Given that Richard Burridge writes that the genre of greco-roman biography includes biographies of mythical people, and given that the gospels include strangely appropriately-named characters, and boatloads of magic, what method did you use to determine that they contain almost entirely historically accurate data (minus, of course, the Jerusalem zombies)?
As to your claim that Mark doesn’t state Jesus is God: Mark is the only Gospel where Jesus is recorded to directly and plainly state He is the Son of God. Given the gravity of what that actually means i think its a clear confession of divinity. (i.e charged for blasphemy by Sanhedrin) The Gospels clearly serve different purposes as to what they are trying to convey to the reader, i see the “inconsistency/contradictions” people point out and its from a preconceived notion that all 4 of the Gospels are meant to be absolutely identical. The message is the same: that Christ is the prophesied Messiah come to atone for the sins of mankind. Whatever focus on when Jesus travels to one place over the other, or if an author skips over an event etc. speaks nothing of its validity. For example Mark focuses much more on the works of Christ than the other gospels, this is clearly intentional.
John is the only gospel where Jesus claims to be god. About 90% of the words of Mark are used in Matthew and Luke almost verbatim. It is obvious that these authors used this early gospel as a base and added to their own gospels from there.
"Mark is the only Gospel where Jesus is recorded to directly and plainly state He is the Son of God." Where? It seems to me he is separating himself from god.
I heard Mike once retell a story where a demon through a trash can lid across the room. He was serious. Since then, it's hard to take him seriously. I like his shirt though.
So you don't believe a demon can exist today, but Jesus was casting them out left and right in His day. This is the thing that I cannot understand. People are all willing to accept that Jesus was the Son of God, but anything else supernatural is silly for some reason.
Jesus Is not God. What do you think you become when the divine spirit of God regenerates you into a new creation? A new Adam? You become One with the father as well. Exalted to sit on the same throne judging the nations Rev. 3:21. Worshipped also Rev 3:9. And you receive the same NEW name Phillipians 2:9-10, Rev. 3:12. You are also declared the Son of God at your miracle birth. Its called the NEW BIRTH or spiritual resurrection Same as it was for Jesus. Romans 1:3-4. The same spirit that gave him new life gives all his elect Sons new life. Romans 8:11. All elect Sons are raised life giving spirits. All creation yearns for the REVELATION of the SONS of Elohiem. To him who overcomes (sin unto death), I will be his Elohiem and he will be MY SON. Revelation 21:7. All Sons of God have a dual nature as long as we live in this physical body. Our human nature and our God nature. The same as it was for Jesus. His new birth made him a divine eloheim the same as it makes every Son a divine eloheim. Theres only ONE Elohiem (Big E) and its the Father YHWH. Worshipping Jesus, a son of man, as God Almighty is the abomination and deception you were warned specifically not to fall victim to. Even warned it would come thru the beast catholic church. A false image created to the beast given breathe to speak. A imaginary false image in your mind. As opposed to the truth. Repent and return to your first love, your creator, husband, King, LORD, Shepherd, comforter, Friend, your FATHER. The 1st commandment. Your ONLY SAVIOR AND REDEEMER. Isaiah 43:10-14. Put not your trust in Princes nor a Son of Man in whom there is NO SALVATION Psalm 146:3.
How do you know that, and what is a historian to begin with? Are *you* a historian? If not, why should we trust anything you say, or your judgement that something is BS? A biologist is not a physicist or a chemist, but a biologist must have an understanding of Physics and Chemistry to qualify as a biologist. As far as I know, Mike Licona is a New Testament scholar. And a New Testament scholar is not a historian or a linguist, but a New Testament scholar must have an understanding of History and Linguistics to qualify as a New Testament scholar. The question is then: do *you* have an understanding of those matters? If not, what authority do you have to say that someone *who has studied* more than you doesn't know what he's talking about, while *you* allegedly know more than him, although *you haven't done the same research* that he's done?
