Will Dr Andy Bannister Stop Using Dr Mike Licona?

This was a testament to the inconsistent way in which Christian minimalists in the apologetics community argue, specifically minimalists who rely on Dr Mike Licona.

Andy Bannister FB 1

Dr Andy Bannister shared his Solas video on the resurrection story on a FB group:

Did Jesus really rise from the dead? The story of Jesus’ resurrection is central to Christianity but few people are aware that there are powerful historical reasons for believing in it. This Easter, perhaps the choice isn’t lazy skepticism or blind faith, but faith in the Jesus of history. This latest SHORT/ANSWERS episode will help you see Easter in a fresh light.

For more SHORT/ANSWERS videos, visit http://www.solas-cpc.org/shortanswers/ or subscribe to our channel.

My response to Dr Bannister was to probe his views on the biggest resurrection story in the Gospels (that of the many saints in Matthew):

Wonder if Dr Bannister believes in the biggest resurrection story in the Gospels. That’s the one of the many saints in Matthew. Clearly folks at that time were making up resurrection stories – Matthew clearly did make up the biggest resurrection story. So if they could make up the biggest story about resurrection what of the story about Jesus? Hmm

Dr Andy Bannister’s response was polite enough but he did fall into obvious inconsistency by picking on my use of Prof Geza Vermes and describing it as inconsistent as I don’t agree with all of the late Prof. Vermes’ views:

Thanks, Yahya. In return, perhaps I should ask if you agree with Muslim scholar Tarif Khalidi that the Qur’an’s presentation of Jesus is “non-historical” and “not historical, but an argument” — see Khalidi’s excellent little book “The Muslim Jesus”. On the issue above, have a read of Mike Licona’s massive https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus…/dp/0830827196 — it covers the issues you raise among others. (I’m intrigued to find you recommending Geza Vermes, given the implications of what he argues for the Islamic view of things … you wouldn’t be cherry-picking, now, would you? 🙂

Andy Bannister FB 2

Now, this notion that anybody you cite must agree with everything you believe is a fallacy. Nobody holds to this notion – it’s simply an apologetics stick to try and beat one’s opponent with. Christians like Dr Bannister don’t hold to it when they quote their Bible. Jesus and Paul didn’t believe in the Trinity so I guess Dr Bannister will not be quoting any purported words from Paul or Jesus.

However, Dr Bannister cites Dr Mike Licona which again puts Dr Bannister’s position in hot water as Dr Mike Licona has some very interesting views which I’d love to hear whether Dr Bannister agrees with such views:

Dr Bannister, it seems you’re guilty of what you’re accusing me of. Cherry picking 🙂
I assume you agree with everything Khalidi believes? In that case you wouldn’t be a Christian…

I find it fascinating you cite Dr Licona and also talk about using scholars who agree with all of one’s worldview. OK guess you will follow Dr Licona in believing the Gospel attributed to Matthew may have been changed and heavily  https://youtu.be/nO1pwBu5oUA

Andy Bannister FB 3

Andy Bannister FB 4

Whilst we are at it, I assume you also believe the NT could change in the future with the addition of another book https://youtu.be/fDhIvM9Bz5E

And you also believe Mark (who traditionalists believe was inspired by God) was confused https://youtu.be/x3ZfpeHZXqY

Guess you also agree with Mike on the 4th century doctrine of the Trinity – you don’t know whether it is something a Christian has to believe https://youtu.be/6cYAlQF829k

And how about the fact Paul of Tarsus thought Jesus was going to return in his own lifetime before he began to have second thoughts..


Look, we can all play cute games of oh if you quote such and such guy then you must believe everything he says. Life doesn’t work like that. 

At the end of the day we need to start looking at the theology of Christians and start asking whether it conforms to the theology of Jesus. Jesus didn’t believe in the Trinity, so why do you believe in it? Jesus didn’t believe in blood sacrifice, why do you believe in it? 

Theology matters. Let’s discourage folks from being bound by the religion of their friends of family because of some sort of indentitarianism – let’s encourage truth seeking. Ask yourself about the Trinity. If the doctrine of the Trinity is refuted it shows Christianity to be a false ideology. It has been refuted. Nobody in the first century had any knowledge of this ideology. This is so important for Christians to see, associating partners with God is a departure from the 1st commandment. Please look into this. I say this because I care. I say it with a loving heart.

Does Solas agree with all of Dr Mike Licona’s views? The other question here for Dr Andy Bannister and Solas is whether they can recommend Dr Mike Licona and remain true to their fallacious idea of only using folks who only agree with their position on everything else..


Categories: Islam

29 replies

  1. Shalom aleichem Mr Yahya. Excellent article on the double standards employed by the pseudoscholars of the apologetics world. They need to be exposed and you are doing a fine job.

    Liked by 5 people

    • “Theology matters…….If the doctrine of the Trinity is refuted it shows Christianity to be a false ideology. It has been refuted. Nobody in the first century had any knowledge of this ideology.”

      If Christians do take a really close look at the historical Jesus this Easter, they will likely see the truth of what NT textual criticism has already established and leave Christianity en mass.

      Liked by 2 people

    • You guys just don’t seem to get it. The trinity could be false but the historical death and resurrection of Christ is still irrefutable. The trinity is not your problem- history is.


    • Lol, so idol worship isn’t a problem, but a man dying and resurrecting is?

      Liked by 1 person

    • For you, yes, because it falsifies your holy book


    • Our Holy Book says, “It appeared as if he was (i.e. Crucified)” So the Quran acknowledges that the people thought they did crucify Jesus. That isn’t denial of History, it acknowledges the common story and presents a hidden, less known story.

      I would be the equivalent of saying that Julius Caesar took power it was actually his body double and that the real Gaius had died a few weeks before. Of course historically no one would accept this narration without proof, but it could be a possibility.

      In relation to religion we deal with a God that has supernatural powers, something that most historians try to completely remove from the narrative. So for example no real historian claims he can prove the resurrection, that is a miracle which generally shouldn’t be inserted into any academic work. Bart Ehrman for instance believes that some of Jesus’ followers might of “thought” they saw Jesus, but of course it didn’t really happen.

      As for Muslims our narrative is one that cannot be proven because simply it was a miracle. But we can prove the concept to have been present in the 1st century by examining various Christian sects and seeing what their belief was in Jesus’ ministry. As we see with some Gnostic Gospels (One of which has Jesus on the Cross Laughing and shape shifting, while Jesus is standing besides Peter.) we see that there were substantial different views of what the crucifixion was or meant.

      And as Yahya has mentioned with Mike’s view that the NT could change if they find new Letters from Paul, so could our understanding of early Christian sects if and when we find new material. Either way though, the core of the Islamic opinion is that “Most” people held your view. So there is no contradiction here, Historically or Theologically.

      Liked by 6 people

    • “… death and resurrection of Christ is still irrefutable. The trinity is not your problem- history is.”


      Liked by 1 person

    • History is on our side whilst you’re own scholars are against you.

      It’s a “mystery”


    • All ancient scholars disagree with you, and appealing to fabricated gnostic sources, also irrefutable, only confirms how ridiculous the Muslim position is.

      And shall you continue in that logic then your Allah’s has deceived everyone and is the very cause of the things he supposedly disdains. Either way I don’t think Islam gains much credibility outside the masjid


  2. Mr. Snow said: “Jesus didn’t believe in the Trinity, so why do you believe in it? Jesus didn’t believe in blood sacrifice, why do you believe in it? ”

    I reply:

    Saying it so don’t make it so.

    He knew it by experience so why would he need to believe in it?

    Belief is mental assent to something that cannot be proven scientifically.

    “Jesus didn’t believe in blood sacrifice”

    Yes he did.


  3. “Jesus didn”t believe in the trinity”. You can’t make this stuff up. Matthew 28:19 contains an explicit statement of the trinity.

    He also said he and the Father are one. He told the disciples if you have seen me you have seen the Father.

    He said blasphemy against the Son would be forgiven but not blashemy against the Holy Spirit. He said that it was in the disciples interest that he returned to heaven because they would have the Holy Spirit.

    What is it about Islam that rots the brain?


    • Achillies

      That is not the Trinity. The verse in Matthew you cite doesn’t teach a 3in1 idea.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Us lawyers have a term: wilfull blindness.


    • Shallow reasoning. We could then say that S.112 doesn’t teach tawheed with that logic


    • I see people are still using the ‘father and i are one’ verse to prove the trinity. If you take that interpretation, then you have to believe in all the disciples to be part of the god-head. Otherwise, it only means they are one in purpose.

      Can you show me the ‘explicit statement’ of the trinity in this verse?

      ”Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”


    • Paulus,

      [Say, “He is Allah , [who is] One,]

      Can you now show me a verse from the bible where it says God is 3 in 1?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Hashim.

      That verse doesn’t teach tawheed. I, as a Trinitarian, agree that God is One. Remember, your theological concept of tawheed is a theological development, developed from relevant texts, as is the trinity.

      So if you want explicit statements, then you better start looking to your own text first


    • Paulus, i’m not asking for a verse which has all the details with regards to the trinity, just one verse where it explicitly says something about God being 3 in 1.

      The verse i quoted simply says Allah is One, which is basically tawhid. Also, there is no comparison between the development of the concept of tawhid vs the concept of trinity. Early Christians didn’t even know what the trinity was, nor did they make any mention of a 3 in 1 concept of God. Whereas the oneness of God in Islam has been there since the beginning.


  4. “Jesus didn’t believe in blood sacrifice”

    John 6 v 51

    I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

    John 10:18

    No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


  5. “”Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit””

    God does not share his glory or name with another. That is shirk in your religion. This is just one proof of the trinity.


  6. “Can you now show me a verse from the bible where it says God is 3 in 1?”

    1 John 5 v 7:

    For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


  7. “I see people are still using the ‘father and i are one’ verse to prove the trinity. If you take that interpretation, then you have to believe in all the disciples to be part of the god-head. Otherwise, it only means they are one in purpose.”

    Where is anything suggesting the idea of purpose in the context of the passage?


  8. As usual Trinitarian apologists have employed their classic technique of Diversionary Distraction & Ignorant Assault(DDIA). Why is it that you Zombies are not accepting the fact that your Apologists are Elite Heavyweight Hypocrites and Masters of Inconsistency? Additionally no historian accepts the fact that Jesus was a Trinitarian based solely upon the historical evidence. The claim that Jesus was a Trinitarian is the highest form of anachronism conceivable. Christianity has absolutely nothing to stand on except the delusions of Profit Paul, who falsified scriptures and failed in his Prophecies. Christians are too ashamed to address Pauls Lies and Misquotations. And too ashamed to address this pressing question: “Where is the objective historical proof that Jesus was a Trinitarian”? If Christians ask Muslims : “Where is your proof that Jesus was not crucified”? Why don’t they first establish the historicity if the Trinity all the way back to Jesus? Because they are unable.


    • The doctrine of the Trinity is framed from the Torah, Prohets, Pslams and Gospel. Have a read of any systematic theology if you don’t believe me.

      Your rejection of the trinity comes from one man.


    • So why is there not a single statement from Jesus or from any Biblical author explicitly affirming the Trinity like the following : [Say, “He is Allah , [who is] One,] ?

      How come all Top Biblical Scholars & Historians affirm that Jesus was not aware of the Nicene Creed? And how come 3 in 1 is nowhere in the Bible? How come I never saw the Trinity when I was reading the Torah, the Psalms and all of the Tanakh for over 40 years? How come only people who are reading the Bible in English and who accepted the Trinity before reading the Bible believe in it? At least Muhmmad (pbuh) never made a false prophecy. Profit Paul made numerous false prophecies, which Licona and most Non Muslim scholars agree he did. Paul also misquoted and misrepresented the Tanakh, according to non muslim scholars and common sense. So due to this his writings must be rejected. As for the mistakes of the Gospels such as Mark 2:26 etc and other contradictions the Gospels must be rejected. The Torah established the criteria for a False Prophet and Paul fits like a Glove.


    • Any doctrine can be framed from any book if enough creativity and presuppositions and elasticity of words and freefall theological license is utilized. This is why if the Trinity were true there would be clear explicit statements of it in the text.

      Such as the following

      [Say, “He is Allah , [who is] One,]

      Liked by 1 person

  9. “Are you one of those “the kjv is the only true word of God” guys?”

    Yes, in the english language, that I can hold in my hands.

    It is the english language equivalent of the inspired originals.

    By the providence of God acting upon some copyists and translators.


Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: