Doubting the Gospels?

[@donj2222]

All truth is God's truth, so if you seek truth, you will find Truth!

[@williambillycraig1057]

I wished Mike could sell signed copies of his book. 🙂

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

I think that can be arranged. Contact me via my web site risenjesus.com

[@2112deadsky]

the number 1 contradiction is in Mattew 24 where some versions say end of the age, and some say end of the world.

[@michaelsbeverly]

Hey Mike. It's still circular. You're still using the documents, which are not history, to prove the conclusion you started with, which is ahistorical. Mark wrote a foundation story, a myth, complete with a translation at the end, a common trope and convention of the day. Obviously, others came along and said, "this won't do," and the legendary development grew. Not history, literary devices. Conventions. Genre matters to all except the Lydia McGrews of the world who dismiss the obvious. Once we admit genre matters, the gig is up. It's fiction. For 100% proof, absolute clarity, just think about what you said to me in our stream about Jim Wallace. You think he's a man of integrity. He's now admitted he's a fraud. He admitted this on Cameron Bertuzzi's channel and I've well documented this, there is now zero doubt that Jim Wallace's story grew from a seed of truth into a legend that is filled with lies, misrepresentations, and complete obfuscations of reality. We know this for a fact from his own lips as he contradicts himself over and over. Christians still believe Jim's lies even in an age of video and radio recordings and books they can read (literacy is vastly higher today than in the first century) which prove beyond any doubt that he's been lying. Christians don't care about integrity. I've asked a bunch of apologists if they'd be willing to correct the lies they've spread about Jim on Jim's behalf and they've all ignored me. Nobody cares. Nobody is committed to uncompromising integrity on your side, Mike, and this is all we need to know to prove Christians will spread legends and myths without reservation. Even in a day of video that is easily accessible and proves they're lying. Even more telling, Jim allows apologists to lie for him, he said to Cam that it wasn't his responsibility to correct people lying on his behalf. So now we can see how the early Christian legends grew and grew, Christians don't mind allowing lies to spread as long as they support the message they want to support. Lies are good, apparently, if they're done in behalf of spreading the gospel message. It's a bit ironic to hear Christians claim they've got a Gospel of Truth, that non-Christians should accept, when truth isn't a priority to them when it comes to defending a liar who happens to be a Christian apologist (who's rich and famous). The other irony is that both you and Jim Wallace cannot be right. You guys contradict each other. So one of you is misrepresenting the Gospels and Acts. This is axiomatic. So, which one of you, who has access to the Bible, and is "filled with the Spirit of Truth" is misleading people with a totally false narrative about the scriptures? It must be, axiomatically, it must be one of you. One of you must be wrong. One of you must be a false teacher. It cannot be any other way except that you're both wrong. Next time you have doubts, Mike, it might be fair not to call someone already committed to one answer, I mean, unless it's not truth you're hunting, but comfort. If it's truth you seek, you've got to look at all the evidence. I'd suggest Richard C. Miller as a start and then just read all the former Christians. There's 1000s of them, 1000s of Christians who honestly looked at the evidence and decided it wasn't true. Or you could read Cold Case Christianity and accept obvious lies and falsehoods, which is funny when you think of what this means, i.e. millions of Christians believe on nonsensical evidence presented by a non-scholar who has zero qualifications for teaching anything from the Bible. And once you admit that most Christians don't believe on good evidence, but in fact, bad evidence, the gig is up. God, apparently, doesn't care, so Christians should stop criticizing the Mormons.

[@williambillycraig1057]

Hey Mr. Beverly You started by stating that Milke was "still using the documents, which are not history, to prove the conclusion you started with, which is ahistorical." Mike never said the Gospels are Greco-Roman histories but Greco-Roman biographies. Licona and other scholars argue that understanding the Gospels in this context, in the Greco-Roman biographies, helps to appreciate their historical and literary nature better. So, you are correct that the Gospels "are not history"; as Mike points out, they are biographies that fit well with the other Greco-Roman biographies. Instead of interacting with Mike's works on this subject, you move on to problems you have with other Christians, where you continue to make empty assertions. For example, you said that Jim Wallace "admitted he's a fraud. He admitted this on Cameron Bertuzzi's channel and I've well documented this." If your claim is valid, please provide references. Instead of saying, "I've well documented this," please give some support for your statement in the post and a link to more resources. If your comments are true, they are important, but seeing that you do not support your assertions, you do not seem sincere in your post.

[@michaelsbeverly]

@@williambillycraig1057 I'm well aware of Mike's position on the gospels being Greco-Roman Biographies, I've interviewed him for my channel on his book and I'm currently reading it (nearly done, but life gets in the way). I just did a live stream last night with a scholar (and Angelican priest) about genre, super interesting discussion, Andrew Judd, and his research shows that while the biography position is an improvement (Keener, Bird, and others) it's not complete. I'd also say the work of Richard C. Miller shines a lot of light on this, in other words, to land on the just calling them bios and stopping there leaves a lot on the table. Once we accept that the position that these aren't straight histories like a modern history (or journalism) it opens the door for a lot of doubt about what exactly happened (why Mike is the target of fundies). Mark's ending is a perfect example of a translation fable. There are hundreds of these in that time, so to say it's not that requires a special pleading for Mark. Who is the bio about at the empty tomb? Jesus? Really? He's not even there, no body, nothing, he's been turned into a god by all standards of literature of the time, to say otherwise is to special plead it's something other than what all people of the day would read in the text. Now this is why I brought up the legend of Wallace. I realize you think I'm just making allegations here, unfounded, and I forgive you for that assumption as you don't know me. Just search "Michael Beverly and J. Warner Wallace" on KZbin, I have 6 or 7 hours of content, well documented as it's clips of Jim or others saying lie after lie, from their own lips. No need for me to defend my position, it's right there in plain English. My example stands on it's own. If Christians today, in the age of video and radio recordings, are willing to lie to develop a legend about Jim Wallace, then why should I trust anything a Christian had to say 2000 years ago when nothing could be verfied? I think it's a very valid point, but if you have a different opinion, like "Christians today are liars, but back then, no," let's hear it, I'm willing to listen.