Thanks Matt, love your work! I randomly came across this Dr. Licona recently. Its crazy timing and I will take that as a sign I might need to watch this interview😃
Arkinthedark I think they are great. Especially from an apologetics standpoint. You see little spikes of their Anti-Catholic misconceptions throughout the interviews. While Matt doesn’t address each directly (I can easily see how going off a tangent can happen really fast) I think it make for good apologetic “ammo” on how to confront, respond to, and defend against Protestant ideas.
For example, I saw Matt holding back a cringe when the Protestant dude called James the “half brother of Jesus”. I never knew Protestants believed that... Now I know that’s something I can go research and then have time to develop and prepare a response to if a prot brings it up in conversation.
Hey Matt - great interview. You NEED to read "Seeking Allah Finding Jesus" by Nabeel Qureshi. Mike Licona's debate with Shabir Ally helped Nabeel see that Islam was not the way forward. Nabeel's conversion story is remarkable, and his good friend, David Wood (on TH-cam - Acts 17 Apologetics), continues Nabeel's legacy - he would be an interesting interview as well. Nabeel's friend, David, I think could take a better pastoral approach with the Muslim community, but he is a truth teller. Anyway, thanks for that interview.
I love how Matt Fradd will interview and find common ground with our Protestant brothers. It’s nice to see and idk about other people but for me it brings a lot of peace, and this sense of we are all a part of Gods family, though imperfectly. 😊 I think it’s important to have that commradery and respect for each other as Christians.
My favorite Catholic with another great video😂 I kid I kid. Evangelical subscriber here. I recommend your videos to all of my evangelical friends and family. After all according to Galatians 3:28 we are all ONE in Christ Jesus!
Obviously is better in person, but given the situation, Skype is fine. Thanks for your great work Matt👋 Maybe you could get Brant Pitre or Mike Aquilina on the show
Would consider having Fr. Loya on. He’s a Byzantine Catholic priest with a podcast called “Light of the East,” it really helped me learn about Byzantine Catholicism
I’m telling everyone about Strive21. This is my dream come true. Seriously thank you! I hope counselors can recommend this to their clients who need more than one hour a week on a couch.
This was an excellent talk. I’ve either met or been an acquaintance of most of the evangelical folk mentioned. They are definitely seeking after God. I would love it if they would cross the Tiber and become traditional Roman Catholics. 🙂 He is risen indeed!
Robert Fox He is risen! Never met any of these guys but was well associated with some of their work when I was an Evangelical. I have great respect for them all! Someday, I pray they come to Christ’s Holy Church
Matt, relax you need to get some sleep, some panda eyes going on. Same goes for me. Loved your Easter related themes and guests. Skype interviews are more than OK, if your interlocutor is protestant. Now if you were to bring Fr Isaac Mary, then go for live one on one, the vibrations would be great. Please do bring him, Fr. Larry, and the most important of all, Fr. Iannuzzi and then you guys can talk about the Divine Will and Luisa Picarreta. In preparation for your Fr Iannuzzi interview do watch Fr Iannuzzi's lecture on the Divine Will in the Phillipines here on youtube, your life will never be the same.
When I was 20 I made my dissertation to become a lawyer on an approach to the trial of jesus seen from the roman and jewish legal perspective of the time and it was the first time I exposed myself to the work of Gary Habermas. I'd love to read the books Mr. Licona on the historical issues of the resurrection.
You're loved more than you will ever know. Thanks for existing Jesus loves you always. Isaiah 43:2 When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze.
Excellent interview. I always get interested in the Resurrection at Easter - which, no doubt is good. I was surprised that Dr. Licona did not mention NT Wright's exhaustive and brilliant book on the Resurrection (he is a former Bishop of Durham, England.)
We've got around 5500 Greek manuscripts, but we also have early Syraic, Latin, Armenian, and Coptic. These matter because they were themselves copied from extremely early Greek manuscripts which we have lost. So the presence of these early translations gives us much greater certainty than the Greek manuscripts alone
Regarding Judas' death, I think Licona fails to take into account that Matthew and Luke used different eyewitness testimony, as well as using Mark's Gospel. It is quite possible that Matthew's witness(es) saw Judas hanging from a tree, whilst Luke's witness saw it only afterwards, some time later. The Greek in Acts does not mean 'fall headfirst' but rather 'became headlong/prostrate' on the ground. Given that a body was not allowed to hang overnight, it is quite possible it may have been cut down some time after the initial hanging, resulting in it lying prostrate on the ground. It is that final state that Luke's witness saw.
Great interview Matt! I would have liked if you pushed the Humean Critique of Miracles being impossible and, therefore, the possibility of the Resurrection being implausible. I suppose the possibility of that would have to be weighed against naturalistic explanations, which is a philosophical question in nature.
Hey Matt, I was wondering what the song was at the beginning of your show? The one that goes, I would give, my whole life, to carry you. Really love that one and would like to buy it
A question for Matt Fradd or Mike Licona, but anybody should feel free to respond. My daughter is going into 9th grade and I'm in search of a good theology curriculum for beginners. I am looking at Christ 101 by Classical Theist based on the fact they list Scott Hahn and Mike Licona as contributors. Otherwise, I don't really know where to start. What's good and what's not? Thanks in advance for your input. Thanks for the talk. I thought it was very informative.
Great interview. I hope Dr. Mike looks into more the apparitions of Fatima and Guadalupe. I give him credit about medjugorje, there some inconsistencies there. But much more difficult to dispute Fatima and Guadalupe as there some fantastic evidence to back these approved apparitions. God bless and keep up the good work.
@@TheRealShrike Evidence states otherwise. She spoke for example of being told by the beautiful lady of the errors of Russia spreading throughout the world. Where she came from back in 1930s there was no way a little child would know about social political issues and even what 'Russia' is. Yet communism and communistic ideology spread throughout the world as prophesied. Just one little example.
@@TheRealShrike The little girl you spoke of thought 'Russia' was a Woman. Her ignorance underscored the prophesy of the errors of Russia spreading throughout the world. You clearly need to read up on Our Lady of Fatima before criticising. The miracle of the sun for example was witnessed by thousands of people including avowed atheists who affirmed this event took place in newspapers. Look it up.
Thank you for your content. God bless 😇. Can you just give me advice about how to deal with someone not understanding or not accepting the proofs of the Resurrection or any article of the faith, like the existence of God and etc.
@@2macca746 Thank you for the advice. But my question is dealing more with me presenting 99% proofs for anything, and they still dismissed it like nonsense. I get frustrated and I sometimes have doubts because of their confidence in rejection. It's more to do with those feelings, than with the proof itself. But still thanks and God bless 😇
@@ivanprskalo9415 I think that at that point you just can't do anything but pray for them, and love them, you can't make anyone believe or accept something they don't want to. Whit those people you can evangelize by being a good christian and a good friend🖒
@@ivanprskalo9415 I was an atheist and one of the things that make a lot of atheists reject christianity is you don't see people living a christian live and then you think that they are just hypocrites, that is at least in my opinion the number one objection to christianity that I've heard. I believe that knowing apologetics is good but being a good friend (and a good christian) is much better for evangelize, at some point that person will be open to listen to the gospel. God bless you😊
Is there anything in considering that the Judas discrepancies were from one author really wanting to make his betrayal sound even more ugly with his guts spilling out? Is there some kind of Greek or Jewish imagery that has a deeper meaning with that happening opposed to being hung that gets the point across more?
This was a good interview, and Dr. Licona seems like an intelligent guy, but the comment at 48:15 soured it a bit for me. I still trust what he says for the most part, but thinking that James was Jesus' half-brother is such a rookie mistake; you wouldn't think a scholar like him would fall into a simple misunderstanding like that.
The fact that different accounts include slight discrepancies in the gospels seems to me to be positive evidence that this was not a rehearsed lie from a group. It would be more suspicious to me if all gospels said exactly the same things from different people who had different points of view.
I would feel more compelled to believe if we had independent sources other than the Gospel tradition. The Gospels are essentially propaganda ( I don't mean that word in a derogatory sense) and the authors are anonymous. We don't even know the sources of the Gospel. To me, they count as one source that is not corroborated by independent sources. Thus it is entirely possible the Gospels have discrepancies (much more than slight in some cases) because ALL of it was made up. That of course does not mean that the followers of Jesus were lying.
@@lonespartan8856 It is not even controversial to call the Gospels anonymous. The Vatican certainly does. One example: www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV9.HTM "The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see ⇒ Matthew 10:3) is *untenable* because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain." (New American Bible footnote) Emphasis mine Absent any new evidence that might appear, attributing the Gospels to any specific individual is a faith statement, not a supportable historical claim.
Reposting here a comment from another blog that is pertinent and compelling: I appreciate the gesture towards evidence-based thinking that is being made by today's resurrection apologists, but having listened to dozens of these guys over many years now, I don't think they're ever going to make a case that's even semi-compelling to someone who thinks critically about historical evidence and doesn't already believe. If you record and review the arguments made by resurrection apologists, you will find a near-constant stream of moments when the apologist is trying to inject an unwarranted sense of certainty about events of the past that, I'm sorry to say, are genuinely full of doubts and questions. History is a game of probabilities, not certainties. Let me try to rephrase some of these claims as generously as I can to the Christian case, while still reflecting the uncertainties of historical investigation: 1.) (1st Corinthians 15) A Christian writer claiming (most scholars believe authentically) to be the apostle Paul claims to have been told by someone (exactly by whom is unclear; perhaps the disciples in Jerusalem) that Jesus appeared to some people sometime after he was believed to be dead. 2.) (The 'skeptic' James) One of these people listed in 1st Corinthians 15 who supposedly saw Jesus after he was believed to be dead (James) is said in a separate literary tradition (the Synoptic Gospel tradition, which contains what nearly all scholars of early Christianity conclude to be plenty of legendary and apologetic material) to have at some point previously been among a group of relatives who thought Jesus was insane. 3.) (Paul's conversion) Another one of these people (Paul) who claimed to see an appearance of Jesus after he was believed to be dead (note: the only person whose witness of such we have firsthand from a likely authentic source) also claims to have opposed or persecuted Christianity in some way at some point in the past. Authentic details of this claim are unclear. The primary piece of evidence (1st Corinthians 15) is a passage in a manuscript family that appears to be derived from an ancient epistle, probably authored by the early Christian evangelist Paul, in which the author claims to have been told a story by someone (who, exactly, is unclear) that some groups of people saw appearances of Jesus after he was believed to have died. Am I being unfair to the facts here? If not, is this really the kind of evidence that we should find compelling to conclude that something unusual or unlikely -- let alone supernatural -- happened thousands of years ago? Please note, also, that I would never try to claim that the resurrection "didn't happen." Barring some extremely compelling new evidence, events of the past like this are largely lost to us, so we just can't really know one way or another. It can be interesting to talk about the scant evidence we do have and try to come up with logical speculations on that basis, but when the evidence is so indeterminate, it really all does fade into the haze of history. - Commenter J Webb on Unbelievable Podcast website. www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-A-Jewish-sceptic-investigates-the-resurrection-Michael-Alter-vs-Jonathan-McLatchie
Dr. Licona does not try to harmonize the Gospels first because he has to defend his literary devices theory. Take the Judas account for instance - Judas hangs himself - the body decomposes and pulls apart, falls to the ground, and the belly strikes a rock spilling his guts all over. I do not see why this is hard to imagine. Yes, history is messy, but there is no need to impose a literary device here.
Catholics are not under any obligation to believe that, despite it being traditional belief. A more likely outcome, according to the Catholic Jerome study bible, is that some sort of updating of each happened, borrowing from each, to the point where we don't exactly know what the first gospel was. But Matthew and Luke borrowing from Mark seems way more plausible.
I dont see the point in conceding the points a skeptic would make. There is just as much evidence to support the idea that the gospels were as they say they were. I get that you can say, "well even if you were right, it's still reliable in a historical sense." Well, ok. But who says the skeptic is right to begin with? I'm just saying, don't concede the starting point of your theology by the unproven supposing of a skeptic.
The only evidence for the resurrection are the claimed "post-mortem appearances." There would be no other way to confirm that an actual resurrection had taken place. So the claim solely relies on if these people really saw Jesus alive again. Well, since Paul uses a "vision" (Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19) as a "resurrection appearance" (1 Cor 15:8) then it necessarily follows that claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) were accepted as evidence of Jesus "appearing." This calls into question the veracity of the "appearances." Based on the earliest evidence in Paul's letters, claiming Jesus "appeared" could be nothing more than feeling like you communicated with him from heaven in a vision or a dream! It's only later, after the gospels are written that we see the appearances grow more physical/corporeal but scholars have long recognized that the gospels don't actually go back to eyewitnesses and the data they contain grows more fantastic as if a legend is growing. Since Paul is the only verified firsthand source by someone who claimed to "see" Jesus in the first person, and the "appearance" to him was a vision, (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) which he does not distinguish from the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8, then the earliest evidence suggests these were originally subjective spiritual experiences. Thus, the resurrection argument fails to meet the burden of proof - _"they really saw Jesus alive again."_
@Countering Christianity it seems someone has a personal vendetta against Christ. Seek and you shall find brother. He loves you so much and his love is perfect.
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
What a powerful interview! Would love to hear from you what you got out of it.
Thanks Matt, love your work! I randomly came across this Dr. Licona recently. Its crazy timing and I will take that as a sign I might need to watch this interview😃
What's with all the non-Catholic interviews big guy?
Arkinthedark I think they are great. Especially from an apologetics standpoint. You see little spikes of their Anti-Catholic misconceptions throughout the interviews. While Matt doesn’t address each directly (I can easily see how going off a tangent can happen really fast) I think it make for good apologetic “ammo” on how to confront, respond to, and defend against Protestant ideas.
For example, I saw Matt holding back a cringe when the Protestant dude called James the “half brother of Jesus”. I never knew Protestants believed that... Now I know that’s something I can go research and then have time to develop and prepare a response to if a prot brings it up in conversation.
Hey Matt - great interview. You NEED to read "Seeking Allah Finding Jesus" by Nabeel Qureshi. Mike Licona's debate with Shabir Ally helped Nabeel see that Islam was not the way forward. Nabeel's conversion story is remarkable, and his good friend, David Wood (on TH-cam - Acts 17 Apologetics), continues Nabeel's legacy - he would be an interesting interview as well. Nabeel's friend, David, I think could take a better pastoral approach with the Muslim community, but he is a truth teller. Anyway, thanks for that interview.
I like this guy. He seems like just a regular dude and he doesn't use a bunch of academic jargon. Seems real down to earth.
I love how Matt Fradd will interview and find common ground with our Protestant brothers. It’s nice to see and idk about other people but for me it brings a lot of peace, and this sense of we are all a part of Gods family, though imperfectly. 😊 I think it’s important to have that commradery and respect for each other as Christians.
My favorite Catholic with another great video😂 I kid I kid. Evangelical subscriber here. I recommend your videos to all of my evangelical friends and family. After all according to Galatians 3:28 we are all ONE in Christ Jesus!
We were planning on doing this interview in person, but, well ... What do you think of the old Skype interview? Okay?
I actually really like that both of you are in front of book shelves, very realistic haha.
Obviously is better in person, but given the situation, Skype is fine.
Thanks for your great work Matt👋
Maybe you could get Brant Pitre or Mike Aquilina on the show
I prefer the Skype interviews. Can see both of you at the same time, no changing to one of three cameras etc. 👍
The quality was great! Everything was crystal clear. Keep it up Matt!
it feels less dynamic, but is otherwise serviceable.
I love his book "Paul Meets Muhammad". An awesome reimagining of a debate between the two. Thanks for this Matt!
Christian Urugutia I have to read that
Would consider having Fr. Loya on. He’s a Byzantine Catholic priest with a podcast called “Light of the East,” it really helped me learn about Byzantine Catholicism
I’m telling everyone about Strive21. This is my dream come true. Seriously thank you! I hope counselors can recommend this to their clients who need more than one hour a week on a couch.
This was an excellent talk. I’ve either met or been an acquaintance of most of the evangelical folk mentioned. They are definitely seeking after God. I would love it if they would cross the Tiber and become traditional Roman Catholics. 🙂 He is risen indeed!
Robert Fox He is risen! Never met any of these guys but was well associated with some of their work when I was an Evangelical. I have great respect for them all! Someday, I pray they come to Christ’s Holy Church
The whole podcast was great but the last 10 minutes were really powerful 🙏
This was really great, thanks Matt for doing this interview!
Matt, relax you need to get some sleep, some panda eyes going on. Same goes for me. Loved your Easter related themes and guests. Skype interviews are more than OK, if your interlocutor is protestant. Now if you were to bring Fr Isaac Mary, then go for live one on one, the vibrations would be great. Please do bring him, Fr. Larry, and the most important of all, Fr. Iannuzzi and then you guys can talk about the Divine Will and Luisa Picarreta. In preparation for your Fr Iannuzzi interview do watch Fr Iannuzzi's lecture on the Divine Will in the Phillipines here on youtube, your life will never be the same.
When I was 20 I made my dissertation to become a lawyer on an approach to the trial of jesus seen from the roman and jewish legal perspective of the time and it was the first time I exposed myself to the work of Gary Habermas. I'd love to read the books Mr. Licona on the historical issues of the resurrection.
That was an awesome conversation. Thank you very much!
I'm stoked. You're putting this out on my birthday? You shouldn't have 😂
Have a wonderful birthday..
Just for you ;)
Happy birthday!
You're loved more than you will ever know. Thanks for existing Jesus loves you always.
Isaiah 43:2
When you pass through the waters,
I will be with you;
and when you pass through the rivers,
they will not sweep over you.
When you walk through the fire,
you will not be burned;
the flames will not set you ablaze.
Thank you for these videos, something to look forward to at the end of the day 👍🏼👍🏼😍😍
Watching this video year late. Hope you make in person interview soon. Blessings
Excellent interview. I always get interested in the Resurrection at Easter - which, no doubt is good. I was surprised that Dr. Licona did not mention NT Wright's exhaustive and brilliant book on the Resurrection (he is a former Bishop of Durham, England.)
Inspiring Philosophy has made video on the apparent contradition with the death of Judas.
Love his channel
th-cam.com/video/XCI6fcgecZE/w-d-xo.html
We've got around 5500 Greek manuscripts, but we also have early Syraic, Latin, Armenian, and Coptic. These matter because they were themselves copied from extremely early Greek manuscripts which we have lost. So the presence of these early translations gives us much greater certainty than the Greek manuscripts alone
You are a good interviewer Matt!
I think I just rewatched an episode I had already watched, but I still take a lot out of it. I appreciate that about PwA
Super Good Stuff! Thank you so much! Edifying.
Fun fact, the director of Houston Baptist University's MA in apologetics that he mentioned at the end is actually an atheist convert to Catholicism.
Ok, now this is epic.
I like this guy.
Regarding Judas' death, I think Licona fails to take into account that Matthew and Luke used different eyewitness testimony, as well as using Mark's Gospel. It is quite possible that Matthew's witness(es) saw Judas hanging from a tree, whilst Luke's witness saw it only afterwards, some time later. The Greek in Acts does not mean 'fall headfirst' but rather 'became headlong/prostrate' on the ground. Given that a body was not allowed to hang overnight, it is quite possible it may have been cut down some time after the initial hanging, resulting in it lying prostrate on the ground. It is that final state that Luke's witness saw.
The quarantine beard suits you well 😎
Great interview Matt! I would have liked if you pushed the Humean Critique of Miracles being impossible and, therefore, the possibility of the Resurrection being implausible. I suppose the possibility of that would have to be weighed against naturalistic explanations, which is a philosophical question in nature.
Hey Matt, I was wondering what the song was at the beginning of your show? The one that goes, I would give, my whole life, to carry you.
Really love that one and would like to buy it
“Finished Dreaming” by Interior Castle
A question for Matt Fradd or Mike Licona, but anybody should feel free to respond. My daughter is going into 9th grade and I'm in search of a good theology curriculum for beginners. I am looking at Christ 101 by Classical Theist based on the fact they list Scott Hahn and Mike Licona as contributors. Otherwise, I don't really know where to start. What's good and what's not? Thanks in advance for your input.
Thanks for the talk. I thought it was very informative.
Great interview. I hope Dr. Mike looks into more the apparitions of Fatima and Guadalupe. I give him credit about medjugorje, there some inconsistencies there.
But much more difficult to dispute Fatima and Guadalupe as there some fantastic evidence to back these approved apparitions. God bless and keep up the good work.
"Fantastic Evidence?" I'm not so sure about that. Fatima seems like an case of a little mischievous girl who got in over her head.
@@TheRealShrike Evidence states otherwise. She spoke for example of being told by the beautiful lady of the errors of Russia spreading throughout the world. Where she came from back in 1930s there was no way a little child would know about social political issues and even what 'Russia' is. Yet communism and communistic ideology spread throughout the world as prophesied. Just one little example.
@@Rosary-Crusader The Portuguese did not have maps? :)
@@TheRealShrike The little girl you spoke of thought 'Russia' was a Woman. Her ignorance underscored the prophesy of the errors of Russia spreading throughout the world. You clearly need to read up on Our Lady of Fatima before criticising. The miracle of the sun for example was witnessed by thousands of people including avowed atheists who affirmed this event took place in newspapers. Look it up.
Thank you for your content. God bless 😇. Can you just give me advice about how to deal with someone not understanding or not accepting the proofs of the Resurrection or any article of the faith, like the existence of God and etc.
@@2macca746 Thank you for the advice. But my question is dealing more with me presenting 99% proofs for anything, and they still dismissed it like nonsense. I get frustrated and I sometimes have doubts because of their confidence in rejection. It's more to do with those feelings, than with the proof itself. But still thanks and God bless 😇
@@ivanprskalo9415 I think that at that point you just can't do anything but pray for them, and love them, you can't make anyone believe or accept something they don't want to.
Whit those people you can evangelize by being a good christian and a good friend🖒
@@joelmontero9439 I will then try tp do that. Thank you and God bless 😇
@@ivanprskalo9415 I was an atheist and one of the things that make a lot of atheists reject christianity is you don't see people living a christian live and then you think that they are just hypocrites, that is at least in my opinion the number one objection to christianity that I've heard.
I believe that knowing apologetics is good but being a good friend (and a good christian) is much better for evangelize, at some point that person will be open to listen to the gospel.
God bless you😊
@@joelmontero9439 Thank you for your thoughts and testamony 😇
Does Hallow have the Rosary in Latin?
Is there anything in considering that the Judas discrepancies were from one author really wanting to make his betrayal sound even more ugly with his guts spilling out? Is there some kind of Greek or Jewish imagery that has a deeper meaning with that happening opposed to being hung that gets the point across more?
Could anyone give a source on the seer being told to read a book which was full of heresies?
This was a good interview, and Dr. Licona seems like an intelligent guy, but the comment at 48:15 soured it a bit for me. I still trust what he says for the most part, but thinking that James was Jesus' half-brother is such a rookie mistake; you wouldn't think a scholar like him would fall into a simple misunderstanding like that.
My next vinyl project: Mary is great and stuff.
The fact that different accounts include slight discrepancies in the gospels seems to me to be positive evidence that this was not a rehearsed lie from a group. It would be more suspicious to me if all gospels said exactly the same things from different people who had different points of view.
I would feel more compelled to believe if we had independent sources other than the Gospel tradition. The Gospels are essentially propaganda ( I don't mean that word in a derogatory sense) and the authors are anonymous. We don't even know the sources of the Gospel. To me, they count as one source that is not corroborated by independent sources. Thus it is entirely possible the Gospels have discrepancies (much more than slight in some cases) because ALL of it was made up. That of course does not mean that the followers of Jesus were lying.
@@TheRealShrike The authors aren't anonymous
@@lonespartan8856 It is not even controversial to call the Gospels anonymous. The Vatican certainly does. One example:
www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV9.HTM
"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see ⇒ Matthew 10:3) is *untenable* because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain."
(New American Bible footnote)
Emphasis mine
Absent any new evidence that might appear, attributing the Gospels to any specific individual is a faith statement, not a supportable historical claim.
@@TheRealShrike We know who wrote the gospels I'm not sure where your getting you info. It is known who wrote all of them
@@TheRealShrike I understand why you would think that but almost every historical scholar knows who wrote the original gospels
Reposting here a comment from another blog that is pertinent and compelling:
I appreciate the gesture towards evidence-based thinking that is being made by today's resurrection apologists, but having listened to dozens of these guys over many years now, I don't think they're ever going to make a case that's even semi-compelling to someone who thinks critically about historical evidence and doesn't already believe.
If you record and review the arguments made by resurrection apologists, you will find a near-constant stream of moments when the apologist is trying to inject an unwarranted sense of certainty about events of the past that, I'm sorry to say, are genuinely full of doubts and questions. History is a game of probabilities, not certainties. Let me try to rephrase some of these claims as generously as I can to the Christian case, while still reflecting the uncertainties of historical investigation:
1.) (1st Corinthians 15) A Christian writer claiming (most scholars believe authentically) to be the apostle Paul claims to have been told by someone (exactly by whom is unclear; perhaps the disciples in Jerusalem) that Jesus appeared to some people sometime after he was believed to be dead.
2.) (The 'skeptic' James) One of these people listed in 1st Corinthians 15 who supposedly saw Jesus after he was believed to be dead (James) is said in a separate literary tradition (the Synoptic Gospel tradition, which contains what nearly all scholars of early Christianity conclude to be plenty of legendary and apologetic material) to have at some point previously been among a group of relatives who thought Jesus was insane.
3.) (Paul's conversion) Another one of these people (Paul) who claimed to see an appearance of Jesus after he was believed to be dead (note: the only person whose witness of such we have firsthand from a likely authentic source) also claims to have opposed or persecuted Christianity in some way at some point in the past. Authentic details of this claim are unclear.
The primary piece of evidence (1st Corinthians 15) is a passage in a manuscript family that appears to be derived from an ancient epistle, probably authored by the early Christian evangelist Paul, in which the author claims to have been told a story by someone (who, exactly, is unclear) that some groups of people saw appearances of Jesus after he was believed to have died.
Am I being unfair to the facts here? If not, is this really the kind of evidence that we should find compelling to conclude that something unusual or unlikely -- let alone supernatural -- happened thousands of years ago? Please note, also, that I would never try to claim that the resurrection "didn't happen."
Barring some extremely compelling new evidence, events of the past like this are largely lost to us, so we just can't really know one way or another. It can be interesting to talk about the scant evidence we do have and try to come up with logical speculations on that basis, but when the evidence is so indeterminate, it really all does fade into the haze of history.
- Commenter J Webb on Unbelievable Podcast website.
www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-A-Jewish-sceptic-investigates-the-resurrection-Michael-Alter-vs-Jonathan-McLatchie
Dr. Licona does not try to harmonize the Gospels first because he has to defend his literary devices theory. Take the Judas account for instance - Judas hangs himself - the body decomposes and pulls apart, falls to the ground, and the belly strikes a rock spilling his guts all over. I do not see why this is hard to imagine. Yes, history is messy, but there is no need to impose a literary device here.
Matthew was written first.
Catholics are not under any obligation to believe that, despite it being traditional belief. A more likely outcome, according to the Catholic Jerome study bible, is that some sort of updating of each happened, borrowing from each, to the point where we don't exactly know what the first gospel was. But Matthew and Luke borrowing from Mark seems way more plausible.
I dont see the point in conceding the points a skeptic would make. There is just as much evidence to support the idea that the gospels were as they say they were. I get that you can say, "well even if you were right, it's still reliable in a historical sense." Well, ok. But who says the skeptic is right to begin with?
I'm just saying, don't concede the starting point of your theology by the unproven supposing of a skeptic.
Maybe like the great gasby, Jesus had a twin
Nothing in the Bible in an error! Wow 👎🏻
The only evidence for the resurrection are the claimed "post-mortem appearances." There would be no other way to confirm that an actual resurrection had taken place. So the claim solely relies on if these people really saw Jesus alive again.
Well, since Paul uses a "vision" (Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19) as a "resurrection appearance" (1 Cor 15:8) then it necessarily follows that claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) were accepted as evidence of Jesus "appearing." This calls into question the veracity of the "appearances." Based on the earliest evidence in Paul's letters, claiming Jesus "appeared" could be nothing more than feeling like you communicated with him from heaven in a vision or a dream!
It's only later, after the gospels are written that we see the appearances grow more physical/corporeal but scholars have long recognized that the gospels don't actually go back to eyewitnesses and the data they contain grows more fantastic as if a legend is growing. Since Paul is the only verified firsthand source by someone who claimed to "see" Jesus in the first person, and the "appearance" to him was a vision, (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) which he does not distinguish from the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8, then the earliest evidence suggests these were originally subjective spiritual experiences. Thus, the resurrection argument fails to meet the burden of proof - _"they really saw Jesus alive again."_
@Countering Christianity it seems someone has a personal vendetta against Christ. Seek and you shall find brother. He loves you so much and his love is perfect.