Jesus, Contradicted: Explaining differences in the Gospels.

[@TrevorJamesMusic]

Great interview. Thought the point that Mike made in the closing minutes was a very good one, and one that Christians should seriously consider.

[@juliescheving7951]

This is outstanding and well worth the listen!

[@hebrews1112]

Like Gary Habermas said: If the Bible is inspired, Jesus rose from the dead; If the Bible is not inspired but trustworthy, Jesus rose from the dead; If the Bible is not trustworty, Jesus rose from the dead!

[@Christs_Apologet]

Wery well said. And thanks to the minimal facts aproach / extra biblical and not only sources.

[@Apollos_Christian_Apologetics]

I have similar views with regards to "flexible inerrancy," and I believe it's the future of the church. Christians will not survive if they die on the failing hill that is "traditional inerrancy."

[@Pdandresen29]

I'm excited to see what Dr. Allison thinks of this book!

[@samuelwetterau9226]

What would be the difference between „flexible inerrancy“ and „infallibility“? Don‘t we already have a well established theological term for what Mike Licona is describing here?

[@andrew_veale]

Just started your new book and enjoying it so far! Do you release these videos in audio only podcast format anywhere?

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

They will be appearing soon on multiple podcast like Apple and Google.

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

VERY interested in this and the forthcoming video on "Inspiration". Starting off I have a question. Given that Scripture (God) says that men wrote as they were moved or carried along by the Holy Spirit (2nd Pet. 1:21) why is it so hard to think that the apostles "never once misattributed" something that Jesus did. Furthermore, you seem to be alluding to the apostles being fallible and capable of doing that and thus it follows they did it with Scripture too. I'd call foul and say that's a non sequitur BECAUSE of precisely what 2nd Pet. 1:21 and 2nd Tim. 3:16 say. Certainly the apostles were not infallible. But that does not follow that Scripture isn't and that the apostles were not when writing Scripture.

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

I don't understand at all what Mike is saying with his two principles. I might agree or disagree depending on what he means by them. It would've been helpful if he had given some examples. I hear what Mike is saying at the 30min mark but I he's conflating what the apostles MAY have done and what we have that is God-breathed as having done. I'd have to go back and read the Chicago Statement again to see if they define "chose" but if one defines that as having given us in His Providence what we now have then I have no problem with that. In that instance it doesn't matter on iota what the apostles MAY have said or done. The ONLY thing that matters is what has God given us that says what they said and did. That same theme is a common thread that runs thru all of Mike's argumentation. I would also say that Mike seems to be looking for ways to falsify inerrancy. I actually appreciate that but it's one thing to try and falsify something. It's another thing altogether to be looking to falsify something with maybe this and maybe that. It reminds me of a video I recently saw where an atheist claimed that NOTHING could ever convince him that God is real because MAYBE this was all created by ancient aliens and other idiotic possibilities. You get the point? Even though we have NO evidence that aliens exist or ever have it's easier for him to accept that than to believe God exists. And the problem with Mike's "flexible inerrancy" is found in who decides what the "teaching" is? If you cannot trust that ALL of Scripture is true and inerrant then how can you trust that ANY of it is? On that note here's another point I'd make. If we hold to Scripture being inerrant in the autographs then we at least have a starting point for problems like Mike raises with the apparent contradiction found in 2nd Sam. 21:19. Using a basic Hermeneutics 101 Principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture they come to a logical conclusion. www.gotquestions.org/Goliath-David-Elhanan.html If, however, you have no starting place for inerrancy then how could you even possible come to the conclusion that there is a missing word? Biblical inerrancy & infallibility forces the Bible student to search for the answer that lies from within and NOT of their own creation. I'd say Mike provides his own defeater to his argument in that if God loves us so much then he could make sure the autographs were inerrant and infallible and he's given us the tools and parallel texts to come to a logical conclusion. Mike asks "what about places where we don't have parallel texts?" Where are these? I'd have an example to speak specifically but I'd submit for now that basic hermeneutics would solve the problem. Like, for example, how does it fit within the totally of Scripture as a whole? Lastly, Mike's "so we can say we've caught them all by any means" goes back to the heart of my original concern. A statement like that might as well be said, "So we can't say Scripture is the Word of God or trust any of it to be true." To the last couple points I'll save them for another time except to offer one possible reason why God has allowed "errors in transmission" and that is to say that given the age of technology and information that we have today Textual Criticism, Textural Variants, and Manuscript evidence has only served to strength my confidence in Biblical inerrancy and infallibility. Not to mention my Apologetics. So perhaps that's why. Good video, Mike. As always it was well-done and thought-provoking. I like that.

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

I've listened to the firs 15min about 4x now and I'm just not getting the point. A LOT of speculation. And I just don't put any stock into references like "most scholars agree". That's an Appeal To Authority that carries VERY little stock today. Who are these scholars? What makes them a "scholar"? I think Mike even calls Bart Ehrman a "scholar". That's NO slight against Mike. Just an observation about the use of the term. Secondly, so what? So what if there is such a thing as these "computational devices". So what if the writers of the gospels seem to use the same? Where is the EVIDENCE that they did? And so what if they did? HOW does that impact or affect 2nd Tim. 3:16 & 2nd Peter 1:21? I'm just not seeing the point. I agree with Mike that Scripture can't be Divine Dictation for the reasons he stated and more. However, I don't believe that leaves us with "punting to mystery". God's Word says that Scripture is God-breathed. Not the writers. We have to start someplace. First, Mike, do you believe that Scripture is God's Word and the Final Authority for Faith & Practice? If not, then what is? What does that leave us but ourselves? Secondly, if you don't believe that every word is inerrant and God-breathed then what do you do with "all"? Third, I don't believe that inerrancy necessitates Divine Dictation. One option certainly must be that God in His Providence has seen fit to preserve and provide that which He wants us to have and that if we follow 2nd Tim. 2:15 we can come to an understanding where every supposed "contradiction" or "error" is shown to be not. The main problem I have with this so far is that it seems to be eroding confidence and creating skepticism toward Scripture rather than undergirding it.

[@lc-mschristian5717]

This goes down a very slippery slope. Who decides what is historical fact and what is just made up? Is the Biblical authors inspired by the Spirit or not? If not totally inspired which parts are inspired? Who decides? A very slippery slope indeed.

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

Everyone is on a slippery slope. God has given us brains to discover these questions for ourselves. Just because you don’t like that answer doesn’t mean we can assume that God would do things differently. Have you ever considered that *maybe* God doesn’t do things the way *you* want him to?

[@josephthomas2226]

There is a huge difference between paraphrasing real teaching and making things up. There is a giant difference between organizing real events into an order that helps to tell the story, and making things up. You and I do the former EVERY DAY. The gospel writers had NO PROBLEM paraphrasing, using time compression, changing the chronology of events to tell the true story of Jesus. they NEVER invented teaching or narrative. The spirit inspired the writers to tell the good news about Jesus, NOT to be tape recorders. There are no untruths in the gospels. When my wife and I tell the same story, they are VERY different, but both true. they include different details, and they are told in a different order. My friend, we need to trust that the Holy Spirit is smart enough to tell us what we need to know, without boxing him into a corner he does not need to be in. if you take s very strict "innerancy" (like Geisler) then you have Jesus doing the very same things multiple times to account for the differences. It makes a LOT more sense that the Holy Spirit enabled the 4 gospel writers to include variations for their audiences. For example Luke says the paralytic was lowered after TILES (luke 5) were removed. Do you REALLY believe that Jesus healed TWO paralytics dropped through a roof, one thatch, and one tiled? Come on, man. You HAVE to believe that if you hold to a LITERAL interpretation that EVERY detail is accurate, rather than the STORY is true.