This sermon hit my heart, literally. May the Lord bless Albert Mohler for such a passionate lecture. Thank you again Ligonier Ministries for sharing these videos to us.
"We have a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin." ~Voddie Baucham
How come that Luke's genealogy differs completely from that of Matthew, how come that his birth story is entirely different from Matthews? Did the Holy Family return to Nazareth as Luke writes, or did they go the Egypt, as Matthew writes? Differences like these - and many others - led people of the Enlightenment and the representatives of liberal theology to question the New Testament. Was Jesus forbidding the disciples to tell anyone that he is the Messiah, as told by the Synoptics, or he openly declared himself to be the Messiah to practically anyone (the woman of Samaria) at the very beginning of his ministry as told by John? Did he leave his family and asked his disciples to do the same, so that his family thought he was crazy as told by the Synoptics, or was he always very close to his mother (wedding at Cana, Mary at the Cross) as told by John? Is there anything in the Gospel of John that Jesus really said?
The authors were writing to different audiences, pointing out facts pertaining to that audience, Mathew is writing to the Jews, Luke is writing to gentiles . This was common in antiquity.
(The teachings of the supposed learned people who try to disprove the Bible) tries to teach morals without teaching about the authority figure (Jesus) that has the authority to command the truth by which we MUST live. They think that they get to tell us what morals should be followed and what ones are antiquated. Romans 3:4...God is true and every man a liar....
Joshua Theo look if you do a study on the earliest Reformers almost ALL Rejected that terrible notion and wrote extensively against it - almost all were 3-4 pt calvanists with major majority like I said against limited atonement - even Calvin himself called it Terrible and never committed to it - just another good reason that I stopped believing I. Calvinism, also after listening to many Biblical -Scholars on Romans 9 I was convinced -
How can the gospels be inerrant history when you have many contradictions throughout? One example of many is the Jesus infancy narratives of Matthew 2 and Luke 2. Compare them for yourselves as I paraphrase them.. Luke 2: The holy family travels from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem for a census/Jesus is born in Bethlehem/ After Mary goes through the Rites of Purification, 42 days later, they return to Nazareth. Matthew 2: The holy family resides in Bethlehem/ Jesus is born/ After the Magi leave, an angel appears to Joseph in a dream to warn him Jesus is in danger because Herod is killing all the newborns/ In the middle of the night, Joseph awakes his family and they flee to Egypt/ They don't return to Judea until after the death of Herod/ On their return to Judea, they get word that Archelaus, Herod's son, is ruling Judea so they withdrew to Galilee and settle in Nazareth for the first time. The only thing these two accounts have in common is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. One of these stories is false and more than likely, both of them are.
Hey excellent question! I am not sure you want an answer to your question or if you are just one of those non-believers who are close-minded but if you are interested, here are my thoughts: There is no contradiction in both those accounts. Eyewitness testimonies tend to have differences in accounts and that is expected. It actually proves the authenticity of their accounts because if their testimonies were similar, then there would be suspicion of collusion. So, back to the account.. Luke did not mention the trip to Egypt but did mention that they travelled home to Nazareth. Only Matthew mentioned HOW they travelled home (i.e., "...they departed to their own country another way..." -Matt 2:12b) The reason for this difference may not be obvious by first glance but if you read both gospels entirely and if you understand the character and purpose of both writers, you realize why. You see, Matthew was a Jew writing to Jews. His purpose in writing his account was to make Jews see that Jesus is the Messiah by fulfilling all the prophecies of the coming Messiah. He emphasized that Joseph and Mary took the route through Egypt to fulfill Hosea 11:1. Matthew actually quotes the prophet Hosea in his account. On the other hand, Luke's account is different in that he was writing to someone he referred to as my beloved Theophilus. We do not know who Theophilus was but the name sounds Greek. Therefore, his account was basically a summary of the events. He had no reason to emphasize the route through Egypt because Theophilus most likely had no prior knowledge of the prophecies of Hosea or any other prophet. I hope this helps. Continue asking questions and be open to answers. God bless you, my friend!
Let me give you the problems that would make the two accounts contradictions in point form then reply back with your opinion if you like. 1. Luke has Jesus born during the Census of Quirinius in 6 CE when Judea became a province of Rome. 2. This was a census of Judea because it became a province of Rome for taxation purposes. 3. One problem is Luke 1-5 where the author claimed this was an empire wide census where it's subjects had to return to the home of their ancestors. 4. The is no Roman record of any empire wide census where it's subjects had to return to their ancestral home. This never occurred. 5 . Rome wouldn't care where their ancestors were from because censuses were for tax purposes. The author of Luke made that part of the story up to have Jesus born in Bethlehem and fulfill prophecy. 6. At this time Galilee was a silent kingdom, which meant Rome neither directly taxed nor administered Galilee, so Joseph wouldn't have been required to go to Judea in the first place because Luke had his home in Nazareth(in Galilee). 7. As I mentioned Luke has the holy family residing in Nazareth at the time of Jesus' birth 8. Matthew has the holy family residing in Judea at the time of Jesus' birth. 9. Other than the story starting in Judea and the family fleeing to Egypt right after Jesus is born to escape Herod, in Matthew 2, on their return from Egypt, they are going back to Judea, but when they learn Herod's son Archelaus was ruling Judea, it states they with withdrew to the district of Galilee and went to live in a town called Nazareth. They went to live there, not return home. 10. Again Luke has Jesus born in 6 CE. 11. According to Matthew, Jesus would've had to have been born before the death of Herod in 4 BCE , which gives us at least a difference of 10 years for when Jesus was born between the 2 gospels.
allthekingshorses, I'd still like to hear your opinion of my reply. After much history digging, it's incredible what you learn about antiquity. I had been suspicious about Luke 2:1-5 for quite sometime. I thought it sounded silly. Where would you go if our government made us return to our ancestral home of 1000 years ago? A simple research of the Census of Quirinius answered that question for me. Rome was very good at record keeping. Record keeping and roads. And the fact no empire wide census where it's subjects returned to their ancestral home was in existence also helped. It's also clear Matthew had their home in Judea while Luke had it in Nazareth. A simple question would be why would they be traveling to Judea instead of Galilee first after such a long trip home from Egypt? And it does say after learning Archelaus was ruling Judea, they withdrew to the district of Galilee and went to live in a town called Nazareth.Like it's the first time the readers would see Nazareth mentioned. Nothing to the effect they were returning home to Nazareth. Galilee and Judea are 70 miles from each other. That's at least a 4 day journey by foot.
If you are really interested then you should research what conservative Biblical scholars like Mohler or RC Sproul say on the topic. Asking random people on TH-cam is not indicative of really wanting an answer but just trying to stir doubt and make yourself sound superior. Looking to TH-cam watchers for any kind of intellectual insight is not good academic research for any subject.
Yes, we need a 'historical Adam' and a 'historical Old Testament'; yes, we need a 'historical Jesus' and a 'historical New Testament'; but how about a 'historical Church'? We say: "The liberals revise and re-interpret history and the Scriptures", but isn't that what Luther did in the first place? Luther re-interpreted the Scriptures and by necessity he revised Church history. True Christianity necessitates not only a 'historical Jesus', but a 'historical Church' as well. Let's not revise and re-interpret the historicity of our Faith.
No Luther didn't reinterpret scriptures, he shined the light on what the Catholic church made in legalism and rules which didn't exist. And they still do. We need the Historical Jesus not a reinterpreted one.
The Papists denied the plain teaching of Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, and Titus 3:4-5 with Trent - specifically Canons IX and XXIV. They did this for the purpose of continuing to uphold the invented doctrine of purgatory in order to exact money from its adherents in the form of indulgences. In denial of scripture, the Catholic Catechism requires the following works to be done in order for man to earn his salvation: sacraments (1129), meritorious masses (1405), church membership (846), purgatory (1030), indulgences (1498), and baptism (1256).
Lawrence Stanley The council of Trent defended the Faith from the attacks of Luther. We need the Sacraments, that's why Christ instituted them. How do you think people get saved?
Santa Escritura Any promise of salvation that also requires human effort is no salvation at all. Any belief system in the world that requires effort from its followers for salvation denies the finished work of Christ’s death and resurrection. Such systems of belief try to improve the character of its adherents, but they are not sufficient to save sinners. Why can’t our good works make us right with God, or at least help to make us right with Him? Because the only righteousness that passes God’s scrutiny must be entirely perfect and must in every way measure up to the divine law (Romans 3:20, Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26). Even the very best that we do in this life is imperfect and stained with sin (Isaiah 64:6). Justification before God is an act of God alone (Romans 8:33) by which He declares righteous those who, through faith in Christ (Romans 10:10, 1 John 5:10-12), repent of their sins (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; Romans 2:4; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Isaiah 55:6-7) and confess Him as sovereign Lord (Romans 10:9 10; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Corinthians 4:5; Philippians 2:11). That means to submit to Him and His authority over your life. This declared righteousness is apart from any virtue or work of man (Romans 3:20; 4:6, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5-7) and involves the imputation of our sins to Christ (Colossians 2:14; 1 Peter 2:24) and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:6, Genesis 15:6). By this means God is enabled to: "be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26).
This sermon hit my heart, literally. May the Lord bless Albert Mohler for such a passionate lecture. Thank you again Ligonier Ministries for sharing these videos to us.
PURE FUCKING NONSENSE......WHAT'S JESUS DOING? POURING LIGHTER FLUID ON YOU WHEN YOU DIE?? GIVE ME A BREAK, HE AIN'T DOING A FUCKING THING.
I try to always listen to any TH-cam of Dr. Mohler’s message. I learn and a.m blessed by his sermons.
Amen! Absolutely. I give a prayer for the one thumb down that God will give them grace and bring them to a saving faith.
Amen. Great exposition of the gospel as historical fact. Praise the Lord!
Quite a good argument against the ones who have fallen prey to the evil one.
WHAT A MESSAGE! THANK YOU DR. MOHLER.
I very much have appreciated the close caption as English is not my first language. Thanks!!
I profited from this video lecture.
Awesome. He explores some real truths.
Thanks
"We have a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin." ~Voddie Baucham
Amen!!!
brillant!!!
Jesus Christ himself rescues his own church. All those "great thinkers" are dead and now have time to ponder.
How come that Luke's genealogy differs completely from that of Matthew, how come that his birth story is entirely different from Matthews? Did the Holy Family return to Nazareth as Luke writes, or did they go the Egypt, as Matthew writes?
Differences like these - and many others - led people of the Enlightenment and the representatives of liberal theology to question the New Testament.
Was Jesus forbidding the disciples to tell anyone that he is the Messiah, as told by the Synoptics, or he openly declared himself to be the Messiah to practically anyone (the woman of Samaria) at the very beginning of his ministry as told by John?
Did he leave his family and asked his disciples to do the same, so that his family thought he was crazy as told by the Synoptics, or was he always very close to his mother (wedding at Cana, Mary at the Cross) as told by John?
Is there anything in the Gospel of John that Jesus really said?
The authors were writing to different audiences, pointing out facts pertaining to that audience, Mathew is writing to the Jews, Luke is writing to gentiles . This was common in antiquity.
@@nick7977 So? Which is Joseph's real genealogy? Does it depend on whom you tell the story to?
Why did everyone start laughing at 42:17?
YES an ive always respected al moehler and rc sproul but the Real Gospel is for ALL People.Because GOD loves all of US not some of Us.
God hates sinners, but He can love His church through penal substitutionary atonement.
(The teachings of the supposed learned people who try to disprove the Bible) tries to teach morals without teaching about the authority figure (Jesus) that has the authority to command the truth by which we MUST live.
They think that they get to tell us what morals should be followed and what ones are antiquated.
Romans 3:4...God is true and every man a liar....
al mohler also says that the Gospel is only given to some Elect. and thats Wrong imho
Yes, because Jesus only died for them
Joshua Theo look if you do a study on the earliest Reformers almost ALL Rejected that terrible notion and wrote extensively against it - almost all were 3-4 pt calvanists with major majority like I said against limited atonement - even Calvin himself called it Terrible and never committed to it - just another good reason that I stopped believing I. Calvinism, also after listening to many Biblical -Scholars on Romans 9 I was convinced -
How can the gospels be inerrant history when you have many contradictions throughout? One example of many is the Jesus infancy narratives of Matthew 2 and Luke 2. Compare them for yourselves as I paraphrase them..
Luke 2: The holy family travels from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem for a census/Jesus is born in Bethlehem/ After Mary goes through the Rites of Purification, 42 days later, they return to Nazareth.
Matthew 2: The holy family resides in Bethlehem/ Jesus is born/ After the Magi leave, an angel appears to Joseph in a dream to warn him Jesus is in danger because Herod is killing all the newborns/ In the middle of the night, Joseph awakes his family and they flee to Egypt/ They don't return to Judea until after the death of Herod/ On their return to Judea, they get word that Archelaus, Herod's son, is ruling Judea so they withdrew to Galilee and settle in Nazareth for the first time.
The only thing these two accounts have in common is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
One of these stories is false and more than likely, both of them are.
Hey excellent question! I am not sure you want an answer to your question or if you are just one of those non-believers who are close-minded but if you are interested, here are my thoughts:
There is no contradiction in both those accounts. Eyewitness testimonies tend to have differences in accounts and that is expected. It actually proves the authenticity of their accounts because if their testimonies were similar, then there would be suspicion of collusion. So, back to the account..
Luke did not mention the trip to Egypt but did mention that they travelled home to Nazareth. Only Matthew mentioned HOW they travelled home (i.e., "...they departed to their own country another way..." -Matt 2:12b)
The reason for this difference may not be obvious by first glance but if you read both gospels entirely and if you understand the character and purpose of both writers, you realize why.
You see, Matthew was a Jew writing to Jews. His purpose in writing his account was to make Jews see that Jesus is the Messiah by fulfilling all the prophecies of the coming Messiah. He emphasized that Joseph and Mary took the route through Egypt to fulfill Hosea 11:1. Matthew actually quotes the prophet Hosea in his account.
On the other hand, Luke's account is different in that he was writing to someone he referred to as my beloved Theophilus. We do not know who Theophilus was but the name sounds Greek. Therefore, his account was basically a summary of the events. He had no reason to emphasize the route through Egypt because Theophilus most likely had no prior knowledge of the prophecies of Hosea or any other prophet.
I hope this helps. Continue asking questions and be open to answers. God bless you, my friend!
Let me give you the problems that would make the two accounts contradictions in point form then reply back with your opinion if you like.
1. Luke has Jesus born during the Census of Quirinius in 6 CE when Judea became a province of Rome.
2. This was a census of Judea because it became a province of Rome for taxation purposes.
3. One problem is Luke 1-5 where the author claimed this was an empire wide census where it's subjects had to return to the home of their ancestors.
4. The is no Roman record of any empire wide census where it's subjects had to return to their ancestral home. This never occurred.
5 . Rome wouldn't care where their ancestors were from because censuses were for tax purposes. The author of Luke made that part of the story up to have Jesus born in Bethlehem and fulfill prophecy.
6. At this time Galilee was a silent kingdom, which meant Rome neither directly taxed nor administered Galilee, so Joseph wouldn't have been required to go to Judea in the first place because Luke had his home in Nazareth(in Galilee).
7. As I mentioned Luke has the holy family residing in Nazareth at the time of Jesus' birth
8. Matthew has the holy family residing in Judea at the time of Jesus' birth.
9. Other than the story starting in Judea and the family fleeing to Egypt right after Jesus is born to escape Herod, in Matthew 2, on their return from Egypt, they are going back to Judea, but when they learn Herod's son Archelaus was ruling Judea, it states they with withdrew to the district of Galilee and went to live in a town called Nazareth. They went to live there, not return home.
10. Again Luke has Jesus born in 6 CE.
11. According to Matthew, Jesus would've had to have been born before the death of Herod in 4 BCE , which gives us at least a difference of 10 years for when Jesus was born between the 2 gospels.
allthekingshorses, I'd still like to hear your opinion of my reply. After much history digging, it's incredible what you learn about antiquity. I had been suspicious about Luke 2:1-5 for quite sometime. I thought it sounded silly. Where would you go if our government made us return to our ancestral home of 1000 years ago? A simple research of the Census of Quirinius answered that question for me. Rome was very good at record keeping. Record keeping and roads. And the fact no empire wide census where it's subjects returned to their ancestral home was in existence also helped. It's also clear Matthew had their home in Judea while Luke had it in Nazareth. A simple question would be why would they be traveling to Judea instead of Galilee first after such a long trip home from Egypt? And it does say after learning Archelaus was ruling Judea, they withdrew to the district of Galilee and went to live in a town called Nazareth.Like it's the first time the readers would see Nazareth mentioned. Nothing to the effect they were returning home to Nazareth. Galilee and Judea are 70 miles from each other. That's at least a 4 day journey by foot.
If you are really interested then you should research what conservative Biblical scholars like Mohler or RC Sproul say on the topic. Asking random people on TH-cam is not indicative of really wanting an answer but just trying to stir doubt and make yourself sound superior. Looking to TH-cam watchers for any kind of intellectual insight is not good academic research for any subject.
Respectfully disagree. Just because it says in some book "this is true "doesn't make it so. How is this hard?
We have no more reason to believe that the gospels are historically accurate than we have to believe that the Harry potter books are historical.
The Harry Potter books are historical. They were really written by someone in the past.
You might be interested in this th-cam.com/video/G1XJ7DeR5fc/w-d-xo.html
Yes, we need a 'historical Adam' and a 'historical Old Testament'; yes, we need a 'historical Jesus' and a 'historical New Testament'; but how about a 'historical Church'? We say: "The liberals revise and re-interpret history and the Scriptures", but isn't that what Luther did in the first place? Luther re-interpreted the Scriptures and by necessity he revised Church history. True Christianity necessitates not only a 'historical Jesus', but a 'historical Church' as well. Let's not revise and re-interpret the historicity of our Faith.
No Luther didn't reinterpret scriptures, he shined the light on what the Catholic church made in legalism and rules which didn't exist. And they still do. We need the Historical Jesus not a reinterpreted one.
John Bury He did, Luther's doctrine of "Justification" is a novelty, that's why you will not find "Sola Fide" in the Church Fathers.
The Papists denied the plain teaching of Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, and Titus 3:4-5 with Trent - specifically Canons IX and XXIV. They did this for the purpose of continuing to uphold the invented doctrine of purgatory in order to exact money from its adherents in the form of indulgences.
In denial of scripture, the Catholic Catechism requires the following works to be done in order for man to earn his salvation: sacraments (1129), meritorious masses (1405), church membership (846), purgatory (1030), indulgences (1498), and baptism (1256).
Lawrence Stanley The council of Trent defended the Faith from the attacks of Luther. We need the Sacraments, that's why Christ instituted them. How do you think people get saved?
Santa Escritura
Any promise of salvation that also requires human effort is no salvation at all. Any belief system in the world that requires effort from its followers for salvation denies the finished work of Christ’s death and resurrection. Such systems of belief try to improve the character of its adherents, but they are not sufficient to save sinners.
Why can’t our good works make us right with God, or at least help to make us right with Him? Because the only righteousness that passes God’s scrutiny must be entirely perfect and must in every way measure up to the divine law (Romans 3:20, Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26). Even the very best that we do in this life is imperfect and stained with sin (Isaiah 64:6).
Justification before God is an act of God alone (Romans 8:33) by which He declares righteous those who, through faith in Christ (Romans 10:10, 1 John 5:10-12), repent of their sins (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; Romans 2:4; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Isaiah 55:6-7) and confess Him as sovereign Lord (Romans 10:9 10; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Corinthians 4:5; Philippians 2:11). That means to submit to Him and His authority over your life. This declared righteousness is apart from any virtue or work of man (Romans 3:20; 4:6, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5-7) and involves the imputation of our sins to Christ (Colossians 2:14; 1 Peter 2:24) and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:6, Genesis 15:6). By this means God is enabled to: "be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26).