Stuart & Cliffe Knechtle | The Toughest Argument We've Seen In A While | TX A&M |Give Me An Answer

[00:00:00]We that does not mean that Jesus physically rose from the dead because we all know scientifically that dead people don't rise from the dead. So what's the point of Easter? The point of Easter is have hope. It's a definite religion.

[00:00:13]It's called classical liberal Christian theology. It began in the West. It came over to the United States. It's taught in every major seminary in the United States. It's sick and sad.

[00:00:24]>> Yeah. So Cliff, the belief >> I'm glad you agree. the belief that miracles are.

[00:00:28]>> That's why you're tricky to deal with, sir.

[00:00:30]>> Why is that?

[00:00:31]>> Cuz you drop those kind of one line little words that show an attitude.

[00:00:37]>> Being passionate about something is >> called sarcasm.

[00:00:40]>> Okay.

[00:00:53]I wanted to talk about um divine hiddenness and uh non-resistant non-believers. Uh this is a problem that is uh very I mean it's something I've lived. Uh we have people who um are perhaps seeking God and are unable to find him. I I was raised in the Lutheran church and raised believing in God and I had, you know, many um times where I thought I might have felt God or I might have felt scared of him or um you know, I I I as I got older, I really tried to believe and I simply was unable to believe. And this is kind of a two-parter is is why does God not just make himself present? Because the the important thing is that we we choose to follow God, not that we, you know, I mean, you could know that God is is, you know, he exists and and still choose not to follow him such as Satan did. And then people, these non-resistant non-believers, if they die seeking God and simply just not being able to believe in him by no fault of their own, do they go to hell or do they go to heaven?

[00:01:58]If an OBGYn doctor is sitting across the table from a very uneducated woman and finds out that she's never had a mammog, if he begins to suspect that she might have breast cancer, it is cruel if he does not encourage her to go for a mammog.

[00:02:14]It is kind if he says, "Lady, you might have breast cancer. I encourage you strongly to go get a mammogram." That is kindness.

[00:02:25]It would be cruel for God to not reveal himself clearly and then on a day of judgment say you're going to hell.

[00:02:37]That would be cruel.

[00:02:39]And that is why Jesus is so blunt that God loves you. Respond to his love. That is why God is so truthful.

[00:02:48]If you live together with God, you'll spend eternity together with him. If you don't, you'll spend eternity separate from him. That's hell.

[00:02:56]The directness of Christ is because he loves you and me.

[00:03:02]In other words, if the truth of something leads to life or death, persuasion is an act of love.

[00:03:14]If the truth of something leads to life or death, to heaven or to hell, persuasion is an act of love.

[00:03:25]Sir, to be honest with you, I don't think the universe is religiously ambiguous.

[00:03:30]The evidence is that around the world, every culture has some type of religion.

[00:03:34]We as human beings are incurably religious. God has left more than enough evidence for any thinking person to trust in him. So I would argue that a person does not find God for the same reason that a criminal does not find the police. He's always running away. And the reason that I feel so comfortable sharing that with you is I on too many occasions have run away from God. I think there's plenty of people who could come to believe in some form of God, but if it's not the Christian God, they end up in hell. I think, you know, more often than not. Um, but I mean, you do legitimately have people who do want to find truth and and, you know, maybe they have some kind of near-death experience or some kind of vision or something that leads them to another religion or leads them just away from Christianity. Um, why do things like this happen? And why if God really wants to have a relationship with everyone, why does it seem that there are people who are legitimately seeking God that God doesn't come to that can't have a relationship with him? All of us have a God-shaped vacuum at the center of our being. God created us to know him. I think it's very clear that all of us worship someone or something. To worship simply means to consider ultimately worthy.

[00:04:58]The agnostic is lying to themsself.

[00:05:01]>> I don't.

[00:05:02]>> Why?

[00:05:03]>> Because all you have to do to answer the question, what do you worship? What's your idol? What's your god? Is to ask yourself, what do I spend the most money, time, and effort towards? That's your idol. That's your god. Could be athletics.

[00:05:19]>> Could be sex, physical pleasure. Could be academia, intellectual arrogance, center. It could be a career.

[00:05:26]could be family.

[00:05:28]But I hate to tell you, you're living for something or someone.

[00:05:33]Now, the basic question is who or what are you living for? Because you are living for something or someone. And what's the evidence? The second question is what's the evidence that whatever you're living for is true.

[00:05:44]>> If someone legitimately looks at the evidence and and they they find that they're simply unconvinced, you know, they they don't think the gospels are reliable, you know, all of these these different things. a lack of historical records for what is supposedly the most significant event in in all of human history. I think Matthew 27:53, as we were talking about earlier, is a good example of uh the author of Matthew being willing to make up things that didn't happen. If someone looks at these things and and really by no fault of their own, they're they're simply unconvinced because I don't I don't know if I believe that belief is a choice, but if they're just unconvinced, I mean, do they deserve hell?

[00:06:23]You can be unconvinced about whether Coke or Pepsi is better.

[00:06:26]>> Yeah.

[00:06:27]>> Because it has no practical ramification. But the issue of God, the issue of Jesus is not an irrelevant issue because you have to answer the question, is this person valuable or not?

[00:06:42]>> And the way you answer the question, is this person valuable or not? Has everything to do with >> who defines value? Is there a God or no God? You have to answer the question.

[00:06:53]Second question, is there a purpose to my life? Is there meaning? You have no option. You have to live your life. You have to come up with purpose and meaning. Well, if there is no God, guys, there's no ultimate meaning to your life. You make up your own meaning and purpose, but it's all relative. And thirdly, you have to make ethical decisions. Are you going to cheat on your next exam or not? Are you going to pay your taxes to the IRS or not? You cannot live your life as if I'm unconvinced.

[00:07:20]I'm unconvinced. It's not an option.

[00:07:23]Sorry. Life doesn't afford you that option. You have to choose what you're going to do ethically. And fourthly, I'm sorry, guys. You're going to have to go to grandma grandpa's funeral or mom and dad's funeral. And you can't sit there saying, "I'm unconvinced. I'm unconvinced."

[00:07:38]No. You're either going to see that person possibly after death or you're not going to see the person after death.

[00:07:44]You have to decide what you believe. You can't just sit there saying, "I'm unconvinced. I'm unconvinced." Because it's too pressing an issue. Life has a way of doing that.

[00:07:54]>> All of these things I I think they can get them without religion, but they can certainly get them in other religions.

[00:08:01]>> Yes. All philosophies.

[00:08:02]>> Yeah. And and if so, someone looks into Christianity.

[00:08:05]>> Yeah.

[00:08:06]>> And they just remain unconvinced.

[00:08:08]>> Yeah.

[00:08:09]>> Do they go to hell?

[00:08:10]>> They're not unconvinced. They have an option. When I say I doubt, >> that doesn't mean I'm unconvinced. It means I'm convinced that something else is more reliable and more true than whatever it is you're asking me to consider.

[00:08:25]>> Doubt demands your thinking. Doubt demands I'm looking for evidence and you have not given me enough evidence. Now, here's my point.

[00:08:35]My point is very simple.

[00:08:37]If there's not enough evidence to support Jesus Christ, then what is the option that is supported by more evidence?

[00:08:46]And the answer that you get to that question is scary.

[00:08:53]I guess this should get into a little bit of a personal like story, but like when I was getting older, like I'm looking into the Bible and I'm looking at, you know, we talked about slavery earlier. I'm looking at all of like the the terrible things that happen, especially in the Old Testament. And I found that really scary. And I I feel more at peace thinking that that's not true, that there isn't a God who commanded genocide and slavery and all these things. And so I I mean, part of it is just that moral inconsistency and the other is the historical evidence.

[00:09:20]And so I look at I look at Christianity and I just I don't think it's really my fault. I just I'm just not convinced that it's true. And so I guess I'm just asking you like if I die tomorrow, am I going to hell?

[00:09:32]So what's the better alternative to Jesus based on the evidence that that alternative is better, superior? But you don't need an alternative to something to to think that one thing is unlikely.

[00:09:46]You can remain agnostic to an idea or a belief while stating that it's unlikely that that is true. I think that's perfectly honest and reasonable. I I I hope you would agree. Life does not give you the option of being unconvinced.

[00:10:03]>> Sure it does.

[00:10:03]>> You have no sir. We'll go over it again. The last time we go over it though.

[00:10:09]>> You know what's going to happen in the future?

[00:10:10]>> You have to decide if a person is valuable or not. And the question is why is a person valuable? You have to you have to answer the question am I valuable?

[00:10:20]>> I do think about >> you have a self-image. Everybody has a self-image. You have an identity.

[00:10:24]Everybody has an identity. What's it based on? Are you valuable or not? If so, why?

[00:10:30]>> If someone gets those things from outside of Christianity and they're unconvinced that Christianity is true, do they deserve to go to hell? Because it sounds like you're telling me that you have no option in remaining unconvinced and and people get they need to have morals and values and stuff can get them from outside.

[00:10:45]>> I'll tell you exactly what I'm trying to do. I am to I am trying to expose the thinking that you're putting out here and I appreciate it that says you can be totally neutral about God.

[00:10:58]agnostic, neutral, just I don't say yes, I don't say no, I just say I don't know.

[00:11:04]And I'm trying to expose that as sorry, that's not an option because the question of God has to do with human value, human meaning and purpose, ethics, and life after death or no life after death. And you, sir, cannot escape those issues.

[00:11:22]You have to every day make decisions about those issues. Sorry, it's not me telling you that. That's your life. Now tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that. No, no, no, Cliff. Every day I don't have to make ethical decisions. Every day I don't have to decide whether I'm valuable or a piece of dirt. Every day I don't have to decide whether there's life after death or not.

[00:11:44]But if you tell me that, you're living in a different world than I am.

[00:11:51]>> Sure. Because I live in a world where I don't have the option to not answer the question, is this black person valuable or not? Is this white person valuable or not? Is there such a thing as human dignity? Is there human rights?

[00:12:06]Is there freedom where they're not freedom?

[00:12:09]Am I going to hold this person responsible for the way they treat me or am I not? I can't escape that, sir.

[00:12:14]That's the world I live in. Maybe you live in an alternate reality that's totally separate from me.

[00:12:19]>> So, I I think I agree with you. I think we have this common ground that like that deciding is not an option but you do decide where you get it from or maybe you don't decide like strictly speaking I'm not >> I agree we you decide >> right so if someone gets that from somewhere else other than Christianity >> yes >> and they're just not they're just unconvinced and it's it's not really like their fault that they're unconvinced about Christianity they just they just don't believe it the same way that they you know don't believe that >> the sky is green or or that gravity doesn't exist or that the earth is flat like a non-resistant non-believer should they go to hell and if they should go to hell how is that just >> well it's very simple obviously Jesus is saying you are making a choice sir every atheist every agnostic every theist every Buddhist Hindu Judist Muslim we all make a choice >> so you think >> who are we going to trust >> so you would be a doxastic voluntarist you do believe that belief is a choice >> yes belief is a choice >> I I want you to do this quick exercise then I want you to choose choose to believe that gravity is not real or that the earth is flat. You can't honestly do it. You're convinced of something.

[00:13:26]If I tell you that I believe the earth is flat and you say, "What's your evidence for that?" And I say, "Well, no evidence. I just believe it." And you say to me, "No, Cliff, it's round."

[00:13:44]And I say, "Well, what's the evidence for that?" And you give me the evidence.

[00:13:51]You have every right to look me in the face and say, "Cliff, the evidence is the earth is round, not flat. So, you should believe the earth is round."

[00:13:59]>> Yeah.

[00:13:59]>> And if I say to you, "Well, I'm unconvinced."

[00:14:02]But then I go ahead and believe that the earth is flat for far less evidence than you've given me that the earth is round.

[00:14:07]I'm an intellectual hypocrite. I'm an intellectual liar.

[00:14:10]>> Agreed. Definitely agreed. But would you say that the >> That's my point. That's Jesus point. The only reason people go to hell is not because of ignorance. It's not because of lack of evidence. It's because they choose to walk away from him. That's the only reason. In other words, I think I know what the theme song of hell will be. I did it my way. And on the day of judgment, God will say, "You do it your way for eternity," that'll be hell. The point is, if you tell me the earth is round >> and I say, "Give me evidence."

[00:14:39]>> You give me your evidence and I say it's not enough. But then I go ahead and believe the earth is flat for less evidence than what you gave me that the earth is round. I'm a liar. I'm an intellectual hypocrite.

[00:14:50]>> I see. So >> because I'm acting like before I can believe something, I need evidence. You give me a ton of evidence. I say no. I'm unconvinced. But I'm then I'm going to go and believe something, the earth is flat. This is has far less evidence than that the earth is round.

[00:15:04]>> I I see. I see. So you're saying like if someone is required to in order to be intellectually honest, they're required to believe something that has evidence as opposed to just I mean, you know, some evidence.

[00:15:18]Maybe that evidence is just not convincing to them. But they're required to believe that over keeping an open mind about alternatives.

[00:15:28]>> Any follower of Christ is to keep an open mind about any alternatives.

[00:15:32]>> That's that's what I'm doing. I'm just not a follow Christ.

[00:15:35]>> I don't think I chose not to believe.

[00:15:37]It's kind of like how any of us might sit in a lecture and we might have an idea about something and when the professor says something that changes our mind. We don't choose to have our mind changed. Our mind changes just like that. You know, >> I disagree. I think you have reasons why you change your mind because you can't expect 20th century or 21st century educated people to believe that Jesus walked on water. We all know that people can't walk on water.

[00:16:00]>> Right.

[00:16:01]>> Right. So therefore, the gospels are not reliable because they have Jesus walking on water.

[00:16:05]>> Well, it's not just that.

[00:16:06]>> That's based on a presupposition, philosophical presupposition that there is no supernatural God, which means that miracles cannot happen, which means obviously Jesus can't walk on water. And obviously what we're going to celebrate in a couple of weeks, Easter. We know what that means. We That does not mean that Jesus physically rose from the dead because we all know scientifically that dead people don't rise from the dead. So what's the point of Easter? The point of Easter is have hope.

[00:16:31]It's a definite religion. It's called classical liberal Christian theology. It began in the West. It came over to the United States. It's taught in every major seminary in the United States.

[00:16:41]It's sick and sad.

[00:16:43]>> Yeah. So, Cliff, the belief >> I'm glad you agree.

[00:16:47]>> The belief that miracles are >> That's why you're tricky to deal with, sir.

[00:16:50]>> Why is that?

[00:16:51]>> Cuz you drop those kind of one line little words that show an attitude.

[00:16:57]>> Being passionate about something is >> called sarcasm. Okay. Uh so the belief that uh miracles is don't exist or are not possible is not presuppositional on just the basis that miracles aren't possible. It's it comes from us never being able to witness something.

[00:17:15]Believing in something that defies the laws of nature and physics as we have always been able to observe them is a very tall task. It's a very tall claim.

[00:17:26]And so the larger your claim, the larger your evidence should be for that thing.

[00:17:32]And if someone is asked to believe that the that you know there was this man who came and and by the way the New Testament is it's a great story. It's very touching and you know I I appreciate it. But asking someone to believe that this man came and and came back to life and brought other people back to life and turned water into wine and and and did all of these fantastic things based on four books. You could say maybe three. Maybe John is written by John, but three books that are most likely not eyewitness accounts. The >> historical >> totally false. John was obviously an eyewitness. So was Matthew and Mark. I said I said maybe.

[00:18:05]>> So were Peter and James. Peter and James in the New Testament were also eyewitnesses.

[00:18:09]>> The the historical consensus is that Matthew is probably not an eyewitness.

[00:18:13]And we can get into that if you want, but >> that's bologoney.

[00:18:16]>> Okay. So I mean Bartman, David C.

[00:18:18]Parker.

[00:18:19]>> Yeah, Bartman is full of it.

[00:18:21]>> David C. Parker. Okay. I mean, you could say he's just full of it, but I mean, the guy has >> Well, then ask me why you say that my entire life, too.

[00:18:27]>> Come on. Ask me. Well, why did you say that harsh thing about Bartman?

[00:18:31]>> Well, I don't really want debated Bartman. Okay. I went down to Chapel Hill and debated the man. All right. And you bought into his thinking.

[00:18:38]>> I'm warning you that's wrong thinking.

[00:18:40]Why?

[00:18:41]>> It's not just Bartman, though. There there are >> Well, you're the one who raised Bart, not me. Okay.

[00:18:45]>> Yeah. So, I'm responding to what you raised. There are plenty of other scholars who >> and he's by far the most popular writer who has articulated what you've bought into.

[00:18:53]>> I'll definitely give you that. He's definitely very popular, but there are many I I see as as very valid reasons to believe that these are not eyewitness testimonies. And we talked about um >> fine. Give me some evidence that they're not eyewitness testimonies. Matthew, Mark, and John.

[00:19:07]>> So here, first of all, let's start with Matthew. I think Matthew is probably the strongest uh we have the most amount of reasons to believe he's not an eyewitness. So Matthew is supposedly an eyewitness, right? Mark is not okay.

[00:19:17]Matthew, why is Mark not?

[00:19:18]>> Matthew copies. Can you Can you tell me where? Because Mark was a disciple of Peter.

[00:19:23]>> Mark was a young man.

[00:19:24]>> Mark did not walk with Jesus. He was not an eyewitness.

[00:19:27]>> What do you mean?

[00:19:28]>> He was a disciple.

[00:19:28]>> He could have easily been a No. Yeah, he was a disciple of Peter, but he could easily have been a young man seen Jesus.

[00:19:33]>> No. Many of the accounts that are written in Mark, Mark was not there for.

[00:19:37]And this is the this I mean, this is not something that's even really debated.

[00:19:41]Mark was a disciple of Peter and learned most of what he wrote in Mark. Well, I wouldn't say him, but from Peter. He learned those things from Peter. And that that's >> Matthew never says, "I saw all of these events." Mark never says, "I saw all of these events." John never says, "I saw all of these events." So, you're absolutely right. But what's your point?

[00:19:57]>> So, here's the problem, though. If Matthew is an eyewitness, and Mark is not an eyewitness to most of these things, why does Matthew copy from Mark almost word for word? If you were to sit down and write an eyewitness testimony about how your day was, you wouldn't copy someone else's testimony about how your day was who wasn't even there. It's illogical to think that that is what an eyewitness would do.

[00:20:17]>> It is not illogical because the oral tradition was very strong and because they took notes and obviously you've heard of the Q source based on your little background. I can tell >> so they use notes and the oral tradition was very strong and that's why there are similarities between Matthew, Mark and Luke, the synoptic gospels. Obviously, John takes another different perspective on it. All right, >> John. Yeah, it gets a little >> But just because there are similarities in different accounts, >> it's not just similarities. It's word for word copies. It's it's verbatim.

[00:20:47]Matthew is copying what Mark writes in his gospel.

[00:20:50]>> Yeah.

[00:20:51]>> Eyewitness. Why would an eyewitness write about what he personally saw with his own eyes?

[00:20:56]>> Sir, there is enough dissimilarity between Matthew, Mark, and Luke to show that they are reliable. There is dissimilarity. They are not carbon copies. There's dissimilar details.

[00:21:06]>> Well, this this is there are large chunks of large chunks where they're similar copied from Mark. Very similar.

[00:21:13]>> And so again, why would an eyewitness >> you don't know it's copied from Mark?

[00:21:16]That's a presupposition.

[00:21:18]>> Well, it's not a presupposition.

[00:21:19]>> You don't know that there wasn't a Q source some notes that people used like Matthew, Mark, and Luke used.

[00:21:25]>> Okay. Mark comes before Matthew and there are large sections of Matthew that that's the historical consensus is that ma Mark is written before Matthew. I'm I'm no you know biblical historian like Bartman like David C. Parker like these people but I understand that that is the historical consensus and we could talk about you know even the manuscripts that we have that exist of those things and how we know that they either are or aren't accurate.

[00:21:47]>> Good. So you trust Bart Irman to tell you that Mark was >> I do trust people who commit their lives to um education. Yes.

[00:21:57]>> Who go to Masters who get M's thesis, who get PhDs, who go to seminary for many years, especially Princeton Theological Seminary, a very highly well- reggarded seminary. I do trust people who commit their lives to education. The same >> Do you know who taught >> Bruce Mezer taught Bartman at Princeton Seminary and Bruce Mezer understood very clearly that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were very accurate.

[00:22:22]Bruce Mezer was Bartman's professor, sir, at Princeton Seminary. And Bruce Mezer contradicted Bartman. So for you to just blindly follow Bartman is an incredible leap of faith.

[00:22:35]>> So Cliff, >> incredible.

[00:22:36]>> The critique is not that I'm making that they're inaccurate. It's that they're reliable. How do we know these things are historically reliable? I have no problem saying like, oh, you know, like maybe Matthew is, you know, is accurate to to Mark or whatever these things say.

[00:22:50]They align theologically. How do we know they actually happened? We're we're talking about the single greatest event.

[00:22:55]>> No, let me answer you.

[00:22:56]>> Okay. What's the alternative?

[00:22:57]>> How do you determine whether a document is reliable or not?

[00:23:02]>> Mhm.

[00:23:02]>> So, how do you determine it? You asked the question which implies to me because of the amount of thinking you've done that you got a good answer. So, I want your good answer. Give me the answer to how do you determine whether a document is historically reliable or not?

[00:23:13]>> I would look at the amount of evidence, the amount of other writings that back up that writing and that don't contradict each other. Um, you know, for example, I think that we can reliably say that George Washington was the first president of the United States because we have thousands of people who corroborate George Washington being the the first president of the United States. We have um artifacts that he wore or interacted with. We have eyewitness testimony from the time when it comes to the gospels. It's very much in debate whether these are eyewitness testimonies. And if we don't even have eyewitness testimonies of these things, how can we reliably say they actually happened?

[00:23:48]Whenever I am studying a document that claims to be historical, I've got four tests that I use. Internal consistency, literary style, archaeological evidence, and manuscript evidence. First one, internal consistency. Are there contradictions within the text that point to massive confusion? No, they're not. There's a tremendous internal harmony and consistency in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Second test, literary style. Is it once upon a time in the land of nod wink and blinking and odd took a boat ride? Obviously, that's fairy tale. No, the gospels are at this time in this place with these people around. Jesus said this and did that. It reads like the New York Times eyewitness reportage. Third test archaeology >> archaeological evidence. Are we talking about the island of Atlantis out in the ocean that none of us can verify? No, we're talking about Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, Rome, >> Pontius Pilot, not Elmer Fud and Mickey Mouse. Pontius Pilate, Herod Agrippa, Fesus, archaeologically historically confirmed people. And fourth test, how many manuscripts do we have for the documents that we are investigating?

[00:24:52]Yeah, >> we have over 5,800 Greek manuscripts or pieces of manuscript dated 2 through 10th century AD, all agreeing to an infantessimal degree. But if you're not going to like this, >> I'm sorry. I didn't know that I said anything funny. What were you What are you smiling about?

[00:25:06]>> You're not going to like this, but we have over 10 million copies of Harry Potter that doesn't prove that Harry Potter was real. You can make a claim that we have a lot of documents that say one thing. That doesn't mean that that thing actually happened. You can say that these documents talk about Judea in Rome. Spider-Man is set in New York City. That doesn't make Spider-Man real.

[00:25:23]>> You have just shown your emotional bias incredible.

[00:25:25]>> Okay.

[00:25:26]>> It's absolutely amazing. I never once said that a document is reliable if there are thousands of manuscripts.

[00:25:32]>> That was your fourth criteria.

[00:25:33]>> That's right, sir. So, what did I tell you? I said whenever I say that I am studying a document's credibility, I use four tests. and your fourth.

[00:25:44]>> Not one test, not two tests. One by one, >> not three tests, but four tests. And you got to take them all together.

[00:25:53]>> I was going one by one.

[00:25:53]>> Once again, if you don't like my four tests, what are the tests that you use?

[00:25:58]>> For the fourth one, your your criteria was that we have so many different documents and that's somehow proof that >> this thing actually >> not proof. I never used the word proof.

[00:26:08]I talked about evidence.

[00:26:10]>> Yeah. evidence that and I told you whenever I'm confronted by a document that claims to be historical. I'm skeptical.

[00:26:17]>> The fourth test was manuscript evidence.

[00:26:20]>> And I pointed out to you that there are over 5,800 Greek manuscripts or pieces of manuscript dated from the 2nd through the 10th century.

[00:26:28]>> Then before you interrupted, I was going to I was going on to point out and we have 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts >> dated from the 5th through the 12th century.

[00:26:40]Then I was going to point out that we have 9,300 approximately >> Slavic, Syriak, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic.

[00:26:50]>> Yeah.

[00:26:50]>> Manuscripts of the New Testament.

[00:26:52]>> Yeah.

[00:26:53]>> So we've got about 25,000 manuscripts of the New Testament.

[00:26:58]>> The number of documents that claim one thing is not necessarily evidence that that one thing actually happened. Again, we're talking about you said first, second, second.

[00:27:08]>> That's not the point.

[00:27:09]>> This is one of the >> You missed my point. No, >> the question was, is the document reliable?

[00:27:15]>> Okay. So, internal consistency.

[00:27:17]>> That's one of the tests.

[00:27:18]>> Okay. So, which day did Jesus die on?

[00:27:20]Was it before the Passover or after?

[00:27:22]>> Pardon?

[00:27:22]>> Which day did Jesus die on? Was it before the Passover or after?

[00:27:25]>> It depends if you're from Judea or Galilee, >> right? Yeah.

[00:27:28]>> They had two different ways >> because you don't have internal consistency.

[00:27:31]>> Oh, come on. If we have one thing that says that Jesus died at this time and another document that says Jesus died at this time, both of them cannot be true.

[00:27:38]That is a big thing.

[00:27:39]>> No, they both teach that Christ died on Friday and rose on Sunday.

[00:27:43]>> No. One of the gospels says that Jesus died before the Passover. The other gospel says that Jesus died after the Passover.

[00:27:49]>> None of the gospels say that Jesus died on Thursday or Saturday. He died on Friday and he was raised on Sunday.

[00:27:56]>> Right? The Passover would be a specific time on Friday and one of them says that he died before that afternoon and the other says he died after that afternoon.

[00:28:03]>> Nope.

[00:28:04]>> Okay.

[00:28:05]>> It's a difference of defining Passover and there were different views in Judea and Galilee in answer to the question when does the Passover end and when is the Passover meal being >> enjoyed that you're telling me that Mark came from >> Not only that one gospel talks about two angels at an empty tomb. Another gospel talks about one angel in an empty tomb.

[00:28:24]>> Oh my goodness. Nobody says there was only one angel at the empty tomb and another says two. That would be a contradiction.

[00:28:30]>> A last comment. Are you stating that Mark and Matthew come from different places? Because that is what you'd have to commit yourself.

[00:28:35]>> What I'm saying is there were different views among the Jews of when the Passover occurred.

[00:28:42]>> I'm talking about the views of Mark and Matthew who you claim are the ones writing these things.

[00:28:48]>> They embrace different views.

[00:28:51]>> You said that one comes from Galilee and one comes from Judea. Are you telling me that Mark and Matthew both come from Galilee and Judea?

[00:28:57]>> No, I didn't say that at all. I'm just saying they're articulating a perspective.

[00:29:02]>> A a perspective that they held or a perspective that was for Judea and for Galilee.

[00:29:06]>> I don't know.

[00:29:07]>> Okay. Whether they heard that a few times today whether they had personally accepted it. I do know that they were articulating it.

[00:29:14]>> Yeah.

[00:29:15]>> All right. Good to meet you again, man.

[00:29:17]>> Yeah. Thank you.

[00:29:18]>> You bet.

[00:29:20]>> Hey guys, thanks so much for tuning into this episode. like and hit that subscribe button in order to join the family. Also want to invite you to our church where we pastor at in New Canaan, Connecticut. It's called Grace Community Church. We are currently meeting at a middle school, Saks Middle School, and we start at 9:30 a.m. Hope to meet you there. See you soon.