Archbishop of Canterbury Can't Answer Direct Questions, More on the I Am Sayings of Jesus

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line and I am doing the James Earl Jones version of The Dividing Line today.

I wish I could keep the the nice deep tone of voice without having to have the sinus stuff that goes along with it, but Hey, 106 ,000 miles and a plane so far this year and first time

I've really and I'm going through it quick It's not debilitating me. I did a Metric century yesterday morning and and the only reason

I didn't do a big ride today is we are babysitting the grandkids, so I'm Rushing in here while the wife has the grandkids at the aquarium place

I guess there's an aquarium place here in Phoenix someplace supposed to be really nice that they're going to see fishies.

So got enough time to sneak a a program in Today and that'll give us

I think three for the week so can't can't complain too much too much there Couple things here.

Let me start off with an amazing thing and then I actually want to go back to the subject from yesterday and sort of continue on with it a bit because I while I I talked about it from a perspective that was primarily interacting with a

Muslim use of the issue of the I am sayings of Jesus I didn't really get into the

I am sayings themselves and some of the things that Mike Licona was saying So I'd like to I'd like to get into that and before we do that I Want to make sure you're aware of what's going on starting next weekend

On Facebook and for some reason

I don't know why but Facebook is not Playing kindly with me today, but oh you're having the same issue

The what what I've been having trouble to here. Well, I just popped up the feed isn't feeding.

Well today. Yeah I just saw pictures from last night actually really cute pictures of My grandkids, yes, and she's got a lot of friends look at all those people just boom.

Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Yes. Yes. Yes, I know Well that that was a Facebook event

There weren't any invitations. It was all Facebook. So and that isn't that the way the world has has gone.

It's all It's all Facebook now but anyway Gonna be heading to Texas and I'm trying to let me see here pull up Dude, I think we have yeah,

I think we were pretty certain we have it on here Wow, we really need to Fix the

August announcements on the website Yeah Probably need to need to fix that Power of God evangelical summit

Dallas, Texas, October 13th the 15th Myself the amazingly tall

Todd Friel Phil Johnson Amelia Ramos and Jason Lyle No reflection upon the other four of us, but Jason's IQ is higher than the four of us put together

Jason is is Freakishly Todd Friel is freakishly tall and Jason Lyle is freakishly smart.

So there you go. Anyway You can still get in if you go to our website

AOMN .org look up at the go past the banner ads from two months ago and get to the power of God evangelical summit

Dallas, Texas, October 13th of the 15th and Then if you can't get to Dallas, but you're in the general area

On Monday, October 16th at 6 30 p .m In Lindale, Texas First Baptist Church Worship Center We're gonna be talking about what else the

Reformation and I've got lots of pictures now really good pictures

I don't know how much of that I'm gonna do but I probably will throw some of them in just for the fun of it so we probably need to make sure we've got the the overhead fired up for that because Obviously, we just got back

And I appreciate the graphic that is that I'm looking at right now that has the Luther Rose In fact, you want to do something real quick I hadn't planned on this but and I don't have the desktop presenter up, but I'll I'll do it here

I'll just use the color Color LCD thing again and get that out of the way

One of the interesting things in the monastery in Erfurt As you know

Luther If you've if you've seen the 2003

Luther movie and when I looked up the date on that man I thought that was not that long ago.

It was 2003 it was 14 years ago, and I was thinking like I was about four or five years ago.

I was like But Overhead you're a dinosaur overhead as in digital projector.

Come on, you know what I'm talking about I'm talking with the troublemaker from Texas on the thing here.

Anyway If you've seen the 2003 Luther movie and you see

You don't necessarily grasp what it is but it's

A part of Luther's ordination to the priesthood and you see him laying in Cruciform form so his arms are out face down in front of the high altar of a church and They don't really explain it to you but they shot it and This is

This is where it was this is where they shot it and this is right in front of the high altar this is actually a tombstone in the in the floor and Our guides said that they would actually lay on top of it in the movie

Luther was down here The actor Charles Fiennes or however you say his name

Fiennes or whatever but this is at the Augustinian Monastery the the church there and here is the

Here are the windows At the front of that of that church and in the bottom left corner

So maybe you know if if Luther turned his head or anything like that Obviously he would have seen these windows many times, but in the bottom left corner we have

This and Look at that. Look at that window right there if you're familiar with the

Luther Rose The inside of those two windows there looks

Suspiciously like the inside of the Luther Rose and So a lot of people speculated

That that was the the background from which Luther derived his graphic of the

Luther Rose and So just thought I'd share that with you there

So there you go, so I snapped some pictures of of that so we will we will be there

On Monday, October 16 630 p .m. trying to cram all the Reformation into one evenings gonna be gonna be fun, but We'll we'll focus on what we need to focus on and try to It's not gonna be you know,

I'm hearing a lot of stuff. I heard a guy on Michael Medved yesterday. He has had a book come out on Luther and I was just sort of sitting there going

Yeah, well our folks on the on the on the tour got a whole lot more than that and and they did

There's there's just there's another there just really is another level and I'm I'm gonna try

Once I get back from Texas, we've got to try to schedule Before I go back to Texas doing a couple programs specifically on the

Reformation can't just let that go by the 500th anniversary without doing some special programs on that and Discussing, you know as I did when

I got back the the tension that exists putting putting the content putting the

Reformation in its in its real context and I Think that really helps people out and and there you go, so So that's

Monday, October 16th out in Lyndale, Texas. I'm really hoping that they can avoid any

Like tornadoes as I've dodged a few times going out there in in in the past.

So that's what's coming up In the news real quickly, I wanted to cover this and then we'll get back to the the biblical issue

Justin Welby unable to give straight answer on whether gay sex is sinful Unbelievable asked

Alistair Campbell for GQ magazine was talking to Justin Welby who is the Arch Bishop of Canterbury.

He is the head of the Anglican community. Okay Let's um

Let's be clear here that Until the past 40 -50 years

I I cannot imagine an Archbishop of Canterbury who Would not have been able to answer this question clearly

But he was asked by this reporter If gay sex was sinful and notice he didn't ask orientation attraction he was talking about the actual act of Homosexual intercourse

Welby said, you know very well. That is a question. I can't give a straight answer to Sorry badly phrased there.

I should have thought that one through Well, okay, so the term straight all right

Didn't think that one through Preston why he could not answer the Archbishop said quote

Because I don't do blanket condemnation and I haven't got a good answer to the question

I'll be really honest about that. I know I haven't gotten a good answer to the question inherently within myself

The things that seem to me to be absolutely central are around faithfulness Stability of relationships and loving relationships

End quote. In response to Campbell's assertion that those could be characteristics of same -sex relationships

Welby said I know it could be I am also aware of you deeply held by tradition since long before Christianity within the

Jewish tradition that marriage is understood invariably as being between a man and a woman or In various times a man and several women if you go back to the

Old Testament I know the church around the world is deeply divided on this in some places including the

Anglicans and other churches Not just us and we are the vast majority of the church is deeply against gay sex

He added I'm having to struggle to be faithful to the tradition faithful to the scripture To understand what the call and will of God is in the 21st century and to respond appropriately with an answer for all people

Not condemning them whether I agree with them or not that covers both sides of the argument And I haven't got a good answer and I am not doing that bit of work as well as I would like Asked if he was trying to reconcile

Anglican church leaders in Places such as Uganda and more liberal churches principally in the UK and North America Welby said it is irreconcilable

It's irreconcilable well There is no question that It is irreconcilable in the sense that there needs to be an answer given and The answer

It's There isn't any question if you're going to be faithful to the tradition and to the scriptures

They both say the exact same thing There isn't any question about it

There's a reason why the revisionists will not debate And when they do it doesn't go well for them

Because the scriptural teaching is plain clear

Compelling Easily laid out the revisionists struggle

To present their perspective in the same time frame as we do Because they have to redefine

So much of what the scripture states and they have to atomize the text they have to disconnect it from from its own

Unifying principles And the tradition There is a cough button over there, sorry about that and the tradition is

Plainly clear as well didn't get chance to work out this morning. That's what honestly if I'd worked out this morning I would sound much better Blow all that stuff out the first thing in the morning

The tradition is unquestionable the scriptures are unquestionable What he's the the horns of the dilemma

Were Created when Anglicanism was first started. It's the via media it's the middle way and the middle way between truth and error is still erroneous and That's what you're dealing with here that's what you're dealing with here

You can spin it You can try to make it clear to your society

With all the illustrations you want, but the fact the matter is you have to be clear and Open in answering this question and Al Mohler has been saying for a couple years now.

There's could be no place to hide there's just not going to be any place to hide and There isn't and he's trying to hide but he can't and As he himself says

I'm not doing a very good job. What you can't you can't do a very good job at it If you're gonna be

You know it and even that even the the categories he set up.

We're not God's categories They're not the categories of Scripture They're all focused upon Mankind rather than God's transcendent purpose for mankind and so when you when you have a situation where Scriptural authority has been so fundamentally compromised

That it's no longer the ultimate authority well That was big news and Unfortunately, it's it's not it's not something that That we can

It's something we're seeing happening all across the spectrum. I've been talking about the tsunami of apostasy and here's just one wave of the tsunami of apostasy on the last program we started to address and I I sort of finished that topic in the sense that I addressed the issue of inspiration remember we talked about Ipsissima Verba, Ipsissima Vox and Ipsissima Intendibunt and The difference between these and the the fact that using

Ipsissima Vox which means hearing the voice of Christ Without the specific words Ipsissima Verba the very words of Christ like an mp3 recorder.

I think those are Far too Limiting categories to adequately deal with the nature of Well, just the synoptics alone, let alone the

Gospel of John as well and so we talked about the nature of inspiration the sovereignty of God in inspiration and and related issues, but we didn't really get down to a direct answer to the question and That is

When Bart Ehrman asked Craig Evans Did you think Jesus ever gave the

I am statements, you know Evans was basically saying no I I I agree with John's Theological reflection, but this is

John inserting words into Jesus's mouth in essence And You know

Lycona and others in that perspective Will say now our more conservative brethren will find this troubling.

Well, yeah those of us who have gone through seminary are well aware of The fact that there are many people who will say well

What you have in the New Testament is is you you know, and it's not just John It's not just John that's making stuff up it's

Matthew Mark and Luke they all are Jesus didn't really say any of this stuff.

He he was just a you know, if you approach if you approach the text of Scripture with the assumption that Jesus was a

Eschatological preacher who Inadvertently ran afoul of of the

Jewish leadership And the Romans just at the just bad timing

As far as his, you know got himself crucified and then his followers

Experienced a a spiritual Awakening in light of the value of his life, which they called the resurrection

You know if that's your fundamental view then You don't really believe most of what is found in The Gospels to actually be anything more than just simply stories meant to create some type of a community around this issue of The Messiah that was rejected by the

Jewish people and so what you hear when you go to seminary in many places is exactly that that the reason there are differences between Matthew Mark and Luke is because Matthew and and Luke are editing

Mark and they're taking things out that embarrass them and adding things that Have become important in their time period that's why you have, you know fairly, well, it's it's never it can't be ever really long periods of time, but you have to at least introduce a decade or so between each one of them seems sort of have a really short period of development, but I've never found any of this argumentation overly compelling to be honest with you, but It all becomes just you know, each scholar is able to Come up with their own books based upon their theories and their spinning of the evidence this way that way the other way and so if you were paying attention in almost any seminary and Even in the conservative seminaries, you're still exposed to this

Even if it's not the perspective of the professor that you're studying under Yeah There's really nothing new to any of this stuff

But people say well then then why isn't it the substance of the preaching well because it doesn't preach

I mean it It's it's destroyed preaching in liberal denominations you know, that's why you have a 12 -minute homily of feel -good mush in Most seminaries where the people coming out of those in most churches where the people coming out of that kind of seminary

That's all they can do there's no there can't be an authoritative preaching if you don't believe there is a word from God You don't expect 45 minute long

Sermons Drawing from the whole counsel of God when you don't believe there is a counsel from God the only thing you have to offer the people is the counsel of your own mind and That frequently doesn't take a whole lot of time to actually express

So anyway We were looking at Mike Licona's response to a

This is what he wrote on on Facebook about people who are basically saying well

You know, we got a clean house There's problems in Christian scholarship It's not a matter of cleaning house

It's it's a matter of recognizing fundamental presuppositional issues and just identifying.

Okay, these folks are over there This is what their views are They're different and therefore, you know, we can't follow that Apologetic line.

The problem is there's a lot of people that want to follow the apologetic line They just don't want to buy into the presuppositions that are actually under underneath all of that stuff

So Here's a

Continuation of what like Kona had said we had gotten the point of where he had written number two

The way Jesus sounds in John's gospel sounds very much like how John sounds in first John That is the grammar vocabulary and overall style of writing and both are strikingly similar

Yes, and no First John is simpler than the gospel of John I'm not sure that I would necessarily agree with that.

But anyway Same author that that's a given but well, it's not even a given for some people

We press on number two could be because John adjusted his style

To be similar to his master after spending much time with him This would be similar to how some married couples adopt their laughs and expressions to one another over time

The other option and the one believed by most scholars is that John paraphrased Jesus using his own style

The reason scholars go with this latter view is because Jesus sounds so differently in John than in the synoptics

Now if we were just to stop right there We've already suggested a number of very plausible

Not silly or surface level reasons why that would be

The material included by John is different than the comparative material in the synoptic

Gospels vast majority of the conversation in the synoptic Gospels is Either Jesus preaching to crowds so general teaching material that would have been repeated a number of times and hence is liable and subject to Summary statement so summarizing something, you know, yeah, you know

Jesus did the nature of repentance sermon today or Jesus did

Some parables today that have to do with finding the Word of God or discipleship or whatever. He didn't do that just once He did that many times

So In light of that it would be easy to summarize those general messages that were delivered multiple times

Whereas what you have in John is always unique How many conversations with Nicodemus were there?

How many times did Jesus talk with Samaritan woman at a well who was an outcast Societally, how many times did

Jesus heal a blind man who then had interaction with the Jewish leaders? How many times is there discussion of Jesus's unbelieving brethren?

How many times did Jews pick up stones to stone Jesus When you think about what you have in John There might they're just it just leaps out at you that wow, this is what's

John's doing here is he's giving us The very kind of conflict that Jesus had with the

Jewish leaders That if the synoptic Gospels that emphasize these pre -fall of Jerusalem And that would have had huge implications so actually it sort of makes sense that it's only after the fall of Jerusalem that this undercurrent of Sharp theological encounter

Between Jesus and the Jewish leaders on the identity on the issue of who he is in light of the messianic secret stuff in the synoptic

Gospels Doesn't it make sense to wait to a later point in time to reveal this This going back and forth that was taking place and that's where all the

I am sayings are by the way that kind of possibility Don't even get to talk about don't even don't even get to discuss it

Don't even get to to address the possibility in much of modern scholarship today again the primary reason for that is not because there are not good reasons for believing it but because the overarching principle is in modern in the modern academic context if it's

Substantiating or if it's supportive of the historical understanding of Christian theology

That's not gonna get you anywhere That's not gonna. That's that's not gonna accomplish anything

That's not the cutting edge the cutting edge is You know, there was a famous book back in the 70s or 80s

Unity and diversity in the New Testament. Well, the emphasis is not on the unity It's on the diversity and so When it says the reason scholars go with this latter view is that John's just paraphrasing

Jesus is because Jesus Sounds so differently in John than the synoptics. Well as I pointed out last time

You can technically make the argument he sounds differently In especially Matthew Mark versus Luke as well

So how far do you really want to take that argument is the question But then like kind of continues and he says by no means does this mean

John is historically unreliable It means that John is often communicating Jesus's teachings in a manner closer to a modern paraphrase

Than a literal translation. I think this is where people get the feeling that hey,

I think you're you're you're trying to have your cake and eat it too here and if you don't have

The categories that I mentioned last program Ipsissima intend abound if you don't have that that overarching

Yes supernatural Purpose of God in Giving us the scripture in the form in which the scriptures exist

It does really take on the character of special pleading it does take on somewhat of a

Well, okay, so that didn't really happen, but it's still historically reliable.

I'm sorry if there was not a Continued tension

Between the Jews and Jesus over his identity What do you mean

John's historically reliable? That's that's almost like saying the

Living Bible is a reliable translation of the New Testament. Well, it's not it's a it's a paraphrase and Yeah, I it's going back to an original text but sometimes it's really hard to figure out exactly how on what basis and so I Know what, you know, you know, we need to be straightforward

They are this group is trying to say that yes, we we want to affirm the historical reliability of John We just want to do it in such a way that we don't have to defend that what was actually said in John Was actually said historically

That In essence what they're saying is It's implicitly found in Jesus's words but not explicitly stated by him and So that's really what what comes out

Stated differently John will often recast Jesus saying something explicitly the synoptics have him saying implicitly

For example One does not observe Jesus making his I am statements in the synoptics that are so prominent in John's such as before Abraham was

I am That's a pretty clear claim to deity. Now. Let me stop there for a moment Our our

Unitarian friends Servant left out in the cold on this conversation because They've been arguing for a long long time that the

I am statements have nothing to do with the deity of Christ and I think our

Muslim friends need to be a little consistent here Because they have shared those

Unitarian arguments more than once To try to get around the weight of the

I am sayings well Which is it going to be? You can't quote the

Unitarians saying oh, no, no, no that that that's that's not Jesus claiming the I am statements and then turn around say

Oh, well John made up the I am statements to try to Present the deity of Christ which wasn't present in the preceding

Synoptic Gospels Well, they either do or do not

Present the deity of Christ if they don't present the deity of Christ. There's no reason for John to have made a mob

So you got to pick your Unitarian Attacks here. You can't use both of them

It's it's one of the two which is it going to be I? Would agree that not only

John 858 but 824 1319 18 5 through 6 there is a very clear

Yohannine testimony to the use of the I am statements, but in what context

In both 824 and 858 they are in the context of public but specifically

Interaction with the Jewish leaders that's That's just what you've got there in aid 13 it's with the disciples in prophetic fulfillment and in 18 it is in the garden and No one at that time picks up the significance of it so you have only one incident recorded by John with using the

I am statements in a widely public setting and that's

John chapter 8 and And how does that finish John 8 through 9 they pick up stone stone

So it doesn't really the I am stay sayings as presented by John do not fit

Into the standard synoptic context of Jesus's teaching They have a special Nature of their own and So is this an admission if you quote this stuff are you admitting as Ermine seems to recognize that in John these

I am statements are a plain testimony to the deity of Christ because you can have a

What I think what our Muslim friends need to recognize is This is a

No matter how you slice it the gospel of John is a first Century document that the manuscript evidence makes that pretty clear

I mean you really have to start engaging in a in hyper skepticism to come up up with the idea that that John is not a first century document and So if you accept this argumentation that even ermine recognizes.

Yeah deity of Christ is plain in the gospel of John I am sayings Why would even ask

Craig Evans if Jesus said the I am sayings if he doesn't recognize that the I am sayings are a high claim to deity

So if you accept that then you have the first century followers of Jesus Believing in the deity of Christ.

It's not some later corruption It's not something at the Council of Nicaea or something like that. It is a first century belief.

Do you accept that? Are you gonna have to try to push? the somehow the banishing of The true followers of Jesus as the

Quran would put it you have to put that off someplace to Well, when I mean it has to be within literally years or You're you're stuck

Again pushing for that consistent position So it's interesting that what we're having here is is is an argument that leaves the

Unitarians out Who have always argued there's nothing in the I am sayings go back to that I think it was 2011

I did that Was four or five part mini debate on another webcast with a

Unitarian whose name slips in my mind and one of the topics that we covered we covered

I know it covered the Carmen Christie. We covered Colossians 1. I looked it up on the blog recently. It was pretty in -depth stuff and One of the topics we covered was the the

I am statements and So this whole thing here.

Well, gee has never said it is you know sort of Puts the lie to the common

Unitarian argument that being Well, the I am sayings don't really actually teach the deity of Christ.

Well, obviously they they do I Continue on Mark presents Jesus as deity through his deeds and even some of the things he says about himself.

I agree wholeheartedly That's why I did that series of sermons two years ago during the summer

On the deity of Christ in the gospel of Mark. It is very much there. There's no question about it

But he says but nothing is nearly as overt as we find in John. Okay, which makes more sense.

I mean, I know I'm not trying to have the you know the

Big seat at the academic table. I'm I'm never gonna get to do that and wouldn't want to because I much prefer having the seat at the

Ecclesiastical table in a sense of Trying to encourage the body of Christ around the world to stand firm in a in a difficult day

What makes more sense and and I think one of the

I think one of the heresies of James White is that I Take these things out of the academic setting and I I invite serious minded

Believers to consider these things. I don't think it's a matter of Having to have the the academic aspect

I'm not against academics. Obviously, I'm just saying Think about this with me for a second.

What makes more sense to you? That John is making is

Fictionalizing the words of Jesus. I mean even though even with the best spin you can come up with it

It would be something along the lines of well, Jesus John is is pondering

Jesus's words and actions and Realizes, you know if what

Jesus actually said at his trial where he quotes from Daniel and he

You know presents Jesus as a son of man and Jesus forgives sins and and these the stuff about the

Word of God and Even if he's pondering the intertestamental period where you have

Jews to you know talking about different aspects of God's Character in this way and it puts it all together and Comes up with this high

Christology. And so he says, you know Jesus Jesus was claiming to be the

I am so I'm gonna I'm gonna create some Situations where he actually did that if that's you know, that's the best spin

That you can come up with You still have You know at that point if you're good to get even try to Retain some shred of orthodoxy

You're gonna have to in essence say well John was inspired to paraphrase

Jesus Into saying things. He never actually said that's that's really the best that you can you can come up with at that point

And so isn't it easier to simply go well no

Matthew Mark Luke and John are writing at different times to different audiences and Things have changed since Mark wrote his gospel

You can name certain names you couldn't have named before the

Gospels gone out to all the world and In all probability the temple in Jerusalem's been destroyed so in light of all of that John can emphasize

Aspects of Jesus's ministry that had not been a part maybe even agreed to by the disciples

But had not been a part of the apostolic preaching and Teaching in the earliest

Few decades so which is easier that there was a

Purpose in the selection of the material by each of the

Apostles in the writing of their books or They're all just making it up on the fly and John just decides to go way out there and just Really come up with stuff that has a minimal historical connection

To the actual words of Jesus. I know it sounds much more plausible to me.

I know it sounds That takes much less stretching for me and You might go well if it obviously makes more much more sense to go that direction.

Why does scholarship not go that direction? because It is supportive of historic

Christian orthodoxy and You don't get published supporting historic

Christian orthodoxy, that's just sort of the way things the way things are I Go back to like Kona, but nothing is nearly as overt as we find in John granted the synoptics not preserve everything

Jesus said Well, maybe I could sneak into that Could it be that there were specific elements of Jesus's teaching that the synoptics do not include that would have been

Inappropriate to having been included at that point in time However, if Jesus is cryptic in public even pertain to his claim to be the

Messiah as he is in Mark hence the Messianic secret We would not expect for Jesus to be claiming to be

God publicly and in such a clear manner as we find John reporting Notice that in like honest presentation here

He'd makes no differentiation Between public ministry to the what we would call the

AMHA audits the people of the land and the specific interaction with the Jews Which is the specific context in which he makes these claims?

Those are just some of the reasons why scholars and I would appreciate if some people say some scholars or maybe even most scholars but the generic scholars as a whole

Why some scholars see John adapting Jesus's teachings Jesus's precise words ipsissima verba may not be preserved in John, but his ipsissima vox certainly is and again,

I just I just go ipsissima vox just seems so vague

To me that I don't know what something can be discussed in a meaningful fashion and Hence the discussion of ipsissima intendamon

God's Word is rich and beautiful We can learn new things from it our entire lives the deeper

I go into it the more impressed with it I become and there will still be much much more for us to see

I for one love God's Word and I by no means and I'm by no means trying to lessen its value or cast doubt on its reliability

However, I think we can misread it when we do so through modern lenses as though the

Gospels were written using modern literary conventions Why would we demand that they be realizing the gospel authors felt free to report with some elasticity makes some?

Uncomfortable it made me uncomfortable at first but a principle I have come to live by is this I must accept the

Gospels as God has given them to us rather than forcing them into a mold of how I think he should have

If I fail to do this, I may believe I have a high view of Scripture when in reality I merely have a high view of my view of Scripture and that's misguided piety.

Well, this is an issue We've heard over and over again now and we we want to address it appropriately because there is much

With which we must agree and have agreed for a long long time What has just been said and yet obviously we don't take it to the conclusions that dr

Like Hona does and so we need to think through what we agree with and what we disagree with What we agree with is you you do not force the

Gospels to be something that they are not I I get that It is important to allow the

Gospels to be what they are we don't want to die a tesser on them and If you don't know what that means the diet tests are on Tatian's diet tests are on Was an early church harmony of the

Gospels But it wasn't just a harmony of the Gospels where you had the Gospels in parallel columns

It was a single version of the gospel drawing from different Gospels to create a new gospel and While that is a interesting intellectual

Exercise that's not the gospel. That's that's not what God gave us That's not an inspired even though you're drawing from inspired sources.

It itself is not how God intended to be We do learn a lot by Asking mark what marks?

priorities are What Matthew's priorities are what Luke's priorities are we are given

I think important Insight into The exegesis and interpretation of these texts by allowing the authors to be the authors all of that's very important and We must avoid the simplistic

Mindset that Obviously many scribes had to where Matthew Mark and Luke and even

John simply have to be rigid reproductions of each other and so we see very shallow attempts at harmonization

You know if there's a difference between a healing story, well the same person got healed twice and That's why there's differences that kind of stuff, but at the same time

I So what so we can we can get all of that so As Though the

Gospels were written using modern literary conventions Okay, they are not mp3 recordings never intended be mp3 recordings and so utilizing modern standards based upon Modern technology is going to cause a problem

Agree, no question about it Been saying that for a long time Realizing the gospel authors felt free to report with some elasticity

Makes some uncomfortable. What does that mean? For me, it means recognizing such things as the conventional

Truthful and accurate ways of reporting history and what

I mean by that is Recognizing that an author can telescope That is can summarize

Can accurately In summarizing change the order of events

So that you have a conclusion statement that in history may have taken steps to get to All of that.

I agree with where I draw the line And where we've drawn the line in our criticism of Michael Laicona's statements for example about the

Gospel of Mark being in error as To the location of Capernaum Is elasticity is not the same thing as error

Telescoping the story of Jairus's daughter is not Making up the story of Jairus's daughter.

It's not Creating someone named Jairus who never exists existed.

It's not Fictionalizing the story it's not saying that the author was wrong about where Capernaum itself existed, etc, etc

At some point needs to need to recognize that there's one thing it's one thing to recognize that the author has the freedom

To Order his presentation in truthful fashion that will cause it to differ from other such presentations of the same material and Saying that the author was in error in what he said or the author is making up things that never existed before things along these lines and So when he says this principle he's come to live by is

I must accept the Gospels as God has given to us Rather than forcing him into a mold of how I think that he should have can be a excuse

For abandoning The Conclusion that the gospel writers themselves

Were not only accurate in what they said, but that the overall result of what they gave to us is they honest us that's where the problem lies and To get the seat at the table

You cannot allow that presupposition to exist. There cannot be an overarching harmony that is supernatural in nature and character can't do it and So it's easy on the one hand to say well,

I'm just I'm just being truthful with the text as it stands I'm just you know

But the reality is that Once you accept the idea that well, basically once you once you take the human element that we talked about on the last program and And invest it with the ability to overcome the divine element

So that instead of men speaking from God as they're carried along by the

Holy Spirit men speak and Then God works with what they speak.

There's a difference between the two in The one you still have men speaking so you have differences in language and vocabulary and style so on so forth but they're speaking from God what they what they say comes from God in their language and It's the

Holy Spirit who bears them along as they speak Positing that you can then go into error at that point.

That's where the that's where the issue really comes up with and so when we when we ask ourselves the question and it goes on I mean

There's there's so much Let me just make sure just do one other paragraph And then we'll wrap things up here.

So I'll try to be a little clearer here I agree with all all Johanian scholars. I just drives me nuts when when people

Do this all Johanian scholars that Johanian adaptation is present in his gospel However scholars differ on the degree of adaptation is present

I wouldn't go as far as Craig a Evans for whom I have the highest regard to be honest I do not know how much

John adapted certain traditions But some is obviously present to anyone who spends a significant amount of time studying the

Gospels. I just love the let's see I That doesn't transfer to audio very well, but I just stuck my nose up in the air a little bit

It's obviously well, okay I suppose I'd be like saying it's obvious anyone who's ever read the

New Testament original language that Different authors you different vocabulary stuff like that Yeah, but in this sense when you're already doing the all

Johanian scholars things So if you disagree with me, you're just not a Johanian scholar thing Chill out

Are the I am without predicate statements in John part of his adapting things

Jesus implicitly said and presenting them in a manner in which Jesus says them explicitly in other words

Are we reading the abscissum of vox of Jesus here rather than the abscissum of verba?

I Don't know in my single reply to Bethel I provide reasons why many perhaps even a majority of Johanian scholars say they are

Johanian adaptations I have argued elsewhere that historical data strongly suggests Jesus believed he was deity.

So if Jesus made implicit Excuse me claims to deity and And John recast those claims in a manner that has

Jesus making them in an explicit sense Then that's what John did and we need to be comfortable with that Otherwise, we take issue with the way

God gave us the Gospels what Lydia needs to do is spend years in the text learning how to read the

Gospels in their cultural setting and In their original language rather than having an anachronistic view of demanding their authors to write how she believes

They should have that's what having a high view of Scripture entails So we're seeing the same thing

Repeated over and over again here, but in a little greater detail

So Mike Lycona Basically his answer now if you ask him did

Jesus say Before put an opera on Guinness. I go I me he'd have to say don't know

So when Jesus met with the disciples and in predicting the betrayal of Jesus Quotes from Isaiah 43 10 and applies these scriptures the scripture to himself

There at the Last Supper Did Jesus do that? I don't know

In the arrest of Jesus The soldiers come we're seeking

Jesus of Nazareth. I go. I mean fall upon the ground that I happen Maybe maybe not don't know

In telling in speaking of the Jews about salvation itself

About whether they would die in their sins Did Jesus actually say to them?

Unless you believe that ego I me you will die in your sins Maybe maybe not don't know

I've known for a very very long time That This is the perspective

Of a major portion of Academia Because When I was in seminary,

I've never I've never sat down tried to sort of figure out the percentages, but a a good percentage of My professors

I think Would have said I don't know

Maybe I think Probably in my situation that long ago a larger percentage would have said well, of course, yes, there's no question

There's no reason to question these things Because once you question those things, where do you stop?

Because I'd like to suggest that if you don't know That Jesus said to the

Jews in John 8 24 unless you believe that I am you'll die in your sins Why do you believe that in Matthew chapter 11 and using very similar language?

Jesus said something similar in the sense that God was hiding his identity from people

But it's up to God to reveal his identity to people and blessed be the God that he's hidden these things and the why is

Revealed in the foolish and so on so forth Did Jesus ever say that How can you say

I know he did say that if you don't know what he said in John It's very similar language very similar principles

How about at his at his trial Did Jesus quote from Daniel and Psalm 110 and apply these words to himself

Well, that's Mark that's earlier well if John can make it up why couldn't Mark make it up earlier Just trying to find the consistency

Just trying to find the consistency and when when we ask the questions of Why fundamentally?

do we have a Christian apologist Because you know, that's what

Michael Icona does. He he does debates We have a

Christian apologist who's basically saying I I don't know what

Jesus said in John He may have said it What does that tell us

About the nature of the truth claims that are being defended these are all questions that have to be asked and I Just know historically

That I've seen this line. I've seen this this path before we've seen this path before and There are people that we've talked about in this program that are quarter mile half mile a mile farther down the road

It just doesn't seem like there's a too much of a stopping point along the way and if people do stop

I think it's just simply out of comfort issues Not because there's a consistent place to stop

Or maybe pressure has ceased being put upon them And so they just They find a comfortable spot put up a tent stay there as long as the winds don't blow and the pressure doesn't come then

They'll they'll just stay there But I really do wonder if in you know in future debates if someone says well, hey

You say you don't know that Jesus said the

I am statements in John So you don't know

That Thomas ever said Ha kuri a smoo.

Kai. Ha Thao smoo Because if that's if John reworked

Jesus's words, he can rework Thomas's words, right? and Is John 1 1 just a theological recasting of these things to give us the context for these reworked other words that Jesus never said

So an arcane halagas kai halagas in prostanza on kai theos ain't halagas was just I Mean, that's that's

John himself. And if John's into reworking stuff Where's the authority for that?

These are all questions that something tells me are going to be coming up in the future and appropriately so appropriately so So if you ask me

Did Jesus say put in Abraham Genest I Yes, he did

If he didn't then the entire narrative of His interaction

Not sure why we changed cameras right then but we did but I saw it coming

Um Isn't that the entire narrative of his interaction with the

Jews that leads to the encounter in chapter 9 that leads to the teaching in chapter 10 about Jesus being the

Good Shepherd about the Crucifixion the necessity and purpose of the crucifixion and all the rest of stuff becomes primarily fictional

And What I have is I have a first century document that is

Consistent not only in its interpretation of Old Testament texts But it presents to me a

Jesus that is consistent With what is found not only in the synoptic

Gospels but with the even Earlier sources, which is

Paul Clearly what I have in Paul Philippians chapter 2

Colossians chapter 1. Yeah, and I know you don't believe Paul wrote either one of those either, right?

Romans chapter 9 we'll throw one in there. You don't deny Consistency between What John has and what is found in Paul who's writing contemporaneously with the earliest of the

Gospels? And so yeah, actually my position I think is much more consistent than having all this

Theoretical stuff To try to help you get around Acknowledging a supernatural level of consistency between the

Gospels So my answer would be yes Not I don't know

That's where the difference would Would be so there you go. We wanted to get that in here

I have to I Have I have grandpa duties. I need to get back to Things going on so but we wanted to run in here and give you that Information sort of fill out some of the stuff that I sort of felt wasn't complete from last time and Go from there, so that's been three programs this week.

So hopefully no one's gonna be complaining too much but probably looking at next week before we come back again and I'm sure there'll be some pushback and some responses we can look at but we'll look at those things and thanks for watching divine line