Ask Licona about all the added angelic encounters found only in Luke-Acts compared with the other Gospels. For instance there are the Lukan stories of the father of John the Baptist, and also the mother of Jesus, who each meet and converse with an angel, and both end with Zechariah and Mary singing a song. (Luke the musical), and a whole host of angels show up for some shepherds and make a brief melodic announcement. Couldn’t such angelic encounter stories have been made to make the story of Jesus’ birth seem more “spectacular” much like the addition of the earthquake and raising of many saints tale found at Matthew’s end, and which Licona admits was probably made up? It sure looks like Luke was seeking to outdo Matthew’s birth narrative by adding not just one miraculous birth story but a second one concerning the miracles accompanying the birth of John the Baptist. In similar fashion compare Luke’s two angels at the tomb compared with Mark’s young man or Matthew’s single angel at the tomb. Luke seems to have lots more angels and conversations with angels to his Gospel. Moreover, in Acts we see the Lukan story of two angels repeated in Luke’s ascension narrative, which seems like the ascension narrative is merely a folkloric doublet. And only Luke-Acts features a narrative story about exactly how Jesus allegedly ascended vertically to reach heaven. It has the same two angels from Luke’s empty tomb scene, who once again ask a question, and also the scene features Lukan ways of speaking out into the angel’s mouths. Makes one consider the lack of historicity of the story. I delve deeply into the question here twitter.com/edwardtbabinski/status/1530051149302210561 Licona is known for doubting the historicity of the lines in Matthew about “tombs were opened and many saints were raised,” but does he explain why the author of Matthew strives to make it look historical right down to how they rewrote Mark’s story? In other words, compare the reactions of Mark’s lone Centurion with Matthew’s “Centurion and those with him”: Mark, says: "And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, Surely this man was the Son of God! (NIV)" But Matthew says: "When the centurion AND THOSE WITH HIM saw the EARTHQUAKE AND ALL THAT HAD HAPPENED [the opening of tombs and raising of many saints] they were terrified, and exclaimed [in harmony?], 'Surely he was the Son of God!'" (NIV) So Matthew depicts the centurion along with those with him all “seeing” the “earthquake and all that had happened” (apparently including the earthquake, graves being opened and many saints being raised) and “they were terrified.” GMark depicts no earthquake (only Matthew mentions an earthquake, in fact two, which means his story lay on doubly shaky ground), nor does Mark mention tombs opening, saints rising,, and mentions nothing about the soldiers all being terrified. Mark only mentions a lone centurion standing “there in front of Jesus,” reacting to “his cry” and seeing “how he died.” In fact the lines in Matthew that mention the earthquake, tombs opening, saints rising, and terrified soldiers, are very brief and tucked in between lines in Mark that speak of far less terrifying matters that Matthew appears to have simply repeated from Mark. Also ask Licona about how the denial of the historicity of the many raised saints story in Matthew also calls into question Matthew’s similar story of a second group of terrified soldiers encountering an earthquake and seeing something frighteningly supernatural that Matthew says happened three days later at the tomb of Jesus with an earthquake, a bright angel who comes down from heaven who tolls away the stone, sits on it, and publicly announces Jesus has been raised. Sounds like.a mythical folkloric doublet in Matthew, just as like Luke’s mythical folkloric doublet in which Luke added a second miraculous birth story, that of John the Baptist. It looks like questions regarding historical authenticity are connected to more than just the “many raised saints tall tale,” found only in Matthew, and such questions keep coming regardless of attempts to explain them as mere literary techniques. Especially since making up miracle stories also was a literary technique to make one’s hero appear superior compared with the rest, especially in death one might add since stories of beloved rabbis abound regarding miracles connected with their deaths or even after their deaths, along with an increasing number of ascension stories about people from Roman Emperors to Moses arose prior to stories about Jesus’ ascension. Also, Jesus was allegedly the final eschatological prophet prior to judgment day, and had to compete with emperor worship, so why wouldn’t his followers depict him and his birth and life as extra spectacular? Even linguistically and typologically modeling Jesus’ miracle stories upon earlier ones concerning Moses, Elijah and Elijah? And not too long before Jesus’ day we read that the authors of the Dead Sea Scroll and other intertestamental works were likewise expecting a final battle and judgment day after which the world would be permanently set right. This was a widespread literary genre prior to Jesus’ day. Read about the sea change in Jewish religious beliefs that took place during the inter-testamental period in books like these: 1. Crucible of Faith: The Ancient Revolution That Made Our Modern Religious World by Philip Jenkins, which discusses the sea change in beliefs between testaments. a) New ideas of the afterlife, angels and demons grew to prominence;. b) An evil figure(s) became “god of this world;” c) The hope of a singular final messiah, final judgment day and resurrection arose. A lot happened during the intertestamental period, some of which appears in the Catholic Bible, but none of which appears in the modern day Protestant Bible. 2. In God's Time: The Bible and the Future by Craig C. Hill, is an excellent introduction to the inter-testamental period and the rise of apocalyptic. 3. Several chapters in The Human Faces of God by Thom Stark.
The more interesting question that you should ask yourself is - why did the early church think that these 4 gospels should be put together in one book? Despite the discrepancies. The problem is - these people weren't stupid. They simply didn't think the same way we did. How much "explorer pathos" of modern academia could have been avoided if the church would have gone down the Marcion route and choose only one gospel.
Nothing justifies a skeptic's rejection of bible inerrancy, quite like the promoters of biblical inerrancy admitting that a newer theory of inerrancy bothers them because they were not taught that theory earlier. If spiritually alive people cannot figure out how to properly define biblical inerrancy, they are fools to expect spiritually dead people to manifest more accurate discernment of such endless philosophical trifling.
@@jagknight3730 I disagree. In fact it makes sense for Jesus to go atleast twice to clean out the Temple . Old Testament priests (which is why Jesus asks the question about Johns baptism because John was of a priestly family and John testified Jesus was the LORD and the messiah /the high priest ) had to visit a place more than once when inspecting a mole before condemning it to destruction . Meaning Jesus had to have been there already by the time of the end of his ministry.
Dr. Licona makes Atheists very comfortable with his weak explanations. Why has God allowed so many discrepancies in the Bible ? He should have done a better job.
Apologetics doesn't help at all in defending contradictions in the bible. Let me give you two clear cut contradictions that can't be refuted unless you are willing to play games around just to deceive people. In Matthew, the name of Simon Peter's father is Jonah while in John he is called John. Maybe these two disciples don't seem to know their close friend's father. In Mark, when the Jews asked Jesus about a sign, he said no sign will be shown to them, while in Matthew he said only one sign will be shown to them. Is it zero sign or one sign? And is this peophecy even fulfilled ? Jesus never appears to any of the Pharisees that he promised a to show a sign if the latter is true. So where and how did he show them if he was buried secretly without their knowledge and all of a sudden they only may have heard about it through hearsay but not through seeing? These are terrible contradictions!
You’re a Hamza fan I sense 😅 the Jonah issue isn’t a contradiction - when he says no sign will be shown except the sign of Jonah, this isn’t contradictory to the other passage; he’s saying ‘ *I’m not going to show you any signs that you’re looking for/requesting of me, but what I will show you is that I will raise after 3 days* ‘. So saying ‘no sign will be shown’ in one passage, and ‘no sign will be show to you, but what I will show you is the sign of Jonah’ isn’t a contradiction because both affirm that he’s not going to show them what they are requesting of him; but what he will do is show them something else. Simples. Do you get the point? Also, when you say this wasn’t fulfilled because he didn’t appear to the Pharisees, he actually said ‘the perverse generation’ will be shown the sign of Jonah - so he’s not saying specifically to the Pharisees that he will appear to them, he appeared to the people of Israel when he rose, thus show that ‘ *perverse generation* ’ the sign of Jonah.
@@ScottyyyB96Bro, you are sounding emotional rather than being objective. Mark was written years before Matthew and if the Gospel of Mark was in circulation, people would surely believe Jesus said no sign will be shown to them. Later Matthew came to say one sign will be shown to them. It's zero to one, a development of a concept over time to deceive people into believing the resurrection narrative. These are two contradictory statements. Trying to base your life on such fiction movie doesn't work. And the funny thing is you decided to skip the first contradiction I pointed out, demonstrating your insincerity. Matthew said the name of Peter's father is Jonah while John said it's John. Give us
@@TA-vu9se Not emotional over here brother, just a rational thinker. On your point of Mark being in circulation for years and that people would have believed no sign would be show - think about this, was Jesus not performing many signs and miracles according to the gospels? No doubt! Jesus clearly performed many miracles and sign but according to you, the people reading Mark for the years it was out should have believed that Jesus performed no signs? You have the incorrect understanding of the text, Jesus is simply telling them “you’re asking for this and that, im not going to show you, but what I will show you is that I will raise again after 3 days” I addressed your second point and not the first point simply because I’m not familiar with it and would have to check, but your other point is easily addressable and I have addresses it. What you need to worry about is why Allah says in the Quran that Jews had the Torah during the time of Muhammad (7th century), we have manuscripts pre dating this (3rd century BC to 1st century AD) which show that the Torah we have today is what they would have had during Muhammad’s time…this is a contradiction in itself for Islam as the Quran affirms the Torah while also contradicting it. Shalom.
@@ScottyyyB96bro, stop the mental gymnastics. Mark was written earlier and within the 10 years period before the Matthew was written, only Mark would have been in circulation teaching people that Jesus said that no sign will be shown to the Pharisees. Then later, Matthew came to dilute this with some Marina sauce to to try to convince people that he said that only one sign will be shown to them. Zero sign to one sign. This is pure development of a concept in trying to deceive people into your narrative . Anybody with a brain cell knows these are two contradictory statements. You also made a claim that he appeared to the Jews. Can you name one Jew outside the bible who confirms this appearance as an eyewitness? And please don't forget to tell us the name of the dead saints who appeared to him as well. One evidence please. Secondly, why did you decide to skip the first contradiction I pointed out here. What is the name of Peter's father? Is it Jonah as in Matthew or John as in John? Did the holy spirit inspire 2 desciples to contradict each other in writing the name of their best friend?
There are obvious errors in and contradictions between the gospels. This is not what one would expect from an omnipotent god in his book for the human race that he created in his image. It is exactly what one would expect from imperfect humans who created God in their image. More fundamentally, the Bible is full of forged epistles. Of the 13 Pauline Epistles, only 7 were written by Paul; neither of the Petrine Epistles were written by Peter; and none of the 3 Johannine Epistles were written by John. This is deeply, deeply troubling for any claim of divine inspiration or authorship. Would an omnipotent god allow forgeries in his book? Further, the entire belief of Jesus revolved around the coming of a figure called the Son of Man (who may or may not have been Jesus himself, it is unclear) within the lifetime of the Apostles. This figure would create a utopian existence on Earth for those in God's good graces. This did not happen Jesus (and Paul) were flat wrong about this. Thirdly, THE core belief of Christianity is that Jesus was sent to die on the cross and save us from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, a couple who anybody with a middle school science and natural history education knows did not even exist!! No, Christianity is an obviously deeply flawed and nonsensical belief that one can only maintain by closing ones eyes to the facts, ignoring the problems and continuing to believe out of either a deep desire or perceived obligation (social or divine) to believe.
1. None of your points about authorship, gospel incongruity and so on makes a case about why the NT cannot be God's word inspired, written by men in the confines of their culture just like everyone is. In other words, unknown authorship is no argument against Inspiration. 2. Jesus’s life revolves around the expectancy of the Son of Man? Wrong. Have you read the gospels and the entire New Testament before making such claims? Also, Jesus who is the Son of Man in Daniel 7, is also the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Jesus makes this clear in his sayings that the Son of Man must suffer and die at the hands of the religious leaders. It's true, the Jews, including the disciples, didn't expect a suffering and dying Son of Man. This is the whole point the gospel. The Messiah died, rejected by his won people, making possible the path for a bigger community of faoth, the church. Paul was deliberately on point. 3. Jesus died to save people from the Original sin that did not happen? NONSENSE. I agree with you. Anyone who is in the middle school. And have been taught science and natural history, and have been indoctrinated by their anti religious professors, believe Adam and Eve did not exist. Too bad, no one is then encouraged to ask for evidence.
@@Theonly_Onyx no ... I wasn't being sarcastic, and given that every answer I give you will be answered with a variant of "idiot , ignorant, brainwashed, indoctrinated" I won't answer the second question.
Here is your problem thst you will never ever resolve if all is written by the inspiration of god who is the planner and orchestrator of all events HOW COULD THERE SUCH VAST DIFFERENCE in the description and details of events for example the trial of Jesus where there was no witnesses for the defense of Jesus to relate events and NO record of individual members of the sandhedrin prosecuting jesus relating the events of the trial Therefor its a fully related story directly inspired by the holt spirit only how then could there be such diversion in the story how could god not relate a single consistent story coming from his divine inspiration it’s fine to CUT THE CRAP face reality the bible is neither inerrant or perfectly preserved dam it gave it !!!!!!
This video deserves billions of views. Well done.
I think Dr. Licona’s work for the most part fits quite nicely with Catholic teaching on biblical inerrancy. Love the show guys. Keep it up!
Thank you Mike. Your work is so important and appreciated.
You are very welcome!
Thank you, Dr. Licona. Your life and your work mean more than you know to many more than you know.
Ask Licona about all the added angelic encounters found only in Luke-Acts compared with the other Gospels. For instance there are the Lukan stories of the father of John the Baptist, and also the mother of Jesus, who each meet and converse with an angel, and both end with Zechariah and Mary singing a song. (Luke the musical), and a whole host of angels show up for some shepherds and make a brief melodic announcement. Couldn’t such angelic encounter stories have been made to make the story of Jesus’ birth seem more “spectacular” much like the addition of the earthquake and raising of many saints tale found at Matthew’s end, and which Licona admits was probably made up? It sure looks like Luke was seeking to outdo Matthew’s birth narrative by adding not just one miraculous birth story but a second one concerning the miracles accompanying the birth of John the Baptist.
In similar fashion compare Luke’s two angels at the tomb compared with Mark’s young man or Matthew’s single angel at the tomb. Luke seems to have lots more angels and conversations with angels to his Gospel. Moreover, in Acts we see the Lukan story of two angels repeated in Luke’s ascension narrative, which seems like the ascension narrative is merely a folkloric doublet. And only Luke-Acts features a narrative story about exactly how Jesus allegedly ascended vertically to reach heaven. It has the same two angels from Luke’s empty tomb scene, who once again ask a question, and also the scene features Lukan ways of speaking out into the angel’s mouths. Makes one consider the lack of historicity of the story. I delve deeply into the question here twitter.com/edwardtbabinski/status/1530051149302210561
Licona is known for doubting the historicity of the lines in Matthew about “tombs were opened and many saints were raised,” but does he explain why the author of Matthew strives to make it look historical right down to how they rewrote Mark’s story? In other words, compare the reactions of Mark’s lone Centurion with Matthew’s “Centurion and those with him”:
Mark, says: "And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, Surely this man was the Son of God! (NIV)"
But Matthew says: "When the centurion AND THOSE WITH HIM saw the EARTHQUAKE AND ALL THAT HAD HAPPENED [the opening of tombs and raising of many saints] they were terrified, and exclaimed [in harmony?], 'Surely he was the Son of God!'" (NIV)
So Matthew depicts the centurion along with those with him all “seeing” the “earthquake and all that had happened” (apparently including the earthquake, graves being opened and many saints being raised) and “they were terrified.”
GMark depicts no earthquake (only Matthew mentions an earthquake, in fact two, which means his story lay on doubly shaky ground), nor does Mark mention tombs opening, saints rising,, and mentions nothing about the soldiers all being terrified. Mark only mentions a lone centurion standing “there in front of Jesus,” reacting to “his cry” and seeing “how he died.”
In fact the lines in Matthew that mention the earthquake, tombs opening, saints rising, and terrified soldiers, are very brief and tucked in between lines in Mark that speak of far less terrifying matters that Matthew appears to have simply repeated from Mark.
Also ask Licona about how the denial of the historicity of the many raised saints story in Matthew also calls into question Matthew’s similar story of a second group of terrified soldiers encountering an earthquake and seeing something frighteningly supernatural that Matthew says happened three days later at the tomb of Jesus with an earthquake, a bright angel who comes down from heaven who tolls away the stone, sits on it, and publicly announces Jesus has been raised. Sounds like.a mythical folkloric doublet in Matthew, just as like Luke’s mythical folkloric doublet in which Luke added a second miraculous birth story, that of John the Baptist.
It looks like questions regarding historical authenticity are connected to more than just the “many raised saints tall tale,” found only in Matthew, and such questions keep coming regardless of attempts to explain them as mere literary techniques. Especially since making up miracle stories also was a literary technique to make one’s hero appear superior compared with the rest, especially in death one might add since stories of beloved rabbis abound regarding miracles connected with their deaths or even after their deaths, along with an increasing number of ascension stories about people from Roman Emperors to Moses arose prior to stories about Jesus’ ascension. Also, Jesus was allegedly the final eschatological prophet prior to judgment day, and had to compete with emperor worship, so why wouldn’t his followers depict him and his birth and life as extra spectacular? Even linguistically and typologically modeling Jesus’ miracle stories upon earlier ones concerning Moses, Elijah and Elijah? And not too long before Jesus’ day we read that the authors of the Dead Sea Scroll and other intertestamental works were likewise expecting a final battle and judgment day after which the world would be permanently set right. This was a widespread literary genre prior to Jesus’ day. Read about the sea change in Jewish religious beliefs that took place during the inter-testamental period in books like these:
1. Crucible of Faith: The Ancient Revolution That Made Our Modern Religious World by Philip Jenkins, which discusses the sea change in beliefs between testaments. a) New ideas of the afterlife, angels and demons grew to prominence;. b) An evil figure(s) became “god of this world;” c) The hope of a singular final messiah, final judgment day and resurrection arose. A lot happened during the intertestamental period, some of which appears in the Catholic Bible, but none of which appears in the modern day Protestant Bible.
2. In God's Time: The Bible and the Future by Craig C. Hill, is an excellent introduction to the inter-testamental period and the rise of apocalyptic.
3. Several chapters in The Human Faces of God by Thom Stark.
The more interesting question that you should ask yourself is - why did the early church think that these 4 gospels should be put together in one book? Despite the discrepancies.
The problem is - these people weren't stupid. They simply didn't think the same way we did. How much "explorer pathos" of modern academia could have been avoided if the church would have gone down the Marcion route and choose only one gospel.
That a gospel says things another does not is not a contradiction...
Por favor habiliten los subtitulos..!!!
Guys hit the like button
"that Mike's about to reveal to us" - the story of Ahab comes to mind
Nothing justifies a skeptic's rejection of bible inerrancy, quite like the promoters of biblical inerrancy admitting that a newer theory of inerrancy bothers them because they were not taught that theory earlier. If spiritually alive people cannot figure out how to properly define biblical inerrancy, they are fools to expect spiritually dead people to manifest more accurate discernment of such endless philosophical trifling.
I think Jesus cleansed the temple twice I don’t think they are very similar.
He would have been killed on the spot or even banned if he did it twice ….
@@jagknight3730 I disagree. In fact it makes sense for Jesus to go atleast twice to clean out the Temple . Old Testament priests (which is why Jesus asks the question about Johns baptism because John was of a priestly family and John testified Jesus was the LORD and the messiah /the high priest ) had to visit a place more than once when inspecting a mole before condemning it to destruction . Meaning Jesus had to have been there already by the time of the end of his ministry.
Dr. Licona makes Atheists very comfortable with his weak explanations. Why has God allowed so many discrepancies in the Bible ? He should have done a better job.
The gospels have too many contradictions to dance around. Why try to reconcile the errors?
But dont show so many examples dude, they dont fit in the comment space...
Apologetics doesn't help at all in defending contradictions in the bible.
Let me give you two clear cut contradictions that can't be refuted unless you are willing to play games around just to deceive people.
In Matthew, the name of Simon Peter's father is Jonah while in John he is called John. Maybe these two disciples don't seem to know their close friend's father.
In Mark, when the Jews asked Jesus about a sign, he said no sign will be shown to them, while in Matthew he said only one sign will be shown to them. Is it zero sign or one sign? And is this peophecy even fulfilled ? Jesus never appears to any of the Pharisees that he promised a to show a sign if the latter is true. So where and how did he show them if he was buried secretly without their knowledge and all of a sudden they only may have heard about it through hearsay but not through seeing?
These are terrible contradictions!
You’re a Hamza fan I sense 😅 the Jonah issue isn’t a contradiction - when he says no sign will be shown except the sign of Jonah, this isn’t contradictory to the other passage; he’s saying ‘ *I’m not going to show you any signs that you’re looking for/requesting of me, but what I will show you is that I will raise after 3 days* ‘.
So saying ‘no sign will be shown’ in one passage, and ‘no sign will be show to you, but what I will show you is the sign of Jonah’ isn’t a contradiction because both affirm that he’s not going to show them what they are requesting of him; but what he will do is show them something else. Simples.
Do you get the point? Also, when you say this wasn’t fulfilled because he didn’t appear to the Pharisees, he actually said ‘the perverse generation’ will be shown the sign of Jonah - so he’s not saying specifically to the Pharisees that he will appear to them, he appeared to the people of Israel when he rose, thus show that ‘ *perverse generation* ’ the sign of Jonah.
Try "cold case Christianity" , great book to think about what testimonies art...
@@ScottyyyB96Bro, you are sounding emotional rather than being objective. Mark was written years before Matthew and if the Gospel of Mark was in circulation, people would surely believe Jesus said no sign will be shown to them. Later Matthew came to say one sign will be shown to them. It's zero to one, a development of a concept over time to deceive people into believing the resurrection narrative. These are two contradictory statements. Trying to base your life on such fiction movie doesn't work.
And the funny thing is you decided to skip the first contradiction I pointed out, demonstrating your insincerity. Matthew said the name of Peter's father is Jonah while John said it's John. Give us
@@TA-vu9se Not emotional over here brother, just a rational thinker.
On your point of Mark being in circulation for years and that people would have believed no sign would be show - think about this, was Jesus not performing many signs and miracles according to the gospels? No doubt! Jesus clearly performed many miracles and sign but according to you, the people reading Mark for the years it was out should have believed that Jesus performed no signs?
You have the incorrect understanding of the text, Jesus is simply telling them “you’re asking for this and that, im not going to show you, but what I will show you is that I will raise again after 3 days”
I addressed your second point and not the first point simply because I’m not familiar with it and would have to check, but your other point is easily addressable and I have addresses it.
What you need to worry about is why Allah says in the Quran that Jews had the Torah during the time of Muhammad (7th century), we have manuscripts pre dating this (3rd century BC to 1st century AD) which show that the Torah we have today is what they would have had during Muhammad’s time…this is a contradiction in itself for Islam as the Quran affirms the Torah while also contradicting it.
Shalom.
@@ScottyyyB96bro, stop the mental gymnastics. Mark was written earlier and within the 10 years period before the Matthew was written, only Mark would have been in circulation teaching people that Jesus said that no sign will be shown to the Pharisees. Then later, Matthew came to dilute this with some Marina sauce to to try to convince people that he said that only one sign will be shown to them. Zero sign to one sign. This is pure development of a concept in trying to deceive people into your narrative . Anybody with a brain cell knows these are two contradictory statements.
You also made a claim that he appeared to the Jews. Can you name one Jew outside the bible who confirms this appearance as an eyewitness? And please don't forget to tell us the name of the dead saints who appeared to him as well. One evidence please.
Secondly, why did you decide to skip the first contradiction I pointed out here. What is the name of Peter's father? Is it Jonah as in Matthew or John as in John? Did the holy spirit inspire 2 desciples to contradict each other in writing the name of their best friend?
There are obvious errors in and contradictions between the gospels. This is not what one would expect from an omnipotent god in his book for the human race that he created in his image. It is exactly what one would expect from imperfect humans who created God in their image. More fundamentally, the Bible is full of forged epistles. Of the 13 Pauline Epistles, only 7 were written by Paul; neither of the Petrine Epistles were written by Peter; and none of the 3 Johannine Epistles were written by John. This is deeply, deeply troubling for any claim of divine inspiration or authorship. Would an omnipotent god allow forgeries in his book?
Further, the entire belief of Jesus revolved around the coming of a figure called the Son of Man (who may or may not have been Jesus himself, it is unclear) within the lifetime of the Apostles. This figure would create a utopian existence on Earth for those in God's good graces. This did not happen Jesus (and Paul) were flat wrong about this.
Thirdly, THE core belief of Christianity is that Jesus was sent to die on the cross and save us from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, a couple who anybody with a middle school science and natural history education knows did not even exist!!
No, Christianity is an obviously deeply flawed and nonsensical belief that one can only maintain by closing ones eyes to the facts, ignoring the problems and continuing to believe out of either a deep desire or perceived obligation (social or divine) to believe.
1. None of your points about authorship, gospel incongruity and so on makes a case about why the NT cannot be God's word inspired, written by men in the confines of their culture just like everyone is. In other words, unknown authorship is no argument against Inspiration.
2. Jesus’s life revolves around the expectancy of the Son of Man? Wrong. Have you read the gospels and the entire New Testament before making such claims?
Also, Jesus who is the Son of Man in Daniel 7, is also the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Jesus makes this clear in his sayings that the Son of Man must suffer and die at the hands of the religious leaders. It's true, the Jews, including the disciples, didn't expect a suffering and dying Son of Man. This is the whole point the gospel.
The Messiah died, rejected by his won people, making possible the path for a bigger community of faoth, the church. Paul was deliberately on point.
3. Jesus died to save people from the Original sin that did not happen? NONSENSE. I agree with you. Anyone who is in the middle school. And have been taught science and natural history, and have been indoctrinated by their anti religious professors, believe Adam and Eve did not exist. Too bad, no one is then encouraged to ask for evidence.
Ah, bless your heart.
Bless your heart man,@@Brandon-bm. You're doing a wonderful full job !
@@justadude189 are you being sarcastic? If so why do you believe what you believe?
@@Theonly_Onyx no ... I wasn't being sarcastic, and given that every answer I give you will be answered with a variant of "idiot , ignorant, brainwashed, indoctrinated" I won't answer the second question.
Here is your problem thst you will never ever resolve if all is written by the inspiration of god who is the planner and orchestrator of all events HOW COULD THERE SUCH VAST DIFFERENCE in the description and details of events for example the trial of Jesus where there was no witnesses for the defense of Jesus to relate events and NO record of individual members of the sandhedrin prosecuting jesus relating the events of the trial Therefor its a fully related story directly inspired by the holt spirit only how then could there be such diversion in the story how could god not relate a single consistent story coming from his divine inspiration it’s fine to CUT THE CRAP face reality the bible is neither inerrant or perfectly preserved dam it gave it !!!!!!