Many critics say the Gospels cannot be the Word of God because they allegedly contradict each other. Scholar and apologist Mike Licona helps us see how the Gospel’s unique literary genre explains why differences are not contradictions.
Speaker 1:
Welcome to The Council of Trent podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Trent Horn:
Hey everyone. Welcome back to another episode of The Council of Trent podcast. Hopefully you have been engaged in your Bible study or Bible reading. I always encourage people, if you want to get into reading the New Testament, try one chapter a night, even just on weeknights, and so even if you skip weekends, you do one chapter a night. There’s about 260 chapters in the New Testament. You’ll get through the New Testament in about a year, but the thing is, as you start reading through the Bible, you’ll notice, especially in the gospels, that the same event can be described in different ways.
And I remember my time in graduate school studying theology. That was one of the first times that I read the Bible using a synoptic presentation. Using a book that actually would have the same event of the same gospel pericope or event, but having each of the texts right next to each other because sometimes we go through the pattern of where you read Mark’s gospel one year and Matthew’s the next and we’ll read them sequentially but when you compare the texts next to each other, you find all kinds of amazing details in what is similar but also in what is different.
Now, sometimes this can lead to perplexing questions and even cause doubt in people. I remember a while back, my wife and I used to be addicted to the television show House and so we would watch the TV show House and one of the characters on the show House, not Cameron, Cameron’s the girl I think. It was a male orderly, male doctor who used to be in seminary and then left Christianity and his reason was look at all these contradictions in the Bible. One gospel says one thing, but this gospel says something else. How many times did the cock crow? What did the Father say at Jesus’ baptism?
And you see a lot of atheist videos online that will try to put forward this argument against the Bible being inspired by saying it is contradictory. So how should we look at biblical contradictions? Alleged biblical contradictions, I should say. This is something that I address in a few chapters in my book, Hard Sayings, but I thought it’d be fun to bring on an expert in this field. Someone whose scholarship has greatly benefited myself and many other people, especially in light of defending the historical reality of the resurrection of Christ. His name is Mike Licona. He is a professor, associate professor of theology at Houston Baptist University, the coauthor of The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus and the author of The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. I remember way back in 2010 when I got that book I was so excited.
It’s a big thick 500 page book and I love big thick books where the authors put a lot of time into making sure they get the subject right. If you want to know the resurrection in and out, get The Resurrection of Jesus by Michael Licona. But today we’re talking about a newer book that he has published with Oxford University Press called, Why are There Differences in the Gospels? What we can Learn From Ancient Biography. So that’s what we’re going to talk about today. On the line with us is Mike Licona. Mike, welcome to The Council of Trent podcast.
Mike Licona:
Well, thanks Trent. It’s delightful to be with you, brother.
Trent Horn:
Absolutely. So let’s jump into this because you’ve been known for a long time for your work on the resurrection, defending the historical reality of Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead. You have debated people like Bart Ehrman, one of the leading figures in this subject. But then recently you wrote this book on the differences in the gospels. What prompted you to tackle this particular subject?
Mike Licona:
Well after my second debate with Bart Ehrman, I was teaching a graduate level class course and at the end it was on the resurrection of Jesus and the philosophy of history. And at the very end we watched one of my debates with Bart Ehrman on the resurrection because I wanted to demonstrate you can use this stuff even against the toughest of critics. And at the end there was this one girl, everybody thought I’d won the debate, but this one girl, she had tears in her eyes and she said, “But you didn’t answer his objections against the gospels. Why?” And I said, “Because the debate was on the resurrection of Jesus and to go off and defend the gospels, my case for the resurrection wasn’t made even using the gospels, it was made by using facts, historical facts that even Ehrman himself acknowledges and that the overwhelming majority of scholars who have specialized or written on the topic that they have acknowledged.”
So as I said to Bart in the debate, even if the gospels had all the problems that you accused them of having, it wouldn’t do a thing to the argument I gave for the resurrection of Jesus. So I was just trying to keep us on topic. And she said, “Well, it really rocked my faith in the gospels.” And I asked the rest of the class, “How many of you felt that way?” And a number of them did. So I thought, well now I need to investigate some of these things. And I hadn’t spent a lot of time before then on those topics, Trent, because the way I figured was this, my thinking was this, if Jesus rose from the dead, it’s game set match, Christianity’s true, period.
And it would remain true even if there were some errors or contradictions in the gospels and even Ehrman himself acknowledges that. But a lot of Christians have some problems. I mean, they have problems with contradictions that it would really undermine their trust in the gospels. So I spent eight years working on doing research and the way I started was it is now widely accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars that the gospels belong to the genre of ancient biography. They also agree that ancient biography had different literary conventions than we have today and so I wanted to learn what those conventions were, what flexibilities were used and see if that shed any light on gospel differences. So that’s how I got involved.
Trent Horn:
And so it’s interesting that when you’re trying to resolve the differences, I think some people will simply read the text as it appears and just try their hardest to make the contradictions go away, even if it’s completely implausible in doing so. And they don’t even think about the question of genre. For example, if you consider the issue of Jesus’ baptism. What does the Father say to Jesus? In Mark and Luke’s gospel the Father says, “You are my beloved son. With you I am well pleased.” But in Matthew’s gospel the father says, “This is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased.” And so I’ve seen atheist say, “Well, which is it? What did he say?” And there’s a very old second century gospel and apocryphal gospel, The Gospel of the Ebionites that in that gospel it’s an apocryphal one that’s made up centuries later for our listeners to know. The author tries to resolve the contradiction and has the father speak twice. And so we see these kinds of implausible efforts. And do you think that comes about sometimes when people aren’t willing to examine the genre question itself?
Mike Licona:
Oh, absolutely. You find this sort of, I call it hermeneutical waterboarding until the gospels tell you what you want to hear. You really do violence to the text that way. There was a guy back in the ’70s, Harold Lindsell, who had ties with Fuller Theological Seminary and he wrote a book in 1971 I believe it is, The Battle for the Bible. And in there he tried to deal with the difference on did the rooster crow once or twice when Peter denied Jesus three times. And the way he resolves that is that Peter denied Jesus three times the rooster crowed and then he denied Jesus another three times and the rooster crowed a second time. So in all, Peter denied Jesus six times and that’s the kind of violence to the texts that I think that you are referring to with The Gospel of the Ebionites in that a lot of Christians want to do today in order to reconcile these differences. That’s what led me to think there’s got to be a better way.
Trent Horn:
It also reminds me as you’re trying to understand the text, there’s sort of a parallel here with how Christians have tried to understand the first few chapters of the book of Genesis that some people try to make that fit to modern science by stretching the texts and reading Genesis as if it were a transcription of events or a strictly scientific account, like someone was just sitting down transcribing what was happening without even trying to figure out, well what is the genre of Genesis? What did the author think he was writing? And you’re kind of doing the same thing with the gospel saying, well what are these? Because some people read the gospels as if well these are just like a stenographer’s transcription of events that happen in the life of Jesus, but they’re not courtroom stenography, they’re bios or what would be called ancient biography.
Mike Licona:
That’s exactly right, Trent. I was teaching on this at a church on Sunday this past Sunday and an attorney came up to me after and said, “What you’re saying here kind of makes me struggle because as an attorney I try to get a deposition. When I do that, I want them to describe for me exactly what was said and exactly what happened. And I said, “Well of course that’s what you want in a deposition. But you have to understand the gospels are not depositions, they’re biographies.” And we don’t even do that in modern biographies today. They would have done it even less so in ancient biographies.
Trent Horn:
So how did you reach that conclusion in order to reach that conclusion of what ancient biography is? So maybe you can fill us in a bit more about what makes ancient biography different even then modern biography. And I think you made a good point that even modern biographies are not like depositions or transcriptions. If I pick up a biography of Ronald Reagan, it’s not a transcription of his life that is 8 million pages long that has every single thing he ever said or did. So the difference, I guess you have modern biography but then ancient biographies even more different and you reached that conclusion by comparing it to other contemporary accounts of the same genre.
Mike Licona:
That’s correct. A couple of things. First you read the scholarly literature on it so that you can see where current research is and what scholars are presently concluding. You want to know what they’re saying before you even do the research. And then I did the research myself. In the ancient biographies, I made a list of all the biographies that were written within say 150 years on each side of Jesus and there are about 90 of them. At least 90 that have survived. And of those, 48 of them belonged to a guy named Plutarch. And Plutarch wrote just after the final gospel John was written and he’s considered by most to be the greatest ancient biographer. So I read through all 48 of his lives, his biographies, and much of what we know about the ancient world comes from Plutarch.
When I got through all 48 of them, I recognized that there were nine of them that involved people who had lived at the same time, many of them had participated in the same events and they had known one another. So for example, you’ve got the life of Julius Caesar, the life of Pompey, the life of Crassus, the life of Brutus, the life of Antony, Cicero. They all knew one another. They participated in these things. They were enemies. They killed each other and things like this. So they’re going to appear. The same story is going to appear multiple times. The Catilinarian Conspiracy, I believe, appears seven times. Caesar’s assassination I think if I recall, appears four different times. I read through them a second time and a third time, those nine, and made a catalog of all the events that occur in two or more of those biographies.
And then I went with a fine tooth comb to notice all the differences. There were 36 stories that appeared two or more times and 30 of them contain differences. And so I found patterns, the same kinds of differences. And from those I inferred compositional devices. Now I didn’t come up with that idea. A scholar named Christopher Pelling, who retired from Oxford a couple of years ago is considered the leading Plutarch scholar in the world. He’d written on it a number of other classicists who had written on Plutarch mentioned these compositional devices. So I looked at those, I found a couple of others and I applied it to more biographies than what they had done.
So I expanded what they had already done. And then I read the gospels. I read through the gospels eight times in Greek and made a catalog of all the differences that I found. It came to about 50 pages. So there are a lot of them. And then I looked at those gospel differences in view of the compositional devices that classicists were saying Plutarch and other ancient biographers and historians had used, read the gospel differences in view of that and it was like reading the gospels through a fresh lens. And all kinds of things came to light that I just didn’t see before. And now I could understand these differences much, much more clearly why they were there than previously.
Trent Horn:
And that’s so important to be able to understand that we are reading these 2,000 years removed from their cultural context. And because of that it’s so easy to import our modern understanding of things. One of my favorite examples I give to people is in the nativity accounts that when you have the famous story that’s now in popular understanding of Mary and Joseph trying to find room at an Inn. And there’s basically a hotel owner tells them there’s no room here and they have to go stay in a barn somewhere. Whereas in the Greek, it’s not an Inn it’s a kataluma.
It was essentially a guest room in a family home that would have been built off the main room that was already occupied. So they slept in the main room where all the animals were. But if you didn’t know that about first century Judean culture and family structures, you would clearly miss that. And I think that the same thing happens here with ancient biography and the compositional devices that we can miss like, Oh, this is what they meant. This is the kind of writing that they did. So tell us more about these particular devices and how they show up in the gospel accounts where we find these differences.
Mike Licona:
Sure. Well there’s one we could call transferal and that is where it transfers what one person said to the lips of another person or it transfers who is being addressed to a different person. And a good example of this is what we find in the gospel of Matthew and Luke that you’ve already mentioned at the beginning, Jesus’ baptism. Mark and Luke have God’s voice addressing Jesus directly. You are my beloved son. With you I am well pleased. Whereas Matthew has him directly addressing the crowd. This is my beloved son. With him I’m well pleased. So I think what Matthew has done there, and I’m going on the assumption, as most scholars do, that Matthew and Luke used Mark as their primary source and then they supplemented him.
So if this is the case, then it would seem that what I think it’s more likely than to say that God spoke twice. That seems to be a bit of a stretch to me. It seems more likely to me that Matthew transferred who was being addressed from Jesus to the crowd. The message is the same of course, but perhaps he does that in order to, I mean, we don’t really know, but perhaps he does it in order to have the readers feel it’s more personable. God is speaking to them and testifying that this is his beloved son.
Trent Horn:
So the idea here is we have to make a distinction between what the text says and what it asserts and this is something a lot of Catholic biblical scholars will use this distinction, a lot of the papal and cyclicals on the Bible and interpretation, the difference between what is asserted in the text or asserted by the Holy Spirit and what the text says or is described. Because, the same truth is being asserted. Jesus is the beloved son of the Father with whom he is well-pleased. But it’s just described in different ways to tease that same truth out.
Mike Licona:
Yeah, I agree with your Trent. I kind of liked the way Bruce Metzger said it in his book about revelation. He said, “The text doesn’t mean what it says. It means what it means.”
Trent Horn:
Because some of you will say, “Well, it just means what it says.” But all of us have to interpret things that are said. There’s no skipping the intermediary stage between hearing or reading words and then decoding their meaning from it.
Mike Licona:
Well, are you married Trent?
Trent Horn:
Yes, I am. I have been married for about seven years.
Mike Licona:
This April will be 33 for me.
Trent Horn:
Oh, congrats.
Mike Licona:
Well, thanks. Wonderful wife. So I think anybody that’s married can understand that when you ask your wife and you sense something’s wrong and you say, “What’s wrong?” “Nothing.”
Trent Horn:
It requires a very careful and attentive hermeneutic here. It doesn’t necessarily mean what it said.
Mike Licona:
That’s right. It means what it means. You know what it means. So there’s a lot of these compositional devices. Another one, we could call it spotlighting. Think of a theater, theatrical performance where you see some actors on stage, then the lights go out and a spotlight shines on a single one of the actors who breaks out in song or a monologue. You know other actors are there, but you don’t see them because the focus is on one person. It’s very often the case that an ancient biographer, even a modern biographer, will mention only one person doing something when there may have been several doing it and we find this in Plutarch. We find this in a lot of different ancient literature. We find it in the gospels. So for example, in the resurrection narratives in Matthew and Mark, you have one angel at the tomb. In Luke and John, you have two angels at the tomb.
Trent Horn:
Or the demoniac. Like the Garasene demoniac.
Mike Licona:
Garasene demoniac. It could be the case that he’s focusing on the one who’s doing the talking. Angels at the tomb, the focus is on the one who’s announcing that Jesus rose from the dead. In John, you’ve got Jesus and the beloved disciple who run to the empty tomb, the tomb to check it out after Mary Magdalene informs them that it’s empty. But in Luke, Luke only mentions Peter. Well, which is it? You could say, “Well, Luke mentions that in chapter 24 verse 12 but just 12 verses later, 24:24 I believe it is, Jesus is talking to the Emmaus disciples. He’s hidden his identity from them. It says their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
And when he says, “What’s wrong?” And they’d say, “Well Jesus, we thought he was a prophet but he was just crucified and some women saw some angels at the tomb this morning and then some of our own, plural, went to the tomb and found it as the women had said. Only 12 verses earlier he just mentions Peter. So you’ve got literary spotlighting there. So you’ve got a number of these things. Oh and Mary, when she comes to tell Peter and the beloved disciple, it only mentions Mary Magdalene, but she comes back and says, “They have taken the Lord and we don’t know where they laid him.” So literary spotlighting is a very common one and it shows that in many cases the gospels aren’t an error, they’re just using literary spotlighting. That’s why you have one angel versus two and etc.
Trent Horn:
Are some of these devices unique to certain evangelists because of their particular styles? Because when you mentioned Luke and I’ve done reading, it seems like Luke was a fan. I don’t know if you cover this as another device in your book, but telescoping events. So compressing them and leaving out certain details, especially when describing a series of events. So I don’t know if you’d comment on that or if other evangelists just have certain pet devices they like using.
Mike Licona:
I couldn’t tell you if I mentioned that in the book. Telescoping is a term that New Testament scholars use. Classicists instead use the term compression because I think that’s more clear. When a person says telescoping, well what do you mean by that? And of course what they mean is that old telescope that had these different segments. When you were a kid you’d pull it out and stretch it out and then you could look through it and then when you wanted to put it away you’d collapse it. Well who uses those anymore? So telescoping would be to collapse that into a single one. So you’re taking events that had occurred over a longer period of time, maybe a couple of days, and you’re collapsing them into a single day that’s called telescoping.
I just think that’s kind of confusing. I think compression’s a better term and that’s why I use it that way. Now in answer to your question, Matthew compresses. He makes up more of a habit of doing it. So he does it with Jesus raising Jairus’ daughter from the dead. He does it with Jesus healing the Centurion servant. He does it with Jesus cleansing the temple where he combines two events into one, and Jesus cursing the fig tree. Mark has it where he curses it one day on Monday and then on Tuesday they notice it dead. But Matthew has it so they curse it on Monday and Jesus curses it and it withers and dies on the spot. So you find this multiple times in Matthew.
Trent Horn:
He’s not trying to assert a very strict, chronological, equal telling of events. He’s compressing them together for the sake of the narrative.
Mike Licona:
That’s correct. We don’t know why. The way I describe it to those of us who are married, we all understand that there’s the guy version of a story and a girl version. Women like details. They like lots of details though I ask what happened, when it happened, why it happened, how it happened, who was there, what they were doing, what they were saying, what they were wearing, what they were thinking and how they were feeling. Guys, we like bullet points. Get to the bottom line. The game’s coming on in five minutes. So we will often compress events. We will abbreviate. We will alter a few minor details in order to give our message more clearly and more succinctly. We don’t consider it to be wrong or an error to do it. We do it for economy and clarity and this is what Matthew does more than the other gospel authors do.
Trent Horn:
And something else. We could talk about another device. When people think there are contradictions in the text, especially things like when did Jesus cleanse the temple? Or when did Jesus call the apostles? That sometimes people are imposing on the text an assumption that everything is in strict chronological order, but it may not be. For example, Suetonius who of course you probably also looked at as a comparison for ancient biographies, he talks about in his biography of Caesar Augustus, having given as it were, a summary of his life, I shall now take up its various phases, one by one. Not in chronological order, but by categories to make the account clearer and more intelligible.
And what fascinated me is that in the early second century, there was a church father named Papyrus. Papyrus was the Bishop of Hierapolis, one of our earliest sources about Mark and Matthew and the biblical authors, and he said as he’s writing 125 AD, “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ for he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter who accommodated his instructions to the necessities of his hearers but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord saying.” So we also have to look at, not just in an event itself, but would you say also how events are structured with one another?
Mike Licona:
Sure. And I think Suetonius is a good example there. He takes and he does arrange things thematically you could say and others will do that as well. Luke does that as well. Probably more than the other gospel authors, but there are occasions I believe where you have the gospel authors and ancient biographers doing what I would call synthetic chronological placement. In other words, they are taking an event and displacing it from its original chronology. Its original context and they’re transplanting it elsewhere and the gospel authors, I believe, do this. I think Plutarch does it. Other ancient biographers do it. Sallust is one of the greatest of all ancient biographers and yet he displaces one speech and a threat from Catiline and he puts one a couple of months later and he puts one more than a year later and he does it to add drama. You’ve got Plutarch who he takes… There are two occasions, well, on one occasion at the Lupercalia festival, which occurred in February of 44 BC, one month before Caesar was assassinated.
Forgive me, I’ve mixed that with another one. There are some events they’re very close together, but at one point, the Senate comes up in a procession to honor Julius Caesar and at the recommendation of his advisor, he doesn’t stand to greet them, which was a disrespectful move on Caesar’s part. And when he noticed that people did not like that and ended up leaving as a result, many left as a result in disgust, he exposed his neck and invited someone to strike it if they wished.
Trent Horn:
I mean, he’s pretty hardcore.
Mike Licona:
But on another occasion, what happens at the Lupercalia festival, which did occur one month before Caesar’s assassination, you have this race of these guys, men, and at the end Anthony comes in and he grabs a Laurel, a diadem. It’s an olive like crown and then it’s got a white thread running through it, white scarf running through it and he attempts to put it on Caesar’s head. And it seems this has already been planned out by Caesar and Antony and it’s to signify that he wants Caesar to become King. And the Romans did not want that. So, when he went to put it up to Caesar’s head Caesar pushed it away to see what the people would think and there was loud applause.
When Antony went to put it back on his head, there was very light applause. Caesar pushed it away again, loud applause. And they did this a few times. Afterward, Caesar was just so angry with the people for not wanting him to be king. He got up and walked away. But in this account, Plutarch also takes the event of him bearing his neck and inviting someone to strike and puts it there as well. But he doesn’t tell it earlier in that biography. So he wants to include it and he feels this is a good place to do it and so he does.
Trent Horn:
Even though there wasn’t a strict order of the events itself.
Mike Licona:
That’s correct.
Trent Horn:
And that might explain for example, why John describes Jesus clearing the temple and what appears to be the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Even though we know that he did that toward the end of his ministry and riled up people in Jerusalem before the passion week started. Now some people would propose, well maybe Jesus just did it twice and that’s possible. But that could be an example of this kind of transplantation of events for a thematic purpose and possible the gospel narratives.
Mike Licona:
That’s correct. I think that’s a good example of one. It’s one that most scholars would recognize that John has transplanted it to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in order to frame the entirety of Jesus’ ministry as let’s say a Passover, but it is possible there were two. It just seems more plausible to many that there was the one and John changed it and you’ve got this with the woman anointing Jesus. John places it six days before Passover. Mark places it two days before Passover. You’ve got it with Jesus’ crucifixion. In John, it occurs before a Passover meal is to be eaten. In the synoptic gospels, it’s after a Passover meal was eaten and I know there’re different explanations for this, but this is certainly a reasonable candidate for what could have happened here and there are many others.
Trent Horn:
And that’s a good note for us to draw everything together that I think some people believe that if they can’t identify with complete certainty what an explanation is for a discrepancy or a difficulty, then they should just assume there is a difficulty or their faith has a problem or it’s like time to panic. Whereas, that’s not the case. It’s not our job to come up with an exact explanation for every single thing we find difficult in scripture. We’re still trying to understand scripture. I mean God’s word has inexhaustible depths for us to pray over and interpret and exigent. But rather we have a multiplicity of different kinds of explanations in ways of understanding texts that are both plain and also those that are difficult. So do you have any other advice for when people are reading the gospels and come across things that they’re not as sure about, especially when it comes to alleged contradictions, the attitude they should have towards that?
Mike Licona:
Yeah, three. Let me give three principles. The first we already talked about a little earlier, and I think this is the main one we should all keep in mind and if they miss everything else, just take this with them. If Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true, period. And it would be true even if the gospels had errors and contradictions in them. So it all comes back to the resurrection of Jesus. Remember that Jesus rose from the dead. He did so before any of the New Testament literature was written. So there’d be no reason to think that if there ended up being some errors or contradictions in the gospels when they were written somewhere between 20 to 65 years later that that would negate the truth of Christianity when it was true before they were even written.
So with that in mind, here are two other principles that I give my students. Number one, our view of scripture should be consistent with what we observe in scripture. So some people might say, “Well, that doesn’t make me feel comfortable. That divinely inspired scripture would be that way.” Well, if that’s what scripture is, then our view of scripture should be consistent with scripture. And it brings us to the second principle, which I tell my students when they feel uncomfortable with this kind of stuff, and that is if we truly have a high view of scripture, then we must accept it as God has given it to us rather than insisting that it conform to a model that’s shaped by how we think he should have. And if we fail to do this, we may claim to have a high view of scripture when we actually have a high view of our view of scripture.
Trent Horn:
It’s kind of like, not to interrupt Mike, but it’s kind of like atheists who reject the Bible and say, “If God inspired a biblical text, it should look like this. Since it doesn’t, I’m not going to believe in it.” It’s almost like the inversion of that attitude.
Mike Licona:
That’s exactly right. It’s like, “Well, maybe your view is incorrect. Maybe your view is modernist. It’s an anachronistic and needs to be updated.”
Trent Horn:
And the third principle?
Mike Licona:
Well that was it. Resurrection is primary. If Jesus rose Christianity’s true, period. The second is our view of scripture should be consistent with what we observe in scripture. And number three, if we want to have a high view of scripture and an authentic one, we got to accept it as God has given it to us.
Trent Horn:
Amen to that. And for our listeners, if you would like more on this subject especially how to understand Bible difficulties and how to understand and read scripture as it’s been given to us, I definitely recommend my book, Hard Sayings, a Catholic approach to answering Bible difficulties. And if you’re an evangelical listener, I think you might get a lot out of it too as well. And then of course, be sure to check out Mike’s books on the resurrection of course, but then also his new book, Why are There Differences in the Gospels? What we can Learn From Ancient Biography. Mike, where can people go to learn more about the work that you’re doing?
Mike Licona:
Well, we have a website, risenjesus.com and we also have a YouTube channel. So if they go to my YouTube channel, it’s just Mike Licona, L. I. C. O. N. A. And we’ve got over 200 videos there. We’re going to be adding a whole lot more here in the near future. They can subscribe, click the bell so that they get notified when there’s a new video come out. We’ve got a podcast it’s on iTunes. It’s in Google Play and it’s on YouTube. Join us there. They can keep up with us there, see what we’re saying.
Trent Horn:
Sounds great, Mike, and of course a reminder to our listeners, be sure to check out Counsel of Trent, C. O. U. N. S. E. L. Counsel of Trent for our videos on YouTube as well. Mike, thanks for stopping by today.
Mike Licona:
Thank you so much, Trent. Wonderful being with you guys.
Trent Horn:
Absolutely, and thank you all for listening. I hope you all have a very blessed day.
Speaker 1:
If you like today’s episode, become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member only content. For more information, visit trenthornpodcast.com.