I don't care what you believe regarding the gospels, as for me, I don't see myself _ever_ standing before the Lord saying, "Most Scholars today agree that..."
@@TruthBeTold7 We're not knocking scholars, as a rule, however, God is a _person_ so, at SOME POINT, the opinions of others must be abandoned in order to meet His person. Which is, by the way, not a matter of faith but, a matter of making the decision to know somebody as opposed to knowing about something.
@@TruthBeTold7 FWIW, we do not claim some _great faith_ as, our attempts to get to know Him may well be as awkward as a teenager interacting with their crush however, that's not the point. The point is: He is an individual who is some one worth struggling to know. And we experience His affectionate response toward us when we value Him enough (again, as an individual) to drop the staid & stodgy for the desire to have personal connection with Him.
I hadn't considered before that the fact that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source actually raises their credibility as historians rather than puts it into question.
You hadn't considered that before because its not actually the case. Historians value having multiple, unrelated, accounts of events that all correspond to and reinforce each other. Having 3 accounts that are all based off 1 of the 3, only counts as 1 account to actual historians.
@@timeshark8727 Hi mate. The 4 gospels represent 4 accounts of what transpired 2000 years ago. They may not all be independent sources, however each of the gospels makes unique claims and names unique witnesses through whom they got their information from. Matthew and Luke quoted Mark like a good historian references other historical works of the same time period. They didn't feel the need to hide the fact either, because they weren't attempting to deceive anyone.
@@thechristologists8479 _"Matthew and Luke quoted Mark like a good historian references other historical works of the same time period."_ - *No they don't. They copy Mark like a high-schooler copying the kid next to them. Referencing something is very different from copying word for word.*
@@timeshark8727 What would you expect to see if the Gospel accounts were true and trustworthy? What about using parts of Mark's Gospel puts into question their authenticity?
@@thechristologists8479 Nothing about using Mark's Gospel puts their authenticity into question... what copying Mark does is turn 3 potential sources into 1 source. I could have sworn I said this same sort of thing before... What puts their authenticity into question are the contradictions between the Gospels and with reality, and the complete lack of supporting evidence for any of the important claims in the Gospels from outside the bible.
Great concise clip. Thanks Prof Licona. How does what you said about errors and possible inconsistencies relate to Biblical infallibility and inerrancy?
What Ive heard Mike say is that the Bible is inerrant in what it teaches and the “inconsistencies “ are small things like spelling errors or just a different in POV from another author.(example : one book says the tomb had 2 angels and another said “angels). Mikes got a few videos on this as well(lectures and talks on RUclips)
@@timeshark8727 it’s the truth. There are different POV. If me and you saw the same movie a s each wrote reviews, it would t be identical, would it? That’s how the gospels are as well. The message stays the same with different POV.
@@Gatorbeaux different locations, people, events, etc too... almost like one is watching the original 1938 version of the movie while the other is watching a 2020 remake. ... you know, except for the parts of the Gospels that are, in fact, identical. Word for word in some cases. As if 2 of the authors just copied parts from an earlier story. Its actually amazing how they copy in some areas, then have totally different stories about the same events in others.
@@timeshark8727 well 1 of the gospels were learned from the author from another one in about 3-4 verses and that's it. other than that the others were different from different areas, different writers who had zero interactions with the other writers...... but the same basic story about Jesus life, death and resurrection. The kicker is, those people all died for what they knew to be true. all were martyred. Nobody does this for a lie. nobody would risk that. these accounts were either from eyewitnesses or from people who knew eyewitnesses. If Christianity wasn't true, it would have died in 33AD(but it didn't' did it? ;-) and what do you do with Isiah 53 that told of Jesus 700 years before his birth? or the other old testament prophesies that mentions the messiah being born in Bethlehem and being hates and coming in riding on a donkey... all coincidences i guess.... I hear there's a Bart Erhman site available for you where you likeminded heathens can trade lies freely?!?!?! lol take care and God Bless!
@@Gatorbeaux, writes _"actually Genesisi 1;1 is historically accurate(big bang)"_ "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So that's just a straight up baseless, unfounded, unsubstantiated claim. As such it's meaningless and can be ignored. "2 Now the earth was formless and empty," Wait what? The Earth didn't exist for nine something Billion years… Or are you claiming that "formless and empty" means not existing? _"darkness was over the surface of the deep,"_ The surface of the what now? "and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Huh? This is clearly a typical creation myth. Creation myths are common to almost all mythologies. And I'm not even getting into the "six days", bull***.
@@Gatorbeaux so tell us how god created stars before he created light? Tell us how he seperated day and night when it is always day and always night somewhere in the planet? How does he create light, seperated night and day and then *later* create the lights of the sun and moon? And that is just a tip of the iceberg in how wrong Genesis is and how it is obvious the people who wrote it had little understand of the world around them.
@@fred_derf you can have mythohistorical genre too(which this clearly is) The Gospels are historical and that has nothing to do with faith. mul;tiply attested too accounts of Jesus life, death and resurrection. Extra biblical historians wrote on this, Jesus enemies wrote on this. You seem to have an issue with these easily verifiable facts make it a "YOU" problem, Not a world renowned biblical scholars problem
@@swirvinbirds1971 you dont understand that Genesis was written for 2000BC Jews. It tells some history and corresponds directly to what actually happened.(Big Bang corresponding to Gen 1:1) God also said time is different with him,(a day and be like 1000 years and 1000 years can be like a day-paraphrasing) Take a biblical studies class and you will go over this. There several hundred scientific facts in the bible that show its divinity. From the shape of the earth to its gravity to under water rivers that we didnt know existed a few hundred years ago. "The life is in the blood" George Washington was bled out and died because just 280 years ago we had no idea about this. Learning actual hermanutics would help you also to find the truth. Happy Learning!
St. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus wrote in "Against Heresies" 3.1.1-2 “Matthew wrote among the Jews in their own style while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome.
Papias wasn't even born until 30 years after jesus's supposed death -- so, in a time when the vast majority of people couldn't read, just how reliable do you think stories passed by word of mouth for fifty years are going to be?
@@fred_derf : I don't know how old you are, but people who witnessed great events can still recall what happened with clarity 30 or 50 years later. Indeed, some who were eye witnesses can give details that add to our insight and understanding. The Apostle Paul could write. I suspect Mathew, the Tax collectot could write. There was literacy in Palestine at that time ans it would not have been unusual for some to have a working knowledge of language. Finally, your comments reveal that you are clueless as to how oral tradition works.
@@gerryquinn5578, writes _"I don't know how old you are, but people who witnessed great events can still recall what happened with clarity 30 or 50 years later."_ You clearly don't understand how our memories work. Here's an experiment you can do. Find 10 random African-American people who were at Barack Obama's Inauguration, and get them to write out the speech he gave from memory (that was less than 13 years ago). Then compare them and let us know how similar they all are.
@@fred_derf : Alternatively, ask people in their 50s or 60s to tell you the lyrics of their favourite song, the one they have been singing since they were teenagers . The words they learned and recited time and time again.
1) Not sure any secular scholar takes Pappias account at face value and concludes Peter a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth actually underpins the narrative in Mark. 2) Matthew and Luke use their source (Mark) so responsibly that it’s essentially a verbatim copy, at least in large sections. Twisting the synoptic problem in the gospels into a noble feature is a stretch. 3) Accepting basic historical facts within the gospels such as the very basics about Jesus of Nazareth - itinerant preacher, claimed the kingdom of God was at hand, had a band of disciples, reported to have performed miracles - all of these are common claims and are characteristics shared with other 1st century spiritual figures of the day. None of these speaks to the reliability of the most important claim we find in the gospels, which is the resurrection. 4) Glad you can acknowledge mistakes in the gospels. I agree the discrepancies don’t change the underlying narrative the gospels portray, but it does suggest non divine inspiration, which you readily concede to all other religious texts. I think this is smoke and mirrors. If you choose to believe in Christianity you’re better off simply stating you accept it based on faith, and stop trying to pretend empirical evidence exists and the billions on earth who reject it are simply loving life while living in sin, or whatever excuse Christian’s often attribute to people they can’t pull the wool over.
Its not just Papias who says that Mark’s Gospel is based off Peter’s preaching. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Tertuallian testify this as well. Which means we have a geographically widespread attestation to Mark’s Gospel being based off of Peter’s preaching in Rome. And scholars like Richard Bauckham have shown that there is good internal evidence to suggest Mark’s Gospel was heavily influenced by Apostle Peter. I mean if Mark’s Gospel is giving us the testimony of Apostle Peter, than there is nothing remotely implausible about Matthew or Luke using Mark as their prime source material. And Peter was one of Jesus closest disciples, so who better to draw from than Peter himself? I don’t see the problem here. If the widespread amount of scholars from all theological stripes agree and basic bedrock facts on Jesus life, that means there is a historical basis on the life of Jesus. Saying they don’t corroborate anything that can get us to the resurrection sounds like a weak argument, since this video isn’t trying to prove Jesus resurrection, more the reliability of the four Gospels. Also there are bedrock facts that we know about Jesus that do lead to the resurrection discussion that is virtually agreed upon by all scholars of different worldview’s. Like Jesus death by crucifixion, his disciples having experiences that they though were of the risen Jesus, the conversions of Paul and James enemies of Christianity, and the followers of Jesus willingness to die for their beliefs.
@@Mike00513 Some people have said that the 1969 moon landings (and those afterwards) were faked. But consider astronauts like Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin who could fly jets, Armstrong the best pilot of the astronauts, Aldrin had a PhD from MIT on Orbital Mechanics. And consider all the knowledge of the companies and Scientists and Engineers working on all those rockets and space ships. There was enough knowledge to land on the moon and come back to Earth.
How do we know the Jesus of Christianity Resurrection wasn't faked? How much knowledge did Jesus have to Resurrect a 3 day old stinky body to fresh again? Did Jesus tell us about first aid we could perform on each other to prevent medical damage? Did Jesus tell us about CPR? Did Jesus tell us about human Physiology? Anything at all about Science? It's not enough to just have some clever parables and supernatural, very likely human created stories.
Just like humans can create stories like Star Trek and Star Wars from their minds and imaginations, humans can create a God that can rise again after 3 days. but what knowledge does this God have to have evidence that it is not story fakery, rather than an actual event?
Thomas Jefferson read a lot from the Philosophies of the Age of Enlightenment and Jefferson did not think that Christianity was true. That is the importance of the phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence of the US, not to use the laws of ancient world story Gods which were made up by people living in the ancient world.
Good question... lets look at his criteria. _"1, their authors chose their sources judiciously"_ & _"2, The authors used their sources responsibly"_ - *We have exactly no information regarding who the authors of the Gospels are, or where they got their sources other than that some of the Gospels copy directly from each other. The best he has is 'someone said, that someone said, that the author said'.* _"If Peter is the source behind Mark's Gospel, that's profound"_ - *It sure is... now if only we had any actual way of knowing that he actually **_was_** the source.* ... So... Papious says, that John says that Mark's source was Peter? Wow... that's... really, really far from the work itself. We don't even know who the authors of the Gospels are, making claims about where they got their sources is hilariously dishonest to even attempt without that. Not to mention that most of the Gospels were written so long after the events that the 12 would have likely died of old age before they could have been used as sources. _"3, Numerous items that are in the Gospels can be verified"_ - *Things like: locations of cities and names of rulers can be verified... the rest of the stories, not so much. In many places, they even get the timing wrong on many things, like who was ruling when Jesus was born and when the census would have taken place.* _"Jesus believed he had a special relationship with God"_ - *Yes... however, the nature of that relationship varies from Gospel to Gospel... also, my mother (and virtually every Christian) also believes she has a special relationship with God.* _"4, no more than a small percentage of reported items are reasonable candidates for being mistakes."_ - *So what? Believing in something that hasn't been demonstrated to be true **_until_** it's proven to be false is silly, and not the way we approach any other claim... so why are you asking us to do that in this case?* I love how people try to hand wave away the discrepancies and inconstancies in the Gospels... the ad hoc stories that people come up with to get around the different accounts of who found the empty tomb, where Jesus' family lived/was from, why the census done after the death of Herrod and because of the death of Herrod forced Jesus' family to move while Herrod was in power and actively looking for Jesus in order to harm him, etc. are all hilarious. So, back to the original question: Why trust the Gospels?... ... no reason really. People trust them because they believe and believe because they trust them. Logic, reason and evidence don't factor in at all... if they did, videos like this one would be about evidence instead of nonsense.
Paulogia video (ruclips.net/video/laYoOFPtY-k/видео.html) breaks down this video quite well and gives great insight into Licona's cognitive dissonance. When one freely admits opposite story details are recorded between the gospels, then seconds later claim that the gospels are inerrant, one can justify anything. Some may be beyond help but with a touch of intellectual honesty maybe you could help yourself.
Paulogia has never debunked anything.... lol He only further shows he doesn't understand historical genre and textural criticism. These are facts from history. Many attested sources with the stories going around the area as ealy as 6 months after the cross. The cog diss here is on the Paulogia guy to hold on to his fanciful beliefs. If Christ didn't rise from the dead, Christianity 100% dies in 33AD. The gospels authors and the eyewitnesses had zero to gain by making up a risen Jesus. Christians were killed for worshiping anyone but the Pagan Gods or Yahweh of the Jews. its nonsense this guy has sold you......
I could also make videos. Titled "Why Trust the Book of Mormon? (4 minutes)", or "Why Trust L. Ron Hubbard's Books on Scientology (4 minutes)"... Do I really need to explain this one?
I could grant Licona that everything in the gospels are true, but the medium by which this truth is delivered is inadequate. How can a God demand that people living 2,000 years later must trust with their life and eternal future the religious writings of an ancient and superstitious people? The very fact that apologetics exists underscores how inadequate this testimony is.
@@The-F.R.E.E.-J. I hear you. It is basic Christian doctrine that I can't believe without the Holy Spirit working in me. But Mormons base their belief on what they call a "warming of the bosom" and many other faiths claim divine conversion experiences. So who to believe? If I can't turn to academics to help me judge truth claims, I don't see what the point to apologetics is, since God will save whom he chooses.
@@truncated7644 with all due respect sir, you are missing a very important point. You are saying that there are many different claims, therefore, how can you know which one is true? But the thing you are ignoring is the fact, of the very real reality, that there is the SPIRIT of God and, if HE is any sort of God at all, you will certainly know it when He communicates with you. The real question is, who will see that & believe it to the exclusion of "proving" it to anyone elses satisfaction? In other words, as God said when He visited us in the flesh, "When the son of man comes, will He find faith in the Earth?"
You admit that many of the things in the bible including the gospels them selves cant be verified. And are candidates for mistakes. You have no idea if any of it is true and none of it can be proven.
These do not seem like good reasons to me. In short you should have said, we can't disprove any of these points in the Gospels....which is essentially the same thing as saying, we can't prove anything either. Cherry picked examples of incidents that have no weight of proving if Jesus was in fact a divine being...while it's 100% obvious that you neglect all of the discrepancies found amongst the Gospels.
Hi, I recommend to you a book called New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, perhaps it will be able to answer some of your questions. God bless.
@@shannonglover5291 First of all 'believing' unconditionally is called faith, secondly, you will be forever disappointed if you demand to see evidence just to believe.
@@MSHOOD123 thanks for the blind assertion. I'm not sure I have any use for faith personally. I could take any position in the world on faith which should show.younhow unreliable it is.
Why is it we take many things in history to be reliable history until they start talking about virgin births, becoming gods and every other claim of the such except for Jesus? Why is Jesus the only person in history that we say well these other things seem to be reliable history so let's give him everything else as well. Would you not have to do the same thing for every other real person in history that such claims were made about?
Oh yes. Licona definitely said that the evidence for Jesus is just as good as the evidence for Hercules and they’re the exact same quality of sources but he rejects Hercules and not Jesus because he has to.
@@Mike00513 did you watch the video? Why do we accept claims for Jesus of divinity and virgin birth and miracles and is god, when we don't accept these same claims from other people?
No one is saying that because the gospels contain reliable history, and because the gospels say that Jesus was God, therefore Jesus was God. That the gospels claim that Jesus is God is one part of a bigger cumulative case.
@@atheistskeptic8748 No comparison. Those men claimed to be gods. Jesus claimed to be the One True God. Theres a big difference. He claimed to be the ruler of the entire universe while the others considered themselves to be one of many gods.
His body was placed in a tomb. But three days later, the tomb was empty ?! And the man, alive once again but still with his wounds (so anyone who doubted could see them and touch them), appeared to many people in many places. Then he ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of his god the father almighty, never to be seen again....?? wow! hahaha
Recommended books: "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels", and "The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel" both by Craig Blomberg.
I love that a well respected historian such as Mike is taking his material to the common people of RUclips. You're an inspiration Mike!
I don't care what you believe regarding the gospels, as for me, I don't see myself _ever_ standing before the Lord saying, "Most Scholars today agree that..."
Some people are not blessed with the kind of faith you have. They rely on scholarly opinions.
@@TruthBeTold7
We're not knocking scholars, as a rule, however, God is a _person_ so, at SOME POINT, the opinions of others must be abandoned in order to meet His person. Which is, by the way, not a matter of faith but, a matter of making the decision to know somebody as opposed to knowing about something.
@@TruthBeTold7
FWIW, we do not claim some _great faith_ as, our attempts to get to know Him may well be as awkward as a teenager interacting with their crush however, that's not the point. The point is: He is an individual who is some one worth struggling to know. And we experience His affectionate response toward us when we value Him enough (again, as an individual) to drop the staid & stodgy for the desire to have personal connection with Him.
Yeah, imagine standing before the lord Osiris and saying: "Well, a person on a RUclips video said..."
@@WhiteScorpio2 I can''t imagine that because I will never stand before Osiris, since he doesn't exist.
Great short video on an important topic!
Beautiful and relaxing video
I hadn't considered before that the fact that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source actually raises their credibility as historians rather than puts it into question.
You hadn't considered that before because its not actually the case. Historians value having multiple, unrelated, accounts of events that all correspond to and reinforce each other. Having 3 accounts that are all based off 1 of the 3, only counts as 1 account to actual historians.
@@timeshark8727 Hi mate. The 4 gospels represent 4 accounts of what transpired 2000 years ago. They may not all be independent sources, however each of the gospels makes unique claims and names unique witnesses through whom they got their information from. Matthew and Luke quoted Mark like a good historian references other historical works of the same time period. They didn't feel the need to hide the fact either, because they weren't attempting to deceive anyone.
@@thechristologists8479 _"Matthew and Luke quoted Mark like a good historian references other historical works of the same time period."_
- *No they don't. They copy Mark like a high-schooler copying the kid next to them. Referencing something is very different from copying word for word.*
@@timeshark8727 What would you expect to see if the Gospel accounts were true and trustworthy? What about using parts of Mark's Gospel puts into question their authenticity?
@@thechristologists8479 Nothing about using Mark's Gospel puts their authenticity into question... what copying Mark does is turn 3 potential sources into 1 source. I could have sworn I said this same sort of thing before...
What puts their authenticity into question are the contradictions between the Gospels and with reality, and the complete lack of supporting evidence for any of the important claims in the Gospels from outside the bible.
Thank you.
This video is for sharing 😃
How does Marcion’s gospel come into play in this discussion? His work cannot be dismissed.
Great concise clip. Thanks Prof Licona. How does what you said about errors and possible inconsistencies relate to Biblical infallibility and inerrancy?
What Ive heard Mike say is that the Bible is inerrant in what it teaches and the “inconsistencies “ are small things like spelling errors or just a different in POV from another author.(example : one book says the tomb had 2 angels and another said “angels). Mikes got a few videos on this as well(lectures and talks on RUclips)
@@Gatorbeaux That sounds like what he would say... its a lie, but it sounds like what he would say.
@@timeshark8727 it’s the truth. There are different POV. If me and you saw the same movie a s each wrote reviews, it would t be identical, would it? That’s how the gospels are as well. The message stays the same with different POV.
@@Gatorbeaux different locations, people, events, etc too... almost like one is watching the original 1938 version of the movie while the other is watching a 2020 remake.
... you know, except for the parts of the Gospels that are, in fact, identical. Word for word in some cases. As if 2 of the authors just copied parts from an earlier story.
Its actually amazing how they copy in some areas, then have totally different stories about the same events in others.
@@timeshark8727 well 1 of the gospels were learned from the author from another one in about 3-4 verses and that's it. other than that the others were different from different areas, different writers who had zero interactions with the other writers...... but the same basic story about Jesus life, death and resurrection. The kicker is, those people all died for what they knew to be true. all were martyred. Nobody does this for a lie. nobody would risk that. these accounts were either from eyewitnesses or from people who knew eyewitnesses. If Christianity wasn't true, it would have died in 33AD(but it didn't' did it? ;-) and what do you do with Isiah 53 that told of Jesus 700 years before his birth? or the other old testament prophesies that mentions the messiah being born in Bethlehem and being hates and coming in riding on a donkey... all coincidences i guess.... I hear there's a Bart Erhman site available for you where you likeminded heathens can trade lies freely?!?!?! lol take care and God Bless!
Hey Mike I'll make it easy for you. The bible isn't a historically accurate document, it get's things completely wrong from the very first page…
actually Genesisi 1;1 is historically accurate(big bang) in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth....... but troll on- this is fun!
@@Gatorbeaux, writes _"actually Genesisi 1;1 is historically accurate(big bang)"_
"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
So that's just a straight up baseless, unfounded, unsubstantiated claim. As such it's meaningless and can be ignored.
"2 Now the earth was formless and empty,"
Wait what? The Earth didn't exist for nine something Billion years… Or are you claiming that "formless and empty" means not existing?
_"darkness was over the surface of the deep,"_
The surface of the what now?
"and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
Huh?
This is clearly a typical creation myth. Creation myths are common to almost all mythologies. And I'm not even getting into the "six days", bull***.
@@Gatorbeaux so tell us how god created stars before he created light? Tell us how he seperated day and night when it is always day and always night somewhere in the planet? How does he create light, seperated night and day and then *later* create the lights of the sun and moon?
And that is just a tip of the iceberg in how wrong Genesis is and how it is obvious the people who wrote it had little understand of the world around them.
@@fred_derf you can have mythohistorical genre too(which this clearly is) The Gospels are historical and that has nothing to do with faith. mul;tiply attested too accounts of Jesus life, death and resurrection. Extra biblical historians wrote on this, Jesus enemies wrote on this. You seem to have an issue with these easily verifiable facts make it a "YOU" problem, Not a world renowned biblical scholars problem
@@swirvinbirds1971 you dont understand that Genesis was written for 2000BC Jews. It tells some history and corresponds directly to what actually happened.(Big Bang corresponding to Gen 1:1) God also said time is different with him,(a day and be like 1000 years and 1000 years can be like a day-paraphrasing) Take a biblical studies class and you will go over this. There several hundred scientific facts in the bible that show its divinity. From the shape of the earth to its gravity to under water rivers that we didnt know existed a few hundred years ago. "The life is in the blood" George Washington was bled out and died because just 280 years ago we had no idea about this. Learning actual hermanutics would help you also to find the truth. Happy Learning!
Dr. Dennis R. MacDonald's Mimesis Criticism of the Gospels is very compelling.
We really don’t know and will never know if the Bible is true. We weren’t there 😭
Is there any way I can help you? If you need somebody to talk to about your doubts I am happy to message you
My email is on my profile
neither were u there to witness world war 1 or world war 2 or the french revolution
Is there evidence that Matthew recorded sayings of Jesus in Hebrew, which Mark and Luke translated into Greek?
St. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus wrote in "Against Heresies" 3.1.1-2
“Matthew wrote among the Jews in their own style while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome.
Why the map of Israel?
Why should we believe what Papias says about Peter being the source behind Mark and not what other Fathers say about Mathew being the first gospel?
Papias wasn't even born until 30 years after jesus's supposed death -- so, in a time when the vast majority of people couldn't read, just how reliable do you think stories passed by word of mouth for fifty years are going to be?
@@fred_derf : I don't know how old you are, but people who witnessed great events can still recall what happened with clarity 30 or 50 years later. Indeed, some who were eye witnesses can give details that add to our insight and understanding.
The Apostle Paul could write. I suspect Mathew, the Tax collectot could write. There was literacy in Palestine at that time ans it would not have been unusual for some to have a working knowledge of language.
Finally, your comments reveal that you are clueless as to how oral tradition works.
@@gerryquinn5578, writes _"I don't know how old you are, but people who witnessed great events can still recall what happened with clarity 30 or 50 years later."_
You clearly don't understand how our memories work. Here's an experiment you can do. Find 10 random African-American people who were at Barack Obama's Inauguration, and get them to write out the speech he gave from memory (that was less than 13 years ago). Then compare them and let us know how similar they all are.
@@fred_derf : Alternatively, ask people in their 50s or 60s to tell you the lyrics of their favourite song, the one they have been singing since they were teenagers . The words they learned and recited time and time again.
@@gerryquinn5578 And then ask them the lyrics to their parents favourite songs that they were singing since their youth…
1) Not sure any secular scholar takes Pappias account at face value and concludes Peter a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth actually underpins the narrative in Mark.
2) Matthew and Luke use their source (Mark) so responsibly that it’s essentially a verbatim copy, at least in large sections. Twisting the synoptic problem in the gospels into a noble feature is a stretch.
3) Accepting basic historical facts within the gospels such as the very basics about Jesus of Nazareth - itinerant preacher, claimed the kingdom of God was at hand, had a band of disciples, reported to have performed miracles - all of these are common claims and are characteristics shared with other 1st century spiritual figures of the day. None of these speaks to the reliability of the most important claim we find in the gospels, which is the resurrection.
4) Glad you can acknowledge mistakes in the gospels. I agree the discrepancies don’t change the underlying narrative the gospels portray, but it does suggest non divine inspiration, which you readily concede to all other religious texts.
I think this is smoke and mirrors. If you choose to believe in Christianity you’re better off simply stating you accept it based on faith, and stop trying to pretend empirical evidence exists and the billions on earth who reject it are simply loving life while living in sin, or whatever excuse Christian’s often attribute to people they can’t pull the wool over.
Its not just Papias who says that Mark’s Gospel is based off Peter’s preaching. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Tertuallian testify this as well. Which means we have a geographically widespread attestation to Mark’s Gospel being based off of Peter’s preaching in Rome. And scholars like Richard Bauckham have shown that there is good internal evidence to suggest Mark’s Gospel was heavily influenced by Apostle Peter.
I mean if Mark’s Gospel is giving us the testimony of Apostle Peter, than there is nothing remotely implausible about Matthew or Luke using Mark as their prime source material. And Peter was one of Jesus closest disciples, so who better to draw from than Peter himself?
I don’t see the problem here. If the widespread amount of scholars from all theological stripes agree and basic bedrock facts on Jesus life, that means there is a historical basis on the life of Jesus. Saying they don’t corroborate anything that can get us to the resurrection sounds like a weak argument, since this video isn’t trying to prove Jesus resurrection, more the reliability of the four Gospels.
Also there are bedrock facts that we know about Jesus that do lead to the resurrection discussion that is virtually agreed upon by all scholars of different worldview’s. Like Jesus death by crucifixion, his disciples having experiences that they though were of the risen Jesus, the conversions of Paul and James enemies of Christianity, and the followers of Jesus willingness to die for their beliefs.
@@Mike00513 Some people have said that the 1969 moon landings (and those afterwards) were faked. But consider astronauts like Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin who could fly jets, Armstrong the best pilot of the astronauts, Aldrin had a PhD from MIT on Orbital Mechanics. And consider all the knowledge of the companies and Scientists and Engineers working on all those rockets and space ships. There was enough knowledge to land on the moon and come back to Earth.
How do we know the Jesus of Christianity Resurrection wasn't faked? How much knowledge did Jesus have to Resurrect a 3 day old stinky body to fresh again? Did Jesus tell us about first aid we could perform on each other to prevent medical damage? Did Jesus tell us about CPR? Did Jesus tell us about human Physiology? Anything at all about Science? It's not enough to just have some clever parables and supernatural, very likely human created stories.
Just like humans can create stories like Star Trek and Star Wars from their minds and imaginations, humans can create a God that can rise again after 3 days. but what knowledge does this God have to have evidence that it is not story fakery, rather than an actual event?
Thomas Jefferson read a lot from the Philosophies of the Age of Enlightenment and Jefferson did not think that Christianity was true. That is the importance of the phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence of the US, not to use the laws of ancient world story Gods which were made up by people living in the ancient world.
Good question... lets look at his criteria.
_"1, their authors chose their sources judiciously"_ & _"2, The authors used their sources responsibly"_
- *We have exactly no information regarding who the authors of the Gospels are, or where they got their sources other than that some of the Gospels copy directly from each other. The best he has is 'someone said, that someone said, that the author said'.*
_"If Peter is the source behind Mark's Gospel, that's profound"_
- *It sure is... now if only we had any actual way of knowing that he actually **_was_** the source.*
... So... Papious says, that John says that Mark's source was Peter? Wow... that's... really, really far from the work itself.
We don't even know who the authors of the Gospels are, making claims about where they got their sources is hilariously dishonest to even attempt without that. Not to mention that most of the Gospels were written so long after the events that the 12 would have likely died of old age before they could have been used as sources.
_"3, Numerous items that are in the Gospels can be verified"_
- *Things like: locations of cities and names of rulers can be verified... the rest of the stories, not so much. In many places, they even get the timing wrong on many things, like who was ruling when Jesus was born and when the census would have taken place.*
_"Jesus believed he had a special relationship with God"_
- *Yes... however, the nature of that relationship varies from Gospel to Gospel... also, my mother (and virtually every Christian) also believes she has a special relationship with God.*
_"4, no more than a small percentage of reported items are reasonable candidates for being mistakes."_
- *So what? Believing in something that hasn't been demonstrated to be true **_until_** it's proven to be false is silly, and not the way we approach any other claim... so why are you asking us to do that in this case?*
I love how people try to hand wave away the discrepancies and inconstancies in the Gospels... the ad hoc stories that people come up with to get around the different accounts of who found the empty tomb, where Jesus' family lived/was from, why the census done after the death of Herrod and because of the death of Herrod forced Jesus' family to move while Herrod was in power and actively looking for Jesus in order to harm him, etc. are all hilarious.
So, back to the original question: Why trust the Gospels?... ... no reason really. People trust them because they believe and believe because they trust them. Logic, reason and evidence don't factor in at all... if they did, videos like this one would be about evidence instead of nonsense.
I wonder why he doesn't even mention the Gospel of John.
Paulogia video (ruclips.net/video/laYoOFPtY-k/видео.html) breaks down this video quite well and gives great insight into Licona's cognitive dissonance. When one freely admits opposite story details are recorded between the gospels, then seconds later claim that the gospels are inerrant, one can justify anything. Some may be beyond help but with a touch of intellectual honesty maybe you could help yourself.
Paulogia has never debunked anything.... lol He only further shows he doesn't understand historical genre and textural criticism. These are facts from history. Many attested sources with the stories going around the area as ealy as 6 months after the cross. The cog diss here is on the Paulogia guy to hold on to his fanciful beliefs. If Christ didn't rise from the dead, Christianity 100% dies in 33AD. The gospels authors and the eyewitnesses had zero to gain by making up a risen Jesus. Christians were killed for worshiping anyone but the Pagan Gods or Yahweh of the Jews. its nonsense this guy has sold you......
I could also make videos. Titled
"Why Trust the Book of Mormon? (4 minutes)", or
"Why Trust L. Ron Hubbard's Books on Scientology (4 minutes)"...
Do I really need to explain this one?
I could grant Licona that everything in the gospels are true, but the medium by which this truth is delivered is inadequate. How can a God demand that people living 2,000 years later must trust with their life and eternal future the religious writings of an ancient and superstitious people? The very fact that apologetics exists underscores how inadequate this testimony is.
You do understand, for some, knowing the Lord Jesus comes through a NON-academic route don't you?
@@The-F.R.E.E.-J. I hear you. It is basic Christian doctrine that I can't believe without the Holy Spirit working in me. But Mormons base their belief on what they call a "warming of the bosom" and many other faiths claim divine conversion experiences. So who to believe? If I can't turn to academics to help me judge truth claims, I don't see what the point to apologetics is, since God will save whom he chooses.
@@truncated7644 with all due respect sir, you are missing a very important point. You are saying that there are many different claims, therefore, how can you know which one is true? But the thing you are ignoring is the fact, of the very real reality, that there is the SPIRIT of God and, if HE is any sort of God at all, you will certainly know it when He communicates with you. The real question is, who will see that & believe it to the exclusion of "proving" it to anyone elses satisfaction? In other words, as God said when He visited us in the flesh, "When the son of man comes, will He find faith in the Earth?"
You admit that many of the things in the bible including the gospels them selves cant be verified. And are candidates for mistakes. You have no idea if any of it is true and none of it can be proven.
These do not seem like good reasons to me. In short you should have said, we can't disprove any of these points in the Gospels....which is essentially the same thing as saying, we can't prove anything either. Cherry picked examples of incidents that have no weight of proving if Jesus was in fact a divine being...while it's 100% obvious that you neglect all of the discrepancies found amongst the Gospels.
Hi, I recommend to you a book called New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, perhaps it will be able to answer some of your questions. God bless.
@@MSHOOD123 I'm not interested in reading excuses. I would prefer to see evidence.
@@shannonglover5291 First of all 'believing' unconditionally is called faith, secondly, you will be forever disappointed if you demand to see evidence just to believe.
@@MSHOOD123 thanks for the blind assertion. I'm not sure I have any use for faith personally. I could take any position in the world on faith which should show.younhow unreliable it is.
@@MSHOOD123 God doesn’t ask for blind faith.
Why is it we take many things in history to be reliable history until they start talking about virgin births, becoming gods and every other claim of the such except for Jesus? Why is Jesus the only person in history that we say well these other things seem to be reliable history so let's give him everything else as well. Would you not have to do the same thing for every other real person in history that such claims were made about?
Who said that?
Oh yes. Licona definitely said that the evidence for Jesus is just as good as the evidence for Hercules and they’re the exact same quality of sources but he rejects Hercules and not Jesus because he has to.
@@Mike00513 did you watch the video? Why do we accept claims for Jesus of divinity and virgin birth and miracles and is god, when we don't accept these same claims from other people?
No one is saying that because the gospels contain reliable history, and because the gospels say that Jesus was God, therefore Jesus was God. That the gospels claim that Jesus is God is one part of a bigger cumulative case.
@@atheistskeptic8748 No comparison. Those men claimed to be gods. Jesus claimed to be the One True God. Theres a big difference. He claimed to be the ruler of the entire universe while the others considered themselves to be one of many gods.
His body was placed in a tomb.
But three days later, the tomb was empty ?!
And the man, alive once again but still with his wounds
(so anyone who doubted could see them and touch them), appeared to many people in many places.
Then he ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of his god the father almighty, never to be seen again....?? wow!
hahaha
Because all it provides is baseless assertions with no compelling evidence or explanations, no that's why you shouldn't trust the gospels.