The Lydia McGrew Podcast

Is it really true that harmonization of reports is a desperate conservative Christian ploy to ward off the threat of biblical contradictions? In this reading from 19th-century theologian Johannes Ebrard, we learn of what I call The Case of the Swiss Messenger, in which various accounts of a non-biblical event turn out to be quite compatible with one another, though a skeptic could make them appear discrepant.   A reading by Tim McGrew.   Here is the book from which the reading is taken:  https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Gospel_History.html?id=IAMpl0PhPVwC Originally uploaded to YouTube 2/20/22

The more things change, the more they stay the same! Here is the 18th-century clergyman George Horne on how skeptics raise the same objections after they have been repeatedly, carefully answered. "Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer." Originally uploaded Feb 6 2022

This week we have a fun discussion of agnosticism, probability, and the existence of God. (And the existence of Tim McGrew!)   Is agnosticism the "safe" epistemic position? Is it always reasonable to withhold belief from the position that affirms more?   Suppose that I told you that the logically stronger, more committal proposition always has a lower probability (on the same evidence) than the proposition that affirms less. Would that mean that agnosticism is more reasonable than Christianity? The answer is no. Watch to find out why! Originally uploaded to YouTube 1/30/22 

This week Tim McGrew reads from 19th-century clergyman Richard Cecil on what to do when you are confronted with an objection to your faith. Originally uploaded to YouTube 1.23.22

Here I discuss how the argument from prophecy intersects with Gospel reliability. If we already have a good argument for Christianity and have good evidence for Gospel reliability, can the argument from prophecy add any force to the case? Is there a problem with independence if one uses both the evidence of the resurrection and the argument that Jesus fulfilled prophecy?   Check out my virgin birth series if you're interested in more information on Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe1tMOs8ARn3za22QzE28xKqhTq5KvCB2  Check out this post by Jonathan McLatchie that discusses other arguments and the prior probability of the resurrection:  https://jonathanmclatchie.com/extraordinary-claims-and-evidence-a-review-of-jonathan-pearces-book-on-the-resurrection-part-1/ Originally uploaded to YouTube 1.16.21 

Recently Dr. Licona has stated that classicists use the passage-by-passage approach and that they don't even talk about the reliability of whole documents. (This is an approach I've criticized in an earlier video, linked below.) While he does not draw the conclusion that this means we should not talk about the reliability of whole documents, we need to examine this claim. Is it true? Would it matter if it were true?  If classicists, even all the classicists in the world, were really so incredibly unreasonable as not even to talk about whole-document reliability, that would be so crazy that we should ignore them. (Hence, the title of the video.) But the statement itself is definitely an exaggeration. Even recent classicists, even those somewhat sympathetic to the "sexy" claim that ancient authors had a somewhat loose view of truth, do talk about the reliability of authors in general and hence of their documents, not just the truth of individual stories. Moreover, the excellent Colin Hemer, whose magisterial book on the reliability of the book of Acts is entirely about the reliability of a whole document (Acts), has some top-notch comments about the need to investigate the reliability of the Gospel of Luke.   Here is the video with the claim about what classicists supposedly don't talk about:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DLW3bkZQGM&t=596s  Here is my earlier video on the pitfalls of passage-by-passage.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrXVbvGGmZQ  Here is a post with more quotations from Hemer about genre:  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2017/06/colin-hemer-on-genre-of-lukes-writings.html  Books mentioned in the video. Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World  https://www.amazon.com/Lies-Fiction-Ancient-World-Christopher/dp/0292727674  Colin Hemer's excellent The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History:  https://www.amazon.com/Book-Acts-Setting-Hellenistic-History/dp/1575063964/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3IKI4L0Z77H2G&keywords=book+of+acts+Hemer&qid=1641479761&s=books&sprefix=book+of+acts+hemer%2Cstripbooks%2C87&sr=1-1 Originally uploaded to YouTube 1.9.21

Today I'll be talking about evidence for the reliability of the Gospels that also has devotional and pastoral value--the unity of Jesus' personality. I'll be focusing on one aspect of that evidence: Jesus' tendency to predict, to talk about his own predictions, and to say, "I told you so!" This video will provide a sneak preview of some of the content in the new, popular-level book I'm drafting, Testimonies to the Truth: Why You Can Trust the Gospels. A new aspect of "I told you so" Jesus just recently occurred to me, and it is encouraging.  If you use my work in something you write or in a sermon, please be sure to cite me!  The last chapter of The Eye of the Beholder contains a lot more information on the unified personality of Jesus.  You can buy The Eye of the Beholder (EoB for short) in physical or Kindle form.   https://www.amazon.com/Eye-Beholder-Gospel-Historical-Reportage/dp/1947929151/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2P5N15K1P8TIJ&dchild=1&keywords=the+eye+of+the+beholder+lydia+mcgrew&qid=1617757441&s=books&sprefix=the+eye+of+the+beholder%2Cstripbooks%2C185&sr=1-1  Tom Gilson's book, mentioned in the video:  https://www.amazon.com/Too-Good-False-Incomparable-Character/dp/1947929097/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=too+good+to+be+false&qid=1636213692&qsid=136-4038130-8833003&sr=8-1&sres=1947929097%2CB07NKP5TQK%2C0736976159%2C0446310786%2C0310111277%2C0736982876%2CB083W53PBD%2CB08M8Y5G36%2CB00T0C9XRK%2C0310362016%2CB00HLJL3OU%2C1786090074%2C0062990691%2CB08HGBVY9N%2CB004BCXAM8%2CB005GX5218  Here is my author page on Facebook. Even if you're not on Facebook you can read my posts there. I've put up two posts this past week there that are a bit "blog like." One of them is on the Temple cleansing, and one of them is on the entanglement of positive evidence for Gospel reliability and "negative" arguments against the literary device views.  https://www.facebook.com/lydiamcgrewauthor  Originally uploaded to YouTube 11.6.21

Here in a fairly short video I clear up three misconceptions about the differences between the minimal facts (or core facts) and maximal data approaches to arguing for the resurrection of Jesus. If you are inclined to say, "Well, you start with minimal facts, because that has a fast presentation, and then you add more later" or "We have to start with minimal facts because we have to start with common ground with the skeptic" or "I use minimal facts because I don't have time to prepare a maximal data case," this video is for you.  If you have a better idea for a descriptive phrase, feel free to let me know on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/lydiamcgrewauthor   @Testify  has been doing a great series on the minimal facts case recently.  Check out his videos that are out so far here.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY8NnBSAqbM&t=2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOL2p9tstOo   Here are some of my longer treatments of the topic:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUt3r3dXBr4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H54Tjh1tkRU #minimalfacts #maximaldata #resurrection Originally uploaded to YouTube Oct 28 2021

It's easy to wonder where the plain proclamation of the gospel, without the presentation of an evidential case (at least, at that time) fits into the mindset of a person who is an evidentialist in apologetics. If we think that you need to defend the Gospels in order to have a sufficiently strong case for the resurrection of Jesus, does this mean that you should be opposed to "bare" proclamation of the Good News? Or should you change your mind about what constitutes a good case in order to be consistent with your evidentialism? Should you tell someone to wait to get right with God (if he shows a strong desire to do so) until he's been given a lengthy course in apologetics?  These are fascinating questions that I've been thinking about for quite a few years. See the relevant blog posts I link below, especially "What Evidentialism Is Not."  The upshot is that the evangelist and the evidentialist should be friends. We can understand why evidentialism is not in conflict with plain gospel proclamation when we understand two very different meanings of the word "justified."   http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/what-evidentialism-is-not.html  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/why-christian-parents-get-nervous-about.html  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-not-to-tell-young-inquirer-about.html    Originally uploaded to YouTube Oct 21 2021

How can the word "hosanna" show that the Gospel authors knew their stuff? Watch here to find out!   Originally uploaded to YouTube 10.14.21