The gospels too late to be accurate? A historian says NO! | @Mike Licona

The gospels too late to be accurate? A historian says NO! | @Mike Licona

The gospels too late to be accurate? A historian says NO! | @Mike Licona

2378 Posts



People will refuse to accept the reliability of the Gospels based on the false idea that they were written too late after the life of Jesus to be trusted. If we applied this thinking across the board, much of history would have to be rejected. Like other historical events, how do we know that the Gospels were written in a time frame that does not diminish their accuracy? Check out what Dr. Mike Licona has to say about it!

🀝 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗒π—₯𝗧 𝗖π—₯π—’π—¦π—¦π—˜π—«π—”π— π—œπ—‘π—˜π—— (𝗧𝗔𝗫-π——π—˜π——π—¨π—–π—§π—œπ—•π—Ÿπ—˜) 🀝
● Website:
● PayPal:

πŸ‘₯ π—¦π—’π—–π—œπ—”π—Ÿ π— π—˜π——π—œπ—” πŸ‘₯
● Facebook:
● Twitter:
● Instagram:
● Pinterest:

πŸ—„οΈ π—₯π—˜π—¦π—’π—¨π—₯π—–π—˜π—¦ πŸ—„οΈ
● Website:
● Store:
● Online Courses:

πŸŽ™οΈ 𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗦𝗖π—₯π—œπ—•π—˜ 𝗧𝗒 𝗒𝗨π—₯ 𝗣𝗒𝗗𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗧 πŸŽ™οΈ
● iTunes:
● Google Play:
● Spotify:
● Stitcher:

#Gospels #LegendArgument #Skeptics #Bible #Apologetics #MikeLicona #DrFrankTurek #Christianity #Bible #Church #Christian #QuestionsAboutTheGospels #CrossExaminingIdeasAgainstTheTruthOfChristianity #IDontHaveEnoughFaithToBeAnAtheist


38 thoughts on “The gospels too late to be accurate? A historian says NO! | @Mike Licona

  1. Cross Examined

    Download FREE Cheat Sheet β€œThe 4-Point Case For Christianity” πŸ‘‰πŸ“±

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  2. Shumi Ngwenya

    Where is the FULL video, or the link to it?

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  3. Emma Rajic

    Even more so to remember especially being inspired by THE HOLY SPIRIT.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  4. RebukeANDReprove

    The bible is historical and evidential!!

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  5. Brian Simons

    Paul says hardly anything about the life of Jesus, and there doesn't seem to be a reference in his letters to any actual gospel traditions as such.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  6. John Doe

    Paul is a black man not a Caucasian neanderthal.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  7. James Richard Wiley

    The Gospel:
    In Christianity, the gospel or "good news" is the news of the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. This message is expounded upon as a narrative in the four canonical gospels, and as theology in many of the New Testament epistles. As theology it is expanded, and related to the death by crucifixion of Jesus.
    My comment:
    The Kingdom of God has been imminent for 2000 years. But it's not here yet. Why not?
    Because the Gospel is a collection of written stories
    based on a belief in a mythical God
    who planned out his own crucifixion
    which would win salvation for mankind
    for the disobedience of Adam and Eve
    which he arranged from the beginning
    in his Divine Perfect Plan.
    I am convinced this is what the Gospel says is good news
    but Christians disagree for a number of different reasons.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  8. Sky Avila

    Too late? Is God a human being so he can FORGET details? No – and it is God that wrote the whole Bible through humans, NOTHING is forgotten of ANYTHING. If you think otherwise – your "God" is a wimp and has no brain, or, you dont want to believe at all.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  9. Sierra Clark

    β€œIf you declare with your mouth β€œJesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). Now is the time to accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. Obey His commands and repent of your sins because Jesus is coming back soon. Tomorrow isn’t promised.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply

    JESUS !!!!

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  11. InfoArtist JK at The Good Info CafΓ©

    Thank you for this video. And the Apostles would have been saying things that ended up in the Gospels and in the Bible right after the resurrection!

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  12. vinnyrac

    But Paul was not an eyewitness to the crucifixion or the resurrection. In fact, in his authentic letters he offers not details regarding either. He also claims he did not receive his gospel from men but from (studying sic) the scriptures. The evangelists are not independent sources; you have one source: MARK. That's it. The other copies extensively from him, including John. Papias likewise not an eyewitness. Any testimony he MAY have received was merely hearsay. Besides that, what makes you believe Mark's gospel was eyewitness testimony? You have no more evidence for that assertion than you do that he interviewed witnesses (which he didn't) than you do that he derived his gospel through oral history (which he didn't) than you do that he made the whole thing up with the help of the Septuagint! I dispute "what he majority of scholars assert" regarding the authorship of John because N.T. 101 demonstrates how John the Evangelist could not have possibly been the author. Your analogy with the Vietnam war vets isn't nonsense because we all know the Vietnam was was a historical fact; your analogy is fallacious because unlike with Jesus, we have archival footage, signed testimonial accounts, court testimony, relics, adverse testimony, histories written by both sides, testimony from casualties, Congressional records including records of awarded citations, and this before we even begin to discuss the people's movement against the war for which there is equally as large a volume of evidence. WE HAVE NONE OF THIS FOR THE JESUS. If you had but even one in similitude the historic world would be a-shutter. But you don't. SO stop claiming you do because you're confusing people who don't understand and are preying on those who might want to.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  13. roland watts

    An argument appears to be that we should accept what believers say about the miraculous claims surrounding the execution of Jesus written decades after the supposed events because in our modern era we accept the testimonies of eyewitnesses to the Vietnam War, whose claims are provided decades after the war had ended.

    At issue here is not accepting the ordinary claims such as the execution of a Jew by the Romans nor the war between the Vietnamese and the Americans. Rather the issue is accepting extraordinary claims such as the Jew rising from the grave after three days of death.

    In 1914, following the Battle of Mons, after the publication of a short story regarding the sighting of angels who had guided and guarded the British retreat, the legend of the Angel of Mons quickly spread and came to be believed by many British soldiers. That is, there were many eyewitness reports of the Angel of Mons shortly after the Battle. It's easy to believe eyewitness reports of the Battle of Mons. Should it likewise be easy to accept eyewitness reports of the Angel of Mons?

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  14. mahindu francis

    Here is some food for thought. Imagine that Matthew write the gospel and some forty years later he had abandoned his faith and become an apostate. What a scandal. Man's wisdom will never match zero times zero to the power of zero of where God wisdom begins.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  15. Z


    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  16. 1 Peter 3:15

    Where did Jorge get that shirt?

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  17. Justin Gary

    BRUH'VE YOU ATHEISTS REALLY CLOWNING YOURSELVES TAKING SCRIPTURES OUT OF CONTEXT TO FIT YOUR OWN AGENDA AGAINST CHRISTIANITY πŸ˜‚. ATHEISM AIN'T GOT NOTHING NEW OR BETTER TO OFFER THAN THE VERY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THEY'RE CRITICAL OF SO IT'S HYPOCRISY AT IT'S FINEST πŸ˜‚. Hello this is for all you Atheists, unbelievers and skeptics. I'm going to address a few misconceptions and lies about God's Character and His Word. The Bible doesn't support chattel slavery or anything else Immoral. Ok so Atheists and unbelievers say God is either Immoral, incompetent or not responsible so let's see what The Scriptures actually say. God revealed himself and created a nation in a real, historical context. It was a world with a slave-based economy, with city states often at war with each other, with polygamous marriages to ensure the continuation of family lines. The laws of the Old Testament regulate this behaviour. Slaves are to be treated humanely (Exodus 21:11). They are given rights and not seen as mere possessions. Hebrew slaves were able to buy their own freedom. Human trafficking is condemned (Exodus 21:16). In contrast to the law code of Babylon, Old Testament Israel was a light to the nations. The Old Testament law and narratives do not stand alone. Jesus is now the best example of what we read. So the moral teaching of the Bible cannot be summarised by a quote taken out of context from the Old Testament to demonize God and His Word. Slavery was permitted in Old Testament law but it was regulated by God giving the Israelites instructions on how to fairly and humanely treat their slaves (it was like indentured servitude where someone could work for you if they owed debts or needed income not cruel like chattel slavery). God allowed the people of Israel to own slaves since they themselves has already experienced over 400 years of generations of Egyptian slavery and knew how inhumane it was to be beaten, overworked and taxed so God set them apart from other nations and cultures around them by giving them a fair way to treat their slaves since slavery had already existed in the world but it doesn't mean God condoned it just used it for His Will to bring Good And in the light of the whole scriptural teaching, we find the reasons for its ultimate abolition (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1-3; Philemon 15-16Β and Galatians 3:28). The Word of God provided the moral standard against slavery in the Roman Empire and against the slave trade in the New World.
    But what of genocide or holy war in the book of Joshua? Several things could be pointed out. The use of warfare in the ancient world did not always mean literal total destruction, even when events are described in such terms. Furthermore, the book of Joshua does not describe a genocide. It is not a race who are being wiped out, as in genocide, but a religious practice which was often appalling and degrading. Those who repent (like Rahab from Jericho or Ruth) are not destroyed but become part of Israel. It is not the racial group that is in view but theirΒ "detestable practices".
    However, after all is said, we must still acknowledge that God brought judgment on the nations of Canaan. It is not our place as believers isn't to sugar-coat the Bible. For some skeptics, this is enough to make God a moral monster. But the fact is that Jesus continued to affirm that God is a Judge who will bring a future judgment on all peoples and all nations. God’s judgment will be just. The list of Old Testament stories rejected by critics often leads to a similar dismissal of the New Testament teaching of Jesus on the existence of hell.
    After all, what was the Flood of Genesis or the conquest of Joshua if not a glimpse of future judgment? Hell does not demonstrate cruelty on God’s part, but it does demonstrate His Holiness and our moral accountability. Perhaps this is the real reason many people rail against the God of the Bible? It is not that they think He is a moral monster, but that they are afraid He is a moral Judge, and that has implications for our behaviour now. God is an Eternal Almighty Spirit Being and we as His creatures have Eternal souls and spirits so the punishment for our sins against Him must therefore also be Eternal but so must the reward for righteousness that's why He sent His Son Jesus to live a perfectly righteous and sinless Life (which none of us could ever possibly expect to do) suffer the humiliating and torturous death of crucifixion to shed His Own Blood willingly so that all who willingly accept His gift of salvation by grace through faith in Him will be saved and given Eternal life because that's what God wants is for us to willingly accept His gift of salvation and choose life. Exodus 21:20-21 literally speaks about capital punishment befalling anyone who mistreats their slaves so yes people are taking Scripture out of context to demonize God who literally promises that slaves who are mistreated under someone else's authority is to be avenged. When we hear the word β€œslavery” we think of innocent human beings, kept prisoner for life, having no rights under law and so reduced to animals. This is clearly immoral because it is unjust: the slave has done nothing to deserve the treatment.
    The situation described as β€œslavery” in the Bible was nothing like this. It is more accurately described as one of indentured servitude. Many β€œslaves” were indentured servants, working for a term of years

    Some other β€œslaves” were prisoners. There were no prisons. Prisoners had to work to live like everyone else. Some had life sentences. Some served a term and were released.
    People didn't beat their good slaves but treated them well and protected their assets thus.

    But no matter how rebellious a slave was, you couldn't just beat them to death. And if you knocked out their tooth or damaged their eye then you had to set them free. (Exodus 21:26). God wasn't using what other nations did because He wanted to set His Chosen People of Israel apart from the cruel, inhumane and unjust systems other cultures had so He gave them a fair way to treat their slaves and servants.
    There is a lot of ignorance on this topic which is understandable given the age we live in but it's not the nefarious set up we think of when we think of modern slavery.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  18. Mark Horton

    I can answer the question about Jorge's beard. God loves my brother Jorge as he is and so do I.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  19. Incredulous Pasta

    1. Of course it's not too late to be accurate. It's too late to simply assume it's accurate. A Vietnam vet CAN remember details, but they can ALSO forget details, and misremember details. Forty years is a long time for rumors, exaggerations, and legends to grow… especially if they are written in a completely different language than what the disciples spoke.

    2. Papias's account is one of the major reasons why modern scholars reject the traditional authorship of Mark. His description doesn't match our Mark. He was probably talking about a different account lost to us. Mike Licona should know this. I wonder why he didn't bring it up?

    3. The gospels are not "independent sources", by any stretch of the imagination. Matthew and Luke straight-up copy from Mark. That's the opposite of independent. Why would Mike Licona say something like this? He should know better. At best, you could say that Mark and John might be independent, but even that should be low-confidence.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  20. Rolando Velasquez

    AmΓ©n! Not to mention the early Creeds. Most date from one or two years after the resurrection and are very explicit concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The New Testament as an historical source surpasses any other source from antiquity by light years and to discount it is an historical absurdity. Praise God forevermore, and his Son.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  21. hello how are you

    If Jesus didnt rise from the dead, the jews couldve just prove it by showing the empty tomb and the disciple would lose all their credibility. (Because the jews hate Jesus and his disciple, jews consider them heretics)

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  22. SlickTKSavage356

    The Mark Of The Beast ain't the papacy.. it's the green pass, look it up

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  23. MutsPub

    He is risen indeed!

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  24. llllllllllllm1

    Mark was written around 70 and John around 95. The average lifespan back then, even after factoring in infant mortality, was around 35. Mark would have had to have been at least 60 or 70 when he wrote these gospels. The fact that we could interview Vietnam veterans today is because people frequently live to be 80 or 90 or more. This was not the case 2000 years ago. As far as Papias, he was only born in 60. How can he have possibly heard from any disciple. By the time he was born, let alone the time he was old enough to talk to any of them, they would have all been long dead already. Comparing history and the fact that we believe historical facts is no comparison whatsoever to the gospls and the stories of jesus. Whether I believe the Vietnam war happened or not has no relevance to my life. It doesn't change anything in the way I live my life. To believe in christianity on the other hand and live my life based on that, there has got to be pretty strong evidence supporting it. Whether I believe in this or not will determine how I live each day.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  25. James Lake- Mental Game Snooker Consultant

    Got it but what about the aspect of us remembering things wrongly? Like in crime if a victim or witness is interviewed he or she will often recall the details inaccurately. Like hair colour, height and skin colour ???

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  26. J Ovesen

    Dear Christian

    Imagine yourself, living with your family, in a town consisting only of atheists. What's your worst fear about this scenario? It's not a trap.. It's just a question. Cheers.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  27. Daniel Lee

    You made a great point about telling the History channel to stop interviewing Vietnam vets. We know that would be silly, but that is how most atheists think today. To the average atheist, if the gospels were written late, then they aren't true or they don't hold water. What about historians writing about Napoleon? Genghis Khan? And Genghis Khan has NEVER been discovered. We don't even have a burial site and we aren't even close to finding one. Yet atheists say he existed and his history is accurate based on third party testimonies and letters and documents and whatnot. But, the letters, third party testimonies and documents about Jesus and other history, nope, they discredit that. That's not honesty, that is complete, deliberate bias against the Bible because it is the Bible. Period.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  28. Rye Clansen

    Gospels were written by Greek speaking scholars for a Greek speaking audience (churches), in Greece or Asia Minor (Turkey), a long way from Jerusalem. Travel and communications were difficult. They also were written after 70 CE (most likely decades later), when Jerusalem was destroyed. Eye witnesses to Jesus would no longer have been around. They would have been dispersed or killed. Nobody around Jerusalem would have been able to confirm or disagree with gospel accounts, or try to correct what was said and written, even if they could read Greek. The claim that the gospels (mainly Mark) were based on eye witness accounts or sources connected to eye witnesses, is just not tenable. Reading the gospels, they clearly contain very little biographical and historical information. They very obviously were written to push a theological narrative, at a time when lots of different ideas about Jesus were floating around, like, was he even a real person? Did he come in the flesh? Was he the predicted messiah? Was he God or man? There were Gnostics, Docetists, Nicolaists, Arianists, Nestorians (or their precursers) and dozens of others, all vying for influence. The crucifixion and resurrection stories were the sort of claims advanced to promote a specific doctrine and cannot in my view be considered reliable or historical.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  29. Alan Baraka

    Well the gospels have unknown authors with unknown written dates with unverified claims. That makes the bible pretty far from true or verified.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  30. Nicholas Emond

    Wow. The Vietnam vet part was insane. Those guys were actually there during the war. The writers of the gospels never even claim to have been there at the time. That's the big difference, that and a claims about a war we know happened and claims about a guy being a God which cannot be proven are very different. And are they saying the one guy talked to an associate of the disciples who was still around 100 years after jesus's death? Possible but doubtful. Even if he did talk to a guy who knew a guy who knew jesus, that really means nothing without other evidence backing up what is being claimed.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  31. Hans De Mos

    I don't think Dr. Licona is correct at all. First of all, the first Elvis sighting was reported on the afternoon after his death, so even if we assume that Dr. Licona is right and we can be confident that there were people preaching Jesus' resurrection 20 years, or even 20 days, after the crucifixion, that would say nothing about the truth of those claims.
    Secondly, we don't actually have any of the eyewitness reports that Dr. Licona assumes must have been there. We may have people claiming they heard from others who were eyewitnesses, but that is not the same thing. The phrase Dr. Licona uses is that "Mark is rooted in eyewitness testimony." I think that is a very misleading way of admitting that Mark and the other gospels are in fact NOT themselves eyewitness testimony. If that is the case, then I think we shouldn't treat them as if they are themselves eyewitness testimony.
    Thirdly, I think the analogy with the History channel interviewing Vietnam vets is wrong, because on telly, we can see and hear the eyewitnesses for ourselves. The correct equivalent for the gospels would be if the History channel only showed interviews with friends of the vets telling us what they remember the vets told them about Vietnam.
    Finally, please ask any documentary maker about how reliable eyewitness testimony is. Whether in documentaries, in daily life, or even in court, eyewitness testimony is likely to include incomplete, biased, mixed up, or even plain wrong claims at the best of times. Every lawyer and every journalist knows this, and will always try to find corroboration, preferably from people on the other side of any claims made by any eyewitness. It is weird for me to hear that a respected scholar like Dr. Licona apparently has lower standards for discerning the truth than lawyers and journalists. I understand that this kind of verification may not have been standard practice in the first century AD, but that just makes the gospel accounts that much more unreliable when we read them with our modern insights in mind.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  32. Fred Long

    Why are there no writing regarding Jesus youth to age 30 ?

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  33. Caleb Reese

    Not unless you also want to throw out any literature of antiquity

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  34. Cygnus Ustus

    Interviewing Vietnam vets 40 years after the fact absolutely calls into question the reliability of their accounts.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  35. Cygnus Ustus

    "Rooted in eye witness testimony" not only cannot be established….but it is not eye witness testimony!

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  36. Cygnus Ustus

    Vietnam. War vets were eye witnesses.
    There are no eye witness accounts of Jesus. Not even any contemporary accounts. A 20 year span of urban myths being passed around absolutely calls those accounts into question.

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  37. Merlinshabbit

    Valid point. Puts it in a good perspective

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply
  38. BlackChidori7

    Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written by AD 69

    January 21, 2022 at 5:21 am Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.