someone is using an argument that, "it is totally natural to simplify an account" it at least seems to me to be very unnatural to add details to an account particularly in this manner, where details are subtly changed. Unless, of course, they had a motive for doing so.
Let's use the example in the video of the centurion going in himself, or sending someone else in. Would it not be reasonable, that if the first account had the centurion going in, and many people questioned, "Why is the centurion going in? He would have surely sent on of his men in instead." Then the later account leaving the centurion outside is a "trivially changed" but importantly now non-condradictory to what would have been expected in that time.
@@ThespianGamr my first instinctive response was to sort of agree with your point. I used to not like those seeming contradictions, and then I thought about it more and realised it was a simplistic and hypocritical way of looking at it. For example, I told my extended family that I couldn't make it to a lunch because I was going away for the weekend. I told my work that I couldn't work on Friday or Monday because I was travelling to a netball carnival. I told my husband and inlaws even more specific details so we could organise child care. In each account I added details and yet each account was true. In one account I had even contracted the time frame, just like in one of the examples from the video.
With regards to simplicity, I told my netball team I was driving to Coffs Harbour....but actually I didn't. My husband drove. Yet when he gave an account to someone else he informed them that we drove up together to pick up a work vehicle and we each drove a car back. People actually make these technically untrue simplified statements all the time. In fact, I've just done another similar thing. We don't do it "all the time", we just know it means we do it often. So making technically untrue statements to communicate truth is a very common way of communicating.
With regards to your point about the centurion regarding wouldn't they have asked about something like that. Maybe that was something they would have assumed and so your point is moot. Or maybe it was simplified according to the purpose as in my lunch/work example. Or maybe it was because it was a case of one person giving a more detailed account than the other. Their general consistency, together with the common use of those communication methods is why I ultimately accepted the accounts, even though I didn't want to. I don't think you have a case to say the timing of the accounts has any relevance to their veracity.
@@tonyabrown7796 For one, your "All the time" example isn't simplicity, it's hyperbole, and although in theory it should be able to he determined what writing is and is not hyperbole, for me, the mere fact that there is SO MUCH disagreement and staunch opinions about inerrency, and what is or is not literally true and what is hyperbole or metaphor etc. is what started to drive me from the faith in the first place. Inconsistencies are usually brought up to combat the claim of inerrency, and both imprecise writing that causes "trivial inconsistencies" and literally impossible to determine levels of symbolism vs literal account made inerrancy an impossible claim in my mind.
Further the centurion example is one that makes sense for both accounts to be basically true, with it not mattering who went into the city, but there still examples where polar opposites are claimed, such as whether or not to take a staff, being declared absolutely do and do not in different books.
The Fourth Gospel is special. Unique and intimate in its reporting. Its flow feels like that of an admirer but one who is close...not necessarily one who is cataloguing events and a narrative but written by one who had a particular relationship with Jesus.
Lazarus.
The insights to Jesus' heart are told by someone who wants the reader to know Jesus as God, man and personally.
This is worth exploring.
Thank you, Dr. Licona and Sean McD, !
I whole heartedly agree! John wants his readers to know that Jesus is God. And that we must put our trust in Him. (There I paraphrased John 20:31). When I teach the gospel of John I do have the students explore the narratives of the synoptics to compare, however we don't try to harmonize them because they were each trying to communicate different aims. Familiarity with the gospels only helps us.
In our culture we are obsessed with exactitude. I was watching a football game last night. They stopped the game to review a call. They showed the play over and over and even slowed it down in order to parse out nanoseconds and still they didn't agree that the player had control of the ball before he was pushed out of bounds. In the end they agreed that he did not have control and overruled the call. This is what we expect. No one did that in the first century. That's why we need the Holy Spirit to help us, and we need to submit our selves to the veracity of the Scriptures.
Grateful for Dr. McDowell’s love of God’s Word combined with how he interviews his guests…respectfully (even when disagreeing with them).
I'm more impressed by the high percentage of harmony between the 4 Gospels with each other, and with the Old and New Testaments, than with the small percentage of apparent contradictions. The high percentage of harmony suggests a "Mastermind!"
Or, now hear me out, they were written one after the other, with the next writer being able to reference the earlier document.
If you read the Gospels many time, pay attention, form your own. I am not sure what contradictions he mean and explaining it away. Those so called contradictios are what makes me think it is so real. The best explanations are how eyewitnesses remember. When it no longer turns to contradictions but an important point being made. I do not believe that Mathew simplified and vice versa, there are glaring differences. Using Genres as an explanation is a cop out. @ThespianGamr
@@Logic807 Then I guess it just fascinates me that people can read the same document and one can say, "Wow this high percentage of harmony helps convince me it's real." While someone else goes, "wow, these subtle differences in perspectives of 'eye witness' accounts convince me it's real."
That’s a bunch of baloney. In the old testament a profit had to be 100% accurate or they would stone him. He didn’t get away with being mostly accurate.
They didn't have audio recorders back then but Jesus and the apostles travelled to many many towns in Israel with Jesus giving the same teachings over and over again. Jesus also sent the 12 and the 72 out on their own. Presumably they knew Jesus' message well enough to repeat it on their trips. I realised after attending one particular healing evangelist's meetings frequently. Each time his message was a bit different but there was a lot of overlap and after a while I could have quoted a lot of what he said over time.
I don’t usually disagree with you Sean. Move past the inerrancy question. This WOULD undermine the resurrection, perhaps not eliminate it in total, but certainly undermine. You talked about your guest’s conversation with Habermas where he said “did Jesus rise” and then dismissed the concerns. However, without the historical record, you can’t prove that Jesus raised. The entire focus of Paul’s account in I Corinthians is to list the eyewitnesses to the resurrection, and only at the end of that includes his own interactions. Paul doesn’t hide or dismiss his own experience, but he doesn’t lead with that. He leads with the historical evidence. If our historical evidence which sits fully in the historicity of the Gospels fails, then you have no proof. At best you could say Christianity is on the same level as other religions in which some people claim to have had personal enlightenment or spiritual encounters that made their life better. Christianity sits alone on its historical record. That is why a book like this is crucial. The faith DOES hang in the balance on its historical claims.
Christianity (and scripture) isn't dependent on proof but rather trust, and even then only as given thru revelation from the holy Spirit. I believe it is true but not because it has been proven historically, but because God has opened my heart to it's truth.
Love your answer!@@maltucker1
I'm grateful that I was always taught to acknowledge the minor discrepancies and in fact to see them as evidence that the multiple witnesses are telling the truth. Witnesses always differ when recounting an event, always. When they don't, it's often collusion (as Wright and many others have pointed out).
Right. It actually adds to the evidence that the Bible is true.
@@learnenglishwithblaine9604 Try this on. I liked it immediately when I read it 25 years ago: "These stories aren't true because they're in the Bible. They're in the Bible because they are true." - Peter Gomes (I think, lol)
@@jaggedstarrPI Amen.
I believe that the three accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are different for a specific purpose. That these are each written to a specific group. Yet written simultaneously for us all.
For we will encounter each group and be called to minister to them as He leads us to.
Also we may move from one group to the next as we mature in our relationship with Christ Jesus!
Yes to put it another way, it’s primarily a theological work rather than a biographical work.
Jim Warner Wallace (Cold Case Christianity) helped me to understand that despite having differences, the gospels are true.....
Jim expected the gospel accounts to be different because different people tell the same story ... differently.
Jim has strengthened my faith with his unique perspective. I consider him an expert in the field of "evidence.". I especially like his video... "Jesus: Person of Interest"(1:06)
such an incredible in depth discussion, almost 2 hours went past in no time! Thanks for doing these types of videos, they really are amazing.
At the end of this video, all I can think is it might be good to be open to whatever the simplest and most verifiable explanation may be for “contradictions,” whether it’s harmonizing or chalking it up to literary tools. I don’t feel as strongly as Mr. Licona about how much liberty we should be comfortable with to just say “oh, no need to harmonize, it just wasn’t a literal description of events/words” as a blanket assessment, but I do see where it is necessary and fruitful. (Same with harmonizing and the discussion of undesigned coincidences- it can’t explain/solve everything we don’t understand.) Synergy of *all* the interpretative tools we have is something that shouldn’t be discounted.
Of course, I don’t think Mr. Licona would disagree, but it’s just a matter of degrees/how much we synergize from what I can tell. 🤷♀️ A very interesting interview all the same!
Thanks fellas!
Really useful and helpful for me to pass on to some of my skeptic friends, who get stuck on this issue.
Blessings. 🙏🏾💕
QUESTION: How do you define the inerrancy of the Bible in light of the greater differences and interpolations in our Bible today (e.g 1 John 5:7 and the “pericope adulterae”) ?
If you regard those passages as authentic, then it's a matter of modern scholars simply being wrong in their assessment (though the latter is found in most Bibles).
It is helpful to distinguish between inerrancy and preservation. Inerrancy applies to the original text not to modern reconstructed copies (or to paraphrases, bad translations and commentaries).
It is however also true that the text has been preserved well enough that we know with high certainty what the originals said and what was changed or added later, which is why you know that the story of the woman caught in adultery was probably not in the original text. The fact that you know it does not undermine inerrancy. Similarly one could argue that everything that Jesus said was inerrant, but most of it is lost to time (no preservation).
If you're interested in preservation perhaps look up the work of Dan Wallace. I would also recommend the work of James White for a broader understanding of how this should impact our theology.
"Inspiration" is a gift of a human-divine partnership through the Spirit. We have a process in place which allows us to get back reliably to the inerrant original, to which we don't have access.
The Bible is true, trustworthy, and without error 'in everything that it teaches.' Anything the Bible claims to be true -- is true.
Great questions, Sean! Appreciate you challenging Mike’s views so well. Great discussion.
For a different view on literary devices in the gospels, Lydia McGrew's Mirror and the Mask is solid.
To understand how difference between the gospels actual verify the gospels, listen to some of J Warner Wallace's talks at cold-case Christianity.
J was a cold case detective for many years in LA. He learned that authentic eye witnesses always bring out different details. So, difference tell us that we are hearing from authentic eyewitnesses.
Along the topic of scriptural genres , it would fantastic to see you interview Dr. Brad Young. Lots of work on Jesus Parables, Paul and examining the idea of a Lukan priority.
Thank goodness we have people like Licona to help us understand what is meant in John 19:35: "He who saw it has borne witness-his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth-that you also may believe" . I mean, it's not like this has anything to do with, oh, say, people being saved by believing in the veracity ("conformity to fact or truth; accuracy") of the Scriptures and what is recorded therein. That would be, like, quite important, so thank goodness such books don't do any real harm to the advancement of Christ's Kingdom.
I don't agree with Dr. Licona's conclusion (as I'm not a Christian), but there is no doubt about his knowledge and scholarship being top-notch. He also seems like a friendly and likable fellow.
Something neither of you mentioned: the Word of God is inspired (breathed) by the Holy Spirit. So how does this fit in with the issues you both raised? Some, yes, others, not so much. At least I don't understand.
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26 - Licona probably doesn't take this as being either something Jesus said and/or that there is a Holy Sprit who did exactly this.
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants."
@dannylgriffin I think what you understand is all that's needed. Sometimes intelligence is a stumbling block.
20:58 Mark's gospel, chapter 1: Mark quotes Isaiah to say that Jesus's contemporary, namley, John the Baptist, was that voice crying in the wilderness, "Prepare ye the way of The Lord, YHWH"
If Mark indicates that John the Baptist is preparing the way for Jesus.. Then Mark is describing Jesus as the promised Messiah of Isaiah
Thank you for having Mike Licona on! As I was reading his book, I thought, "What would Sean McDowell think?" And then I saw this interview!
Sounds like I’m in your head 😜. Glad you enjoyed it!
Sean and Mike thank you for attending unto our OWN!
His Time liken unto a messenger sent forth from Who's mouth?
Sean, I agree with you about harmonization being given priority over Licona's ancient biography theory, which convinces me that my decision not to spend my time with Licona's ancient biography book was a good move. Licona's conclusion that the Gospels overlap 100% with Greco-Roman biographies falls short. Why resort to Licona's theory over harmonization?
The problem with Sean is that he is bound to the modernist framework of scientific understandings and infusing them with a particular theology of Scripture. IMO, inspiration is a theolougmemon not not be tied to a specific "technology" which grounds the authority of Scripture.
I actually don’t think Licona is arguing that the gospels represent 100% overlap with Greco-Roman biography, just that their style and literary techniques seem to echo other works of the period. If the gospel writers were trained similarly to other contemporary authors, they’d naturally employ similar techniques. Viewing the gospels through that literary lense makes good sense of the differences we see, and minimizes the amount of scriptural gymnastics needed to harmonize seemingly contradictory elements.
It does engage the troubling idea that certain details of the gospels might be “made up”, and asks the uncomfortable question of how we can know what is factual and not about Jesus’ words and ministry. But, as my grandfather used to ask me in the midst of my spiritual doubts “Did the man get up?” Did Jesus rise from the dead? And the unequivocal answer from all Christians in the first century is YES. In the light of the historical bedrock of the resurrection, the minor details become less important.
I’m not sure what the point of this episode is. It sounds like he said you can’t believe what is written in John. Am I wrong on this? There’s no way I’m reading his book. I’m actually more confused now. I seriously doubt any of the Gospel authors were using any techniques .
I've had issues with some of Licona's ideas for a while. He seems to do mental gymnastics on this subject. That's not to say that he's wrong on every example, but certainly his idea of inerrancy is foreign to me.
@@sorenpx At one point in this episode, Licona does this double speak of using part of John then later he says, discard this other part. He basically said that one of the gospels is made up. Did I misunderstand?
Licona is saying we shouldn't read the Gospels as if they were written in the 21st century [style].
Licona claims the Bible is true, trustworthy, and without error in everything that it teaches. Anything the Bible claims to be true -- is true.
Thus, Licona says 21st-century believers should rather read the Gospels through a 1st-century lens, in the same way/style in which 1st-century people wrote.
@@IndianaJoe0321 I get that, but that isn’t what he said here. I’ve listened again and I understand more what he was saying.. such as the, “I am”statement in John. He’s saying Jesus implied but John made the statement explicit.
Sean makes the same slip up several times in the video so just to clarify, Licona is referring to 'compositional changes' not 'computational' ones...
Hello so Ive been watching this in pieces im a bit confused. Is Mike defending the gospel?
Can someone help me find the interview Sean mentioned in the beginning about inspiration in cross examined
It was debate between Howe and Licona on inerrancy
Also I think it’s important when we study historical backgrounds of people that Jesus said in Mark 6:4…
But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
Why do you suppose that is? The more you know about a person and their flaws in the flesh, the more difficult it is to believe. But that’s how God seems to work. He uses the unlikeliest of person for the job.
He brings low the prideful and lifts up the humble.
When I was a little girl a neighbor named Mr. Dobbs took my portrait in pastels. He finished it off by putting a little, white bow in my hair. This was an accurate representation of me, but there was no actual bow in my hair, and the pastel style isn't like a photograph. But, it was me! This is how we can look at the Bible as a whole. It's an accurate representation of God, so we needn't worry so much about minutiae that does't take away from His character. Don't "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel".
Thinking about what you wrote -- and applying it to the Bible -- the Bible is true, trustworthy, and without error in everything that it teaches. Anything the Bible claims to be true -- is true.
Am I understanding your example?
👍 Thanks! Matthew, John, Peter, and James are eyewinesses.
Papias circa 70-163 AD wrote about 100 to 130 AD in five volumes ‘Oracles of the Lord’, we only have fragments recorded by Eusebius 339 AD. Papias was an elder at Hierapolis. According to Irenaeus Papias received what he wrote from the apostle John. Eusebeus also tells us, that Papias recorded that Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew tongue, (Aramaic) and that Mark was the interpreter of Peter and wrote down accurately all that Peter mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, however not in order.
Whereas Luke is often shown to be more precise concerning historical facts.
Bought this a couple of days ago. Looking forward to reading and will watch this as well.
Let’s quit acting like Licona believes inerrancy. His new approach is almost gnostic with its special insights.
35:46 "It's okay to adapt certain characters" - The word _adapt_ is doing a lot of work there, Sean. If you mean the authors had authorial license to make their story what they wished, then sure. However, if you are going to take that position then also own up that this is undermining how most fundamentalists view the idea of inerrancy.
Thank you! This was great and very helpful. 🙂❤❤❤
I love the book. Read it in 2 days and have been thinking about it ever since.
Licona does not seem to give any credence to the idea that God would help the apostles remember what was said (in particular, @1:13). In addition to the fact that Jesus very likely gave the same/similar speech a bunch of times, which would explain the similarities and differences in the gospel's records of Jesus' speeches. Sure, he has other arguments/examples of one-time events. But it reveals something about his view of inspiration.
I have dealt with contradictions the same way all my life. I've been reading the Bible for 65 years and have all my life believed in God's word. I deal with things I don't fully understand with FAITH. It's also what gets me to heaven. I do not have authority to disagree or doubt God's word.
If someone of a different religion used this same logic and just said “I’ve always done it this way, and when it gets hard just believe harder” I’d be saddened for them. Knowing they can never be show truth. I’d just caution you from this type of logic. Have a blessed day and if you will it a long life.
The ghost writer is The Holy Ghost!!
-Acts 1:16 the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David
-Acts 28:25 The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet
-2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed
One of your best podcasts!!!
Remember many will say, lord, lord, lord! Yet their HEARTS are so far away!
Will you speak to the issue of Quirinius in the Gospel of Luke?
What is the issue?
There is a YT video of Sean McDowell and Dr. Titus Kennedy discussing this among other things called The Archaeological Evidence for Jesus: A Conversation with Dr. Titus Kennedy.
I am genuinely puzzled by discussions like this. Do Christians ever stop to consider why such conversations are even necessary? As a non-Christian I'd just offer the observation that it is very strange that an omniscient, and omnipotent, God could make such a bad job at transmitting his message down through the decades. Most Christians would say that the Bible is "God inspired" yet it seems self-evident that a Perfect Being has done an imperfect job of transmitting his message. Can any honest Christian deny this? The stakes couldn't be higher Salvation or Damnation, yet it seems like lots of things aren't clear. Isn't it more likely that the Bible was written by late bronze age people with a limited understanding of things rather than a God? As I say, it simply puzzles me that Christians seem so willing to enter into discussions like these without first stepping back and asking themselves why they are having to do so.
I am saying this as a Christian, this shouldn’t be surprising. While God is perfect, this doesn’t mean He cannot allow humans to mess up here or there concerning the writing of the Bible. I don’t see this dichotomy the more I see beyond only “humans wrote this with no supernatural help” or “God wrote this with 100 percent perfection”. Maybe because I’m Catholic I don’t see this very Protestant-Evangelical-looking idea of the Christian scriptures.
With the help of ChatGPT, this is what I think about salvation from a Catholic position.
“The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is possible for Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians, though it views the fullness of truth as residing within the Catholic Church. This understanding is expressed in several key documents and teachings:
### 1. **Protestants:**
The Catholic Church acknowledges that many Protestant Christians have valid baptisms and a sincere faith in Christ. The Second Vatican Council's document *Lumen Gentium* states that those who are baptized and believe in Christ but are not in full communion with the Catholic Church are still "joined to the Church in a certain, though imperfect, way" (LG 15). This means that, while the Catholic Church sees Protestant denominations as lacking the fullness of the sacraments and teaching authority, it does not deny that Protestants can be saved.
The Catholic Catechism (paragraph 818) further clarifies that those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." Salvation for non-Catholics is understood through the concept of *invincible ignorance*, meaning that if someone, through no fault of their own, does not fully understand or accept the Catholic Church but sincerely seeks God, they can attain salvation.
### 2. **Eastern Orthodox:**
The Catholic Church has a closer relationship with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as both share a valid apostolic succession, meaning they have valid sacraments, including the Eucharist, and a shared tradition going back to the early Church. The Catholic Church considers the Eastern Orthodox Churches to be true particular Churches, with valid priesthoods and sacraments, and that their members can attain salvation.
According to *Unitatis Redintegratio* (Vatican II), while there is a schism between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Catholic Church believes that Orthodox Christians are part of the one Church of Christ, though in a separated communion. As a result, Eastern Orthodox Christians are seen as being much closer to the fullness of the Christian faith and salvation than Protestants.
In summary, the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is possible for both Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians, though it believes the fullness of salvation and truth is found within the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is possible for non-Christians, though it is understood differently than for Christians. This belief is rooted in the idea that God's grace and mercy extend beyond the visible boundaries of the Church. The Church does not teach that non-Christians are automatically excluded from salvation, but it emphasizes that Jesus Christ is the ultimate source of salvation for all people.
### Key Points from Catholic Teaching:
1. **Jesus Christ as the Universal Savior:**
The Catholic Church holds that salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone. The Second Vatican Council's document *Lumen Gentium* (16) explains that "those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation."
2. **Non-Christian Religions:**
- **Jews:** The Church has a special relationship with the Jewish people, recognizing that they were the first to receive God's covenant and that God's promises to them have not been revoked (*Romans 11:29*). The Church rejects any form of anti-Semitism and prays for the salvation of the Jewish people, understanding them as "elder brothers" in faith.
- **Muslims:** The Church acknowledges that Muslims worship the one, merciful God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and holds them in high esteem. *Lumen Gentium* (16) states that Muslims "profess to hold the faith of Abraham," and though there are significant theological differences, they are included in God's plan of salvation.
- **Other Religions:** The Catholic Church teaches that those who seek God sincerely in other religious traditions and try to live morally upright lives are not excluded from God's saving grace. The Church prays that all people come to the fullness of truth in Christ, but it acknowledges that God can work in mysterious ways in the lives of those who do not explicitly know or accept Christ.
3. **Invincible Ignorance and Natural Law:**
The concept of *invincible ignorance* applies to those who, through no fault of their own, are unaware of the Gospel or the Church but seek truth and live according to their conscience. Such individuals can still be saved because they follow the natural law, which the Church believes God has written on every human heart.
4. **No Salvation Outside the Church - Explained:**
The traditional Catholic teaching "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" ("outside the Church there is no salvation") has been understood in a nuanced way since the Second Vatican Council. The Church teaches that while the fullness of the means of salvation exists within the Catholic Church, this does not mean that only Catholics can be saved. Non-Christians who respond to God's grace through conscience and moral action can still receive the fruits of salvation, even if they do not explicitly recognize Christ.
### In Summary:
The Catholic Church teaches that non-Christians can attain salvation if they seek God sincerely, live according to their conscience, and are open to God's grace. While the Church believes that salvation comes through Christ, it recognizes that God's mercy is not limited to those who explicitly know Him and that people of other faiths and even those without faith may be saved through God's mysterious and just ways.”
@@YTuser2019 Many thanks for your two replies. I really appreciate the trouble you have taken, but honestly I can’t understand why you should give such an extensive explanation of what the Catholic church believes about Salvation when the point I was making in my posts was that because of the very flawed nature of the transmission of the message we can't know with any degree of certainty what God thinks about Salvation, what Jesus said or did, etc.
What we do have - the Bible - which contains so many errors and contradictions it would seem strange that it was inspired by a God who cares anything about truth. Even worse, the Bible portrays a God who condones slavery, commits genocide, commands genocide, instructs his people to take young virgin girls as sexual slaves, and does and says very many morally reprehensible things. I'm sorry, but it is all so obviously ancient history and mythology, nothing to do with an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.
Incidentally, I do understand your point about the Catholic church being less concerned with a literal reading of the Bible, but there is just so much wrong with the Bible that no amount of well-meaning interpretation can save it
To end on a positive note, there is some good news. I always tell Christians that we can all be better and more moral than their God because we can all forgive without the need for torture, without the need for a blood sacrifice of anyone’s life, without requiring that someone worship us, love us, or obey us, without making our love or forgiveness conditional upon threats of Damnation and promises of Salvation. Unlike the Christian God, we can all simply forgive.
I never understood the differences in the gospels until 2 years ago when the Lord led me to watch Alain's videos on his YT channel Ministry Revealed. This was the revelation I was missing and all my questions were answered.
I have read several Licona's books with pleasure. I partially agree with Licona's argument. However, it seems that it is not convincing that the authors of the gospel intervened in the transformation based on ancient writing techniques. If that is correct, the contents of the gospels would have taken on a much different appearance when compared to each other.
As far as I can tell, it is more reasonable to think that the oral traditions and recorded materials passed on to their hands were originally slightly different than the intentional transformation of the authors or editors. (Of course, the differences could be an error in memory or a characteristic of ancient writing.) -from South Korea
Are ye all good? Lord many indeed will try to find blame nor to point fingers unto All thy New FEET! Gratitude and Honor will follow thee! Yes, remember thy given seats will follow thee!
Really disappointed to see Sean McDowell give a platform to someone (Licona) who is increasingly claiming that many parts of the Gospels are not historically accurate and who makes the false claim that the NT writers used "literary devices" rather than reporting facts. Either God's words are from him or they are not. Inerrancy is not "wooden."
So if the gospels are no better than other literature of the time why take them more seriously than other literature of the time?
They are correct and the differences are most likely from very early translations and early book writers might have made a small mistake but many of the so called differences are false.
Combine this with Dr Michael Krugers books on the Canon.
Thank you so much for these valuable lectures.
When I say there's not enough sugar in my tea, we consider it reasonable to assume I'd like more. Yet when skeptics say there's not enough evidence for Jesus' resurrection, it's not reasonable to assume they'd like more. Interesting, but not surprising.
23:09 The gospels are written as eyewitness Biographies..
Logos Context ( who was it written to and their understanding ) , context( time and period), context( understanding in relation to the textual passage ). Rema- Are you interpreting with a renewed Christ mind (Godly framework) or with a sinful Adam selfserving fallen mind. Might find most or nearly all error disappears.
Sounds like the recent work, all will appreciate reading, by Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus.
20:29 What Jesus said and did illuminated His character and Deity..
Hosts will say gratitude and Honor and thy SEATS given will follow thee!
@ 1:38:32 So if your not sure what is cannon and your putting in "brackets" and we are learning to take it with a grain of salt then Why are writings quoted in the bible not in cannon? Your pulling at a string on a cheap sweater and guess what it is unraveling cannon.
“The Bible was not given to increase our knowledge, but to change our lives.”
For it is written :
“I thought to myself, “I have become much wiser than any of my predecessors who ruled over Jerusalem; I have acquired much wisdom and knowledge.” So I decided to discern the benefit of wisdom and knowledge over foolish behavior and ideas; however, I concluded that even this endeavor is like trying to chase the wind! For with great wisdom comes great frustration; whoever increases his knowledge merely increases his heartache.”
Ecclesiastes 1:16-18
For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. Rm 15:4
20:15 What about when Jesus, as a child, healed his brother from a snake bite? Isn’t that a recognized story also? 🙏🧐
It is not; that was a pseudepigraphal writing.
Nope not Biblical. The Bible says that the incident at the wedding with the wine was His first .
Who taught the disciples to write in this format of the ancients...they were Jews. If we remove the "divne" from the influence of the writen word...then we will question the divinity, doctrin, and teachings of Jesus. For..."He"may or may not have said that, or may have said it differently. Creating a reasonable doubt. God wanted the preservation of the Truth exactly as we have . We don't have the originals but we do have a wealth of manuscript to pull from and with out any doubt we can see the work of the Holy Spirit. If we belief that it is a spiritual kingdom then at some point we must believe that the Spirit will open our eyes to the writen truth and feed us spiritual food. Thank God for the Bible.
I gather (could be wrong) that Sean doesn't agree with most of Mike's argument. However, I loved his questions and irenic approach.
I kind of don't like that it does that, but then I realised I've done the time scrunch one myself this morning and regularly do the simplification thing.
What is Meeks?
Did Jesus say “before Abraham was I am”? It doesn’t really matter because it is true that before Abraham was Jesus is.
21:38 In Mark 4: Jesus casts out demons and is accused by the religious authorities of doing so by the power of Beazelbub/ Lucifer.
Jesus refutes their false reasoning by giving the example that robbing a powerful man can only be accomplished by binding that man first.. In short, Jesus can bind Lucifer and order demons to leave a human being.
My KEEPERS of my little precious treasures SONS AND DAUGHTERS ye all once came from HERE!
21:32 In Mark 3, Jesus calms the wind and the waves/a storm on the sea of Galilee by simply speaking. In the old testament the creator God is the one who calms the storm.
Sean McDowell challenge, maximum difficulty: host somebody who actually disagrees with you on anything.
What is a HOUSE?
You guys are fairly interesting, however, so pedantic that its hard to keep listening.
What difference does it make who actually put quill to papyrus? When it comes right down to it, it was God who is ultimately responsible for all that was written.
Things have been edited +/- . Yet the message comes through although exegesis is sometimes very helpful. Assigning what genre is this or that is irrelevant.
Skeptics tend to not think “God is responsible or it all”, in which case, it’s important to get into these things.
Luke is the only gospel writer who claims specifically that he was recording events chronologically. Jesus repeated his teachings, so it's not unreasonable to think that he could have told half a dozen would-be disciples , "Let the dead bury their own dead" since inheritance were extremely important in the ancient world. Probably Jesus told the stories stories in slightly different ways at different times. There may have been fewer compositional devices than we think.
Yes, to bring to remembrance and comfort concerning all thy shared clay FEET MIXED WITH IRON resting upon all dry grounds. GROUNDED! Honor and Gratitude upon thy shared Feet
Josh, did you and your dad encounter spiritual warfare while writing Evidence Demands a Verdict?
Very interesting but I find it difficult to believe the gospel writers were schooled in these devices or even read enough ancient literature besides their Torah to be so well developed in these techniques to then write in that way. Maybe the exception would be Luke as being a doctor perhaps more educated in the classical form this would require.
How could the disciple like John or Peter know anything about classic Greek classic writers?
There are no contradictions in the bible. The different timelines the writers witness some accounts and the individual way the writers wrote contributed to the minor perceived difference in the accounts, but the message and narrative has no difference nor discripancies.
"There are no contradictions in the bible." - You're just in denial.
@@TheDanEdwards show us one.
What is a Rebellious HOUSE?
An extended family-group; a clan/tribe.
Footstool will say, what dry grounds?
20:52 The writers of the gospels are illuminating WHO Jesus is.
The gospels are a COMPLETE harmony of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
No contradiction, only a beautiful 4 perspective collective , historic, Holy Spirit inspired record of first hand eyewitness, or close associates of.
The synoptic gospels and John- perfectly harmonized.
See Macarthur’s “One Perfect Life”
To understand the Bible you need to Pray for Wisdom and Understanding when opening the BOOK!
leave a professor to destroy a bible
Jesus walked with his disciples over a 3 YEAR period. The amount of this time recorded in any one gospel is quite small. So we shouldn't be surprised when one writer focuses on different issues than the other 3.
I can’t believe I’m hearing this. This reasoning just seems so circular to me. We know the resurrection is true because it’s true. Well How do we know it’s true if the accounts contradict each other? It is the accounts of the gospels that tell us that it’s true and if they contradict each other then how do we know it is true?
This guest should go on the Bill Maher show and have a religious debate
I find it so funny that people even ask that question. So, I have a question for them: if you took a classroom of students on a field trip, and then told them all to write a paper on the experience, what would you think if they all wrote exactly, verbatim, the exact same thing??? Yeah, you’d think they cheated and copied one person’s work for their own. So technically, the fact that the stories are told from several different perspectives actually proves its authenticity. Only if someone wanted to fool people would the gospels be exactly alike. People crack me up when they don’t think these things through.
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26 - probably another thing that John (or whomever) made up about what Jesus said - so the whole Holy Spirit thing allowing the apostles to remember, just didn't happen did it.
Conversations come here in front! Lord thy Time! Many shortcomings from wrong to correct! Thy shared "i" AM awaken! Given ABLE to have SINCERE CONVERSATIONS= SINCERE ANSWERS!
I disagree with the assumption that the gospels were dictated and edited by secretaries. We know that Paul had a physical disability or chains on his wrists that at times hindered him from writing himself, but all the authors of the New Testament were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). Also, the Pharisees commented on the wisdom of these "uneducated" fisherman when they preached in the power if the Spirit (Acts 4:14), noting that they had been with Jesus. Jesus Himself promised that the words/wisdom would be given them when they needed it (John 21:15).
21:21 Mark chapter 2: Jesus heals a paralytic and then proceeds to forgive the man's sins. The act of forgiving sin riles up the religious leaders of the day because only YHWH/GOD can forgive sin.
Im more inclined to j warner wallaces argument about the supposed contradiction in the gospels.
What they mean by contradiction ,do they mean that Mathew give view of Jesus opposite of that why have Luk Marc and John and viz versa ?
If no it is redicoul to say they have contradiction
Instead of presuming what others mean by "contradiction", why don't you go read some analyses that list contradictions.
@@TheDanEdwards I did but only think I got that they said scholars said ...do you think scholar they are. Jewish more than the writers...or why they bring all those myths about Jesus ...I believe in HIM you became like sheeps
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Define "God-breathed." You'll probably need to dig into the Greek, in order to respond.
@@IndianaJoe0321 2315 theopneustos
Theo- God
Pneo- breathed out
Also translated God inspired, but that’s lacking color…
John 19:11 says
Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
Also John 3:27 says
John answered and said, "A man is able to receive not one thing if it is not given to him from heaven.
@@IndianaJoe0321 the revelations they received after Christ ascended were given to them.
Knowledge and wisdom comes from our creator.
The enemy copies what is already there and defiles it. He twists and bends. He is the father of all lies. For there is nothing new under the sun.
@@IndianaJoe0321 there is also ore than one heaven according to the Bible. So though something comes from heaven, we must use the gifts that God has enabled us to receive to discern that which is of Him and that which is dark.
@@josephberndt6907 wrote, "the revelations they received after Christ ascended were given to them."
The Hebrew Bible was compiled long before Messiah arrived, so what is your view of the Hebrew Bible? Do you not consider that to be inspired Scripture?
Science and meteorology say what rain is and what type it is and how hard it is and how many inches there are.. You and a person from Seattle talking about rain and your opinions don't change those metrics.
22:09 Mark 5: Jesus raises the dead and cures the sick. This was only done by prophets of old who were empowered by YHWH/GOD. Jesus proves by his actions that he is not just a prophet; but, he is indeed Deity/God.
22:17. Mark 6: Jesus walkes out on water in a storm, gives Peter permission to come out to him, rescues Peter from going under, they both climb back into the boat, and then Jesus calms the storm! All of these actions can only accomplished by Deity. Specifically, by the God of the Old Testament.