The A, B, Cs, Ds & Es of Defending the Gospels

In this lecture, Mike Licona addresses the 5 major objections to the reliability of the Gospels: Authorship, Bias, Contradictions, Dating, Eyewitness Testimony.

[@Jesse_Scoccimarra]

This was nice to watch, Good Job 👍

[@cerebralfaithvideo]

I remember seeing you give this talk at The National Conference On Christian Apologetics in 2011, back when I was JUST getting into apologetics. This is not that particular presentation, but it is the same talk, and man does this video evokes feelings of nostalgia in me. Dr. Licona, I've been blessed by your ministry, and you wrote two of the best books on the resurrection I've ever read (the popular one you co-wrote with Habermas and the scholarly one you did yourself). Keep up the good work, man! God bless you!

[@christophekeating21]

This admittedly has little to do with the rest of the lecture, but on the opening example of the helmet being essential, in Rugby, which is very similar to American Football, the players don't wear helmets.

[@cutekoala]

And suffer brain damage accordingly.

[@gabepearson4732]

Any one else notice Ehrman claims to be a historian but he’s not?

[@Adrian-yf1zg]

He's the best historian on new testament... His proofs are irrefutable

[@matthewnichol4619]

@@Adrian-yf1zg on a video refuting Ehrman specifically

[@olaznogemiaj]

He’s a real and notable historian!

[@ballasog]

@@Adrian-yf1zg He's not necessarily the best and probably wouldn't say he's the best, but he disclosed his special skill in an interview I saw - he knows how to talk so regular people can understand him. I would say he's definitely the greatest popularizer of New Testament scholarship. Licona's special skill is telling stupid people they're smart.

[@ballasog]

@@matthewnichol4619 I don't think a video by a maroon refutes anything.

[@simonerobledo8198]

wow amazing! Jesus is Lord!

[@FlencerMcflensington]

Do you have a link for the research you cite on feelings of professors towards Christian Evangelicals?

[@ballasog]

You need a proctologist to find it for you.

[@jabel5]

I love the Titanic example. Some significant portion of the survivors of the Titanic testified that it broke in half, and the rest said that it sank largely intact. If you picked four survivors to interview, you might get the same story from all four... the Titanic sank intact. That would be the story you put into your history book. Similarly, the four gospels in the Bible are one point of view. What if those four misunderstood what they experienced? Besides the gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, other books exist from the same period that tell a different story of Jesus. We have some of them, but others have been lost. The ones who wrote those books might have been the ones who saw the Titanic break in half as it sank.... and recorded the story of Jesus Christ correctly. Or maybe none of them recorded it correctly. How would we know? All I can conclude is that, for a God that is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, He has done a poor job of arranging communications.

[@lil-al]

Instead of remaining inside your little echo chamber, you really ought to run your apologetics by someone with a completely different worldview for some honest feedback. Because anyone who isn't already indoctrinated can see right through your ill-conceived nonsense. Why don't you just be honest, admit it is all about an experience, and stop embarrassing yourself with this drivel?

[@aidanmccants]

someone turn on the capitons

[@songsandverses]

Wow this is more like A-Z

[@tammyrobison2670]

Excellent! Thank you.

[@donj2222]

I agree with almost all of the talk. Right at the end, Mike discusses how he understands 1 Cor 7. See David Instone-Brewer for a deeper understanding of 1 Cor 7, as there are more reasons to divorce that just one's spouse being unfaithful that include abuse and neglect that break the marriage covenant.

[@FlencerMcflensington]

You should try watching Rugby.

[@cutekoala]

Authorship: texts are anonymous even if other people think they know who wrote them. Anonymous texts are always less valuable historically than those with stated authors. Bias: Biased sources are less reliable, especially when they are dealing with issues central to their bias e.g. sports fans describing their own team's performance. Contradictions: the most brain-hurting part of the talk. When you use the number 1, you don't mean 'any amount between 1 and infinity' you mean 1. If another text says 2 about the same subject eg 'women at the tomb' then they contradict. If I say 'I walked from LA to San Fran' I don't mean ' I walked to the car,drove to San Fran,then walked to the hotel after I parked up'. In order to stay sane and honest, you need to assume the ordinary meaning of words unless the author explicitly states otherwise.If the bible can only be literally true by destroying logic and language,then it means it's not literally true.

[@str.77]

The concept of "Biased sources" is so 18th century. It's a meaningless concept because there is nothing unbiased in this world. And what if the numbers - especially the number "one" are not actually there.

[@cutekoala]

@@str.77 there are still obviously degrees of bias. Would you want your only source on Islamic history to be written by a member of the Taliban?

[@str.77]

@@cutekoala No, I would not want any history written by one source. But if one source is all I have, I will not have to go with it. Never uncritically, no matter how many sources. I would never just disqualify a source because of "bias".

[@cutekoala]

@@str.77 that is what I said, biased sources are less reliable - not totally unreliable.

[@str.77]

The statement about "anonymous" is also not that easy. None of the gospel have an author's name as part of the text (unlike Herodot) but many manuscripts do give names, the one we know. Others do not give names but none give different names. Also, the recipients of Luke (and Acts) and John knew perfectly well who had written these books as the respective authors refer to themselves.

[@Adrian-yf1zg]

Victim mentality... And lies... Regarding the contradictions... This is supposed to be the Words of God.... Yet you have to be making so many excuses

[@madri0929]

He claims contradictions? He plays the victim? Where?

[@str.77]

"This is supposed to be the Words of God" only by a very narrow set of Chrsitians. All others know perfectly well that there are human authors involved.

[@WhereWhatHuh]

Inerrancy means that it conveys the meaning God intended it to convey. And with or without this variant or that variant, no important doctrine is changed in any text that we have.

[@jabel5]

@@WhereWhatHuhFirst, how do we know that the Bible conveys the meaning that God intended? What if Satan has perverted the text? How would you know? Second, if the Bible is so inerrant, using your definition of inerrancy, why are there so many different interpretations of what it means, as evinced by the number of different Christian religions that are clearly incompatible? Why is it so hard to decide among them which is right if the Bible in inerrant?

[@WhereWhatHuh]

@@jabel5 Fair enough questions. So: 1. Several Factors lead us to believe that the Bible conveys what God intended it to convey. One of these is the active indwelling of the Holy Spirit. You may not know this, but the new testament canon was chosen on three Criteria: First, was it old enough to be authentic; Second, was it associated with an apostle who had seen Christ; and Third, was it well-received in all of the churches? The third factor there allows us to see the work of the Holy Spirit in the church as a whole. I may be deceived as to the appropriateness or inerrancy of a book, but the church overall will not be. 2. Why are there different interpretations? Well, on one hand, some people do not follow sound principles in reading. For example, I could take your name -- Bell -- and read it to mean that you live in a belfry and make noises on Sunday Mornings. That would not be a sound reading. Second, I think you will find that mutual contradiction among denominations is not so great as one tends to assume. We may disagree as to whether the thief on the cross immediately went to paradise ("I tell you: This day you shall be with me in Paradise") or whether he went at a later time: ("I tell you this day: You shall be with me in Paradise") but we agree that he was saved due to his faith in Jesus Christ. All Christians agree on the most central core doctrines: That we all sin, that sin leads to hell, that Jesus died to save us, and that He shall return on the last day to judge the living and the dead.