The Gospels are Historically Reliable: 6 Reasons 

Thank you, Mike, for this very helpful talk. If you want, copy these chapters below into your video description and RU-vid will divide up the video timeline accordingly, which makes it easier for people to navigate your presentation. 0:00 Intro 1:06 The genre of biography (ancient & modern) 4:55 Definition of "historical reliability" 6:08 Reason 1: The authors' intention 12:51 Reason 2: The sources 15:58 Reason 3: Responsible use of sources 17:15 Reason 4: Accurate recalling of stories 31:06 Reason 5: Verification 33:35 Reason 6: Few possible errors 36:37 Summary

This is my summary of video. Historical reliability = an accurate gist of a historical document where the document can have some errors and skewed by excluding inconvenient or embarrassing facts. Reasons why the gospels are historically reliable: 1. Author intended to write an accurate account, since the gospels are biographical in the genre of history (not poetry or theology) with emphasis on main character and ancestry and deeds. The gospels are NOT fictional ancient novels, since the gospels do NOT include a romance plot and do mention actual historical figures. Both Luke and John and Mark´s gospel explicitly mention that they are recording events. 2. The authors chose the sources judicially. 3. The author used resources responsible. 4. The authors were capable of recalling stories accurately. 5. We can verify numerous reported items. 6. Only a very small percentage of reported items have a reasonable chance of being errors, namely the death of Judas (in gospel of Matthew) and the census of Augustus (in the gospel of Luke). _____________________________________ About the Judas-contradiction, either way we know that he committed suicide and died. :)

Thanks Dr. Licona. I listened to this whole playlist and learned a lot. I also took notes. You didn't mention these books, but I recommend "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels," by Blomberg; and "The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel," by Blomberg.

Dr. Mike Licona, that was awesome. You touched on several points that I have noticed from the Gospels & the Epistles over the years in light of the errors of Form Criticism (the Creative Church Community) of the 20th & 21st Centuries. Timeline 26:10 Itinerant preacher, Rabbi Jesus & repetition, over & over & over & over … fixing the experiences into their memories. Also, the frequent repetition of eyewitnesses' reports to neighbors & during church testimonies times. Timeline 28:35 Some of Jesus’ disciples, Matthew & John, took notes while they were following Jesus. The “Q” sources. Timeline 29:05 Adjusting the parables & teachings for the Gentile audiences. I would only add one other point of consideration. In John 14:26 Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would bring to their recall everything that Jesus said & did. Mike, that was very clever. May the Lord richly bless you in your Gospel ministry. Jesus of Nazareth is the focus. 📖✝😇🎓⚔⚖👑

"Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.” (John 8:51)

Thank you Dr. Licona for your lectures on line. It really has blessed me. I want to save up and buy your book on the differences in the gospels. I learned quite a bit from the late Dr. Walter Martin. I’m sure before your time. You have been blessing me through your teaching, especially through lectures. I listen to you and I am going through a book called Tactics written by my wife’s friend. These resources better equip me to deal with gospel objections. As a retired man who now has a lot of time I am blessed by you and Greg’s book. Thank you again. Praying for you. Thomas Hanscom

God bless you Mike. Very clear. Very concise. Yes The "over and over and over and over ..." part is so good. Repetition, in mnemonics, the most effective and powerful aid to memory.

Thank you, Mike! ✝️

Thank you mike....awesome.... god bless you...

Is an "accurate gist" really sufficient enough to say a historical event occurred for which we have no verifiable examples can occur?

Mike, I've been reading a lot of stuff lately about the genre of the gospels, and a question occurred to me that so far nobody I've read has addressed. Do you think any of the apocryphal gospels fit the genre of Greco-Roman biography? To me, it seems like they are. The only difference is that they are later, more fanciful, and less reliable. With that being the case, it makes me question how reliable we can assume a document is merely by identifying its genre as Greco-Roman biography. But maybe there is some reason to think the second or third century gospels are NOT Greco-Roman biography, so I thought I'd ask.

....and over. Great presentation

where did this talk take place? the stage looks like a Calvary chapel...

Thank you.

Thank you!

This explanation makes one wonder if any of the authors were inspired by God. Seems like they all just copied or thought plagiarized one another. Are the names given to the gospels in the Bible actually written by the people whose names appear as the authors. Were they actually written by them ?

Excellent! Thank you so much!😁❤️

The goat!!

Dan Brown's historical fiction novels describe setting elements in painstaking detail too. I don't think pursuing this line of argument is going to result in the fruit you think it will.

How can you say Scripture is reliable? Where are theoriginaldocuments? The supporting evidence?

A historical data can be reliable if (1) the transmission of the data is reliable; ie. its chain and trustworthiness of narrators is known and (2) God who said it.

epic

To his first point, just because the NT manuscripts are the best ancient manuscripts doesn’t mean they’re accurate. The best of a group of bad things does not imply goodness. It just implies that it is not as bad as the terrible things. Meaning, the NT manuscripts aren’t necessarily reliable, they’re just MORE reliable than other ancient documents, which are extremely unreliable.

Can i be a christian and accept that the bible have errors or sayings that are no from jesus : ?

I'm waiting for these apologists to refute Dennis R MacDonald's "Mythologizing Jesus" or "Luke and Vergil".

The Bible is Very Badly Written. We Know from History and Across the World that People Cannot Even Agree what it Says or Means. For about a Millennium People Interpreted it Literally and Concluded it Supported Slavery and after that Decided there was a Different Interpretation and it Didn’t Really. Any God Worth Their Name Would Have the Power to Write a Book that Everyone Could Understand. Any God With Any Sense Would Realize that Human Beings Were of Finite Mental Capacity and if They Really Did Want to Write a Message for all Mankind Would Write a Book that Everyone Would Recognize as the Word of God and Understand. It Makes No Sense at all for God to Write a Book Which in Practice has the Net Effect of Confusing Everybody About Something as Basic as Whether “SLAVERY” is OK. If The Bible is Intended as Moral Guidance it is Demonstrably and Indisputably Badly Written and So Not Plausible as the Word of Any God Worthy the Title. The Bible is What it Appears to Be. It’s an Eclectic Collection of Writings and Stories Mixing Historical Fact with Supernatural Fiction Written Over a Thousand Years Ago by People Who Weren’t Even the Most Enlightened People of Their Time and By Modern Standards were Spectacularly Ignorant. Sorry If You Can't Understand This it's Not My Problem... “If You Think You Know Everything, You’ll Never Learn Anything,”

The gospels were all extensions, redactions and embellishments of the 1st one written, Mark. They are incongruent, inconsistent and anonymously written. Anyone who REALLY looks rationally into the facts, will find the gospels wildly unreliable and it would be foolishness to have faith in them. Only the intellectually dishonest, the Intellectually lacking and those who choose to remain in the dark could possibly trust the 4 gospels. Period. Now, if someone likes the stories and can better their life and others lives by creating a loving life narrative out of them, then great. But... they are NOT factual tales.

Original gospels were not written in Greek. So who knows what has changed.

Just as Jesus discarded the teachings of Judaism, Jesus would also discard the teachings in the Bible. Too much of the Bible has been distorted, misunderstood and incorrectly reported; why put new wine into old wineskins.

Excellent presentation. Minor point: the narrative of MLK's marital affairs is untrue.

Religion began when the first conman met the first fool...

TL;DR - Ex post facto justifications for a belief in Iron Age fairy tales that have been passed down (i.e. forced onto children) over many generations.

the miracles of jesus are mythology

Those who claim the gospels are reliable but the King James Bible is not perfect are liars and fools.

Absolutely not reliable...1st : not signed and we don't know who wrote them.

*The Evolution of the Gospels in Making Jesus God:* *Gospel of Mark (the earliest Gospel, written ~65AD):* Jesus is declared God’s son during his adult ministry after being baptized, makes lots of human errors, is portrayed as a servant and Jewish rabbi who focuses on glorifying God & the good news of God’s Kingdom, is viewed by many as a prophet, and dies a bleak and depressing death, while crying out at God who forsook him at his last breath. *Gospel of Matthew & Luke (written later ~85-90AD):* Jesus is declared God’s son as early as birth, to a virgin mother no less, makes far fewer mistakes and appears more powerful, acts as a confident preacher & miracle-worker who is now called “lord” by his followers instead of rabbi, focuses less on preaching about his God, and dies a humble and honorable death, praying to God for his enemies to be forgiven & his soul to be graciously taken. *Gospel of John (the latest Gospel, written ~100AD):* Jesus is declared to be the PRE-EXISTENT divine son of God-rather than as an adult or child-who DESCENDED from heaven and incarnated as a sacrificial savior in the flesh; he makes no unintentional errors but is in full control of his mighty & declarative speech and actions, while being portrayed as the divine Word of God having incarnated on earth as the god-man, preaching virtually NOTHING any longer about God’s coming Kingdom, but almost exclusively about HIMSELF and his own divine status & glory, where he uses many explosive “I Am” declarations for himself that were never mentioned in any of the previous gospels, and considers himself on par with God, ultimately dying a heroic and victorious death as he had originally planned since the beginning of the world, where he REFUSES to pray to God to save him, as he had done in the previous three gospels. Now I know that conservative Christians like yourselves don’t usually accept Darwin’s theory of evolution, but this is undoubtedly a form of evolution within the Bible that you certainly cannot deny if you are being even slightly honest & sincere with yourselves... But God Almighty-YHWH, the one true God of Abraham whom Jesus Christ himself happily served & worshiped-has brought down to you clarification and guidance through the Qur’an, and reminds you of the original message of Christ and all the other prophets before him came to deliver, which is to serve God alone-your Lord and their Lord-and to do good to your fellow humanity, before the Day of Judgement soon arrives. And God Almighty directly declares to you all: *_”O people of the Scripture! Do not go too far in your theology, and do not say things about God except the truth! The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, is only God’s messenger, as well as His Word which He cast into Mary, and a spirit from Him! So believe in God and His messengers, and do not speak of a trinity! Stop it-it is for your own good! God is one sole divinity, who is far above having a son! He owns everything in the heavens and everything on earth! And God is fully able to manage it all on His own!”_* _(Al-Qur’an [The Recitation])_

A reading of the Gospels will clearly show that they are not historically correct or reliable should a person care to read them.

the gospels are mythology. jesus is horus

The resurrection narratives grow in the telling which may indicate a legend that grew over time. Pay attention to how "experiencing" the Risen Jesus evolves in chronological order. Scholarly consensus dating places the documents as follows: Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned. Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. Predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, has some women grab Jesus' feet, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee. Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the disciples. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Acts adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days. Luke omits any appearance to the women. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. John 90-110 CE - Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip. As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports). If apologists want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then they need to provide other examples about the same event from history that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, yet are still regarded to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that grow like the gospels do will be legends. www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/6hj39c/the_resurrection_is_a_legend_that_grew_over_time/