Automatic Transcript Generated:
So Lewis is asking why does the Bible not contain all twelve disciples gospels?
I like this question.
That is a good question, but let’s look at this in the big picture. I guess start with that because I guess embedded in your question is kind of another is an assumption, which is that all twelve disciples had a gospel. But the thing is, when you look at the Bible, the first four books of the New Testament are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Now Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus Christ. That is true. However, Mark and Luke were not part of the twelve disciples. Luke was a physician. You read about that later on in the Book of Colossians, chapter four, verse 14. He’s Paul greets with Luke who is a physician, he’s a doctor, but he was not one of the twelve. Mark also is not mentioned as one of the twelve, but some people say he might have been part of the 70. In Luke chapter ten, verse one, jesus says that there’s 70 other disciples besides the twelve disciples that he sends out to go basically spread the gospel. And so some people say Mark could have been one of the 70, luke could have been one of the 70 of these extra disciples who are not part of that close twelve of Jesus’s inner circle.
But even still, wherever Mark and Luke came from, they were not one of the twelve disciples. And so their gospels that they share have a different perspective, which is the whole purpose of the four Gospels was to have eyewitness accounts as well as accounts of people who are educated, who spoke with the disciples or heard the stories of the disciples and made an account of all the things that happened with Jesus. And so it’s just a different perspective again. And I just think that the Bible is really interesting that even half of the Gospel being people who are right there with Jesus day in and day out, and two people who were not day in and day out with Jesus had the same accounts that are still in harmony, they do not contradict. And I think that just adds to the verification and the validity of the Bible that even if this person says it over here and this person says it over here, if they were both inspired by the Holy Spirit, their words are going to be in harmony. And so it just goes back to that wonderful verse in Isaiah that says to the law and to the testimony, they don’t speak according to this word and because there’s no light in them.
So that is why I believe there’s only four Gospels. Two only being from the twelve disciples and the other two being from other followers of Jesus who are outside of the 12th. All right, do we have time for one more? Let’s see.
This is a quick one.
This is a quick one. Okay.
Yeah, just do it.
All right, this will be our last question of the night. So France is asking at the crucifixion, there are two conflicting accounts regarding the two thieves on either side of Jesus. Matthew states that both reviled Jesus, whereas Luke states that only one of the thieves mocked Jesus and the other abused him for doing so. How can we reconcile these two different accounts? Good question.
Yeah, and this is one that a lot of people struggle with and try to suggest maybe is one reason not to believe the Bible and that the Bible then is self contradictory. But let’s take a deep dive into these and see if that’s really the case. So let’s start at Matthew 27, starting at verse 44. Matthew 27, verse 44. It says even the robbers who were crucified with him, jesus reviled him with the same thing. So it says robbers, plural, who are crucified with him, reviled him. So then if we go down to Luke now and look at Luke 23, verse 39, it says then one of the criminals who was hanging blasphemed Jesus, saying, if you are the Christ, save yourself and us. But then the other answered and rebuked him, saying, do you not even fear God? Saying, you are under the same condemnation here. In Luke it says one of them called out the other. But then in Matthew it says they both sort of reviled Jesus. But does that mean that these are actually contradictory? We cannot rule out that there was a time where maybe even that one who had the change of heart had a change of heart.
Maybe he actually did start off mocking Jesus like everybody else was here. The crowd was mocking him, the soldiers were mocking him. So maybe he would just take part of it. But then as he’s sitting there on the cross watching Jesus take the abuse and not do anything back, not fight for himself, not defend himself, maybe that really had a huge impression on him. And eventually it hit him, and the Holy Spirit got to his heart and realized, wow, this guy is not human. This guy is divine, and I want to be with this guy. And that’s then maybe then when you have the change of heart and rebuke the other guy who was marking Christ at that time so we can’t rebuild these I mean, sorry, we can’t say that they’re contradictory necessarily. We don’t have a minute by minute account. And then you line up and say, oh, yeah, 100% perfection. But even if you say there’s a slight difference here, a lot of people say this goes to show the credibility of the Gospels, because what we’re seeing is not 100% identical accounts. You don’t see these disciples and gospel writers lining up their account saying, oh, let’s see.
Okay, are you going to say that? Okay, good. I’ll say that too. If you had that, it would make the story almost less credible. As a lawyer, I know if you have a bunch of witnesses who are all testifying and saying exactly the same thing, we’re going to go to the judge and say, your Honor, we think some attorneys or somebody has been coordinating their testimony, and it’s not credible anymore. If you look at the book Case for Christ, even Lee Strobel talks about this and goes into detail again how these sort of slight differences in the gospels really confirm the credibility of the Bible.
For full episode:
Share this video with a friend:
In His Service